Forum: Author Hangout

In my story, I had an entire planet of a cult called the cliffhangers. I killed them all when they crashed into a black hole. The leader of the cliffhangers cult had the same name as a reader who criticized me for having too many cliffhangers. :-)

Ending every chapter with a cliff hanger.

I don't mind cliff hangers except when the author takes months before posting the next chapter. One author on this site would pretty much end every chapter with a cliff hanger and then take 6 months to even a year before posting the next chapter while posting other stories between time.

I don't mind cliff hangers except...

I don't mind the occasional cliff hanger. When every chapter ends that way, it's annoying. The way it generally gets done, they are basically splitting one scene across two chapters.

I've seen several how-to-write tutorials advocating cliffhangers.

Cliffhangers, by themselves, are not bad. They can be a great way to get your readers to stick around for something bigger. His point, and it's one that I largely agree with, is that some writers do it too much. When you are ending every chapter with some sort of cliffhanger it can get to a point where some readers get turned off. It can also remove the importance of the cliffhanger itself.

I mean let's face it... how many times can the damsel in distress walk up to the evil knight and get kidnapped before you just go "Okay... now you're just being stupid"

how many times can the damsel in distress walk up to the evil knight and get kidnapped before you just go "Okay... now you're just being stupid"

Maybe the damsel is a blonde, so that's completely reasonable tho...

But are you going to go into great detail about every meal she eats?

I just wrote a "food paragraph" in my WIP. It says a lot about the nun.

I did a longer bit on food once.

MC described in excruciating detail how horrible the meal he was served was.

His last line in the description? "It was the best meal I'd ever had." It said a lot about his life to that point.

Stop padding the word count and write the actual story.

Exactly! For instance in the story I'm writing the main character hasn't been able to eat hardly anything for medical reasons. So after a week he asks to eat this really hearty meal. Something like that, giving detail and support part of the plot, is one thing. But to just give details to lengthen your story isn't needed.

Yeah! With dry lube.

Even worse when the details are wrong, as in written by someone who is actually ignorant about guns.

I agree completely with that. I've just read a couple of stories from an author who will remain anonymous where there was an interesting short story with great plot twists struggling to get out in front of an inventory list.

If the charcter is carrying a gun, tell me its a handgun or a shotgun or a rifle. I really don't need to know its a Rolls & VW 35mm ZQW865-A2 smooth barrel, in silvered gunmetal, laser sighted, two shot, ladies pistol with tripod for extra accuracy.

Rolls & VW 35mm ZQW865-A2 smooth barrel, in silvered gunmetal, laser sighted, two shot, ladies pistol with tripod for extra accuracy.

Any pictures of that? :D

Rolls & VW 35mm ZQW865-A2 smooth barrel, in silvered gunmetal, laser sighted, two shot, ladies pistol with tripod for extra accuracy.

You know, the -A1 was 35mm, but the -A2 model was only offered in 20mm. And it was only offered in matte black, not silvered gunmetal. Get your facts straight, please.

Oh, and people who mistakenly call magazines clips. They're two different things.

'd almost forgotten about a little known fact from Vietnam. Many of the soldiers had special stripper clips for their M16s. These were not used to load the rifle, but were used for a fast reload of the magazines.

Back in Vietnam, the stripper clips for the M16 magazines may just have been too new to be available in enough quantity for everyone to get them.

I went through US Marine Corps boot camp (washed out) in the late 1980s. We never saw loose ammo. It was either ammo cans of pre-loaded magazines or ammo cans of pre-loaded stripper clips.

The M1 rifle used en bloc clips into a fixed magazine. IIRC the Commonwealth's Lee Enfield used stripper clips to load a detachable magazine that was treated as a fixed magazine.
So clips was the correct term. With the switch to the M14, then M16 and the FN FAL the terminology began to change, soldiers carried preloaded magazines instead of bandoliers of clips.
I've never heard anyone born after 1980 refer to 'clips'. They will refer to 'mags'.

If the charcter is carrying a gun, tell me its a handgun or a shotgun or a rifle. I really don't need to know its a Rolls & VW 35mm ZQW865-A2 smooth barrel, in silvered gunmetal, laser sighted, two shot, ladies pistol with tripod for extra accuracy.

I don't necessarily mind this. Now if their information is inaccurate then that's different. I don't like them necessarily going through EVERY SINGLE PIECE they have on, but singling out one gun isn't bad. It gives me the reader a chance to either imagine what the gun looks like, or take a second to go to google and look it up. I've done that several times for other things. Like when someone mentions a very specific vehicle. Instead of just pretending I know what it is, I can actually go look it up. But I can see where, for others, it might be information overload.

Now if their information is inaccurate then that's different.

Depends on what you call inaccurate. I don't see how you could call anything inaccurate when an author is making up and describing a fictional model of gun.

That said, there are some potential nits to be picked with

Rolls & VW 35mm ZQW865-A2 smooth barrel, in silvered gunmetal, laser sighted, two shot, ladies pistol with tripod for extra accuracy.

1. American Caliber is bore diameter in inches. 35mm would be 1.38 inches. I'm not suggesting a pistol is such a large caliber is impossible. But describing such a massive hand cannon as a "ladies pistol"????

2 Setting matters. If this is supposed to be from a near real world setting in the US, Federal law heavily restricts civilian ownership of any modern firearms in anything larger than a .50.

Another thing that can be done that will work with any number of speakers is baton passing in the dialog.

Mom yelled, "Sara, Clean up the mess you made in the kitchen. Right Now!"

"Dammit, Joe, tell Mom it wasn't me!"

"Mom, Sara was helping me with my home work. Kelly, did you do it?"

"Not me, Billy did it."

Something else that can work for two people but not for larger groups.

If you establish a scene with just two people in an isolated area, you only need to attribute the first statement, as there is only one person to reply.

What say (universal) you to situations where it seems important not only that the character says something, but also how the character says it? Example: "xxx," he said sarcastically?

My personal opinion is that indicators of tone/pitch/cadence are okay, but these are generally words that would replace said, not be tacked on as a modifier (whispered, yelled, barked (loud and fast), as a few examples.

I would avoid "said sarcastically" if the sarcasm is clear from the context other wise.

