Pfund in Germany

[c***@ntlworld.com]

The topic of people in metric countries using non-metric measures has
come up a few times in this newsgroup. Some people believe this to be
an argument against the practicability of the metric system. I just
wanted to give some background information about one unit in
particular, the German Pfund:

- The German Pfund used to be the main unit for mass before the
introduction of the metric system in 1871.

- The traditional Pfund, before metrication, ranged from 350 g to 560
g, depending on locality and type of goods measured.

- The legal definition of the Pfund was changed to 500 g in most German
states well before 1871. In most of Germany, the Pfund has been exactly
500 g for over 150 years (five generations).

- The Pfund was a legal unit until 1969 when legislation was changed to
to be more compatible with the SI system. The Pfund was thus
discontinued as a legal unit only 35 years ago. Germans over 50 (about
35 % of the population) would have grown up with the Pfund being a
legal unit.

- Until 1969, the Pfund was part of the legal set of weights and
measures in Germany. It is easy to argue that it was actually part of
the German flavour of the metric system; a special German name for half
a kilogram.

- There was neither a government campaign to reduce or eliminate the
use of the Pfund after 1969 nor was there a public awareness campaign
to inform people about the change in legal units.

- As far as I am aware, nobody in Germany (government, trade, industry,
public, pressure groups) saw a need in rushing or forcing the
elimination of the Pfund.

- The Pfund was and is seen as a metric unit; after all, it is exactly
500 g. Some, perhaps many, people would be aware that the name dates
from a pre-metric period, but hardly anybody would see the Pfund as a
non-metric unit (except for people using measures for scientific and
technical purposes, who are more aware of the details of the metric
system). The Pfund is seen as special name for 500 g.

- Nobody who uses the term Pfund is referring to the pre-metric
quantity of the Pfund.

- Creating and using special/colloquial/customary/slang names is a
feature common to all languages. Dime for the 10 US-cent coin is an
example; the term dime can not be found in US legislation. Clicks or k
for kilometres is another example. In Germany, "Groschen" (old currency
unit) was used for the 10-Pfennig coin. The usage of the terms dimes or
Groschen did not suggest that people were unhappy with the Dollar/Mark,
that the Dollar/Mark currency system was flawed or that people wished
their old currency units back.

- Legislation should not, and cannot, stamp out such colloquial names.
There is little point in stopping the British pound to be called "quid"
or to legislate that "dough" is not permitted to mean money.

- The Pfund is used less and and less. Usage has declined significantly
or even dramatically over the last twenty years years.

Given the above, I find it difficult to see how the occasional
occurrence of the term "Pfund" in everyday parlance can be viewed as an
indication that the metric system is not convenient/accepted for
everyday use.


Regards,

Chris Kaese

[Edgar del Ray]

Post by c***@ntlworld.com
The topic of people in metric countries using non-metric measures has
come up a few times in this newsgroup. Some people believe this to be
an argument against the practicability of the metric system. I just
wanted to give some background information about one unit in
- The German Pfund used to be the main unit for mass before the
introduction of the metric system in 1871.
- The traditional Pfund, before metrication, ranged from 350 g to 560
g, depending on locality and type of goods measured.
- The legal definition of the Pfund was changed to 500 g in most German
states well before 1871. In most of Germany, the Pfund has been exactly
500 g for over 150 years (five generations).
- The Pfund was a legal unit until 1969 when legislation was changed to
to be more compatible with the SI system. The Pfund was thus
discontinued as a legal unit only 35 years ago. Germans over 50 (about
35 % of the population) would have grown up with the Pfund being a
legal unit.
- Until 1969, the Pfund was part of the legal set of weights and
measures in Germany. It is easy to argue that it was actually part of
the German flavour of the metric system; a special German name for half
a kilogram.
- There was neither a government campaign to reduce or eliminate the
use of the Pfund after 1969 nor was there a public awareness campaign
to inform people about the change in legal units.
- As far as I am aware, nobody in Germany (government, trade, industry,
public, pressure groups) saw a need in rushing or forcing the
elimination of the Pfund.
- The Pfund was and is seen as a metric unit; after all, it is exactly
500 g. Some, perhaps many, people would be aware that the name dates
from a pre-metric period, but hardly anybody would see the Pfund as a
non-metric unit (except for people using measures for scientific and
technical purposes, who are more aware of the details of the metric
system). The Pfund is seen as special name for 500 g.
- Nobody who uses the term Pfund is referring to the pre-metric
quantity of the Pfund.
- Creating and using special/colloquial/customary/slang names is a
feature common to all languages. Dime for the 10 US-cent coin is an
example; the term dime can not be found in US legislation. Clicks or k
for kilometres is another example. In Germany, "Groschen" (old currency
unit) was used for the 10-Pfennig coin. The usage of the terms dimes or
Groschen did not suggest that people were unhappy with the Dollar/Mark,
that the Dollar/Mark currency system was flawed or that people wished
their old currency units back.
- Legislation should not, and cannot, stamp out such colloquial names.
There is little point in stopping the British pound to be called "quid"
or to legislate that "dough" is not permitted to mean money.
- The Pfund is used less and and less. Usage has declined significantly
or even dramatically over the last twenty years years.
Given the above, I find it difficult to see how the occasional
occurrence of the term "Pfund" in everyday parlance can be viewed as an
indication that the metric system is not convenient/accepted for
everyday use.
Regards,
Chris Kaese