She sighed. "Fine! Do what you want!"

I don't even decribe my main characters except in the vaguest of terms. Partly this is a reaction to stroke stories that describe characters in excrutiatingly exact detail

Partly it is because erotica is a fantasy genre anyway and I'm perfectly happy for my readers to project whatever looks they want onto the characters.

To each their own. Me, for my stories, I have a vision in my head of what the character's look like and I want that to come out in the story. Of course that doesn't mean I describe my characters with exacting mathematical precision.

and just how the fuck would a character know the exact bra size of a person who he just met anyway?

Know for certain? He wouldn't. Doesn't mean he can't make an "educated" guess.

I know guys in real life who do that with just about every female they meet. How accurate they are only God knows, but it doesn't stop them from doing it and being "certain" of their guess.

One of my stories the male lead has the chance to go through the hamper of of a supporting female. He can't help but look at the size tag on one of her bras.

Both of my stories have scenes where the female lead is professionally measured for clothing sizes.

Things that are more directly visible, height, hair color, general skin tone, I may mention for major supporting characters, but probably won't for bit characters.

Height I handle by comparison. Generally, in my experience, most people know their own height to within an inch or two (a few centimeters for the metric).

I'll establish the MC's height early (if I think it matters) and then it's this person is x shorter/taller. and I deliberately avoid precision.

Another thing I've done is character z has a similar body shape to famous celebrity/model y.

just how the fuck would a character know the exact bra size of a person who he just met anyway?

Eye for detail and a lot of experience.

One warning... other than used car salesmen, most people don't often use other people's names in conversation.
Except for women, talking about everyone else they know. They'll use those names. But salesmen are the ones who use the name of the person they're talking to.

One warning... other than used car salesmen, most people don't often use other people's names in conversation.

It happens, particularly in large business meetings if someone asks a question of someone specific. I also have some personal experience with similar done in family conversations. That's how the baton passing works.

B responds to A then asks C a question.

Or A goes back and forth with B, then A pointedly asks a question of C.

These aren't your typical social conversation, but they do happen in real life.

aractr
7/14/2020, 7:40:55 AM

"Heh-heh" i hate when writers cant find another way to denote a giggling character than putting "heh-heh" at the end of every piece of dialogue.

Please finish the instruction. What SHOULD they have done instead?

What SHOULD they have done

"Haha, she giggled."

I can handle it if the entire story has been posted

Even then, I still find it annoying.

You can leave the fate of characters unresolved, as long as the action is over for that scene, but I see too many cases where a fight/battle starts towards the end of a chapter and the chapter ends in the middle of the battle.

Example of doing it right:

End scene/chapter with battle over and wounded being evacuated.

I look through the new stories, and it is like page after page after page of incest stories. Then a few rape ones, a family pet one then another 8 incest ones.

You don't like it? Get busy and write more of the kinds of stories you want to read. :)

I look through the new stories, and it is like page after page after page of incest stories.

Looking at category search, I see 13 incest stories new this month and 81 stories new this month that are not incest.

Only 4 non-consensual stories (3 actually tagged rape) the most recent of which is 7/7.

The most recent story tagged Zoophillia is 6/15 and the most recent story tagged bestiality is 6/23.

I suspect the Op would hate the story I am currently writing. In two pages it not only mentions food but also what a certain character is wearing.

Granted, the food is mentioned in passing as part of a moment where the mother is teaching her son something. The clothes are mentioned in contrast to what the MC normally sees that other character wearing

I would have to read the story to say for certain but it's not that I don't like it being mentioned at all, or that I don't like it playing a central role in a scene. It's more when authors are writing the passing scenes. That is, those scenes in between the main action, and they are just throwing words on a page to give it length. There are some very prominent authors who I love but do this. It bugs me.

If your character is being taught or is teaching someone to cook then it's understandable. Aroslav did a great job of it in the Living Next Door to Heaven series. A lot of it revolves around food but it's written into the actual story not just "then on Monday we ate pot roast"

And if it was a baby, he would be wearing his food.

As, likely, would be a grumpy old man.

They're slightly different. "Learned" is to acquire knowledge or a skill. "Found out" is to discover, to uncover.

And which part of "acquiring knowledge" does not apply to learning of a situation? I think the current swing to using "found out" is a more recent 'slanguage' fad, and little to do with actual definitions or customs.

Encountering the phrase a dozen times in the course of a reading gets tiresome. Maybe a writer could come up with more original choices? Like "discover" or "uncover" or "reveal" or "expose" or on and on. It gets tedious and seems a touch boorish.

Encountering the phrase a dozen times in the course of a reading gets tiresome. Maybe a writer could come up with more original choices? Like "discover" or "uncover" or "reveal" or "expose" or on and on. It gets tedious and seems a touch boorish.

I understand your point of view, but I also look at it like this. "Found out" may just be a phrase or way of speaking that character/writer speaks. I don't think it a situation where a writer is trying to pad their word count, BUT it CAN be monotonous to read the same word over and over.

The "pad the word count" thing was a bit tongue in cheek--err, tongue in denture?--thing. But seriously, Cyrano, like the 24-7 male 5 o'clock stubble, it will run its course. Gawd let's hope so.

Well, gents... it seems I've learned something new. {grin}

But then it inflates the word count. Two words in place of one.

SOL doesn't do word counts. It's all KB.
But then "found out" is an extra letter and an extra space.

When Hercule Poirot orders "two eggs, identical in size", and laments the fact that chickens cannot be made to pay more attention to uniformity, the lack of which tends to destroy the symmetry of his breakfast - does this not help the reader understand something about the mindset of the Belgian detective?

There's a difference between the description of food having an actual purpose in the story or as a word count increaser.

There's a difference between the description of food having an actual purpose in the story or as a word count increaser.

This says it all! In regards to the detective example, that makes perfect sense and it gives you an insight to how the character thinks. In that example the food is not the main object. It may APPEAR to be, but it's not. It's just a secondary player to the main object of the scene which is the detective's mindset.

1. American Caliber is bore diameter in inches. 35mm would be 1.38 inches. I'm not suggesting a pistol is such a large caliber is impossible. But describing such a massive hand cannon as a "ladies pistol"????

I must confess, I wasn't really giving much attention to the models and calibers given in the example. I was just looking at the idea of someone telling what type of gun it was. As a gun owner (I've got 2 handguns and a rifle) if I were reading that and actually paying attention then yeah I'd have issues. That goes directly to credibility of the author and the subject he's writing about.

In the book I'm currently writing there are several topics that come up that I have to do research on. I don't just throw out numbers. I may have to take some liberty with certain things for sake of the story that I want to write, but I do actually do research and try to make things as close to accurate as possible.

I were reading that and actually paying attention then yeah I'd have issues. That goes directly to credibility of the author and the subject he's writing about.

Again, the setting of the story matters. Even in the real world, there is nothing technically impossible about creating a 35mm pistol.

In a wholly fictional setting I'd have few issues with the general concept. Calling it a ladies gun is going a bit too far though. :)

Even in the real world, there is nothing technically impossible about creating a 35mm pistol.

A flare gun comes close.

A flare gun comes close.

I meant an actual weapon. There are shot pistols that would probably be bigger.

There is somewhat of an anomaly in US federal firearms law as concerns shotguns.

Federal law prohibits short barreled shotguns,the prohibition is broader than just cut down barrels.

However Federal law also defines a shot gun as a long gun designed to be fired from the shoulder.

This means if you manufacture a "shotgun" without a shoulder stock, it isn't a "shotgun" under federal law and isn't subject to the minimum barrel length.

NOTE: if you take a shotgun and remove the stock it came with that doesn't remove it from being covered by the minimum barrel length.

I meant an actual weapon.

I wouldn't want to be shot by one :)

I wouldn't want to be shot by one :)

I wouldn't either, but it would be considerably less fun to be shot with an actual firearm.

The US Federal law doesn't have much to say about what you load in a pistol, which is why the Bond Arms Defender series of Derringer style pistols come in .45 calibre capable of loading a .410 shotgun shell and is regularly used as such as an anti-snake handgun. Because the gun is not altered from the factory design it's legal.

That's not what I was referring to. There are purpose made smooth bore "shotgun" pistols. These are legal for the reasons I mentioned.

For example: https://americanguncraft.com/product/diablo-break-open-12-gauge-pistol-black-grips/

I can't find anything about when this company started manufacturing and selling these, but it is exactly what I envisioned when I described such a gun being made from a damaged shotgun in my story Life is Change.

Under current US law, It would not be legal to make one of these from a damaged shotgun.

If it was originally manufactured with a shoulder stock, it's legally a shotgun no matter how heavily modified and is still subject to the minimum barrel length requirement.

To be legal, it has to be manufactured from scratch as a pistol.

However, you have to apply for special permission and pay for a special license from the BFTA to do it

1. It's the BATFE, not the BFTA. though it commonly goes by ATF. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

2. While technically, the permits are still available, the BATFE no longer accepts the tax payments for Machine guns under the NFA, making the permits impossible to obtain for those weapons. I would not be surprised if they do the same thing with short barreled rifles and shot guns.

3. The weapons I linked to, being manufactured as pistols in the first place, are NOT subject to that special permit.

There was a company (it was not a US company) that in the early 2000s showed a prototype of a 28 gauge smooth bore revolver at a US gun show.

They never went into production with it due to concerns over US law. US law also prohibits civilian ownership of modern firearms over .50 caliber.

The manufacture was concerned that if it was a shotgun it was too short, and if it was a handgun it was a .60 bore and illegal on that point. I believe that at some point after that, either the DOJ or the ATF issued an official opinion that smooth bore pistols were not NFA firearms and not subject to either limitation.

This same ruling is what also allows the Remington 870 Tac-14.

It is a common belief that the reason they are so cranky and go after people for even the smallest violations is that their acronym is five letters and not three like all the cool kids.

It is a common belief that the reason they are so cranky and go after people for even the smallest violations is that their acronym is five letters and not three like all the cool kids.

That's why they prefer to go by ATF instead of the full initialism of BATFE.

ATF=Asshole Training Facility.

edit to add: Dang I posted this and then saw Keet's post - he beat me, again.

Taking a nap again? :D

Just woke up and about to have breakfast - currently 8:28 a.m. here.

Changing of the guard :) my turn for a nap, it's 00:47 here.

That goes directly to credibility of the author and the subject he's writing about.

Are you saying I would be an incredible author. :-) Lovin' you.

When Hercule Poirot orders "two eggs, identical in size", and laments the fact that chickens cannot be made to pay more attention to uniformity, the lack of which tends to destroy the symmetry of his breakfast - does this not help the reader understand something about the mindset of the Belgian detective?

Sure, anything can be revealing of character. Just don't do it when it isn't. In the Trainor series in my Gjt universe, Andy and his father have a ritual around ordering pizza. If you have a gun fetishist, reveal his gun fetish.
In the same series, Marilyn visits the location of Andy's new job; Andy is totally insensitive to clothes, and she needs to learn what people with his new job title wear. But I don't describe the costume of each of my characters.
I have come to notice that when my characters watch TV or go to a movie, it's generally a generic movie or TV show. When the read a book, it's generally a specific gook that I have read.

The author just didn't point out how heavy the bad guy was and how rotted the floor was, so when he fell and crashed through the floor he hit the ground.

Oh, but there was a concrete basement floor. :)

Not really. far too much rotten meat would make one very ill. :)

I'm the same way about guns; my usual complaint is not that the descriptions are over the top, but that the descriptions are inadequate to inform a reader like me, who knows nothing about guns, of what a particular gone is capable of doing.

The most important piece of information about the gun itself in terms of what it will do is the caliber.

Caliber for the most should be fairly easy to understand. It's the diameter of the bore(the hole that runs down the length of the barrel through which the bullet travels) and the bullet.

Caliber comes in two forms. Inches (.22,.30,.45,.50) and millimeters (5.56mm,9mm,10mm)

There are some exceptions/complications to this, but in general the bigger the number, the more damage it will do.

If it's a real gun and not something fictional, you can probably find videos on line of someone shooting fun targets, like watermelons, with it.

if it's a real gun and not something fictional, you can probably find videos on line of someone shooting fun targets, like watermelons, with it.