Chris,

I don't believe that the point that was being made was that the use of
slang or archaic terms for metric measures meant people rejected the
metric system. It does however support the contention, and one that
you quote yourself above, that people will continue to use or invent
" special/colloquial/customary/slang names" and they will continue to
create new ones for metric measures also, so that eventually you could
have many non-approved names for metric measures, and that the values
of these measures are likely to have non decimal relationships (i.e.
not multiples of ten). This is already happenning with board sizes
taht are produced in sizes of 1200mm, 600mm, 300mm an 120 mm. The
reason for these sizes is that they can all be divided into 1/2, 1/4
an 1/3 without resorting to decimal fractions with repaeting decimal
digits. It is inconceivable that these board sizes will not be given
unique names, if they have not already got one. So you might have 4
foot, 2 foot, 1 foot and 2/5 feet where a metric foot is 30cm. This
latter unit seems to be appearing with more regularity itself.

[Euric]

The construction industry does not used sizes based on 30 cm, even
though some members of the opposition like to claim so they can say
that foot measure is more natural to use. Construction materials are
based on the 100 mm module. With large numbers, such as 300, 600,
1200, 2400, 4800 mm it is just a coincidence that one will find that
these sizes are divisable by 300 mm.

Funny how the BWMA and its admirers will look for a reason to associate
metric usage and choice of sizes with those resembling a close FFU
size. But try and suggest that a foot be redefined as 300 mm or a
pound and 500 g and you become accused of "metrickery" or something
worse.

[Edgar del Ray]

Post by Euric
The construction industry does not used sizes based on 30 cm, even
though some members of the opposition like to claim so they can say
that foot measure is more natural to use. Construction materials are
based on the 100 mm module. With large numbers, such as 300, 600,
1200, 2400, 4800 mm it is just a coincidence that one will find that
these sizes are divisable by 300 mm.
Funny how the BWMA and its admirers will look for a reason to associate
metric usage and choice of sizes with those resembling a close FFU
size. But try and suggest that a foot be redefined as 300 mm or a
pound and 500 g and you become accused of "metrickery" or something
worse.

Sorry Euric, the 30 cm foot idea came from a metric website source
where it was explicitly given as a "why don't we call it" type
stement. You can't blame this on the BMWA or its admiresr or me (who
isn't an admirer of the BWMA).

[Chris Kaese]

Hi Edgar,

I am not sure whether you fully understand my point:

- The pound was a legal unit in Germany, together with the kilogram.
That's why it was used for so long.
- Please provide evidence for people inventing or creating new names
for metric units. I know that people will come up with colloquial words
for other words, but I am not aware of new names having been created
for metric measures that require a conversion factor. Has anybody seen
this anywhere? For example, did people in one particular country come
up with a new name for, let's say, 1.2 kilograms?
- Is there any country/language where this has happened many times (as
you state in your message) and the newly created decimal have
non-decimal relationships?

Regards,

Cris Kaese

[Edgar del Ray]

Post by Chris Kaese
Hi Edgar,
- The pound was a legal unit in Germany, together with the kilogram.
That's why it was used for so long.
- Please provide evidence for people inventing or creating new names
for metric units. I know that people will come up with colloquial words
for other words, but I am not aware of new names having been created
for metric measures that require a conversion factor. Has anybody seen
this anywhere? For example, did people in one particular country come
up with a new name for, let's say, 1.2 kilograms?
- Is there any country/language where this has happened many times (as
you state in your message) and the newly created decimal have
non-decimal relationships?
Regards,
Cris Kaese

Chris, I include a post from www.network54.com in the forum on
international usage of weights and measures. The post is from our
friend Euric and the "Answers" are his!
******************************************************************************************************************************
Euric
Ciniese units November 30 2003, 6:10 PM


I assume "jin" is chinese pound and that you mean
that it is approx. one of our pounds not one of our feet.