Thanks, but I wasn't looking for a lesson in calibers. It is my preference that the author tell me what the gun in the story is capable of doing without my having to interrupt reading the story to go do my own research.

It is my preference that the author tell me what the gun in the story is capable of doing without my having to interrupt reading the story to go do my own research.

Even if the author is knowledgeable about guns, that doesn't mean he/she knows how to describe it the way you want to someone without a little bit of knowledge of firearms ballistics. What you will get will be bluster/fluff, not an accurate representation of what a particular firearm will do.

Few people ever see the impact of a bullet up close, or enough different bullets to describe the differences.

I intentionally use basic non-descript terms that I feel most people will understand, Gun, pistol, rifle, HK, ect so I don't embarrass myself. I haven't been fussed at yet.

And I think that's a generally descent approach in most cases. However, what PotomacBob was asking for was something more descriptive but focused on effects, not the technical details of the gun.

I don't think many authors could pull that off in a way that's actually realistic.

If it's a real gun and not something fictional, you can probably find videos on line of someone shooting fun targets, like watermelons, with it.

And you could describe a character's costume by "The dress is from the bottom left hand corner of page 35 of the Sears spring 2019 catalogue, too. I think what Bob is requesting is enough description so that he can just read along inn the story.

I think what Bob is requesting is enough description so that he can just read along inn the story.

Describing an outfit is something anyone can do.

Accurately describing the impact of a specific bullet on a living organism, not so much.

I understand that the goal of a writer is to describe things in enough detail that the reader can paint an image in the mind. That assumes that the reader can understand what is being described.

One of my pet peeves is when they only use the metric system to describe something. Many people in the US have no clue how to translate metric to the US system.

I'm not trying to cause a fight I just don't understand how you can expect someone who is probably not from the US to only write using the imperial measurements The USA, Burma, and Liberia are the 3 countries that still use the imperial system so if they are using metric it is probably what they where raised on. If you want to convert quickly and you are using windows operating system on a computer you can use the calculator as it has a feature where you can change it into a converter.

From Michigan, USA

I'm not trying to cause a fight I just don't understand how you can expect someone who is probably not from the US to only write using the imperial measurements

Where the hell did I say I expected people to only use imperial measurements? Even though people expect stories to only be in English. This is a topic about what your pet peeves are. Why is it a peeve for me? The same reason keet had to design a calculator. If you want to put it into something you can understand you have to stop the story to convert it. I tend to just ignore it altogether.

I just don't get why that one's a big deal. But then, that's part of what make it a peeve.

If you read a lot of far future science fiction or fantasy, you will occasionally have to deal with outright fictional units.

This is a topic about what your pet peeves are. Why is it a peeve for me? The same reason keet had to design a calculator. If you want to put it into something you can understand you have to stop the story to convert it. I tend to just ignore it altogether.

Ok, my pet peeve and one of several reasons I created the calculators. (I created and used it long before I ported it to the ReaderInfo site.)
You often encounter stories where, for example, a room is said to be 10'x15' and then described as if it's a ball room. That leads me to convert the measurements to get an idea of the actual size which in most cases is far from the described ballroom. Same with person lengths. In a lot of stories a person is depicted as being huge at 6 feet. Sorry but that's close to the average height here in the Netherlands, nothing particularly huge about it. (Here the average is 5'11 for males, the average in the US is 5'9"). Not everything is big in Texas :)

Not everything is big in Texas

Texans like to think everything is big in Texas, because Texas is a big state. However If Alaska was divided into two states of equal area, Texas would become the third largest state. :P

In a lot of stories a person is depicted as being huge at 6 feet.

There is more to a person being huge than just height. Width (across the shoulders) matters too, as does weight. I wouldn't describe a 7 foot bean pole as huge. :)

The problem is that is not "Imperial Inches" but "Paris Inches", which are 1.07" Imperial.

Yep, but at the time, the British Press made a big deal out of it while deliberately obscuring the units issue.

The problem is that is not "Imperial Inches" but "Paris Inches", which are 1.07" Imperial.

There is a lot of fun reading about the trivia surrounding inches and feet:
https://sparkfiles.net/foot-whats-special-12-inches/
https://www.factmonster.com/math-science/weights-measures/origins-of-measurements
Another funny piece of trivia is that around the world inches are still used for screen sizes and car wheels and tires, despite the usage of the metric system. Yes, in Europe too :)
It was relatively recent (1959) that the inch was standardized to 2.54 mm.
Someone mentioned grains. An inch was (is) 3 grains of barley placed end-to-end lengthwise.

It is not hard. And in many ways we already use both. I have not seen a 64 ounce soda bottle in decades, and nobody thinks twice about a 2 liter one. And almost anything in the medical field (and increasingly in mechanics) also uses metric.

It takes time, a long time. You can't just switch from one to the other. Just as an example, think of (American) cars. All tools are in inches because that's the unit used when the car was made. You can't use metric tools on that car. With the introduction of European and Japanese cars metric tools had to come with them. The same goes for almost all industrial production in the US. The industry can make the move to metric faster but they will not replace a perfectly good machine just to start producing with metric measurements. Because most of the world uses metric their new machines have a good chance of being made outside of the US and will use metric.

Actually, that is not true at all. As a good rule of thumb, cars made before 1975 are almost all SAE. Those after 1975 tend to be a mix of both SAE and metric. And most of those were of sizes that worked in both. 5/16" and 8mm, and the like.

I'm getting old, my knowledge on some subjects is getting way out of date...

One of my pet peeves is when they only use the metric system to describe something. Many people in the US have no clue how to translate metric to the US system.

The same can be said the other way around. I have to convert units in many stories to get an idea what the weird US system is in metric. I had to do it so many times that I created a calculator for it: Calculators which is specifically designed for units used in stories, not scientific calculations.

Calculators which is specifically designed for units used in stories, not scientific calculations.

On weight/mass, you include troy ounces, but not troy pounds. Yes, the Troy pound is different from the standard imperial pound

A note for those who don't know troy weight is used for precious metals (gold, sliver, platinum)

A troy ounce is heavier than a standard ounce, but a troy pound is lighter than a standard pound as a troy pound is only 10 troy ounces.

Now you know the correct answer to: Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? The pound of feathers are heavier because it's a standard pound and the gold is a troy pound. :)

On weight/mass, you include troy ounces, but not troy pounds. Yes, the Troy pound is different from the standard imperial pound

Fixed that for you: Calculators

A note for those who don't know troy weight is used for precious metals (gold, sliver, platinum)

and gunpowder

and gunpowder

I did not know they used troy weight for gun powder. Do you have a reference for that?

You probably heard some one talking about bullets being XX grains of powder well like ounces are to the pound, grams to kilograms, a grain is a sub unit of measure to the troy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_(unit)

Easiest place to view this is if you ever see a balance scale that has its chart on how to weigh different items.

I first saw and learned it from reading the description card on a two pan balance scale in a display at the British Museum on the history of weight and measures.

When gunpowder was brought back from China the Troy was the unit they used to weigh with at the time.

I even talked with a curator there and he asked if I visited many museums and when I mentioned Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan he commented on how the museum had a lovely display of modern items. which made me laugh because in a way he was right our 200-300 year old stuff next to their collection is new,

10Q

a grain is a sub unit of measure to the troy.

A grain as a sub unit of ounces is not specific to the Troy weight system.

From the link you posted:

The grain was the legal foundation of traditional English weight systems,[5] and is the only unit that is equal throughout the troy, avoirdupois, and apothecaries' systems of mass.

Avoirdupois would be the weights used in the Imperial and US systems.

One of my pet peeves is when they only use the metric system to describe something. Many people in the US have no clue how to translate metric to the US system.

Even more annoying is trying to decimalise inches/feet. There is no such thing as 1.3 inches.. !!!

Judging by the way he constantly belittles his adversaries, part of Donald Trump is likely to be around 1.3 inches ;-)

AJ

He always tells people he has very big hands, in fact they are huge hands. Maybe even biggly huge hands.

Even more annoying is trying to decimalise inches/feet. There is no such thing as 1.3 inches.. !!!

The number 1.3 inches can be written using the fraction 13/10 inches

It is also equal to 1 3/10 inches when written as a mixed number.

Buddy of mine deals with numbers like that all the time. You can also find them on drill bit charts for taping holes when threading to receive bolts.

The number 1.3 inches can be written using the fraction 13/10 inches

Sigh. 13/10 s an improper fraction. The official unit of measure states that inches are dived in half, thus 1/2" 1/4" 1/8" 1/16" etc

You are confusing the various attempts to convert metric to imperial or vice versa, mostly those conversions "round up" to varying degrees, often the nearest 1/16"

No, he's not confusing anything, though I disagree with the wording.

https://www.mcmaster.com/starrett-scales/system-of-measurement~inch/

For machinist, the .10-.100 scales/rules exemplifies it without posting up multiple charts for bits etc. Stating that it would be expressed as 13/10 is sometimes done, but in my firm, it would be sent back down for revision if it was expressed so by itself for the reason you stated (improper fraction). On the other hand, it would have been acceptable if it had been written out to add clarification to 1.3" to assure no screw ups.

However, he is correct in that the .10-.100 is officially accepted within the industry. It's not well known outside those circles though, so your reaction is not out of line, nor the first time I've seen it.

However, he is correct in that the .10-.100 is officially accepted within the industry. It's not well known outside those circles though,

It seems that it is more well known than you suggest. I'm aware of it in as much as there being 100ths and 1,000ths of an inch. Which is fairly modern having only been proposed in 1857.

However. The random use of point whatever of an inch is rarely written correctly and is often wrong, with the possible exception of .5 instead of 1/2 as even the lazy tend to understand .5 as being half of something. It seems that those who wish everything was metric habitually avoid fractions thus creating sloppy "decimalised" imperial measurements.

The origin..?

The introduction of the thousandth of an inch as a sensible base unit in engineering and machining is generally attributed to Joseph Whitworth who wrote in 1857: "Instead of our engineers and machinists thinking in eighths, sixteenths and thirty-seconds of an inch, it is desirable that they should think and speak in tenths, hundredths, and thousandths"

Whitworth's main point was to advocate decimalization in place of fractions based on successive halving; but in mentioning thousandths, he was also broaching the idea of a finer division than had been used previously. Up until this era, workers such as millwrights, boilermakers, and machinists measured only in traditional fractions of an inch, divided via successive halving, usually only as far as 64ths

The expression 13/10 I've only ever heard or seen on dwgs and in machinist shops. Maybe it is more widely known than I realized, but I've no evidence to that effect.

The random use of point whatever of an inch is rarely written correctly and is often wrong, with the possible exception of .5 instead of 1/2 as even the lazy tend to understand .5 as being half of something.

Which why 1.3" would be followed by 13/10 for clarification. Had it been screwed up such as .13" or simply 13", the 13/10 would make the intent clear.

Which why 1.3" would be followed by 13/10 for clarification.

I don't think 1.3 for 13/10ths is what Joy is talking about. she's talking about the standard M/(2^N) fractions that used to be the standard for sub inch measures. A lot of them are irrational numbers and can't be written precisely in decimal form. They have to be rounded off or truncated somewhere. Never mind that for most real world calculations, that much precision isn't actually needed.

It's like the people who complain about using 3.14 as a "close enough" for most uses approximation of PI.

.5" (1/2)
.25" (1/4)
.125" (1/8)
.0625" (1/16)
.03125" (1/32)
.015625" (1/64)

They're all perfectly possible to do precisely in decimal.

And yeah, I remember using a micrometer to measure far more accurately than in sixty-fourths.

They're all perfectly possible to do precisely in decimal.

There's a reason I specified it as M/(2^N) rather than 1/(2^N)

Do you understand math?
Multiplying any of those values by any integer will not result in irrational numbers. And since you didn't specify 1/M(2^N)...
I don't need to list the entire set of 63, do I? They're all simple (and, in fact, all are some combination of the numbers I gave before.)

I don't think 1.3 for 13/10ths is what Joy is talking about. she's talking about the standard M/(2^N) fractions that used to be the standard for sub inch measures. A lot of them are irrational numbers and can't be written precisely in decimal form.

Any number that can be expressed as a fraction, where both numerator and denominator are rational, is itself rational, by definition. That's literally what "rational number" means: It can be expressed as a ratio.