Answer:

In modern China, however, the jin is a metric unit equal to EXACTLY
500 grams and divided into 10 liang. The kilogram itself is usually
called the gongjin, or "metric jin." The spellings chin and gin also
have been used for the jin.


The jin is the same as the livre, libre, pond, pfund, etc. and pound
(outside of the US/UK). All being 500 g.



wish we had some idea of how often and in which
contexts traditional chinese units are used

Answer:

The names of the units persist but as slang terms for rational metric
quantities. This again is because the DEVICES used to do the measuring
are 100 % metric. No jin scales, just kilogram.



maybe some more info or anecdotal evidence will
come to light

Answer:

Even the li has been metricated:


a traditional unit of distance in China. A Confucian proverb widely
misquoted in the West as "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a
single step" actually says "a journey of a thousand li begins with a
single step." Although the traditional li was approximately 500
meters, the late imperial governments of China used a li of 1800
ch'ih, which is 644.65 meters. In modern China, the li equals exactly
0.5 kilometer or 500 meters. In Chinese, the kilometer itself is
usually called a gongli, or "metric li."

[Euric]

Even though the pfund was legal until 1969, were there any scales or
devices calibrated in pfund? Can we be safe to say that the pfund was
always weighed out (at least in metric times) on a gram scale? Even
though anti-metric groups in the UK will argue against elimination of
the pound based on the pfund and livre still being "used" in Germany
and France, they fail to point out that there are no pfund/livre
calibrated scales. My comment has always been for the BWMA to support
a 500 g pound and allow that pound name be used the same way as in
Germany and France. Yet they would never support such a move. They
even preach that it is illegal to vend 500 g to a request for one
pound. I disagree. In the absence of legal protection for the pound
as a unit for commerce, any value can be chosen.

With the demise of the deutsche Mark, has the term groschen and pfennig
been phased out or are they used to mean the cent and 10 cent euro
coins?

[Klaus von der Heyde]

Post by Euric
Can we be safe to say that the pfund was
always weighed out (at least in metric times) on a gram scale?

Yes, that was one of the reasons for redefining a pfund to 500 g.
It is easy to do so, because most weighing scales have a mark at
500 g anyway (a mark every 10 g, 50 g or 100 g).

Post by Euric
They
even preach that it is illegal to vend 500 g to a request for one
pound.

I think that the usage of a pseudo-metric pound should not be
encouraged. I have never seen why such a unit is necessary anyway.
It is not more difficult to buy 1/2 kg or 500 g, in my opinion.

Anyway, the scales usually display the mass to both the vendor and
the customer, so the latter sees what (s)he gets.

Post by Euric
With the demise of the deutsche Mark, has the term groschen and pfennig
been phased out or are they used to mean the cent and 10 cent euro
coins?

They are not used for cent coins, as this would be confusing. When
someone quotes a price in pfenning or groschen, (s)he ususally means
the converted price to DM - there are quite a lot of people who still
mentally convert the prices to DM on a not exact 1:2 ratio, usually
to complain how everything got sooo expensive with the euro...

Klaus

[Edgar del Ray]

Post by Euric
Even though the pfund was legal until 1969, were there any scales or
devices calibrated in pfund? Can we be safe to say that the pfund was
always weighed out (at least in metric times) on a gram scale? Even
though anti-metric groups in the UK will argue against elimination of
the pound based on the pfund and livre still being "used" in Germany
and France, they fail to point out that there are no pfund/livre
calibrated scales. My comment has always been for the BWMA to support
a 500 g pound and allow that pound name be used the same way as in
Germany and France. Yet they would never support such a move. They
even preach that it is illegal to vend 500 g to a request for one
pound. I disagree. In the absence of legal protection for the pound
as a unit for commerce, any value can be chosen.

When it come right down to it Euric, offerring to sell anything in
kilograms or grams is a possible breach of the law as these two units
are units of MASS, not weight! By telling someone they have been given
500g or 1kg of goods is strictly incorrect as scales do not indicate
mass but weight.

Post by Euric
With the demise of the deutsche Mark, has the term groschen and pfennig
been phased out or are they used to mean the cent and 10 cent euro
coins?