No fraction where the denominator is a power of two is even going to give you a repeating decimal. They all terminate neatly. (Because 10 is a multiple of 2.)

One of my pet peeves is when they only use the metric system to describe something. Many people in the US have no clue how to translate metric to the US system.

I don't have a feel for metric, as long as I've been using it. OTOH, when you're writing, you have to give measurements once. Saying, in an international forum, "Write for American fogies. Let the rest of the world learn the obsolete system," is -- just maybe -- rather selfish.

I'm currently finishing a story set (in the US) ca. 1870.
I use the measurements of the time. 4--acre square plots are very important. they fit 16 of them on a square mile "section," and they measure 2 furlongs on a side. I use enough of what you can recognize that you should know what is hapening if you keep what I have said before in mind.

Hectare and Acre are still a common use as a unit of area. Neither of them are "metric", but are used even today all over the world.

Actually you are wrong. Hectare is the metric equivalent of an acre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare

The hectare (/ˈhɛktɛər, -tɑːr/; SI symbol: ha) is a non-SI metric unit of area equal to a square with 100-metre sides (1 hm2), or 10,000 m2, and is primarily used in the measurement of land. There are 100 hectares in one square kilometre. An acre is about 0.405 hectare and one hectare contains about 2.47 acres.

Actually you are wrong. Hectare is the metric equivalent of an acre.

You quoted it yourself:

An acre is about 0.405 hectare and one hectare contains about 2.47 acres.

That's hardly an equivalent.

That's hardly an equivalent.

Hectare is the metric land area unit, which is what Acre is for the US/Imperial system. That's how they are equivalent.

Meters and Yards are equivalent in that they both serve the same purpose in their respective systems of measures. NOTHING about that says 1 meter = 1 yard.

Of course they aren't the same size, none of the units are the same size between imperial and metric. However neither is a sub or super unit of the other and they do NOT co-exist in a single system of weights and measures.

none of the units are the same size between imperial and metric.

Sorry to nitpick, but isn't the second (unit of time) common between Imperial and Metric systems?

{duck and cover}

Sorry to nitpick, but isn't the second (unit of time) common between Imperial and Metric systems?

No, because it's not formally part of either.

P.S. For metric time, a minute would have to be either 10 or 100 seconds and an hour would have to be 10 or 100 minutes.

Time, along with angles and geographic coordinates, uses the sexagesimal system, which originated with the Sumerians around 5,000 years ago.

What does the number system used by the customary units of time have to do with what system of weights and measures the customary units of time belong to?

No, because it's not formally part of either.

P.S. For metric time, a minute would have to be either 10 or 100 seconds and an hour would have to be 10 or 100 minutes.

The second is the base SI unit of time, defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom".

Minutes and hours are not technically SI units, but they're much more commonly used, even in metric contexts, than the actual SI hectoseconds, kiloseconds, and so on. Going the other way, milliseconds, microseconds, etc., are metric, and are commonly used.

The hectare (/ˈhɛktɛər, -tɑːr/; SI symbol: ha) is a non-SI metric unit of area equal to a square with 100-metre sides (1 hm2),

It happens to use that measurement, but it is not a metric unit of measure.

You are reading that wrong. Hectare not an SI unit, it is metric. The metric system predates SI. Did you perhaps miss that hectare is defined as 100 meters by 100 meters?

I have done some research on ranch properties in Texas and Colorado for my stories. I've seen property descriptions in the US of 1500 acre ranches. I have never seen a US property listing for a ranch in hectares. If the ranch gets big enough they start listing it in sections (a square mile).

Prior to modern farming equipment, an acre was defined as the area of land a person could plow in a day.

The middle ages German equivalent land measurement was 'tagwerk', literally days work.

How?

Eventually it will be forced through economics. It cost money to tool up for both systems. Something that is already in progress as you've noted for several things.

Once again, economics will eventually force it. The world is a global market place. As such, the added cost to accommodate the US via dual tooling up etc, will force the issue.

The world markets are a lot bigger place than your simple examples. Focusing on soda bottles is a myopic view point.

Consider this example;
Bolt threads. Specifically pitch and threads per inch.
https://vermontgage.com/support/detail/thread-pitch-conversion

From the second line;

0.25 pitch (mm) - 0.009843 calculated pitch (inches) - 72 threads per inch - 0.013899 pitch (inches) - calculated inch pitch 0.35 (mm)

The more precise it has to be, the more it cost to manufacture and maintain the equipment of manufacture, not to mention higher testing, QA, QC etc cost.

Then there is the torque sensitivity of the application, tools to work with it, cost on the backend for the user ad nauseam.

Now imagine you have some very high end equipment. One metric bolt gets mixed in the mix of standard bolts. That equipment could be an integral part of a passenger jet engine. The bolts are very close in size, with only the minor metric/standard differences. The torque is supplied as per procedure, but due to that difference it's slightly off. After a few hundred hours of stressing that slight difference, the metal fatigue has now become a significant factor. The bolt snaps, the result unbalances the engine, the engine comes apart midair.

Think that can't happen? Better think again.

Most of the time, that risk factor is mitigated by added efforts in QA/QC and other controls. Read added cost and time there.

As far as this:

And what part of "tooling up" has been metric for decades are you missing?

That is simply bullshit. The existence of standard bolting, wire, nuts, steel, valves, threading machines, ad nauseam, says it's bullshit. If the world was tooled up 100% metric, those things would not exist.

Have you worked with bolts in varying threads?
SAE standard, SAE fine, and metric threads are pretty obviously different to anyone who's used to working with them.

And how, other than malicious intent, does your example of '1 oddball threaded bolt' occur? The factory making them would have to retool between runs to change the threads.

I have worked with them, which is why I mentioned the example. Standardization has come a long way in the last few decades, but it's far from completed. The largest problems come from mixed systems, which still exist today. That is something a country, and usually the US, centric view doesn't get.

What annoyed the shit out of me was an item having metric and non metric parts.

Agreed. Something that unfortunately, still happens today.

How?

Start teaching metric in school. Wait for the older generations to die off. :)

But the government can not mandate what sizes businesses decide to use.

Actually, they can to an extent.

Label laws.

If the government requires that only metric measurements are allowed on products, companies can still produce 24oz bottles, but they'll be labeled 710ml and people will wonder... Eventually, companies will just arbitrarily size things, since people will be accustomed to measurements not making a lot of sense, and not being totally memorable.

Sorry, but I really have to wonder at the sanity of some people that want to force companies to change how they package things for no real reason. It is about as retarded as the "Freedom Fries" nonsense a few decades ago.

What bk69 stated has nothing to do with forcing companies to certain packaging sizes. What the government CAN do is force a standardized way of labeling the product info to inform the public exactly what they are buying, and they can force it to be standardized in metric units.
Nothing is stopping a company to name a product a 'double turd' which weighs 2 turds as long as the product label has the correct standardized information in metric.

Yeah, except I saw it happen.

Bottle sizes in Canada went from 355ml and 750ml and 1.5l glass to 500ml/1l/2l plastic (and Faygo had 3l bottles for a while) then there were 600ml, then 591ml, 500ml(again), 414ml... sometimes bottlers would increase sizes to gain a competitive advantage in the market, and then they'd reduce the size but leave the price unchanged. And forget about trying to understand the logic behind OJ jug sizes, those fluctuated oddly too.

And the government ALREADY forced label laws on producers. Ingredients lists, nutrition labels, and measuring standards are all required. And there's a strong push for country-of-origin labeling on food&beverages (beyond where final packaging was performed, which is the current requirement.)

I wished the states would get with the program. Metric is a better system and not that difficult to learn. My opinion for what it's worth.

The US Federal government already tried to force it once and failed. Mostly due to cultural resistance.

Quite frankly as others have said, most things scientific/industrial/medical are using metric for most things in the US.

The people have been highly resistant to using it in their day to day lives. Not sure why.

Still metric is being snuck in here and there. Food labels for example, the mandatory nutrition label is all metric.

First, you have make those conversions come naturally to people. Then its got to be ingrained into enough people that they can "see" kilometers in addition to miles. Then the Imperial system can be phased out as the metric system is ingrained into more and more people.

Or just screw it and change all to metric. They learn or pay the consequences.

And I usually use imperial unless I am sitting down to do the math.

And I usually use imperial unless I am sitting down to do the math.

Yeah, applied physics is usually easier in metric.

Or just screw it and change all to metric. They learn or pay the consequences.

The US Federal government tried that back in the 1970s. The found out that they didn't have the power to make it stick.

They know better know how to back-door their legislation.

"Yeah, we can't actually force the states to do this. But we can withhold funding for them until they kneel before us."

"Yeah, we can't actually force the states to do this. But we can withhold funding for them until they kneel before us."

Resistance from the state governments had very little to do with the failure of the Federal Government's attempt to force a conversion to metric in the 1970s.

Most anything the Feds could try would probably be a overreach into state's powers. But just like they forced the 55mph thing down the states' throats, or federal education mandates...

For back of the envelope work, and something that might make it easier to remember and or visualize.

It won't be exact, but:

a meter is just a little over a yard.

A kilometer is 1000 meters.

A mile is 1760 yards.

those silly French units ;-)

I have seen it described as one of Napoleon's two biggest mistakes ;)

I was taught both imperial and metric in school,

My school didn't teach imperial. Still, I'm more comfortable with imperial because I used it more growing up, but I also used a fair number of metric sockets so for distance measurements I'm ok with either. And I'm reasonable enough at math to convert weight. Celsius is stupid, tho... When it's hot outside, 80 sounds more like what you're feeling than 25. (Although around here, 80 feels bad enough that using Kelvin would be appropriate. Fuck humidity.)

Fuck humidity.

I live in Alabama. You can't fuck humidity. It is too soft. It fucks you.

Not in a good way, tho...

Not in a good way, tho...

Doesn't even give a reach around...

Doesn't even give a reach around...

or use lube

or use lube

Lube is inconsequential. Due to my job you would have to use a Volkswagen for me to even feel you.

I live in Alabama. You can't fuck humidity. It is too soft. It fucks you.

Being from SoCal I never dealt with snow but in 79 I went to collage in So. Illinois just before the 100 year blizzard. But that wasn't what made me leave, It's when they started talking about the 90% humidity.

It's when they started talking about the 90% humidity.

Hey, it got down to 90%. That's not so bad.

When it's in the 95-98% for long stretches in the summer, don't go outside.

When it's in the 95-98% for long stretches in the summer, don't go outside.

The other extreme can be just as bad.

I live in south eastern Wisconsin. I had to Denver Colorado on business once during the summer. Went from 70-80% humidity to 0% humidity. Spent 20 minutes doing dry heaves after I got out of the Denver airport.

I suspect the reduced oxygen was more of the issue.

I love desert air. 120° isn't that bad when your sweat actually does the job it's supposed to, and evaporates. Just stay hydrated.

I suspect the reduced oxygen was more of the issue.

No, I wasn't having trouble breathing, the dry air was irritating my throat.

120° is hot, yes.

It's still far more comfortable than 85° with 98% humidity.

The weather (and I use the term weather loosely here*) sucks everywhere.

If you don't get hurricanes, you get tornadoes.

If you don't get either hurricanes or tornadoes, you either measure snow in feet or you get earthquakes.

*Yes, I know earthquakes aren't weather.

And hey, why pick when you can have both!

I've heard of tornadoes spinning off from the outer edges of a hurricane.

I think this is the first I've ever heard of tornadoes in the eye of a hurricane.

Around here when we get a really bad one the newscasters say get out or get underground or you will die.

I lived in Winnipeg for a while. The first time I listened to a weather announcement in the winter, they were saying something like "exposed skin will freeze in five seconds. Stay indoors if you can."

Celsius is stupid, tho... When it's hot outside, 80 sounds more like what you're feeling than 25.

Actually, for a human using Fahrenheit is stupid. Celsius, like Kelvin, has a fixed scale which humans can grasp much easier than the illogic scale that Fahrenheit uses. It all comes down what you have learned when you were young and what you are used to.
To me a temperature of 80 is ridiculous like 25 is for you. Celsius is much easier to learn and remember: 0 = frozen water, 100 = boiling water. Can't make it much easier and logical.