[Euric]

As far as physics is concerned, yes, you are correct. Mass is measured
in kilograms and weight in newtons. But in english common parlance,
the terms are interchangeable. Even though I may say weight, I am
infering mass when I say gram or kilogram. Thus if I say scale, I'm
inferring balance.

I don't know for certain if the Weights and Measures Act (WMA) uses the
terms weight or mass when speaking of kilograms, but I'm sure if the
term weight is used with the kilogram, the mass is intended. This is
just an error that became part of the popular understanding due to the
imperial units not making the distinction. An error that may take
generations to rectify. If mankind survives that long.

[Erik Naggum]

Post by Edgar del Ray
When it come right down to it Euric, offerring to sell anything in
kilograms or grams is a possible breach of the law as these two units
are units of MASS, not weight! By telling someone they have been
given 500g or 1kg of goods is strictly incorrect as scales do not
indicate mass but weight.

The scales are calibrated to indicate mass correctly at their specific
location as there is a constant relation between a resting mass and its
weight. To be able to sell goods by mass, as everyone does, they rely on
a government service to keep their scales adjusted to indicate mass --
this ought to have been common knowledge of the real world. The abstract
and scientific notion that mass is different from weight has no place in
selling goods by mass at a strictly stationary location with both mass
and scale at rest. Believing this notion has a place instead indicates a
lack of understanding of the relationship between mass and weight.

Erik Naggum @2004-354

[Gunter Herrmann]

Hi!

Post by Edgar del Ray
When it come right down to it Euric, offerring to sell anything in
kilograms or grams is a possible breach of the law as these two units
are units of MASS, not weight! By telling someone they have been given
500g or 1kg of goods is strictly incorrect as scales do not indicate
mass but weight.

There are different types of scales:
Beam balance comparing masses
Spring balancemeasuring weight

HTH

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <***@individual.net>, dated Sun, 19 Dec
2004 09:13:46, seen in news:misc.metric-system, Gunter Herrmann

Post by Gunter Herrmann
Beam balance comparing masses
Spring balancemeasuring weight

There are other types, but each behaves similarly to one of those
classes.

Scales are used almost always to determine amount-of-substance, which is
mass.

But systems measuring weight are calibrated to show mass, determined by
detecting gravitational force and assuming that local g has not changed
significantly since the last calibration.

Beam-class balances may be freely exported world-wide, but spring-class
ones may need recalibration at destination.


ISTR calculating that the effect on a certain precision weight-and-mass
experiment of the Most Senior Member of Staff coming and going on the
floor above, as he might reasonably do, and affecting the local value of
g, was indeed negligible; but only by a comparatively small margin, so
that presuming it to be negligible would have been unwise.


--

ISTM that old names should be used only with their old meaning until the
old system falls out of use; but that they are then worth retaining as
informal names for approximate amounts. They then remain understandable
in older literature. If NIST puts on the Merchant of Venice post-US-
metrication, they should still be able to refer to a "Pound of Flesh";
and if PTB does so sometime, "ein Pfund Fleisch" (or whatever is
grammatical); and the 10% discrepancy in mass is immaterial.

[Gene Nygaard]

Post by Edgar del Ray
When it come right down to it Euric, offerring to sell anything in
kilograms or grams is a possible breach of the law as these two units
are units of MASS, not weight! By telling someone they have been given
500g or 1kg of goods is strictly incorrect as scales do not indicate
mass but weight.

Hey, Edgar!!!!! Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF do you suppose a pound is?

They are exactly 0.45359237 kg, by definition. So how the hell can
you imagine that it would be any different to use pounds for this
"weight" than it is to use kilograms for this "weight." Both are the
absolutely correct units for this purpose.

So obviously you must be having difficulty understanding one of the
other words. Can you figure out which one it is?

There is nowhere in the world where newtons are legal units for the
sale of goods.

There is nowhere in the world where kilograms force are legal units
for the sale of goods.

There is nowhere in the world where pounds force are legal units for
the sale of goods.

There are no troy ounces force, never have been. So those nonexistent
units could never be used for the sale of goods.

[Ignatios Souvatzis]

Post by Euric
With the demise of the deutsche Mark, has the term groschen and pfennig
been phased out or are they used to mean the cent and 10 cent euro
coins?

Nobody talks about Groschen and Pfennig unless referring to the old coins.

Hm, but the Greek talk about Lepta when referring to the Cent coins.