Kelvin is better.

0 is complete absence of heat.

Insufferably hot outside, close to 300.

Much more realistic.

Kelvin is better.

0 is complete absence of heat.

Insufferably hot outside, close to 300.

Much more realistic.

Agree that it's better than Fahrenheit but for daily use Celsius is just easier. Just look at this table Temperature and it's clear that the easiest numbers are Celsius. Kelvin numbers are just as correct but do you see using those numbers in everyday life?

Yeah.

Let's face it, you know they're rounding the temperature anyhow, and 300 is a good number for 'too hot'. Even if 'comfortable' is 290 (which seems high, which is a problem with each degree being that far apart) Celsius just makes the numbers for 'too hot' far too low.

Celsius, like Kelvin, has a fixed scale

Fahrenheit is just as fixed as Celsius and Kelvin. You just don't like the points it's fixed to.

Fahrenheit is just as fixed as Celsius and Kelvin.

Some people are just more inKleined to favour Kelvin

:)

Yeah, well, Kelvin was a nice guy.

Kelvin

"The kelvin is the base unit of temperature in the International System of Units (SI), having the unit symbol K. It is named after the Belfast-born, Glasgow University engineer and physicist William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (1824–1907)." I have no idea how it can be determined how nice a guy he was.

Because he gave us an absolute temperature scale. That means he had to be a nice guy. No matter how much of an ass he might have been in real life. Just think Robert Byrd.

I don't think he's had any statues torn down, so he probably didn't benefit from the slave trade ;-)

In Wisconsin, they tore down a statue of an abolitionist who joined the Union army to fight slavery.

They are tearing stuff down for no other reason then they want to tear stuff down.

That must be where 0K comes from to indicate it's real cool.

So the oK corral was so named because it was air conditioned??

So the oK corral was so named because it was air conditioned??

Probably not, at 0K it would have stopped moving :)

Probably not, at 0K it would have stopped moving :)

So the oK corral was, prior to its name change, the worlds first perambulatory corral.... Cool..!!

Yeah, well, Kelvin was a nice guy.

Lots of people think he makes nice jeans.

Fahrenheit is just as fixed as Celsius and Kelvin. You just don't like the points it's fixed to.

I don't like the "logic" of the Fahrenheit points. Even a little child knows the points frozen and boiling of water, so 0 and 100 are very logical and recognizable points of reference. When it's -5 °C outside everyone knows it's freezing just because it's below 0, a very distinct mathematical number everyone learns at a young age. That's way more logical then below 32 °F for which you will have to know the scale to know when it freezes. A scale you have to learn "because it's so", not because there's a logical reference.

When it's -5 °C outside everyone knows it's freezing

Yes, but when it's 25 °C outside only people who know the system know enough not to go outside because it's too hot.
If the 'temperature at which water boils at sea level' was 500 °C, then it would be a reasonable system.

If the 'temperature at which water boils at sea level' was 500 °C, then it would be a reasonable system.

A scale 0-500 for frozen-to-boiling is ok for scientific purposes, for those we have decimals, but hardly useful for everyday use. I don't care if it's 25.12 °C or 25.37 °C, 25 is my limit to start up the air conditioner :)

25°C is the perfect temperature.

Only if the humidity is low.
95% humidity, 25° is just too insufferably hot.

16° is just about perfect.

16c/60f is too cold for most people to go in a T-shirt and light pants.

I went to the corner store for smokes, in Winnipeg, middle of winter, in jeans and a tshirt, barefoot.

(Yes, most people consider that insane. It wasn't entirely comfortable, but I was in a hurry.)

Thing is, when you're adapted to the winter, 16C is just cool enough to be comfortable in a tshirt. Below 10C I generally prefer long sleeves.

Perfect for what?

16c/60f is too cold for most people to go in a T-shirt and light pants.

You're the first human I hear saying they like it this cool.

I prefer 16°C over 25°C although 20-21°C is just about perfect, with a light breeze and low humidity. Better a little to cool than too hot :)

I prefer 16°C over 25°C although 20-21°C is just about perfect, with a light breeze and low humidity.

Yeah, if I could get those, I could tolerate the 20°. But I live near a big puddle that keeps evaporating and keeping humidity high. And surface breeze is inconsistent.

100 = boiling water

Except the boiling point of water isn't fixed. If varies with atmospheric pressure. It's only exactly 100 degrees Celsius at sea level.

Except the boiling point of water isn't fixed. If varies with atmospheric pressure. It's only exactly 100 degrees Celsius at sea level.

That's nitpicking and has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make about the logical differences between C and F.

The Babylonians used a base 60 numbering system

Which they inherited from the Sumerians.

The ratio is constant, the number itself is not.

The number is a decimal representation of the ratio. It doesn't come with any particular unit. And it's the ratio of the diameter of the circle to the circumference, neither of which come in degrees, so the number of degrees in a circle is irrelevant to the value of PI.

Completely arbitrary. I laugh when people try to tell me that "Pi" is a universal constant. Nope, not if you change the number of degrees in a circle (and not all systems even use 360), or the number system. The ratio is constant, the number itself is not.

Pi doesn't have anything to do with the number of degrees in a circle. The number IS the ratio. If you go to hex, the way that you write the number is different, but the number remains the same.

I know why you chose 8" - it's so people can say I metricate with two hands.

No. I simply chose a more modest length to ensure believability...

:)

Damn, now people will skim over my brilliant horsey humour :-(

I'm sorry you feel de-neighed...

I decree an honourable exemption for rug munching ;-)

Agreed!

I decree an honourable exemption for rug munching ;-)

So imagine the feelings of imminent poverty when your dentist asks his nurse to prep because he has discovered hairline cracks in both your front teeth, then your abject humiliation when he announces the cracks are in fact pubic hairs and you shudder as your previous appointment was to have family photographs taken... Smiling...

Of course you feel a million dollars walking the beach, your beautiful wife at your side, her new bikini bottoms buried inches deep in her 'rug'.

We wax, shave, trim and laser for a reason,,,!!!

What can you do when your pet is peeved?

Put him out in the yard so he doesn't peeve in the house, or buy him a litter box. :)