-is

[Klaus von der Heyde]

Post by c***@ntlworld.com
- The Pfund was a legal unit until 1969 when legislation was changed to
to be more compatible with the SI system.

The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) states that the pfund
is no legal unit in Germany since 1884. I have not yet found the
corresponding law.
As far as I know, the 500 g-pfund appeared in school textbooks as late
as the 1930s, or even the 1950s.

Post by c***@ntlworld.com
- Until 1969, the Pfund was part of the legal set of weights and
measures in Germany.

Not really. The scales were calibrated in kg only, but with 500 g for
a pfund, this does not hinder the usage of the unit in any way, even
if the scales display grams only...

The redefinition to 500 g allowed the pfund to survive so long.

Post by c***@ntlworld.com
- As far as I am aware, nobody in Germany (government, trade, industry,
public, pressure groups) saw a need in rushing or forcing the
elimination of the Pfund.

Yes, because...

Post by c***@ntlworld.com
- The Pfund was and is seen as a metric unit; after all, it is exactly
500 g.

... and so it somehow fits in, just as the hectare or even the litre.
Note, that there is no legacy unit for length.

Post by c***@ntlworld.com
- Legislation should not, and cannot, stamp out such colloquial names.
There is little point in stopping the British pound to be called "quid"
or to legislate that "dough" is not permitted to mean money.

Colloquial names should not be used in official documents, though.

Klaus

[Christoph Paeper]

Post by Klaus von der Heyde

- As far as I am aware, nobody in Germany (...) saw a need in rushing
or forcing the elimination of the Pfund.

Maybe one problem with current metrication in the UK is, as was indicated
in some postings recently, that of overly exaggerated pro-metrics. Just
as, according to smokers, ex-smokers are the worst non-smokers.

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
Yes, because...

- The Pfund was and is seen as a metric unit; after all, it is exactly
500 g.

... and so it somehow fits in, just as the hectare or even the litre.

Hectare and litre are fitting in in truely decimal fashion, whereas the
pound requires a division by two or a multiplication by five somewhere. So
the 500-g pound is IMO not as metric as hectare and litre (not even taking
into account their official recognition).

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
Note, that there is no legacy unit for length.

No more, but some were redefined, albeit not nation-wide AFAIK. Somewhen
in the 19th century Hessen-Darmstadt for instance had a Fuß of 25 cm,
divided into 10 Zoll à 10 Linien, and I believe there were Ruten of 5 m.
Wait, I think the (Post-)Meile was set to 7.5 km exactly at least in the
Nordeutscher Bund. That didn't stop the term "Meile" from becoming
understood as the English statute mile today, although virtually no-one
knows its exact size---it's somewhere between 1.5 and 2 km. (You can use
that "how long is a mile" question to start a discussion, which usually
quickly gets all about Anglo-American egocentrism, arrogance,
stubbornness, stupidity and imperialism.)

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
Colloquial names should not be used in official documents, though.

They should not even be officially acknowledged, just pretend they aren't
there. The redefinition of previously used units is a different issue IMO.

[Erwan David]

Post by Klaus von der Heyde

Post by c***@ntlworld.com
- The Pfund was a legal unit until 1969 when legislation was changed to
to be more compatible with the SI system.

The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) states that the pfund
is no legal unit in Germany since 1884. I have not yet found the
corresponding law.
As far as I know, the 500 g-pfund appeared in school textbooks as late
as the 1930s, or even the 1950s.

Post by c***@ntlworld.com
- Until 1969, the Pfund was part of the legal set of weights and
measures in Germany.

Not really. The scales were calibrated in kg only, but with 500 g for
a pfund, this does not hinder the usage of the unit in any way, even
if the scales display grams only...
The redefinition to 500 g allowed the pfund to survive so long.

Same thing in France, where 500 g is colloquially called a
"livre". But for every one that's just a name for the quantity
wheighting 500 g.

[Euric]

The point I was trying to make is that the British don't and never will
see the pound as a metric unit. Those opposed to metrication will
never accept a 500 g definition of a pound. They don't accept the idea
of eliminating the pound markings from the scales (balances) and
showing only grams.

But, many of the British opposition like to claim that old units, like
pfund are still used and are still legal for use in Germany, so why
can't pound be legal in the UK? They refuse to hear that the pfund is
not legal. It is a slang term for 500 g, and no devices exist that
have a pfund scale on them. They twist the truth to create an illusion
of old units being used legally in Europe, but banned in the UK.