Talk:List of unusual units of measurement/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of unusual units of measurement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early discussions

I moved this page from AttoParsec. Units of measurement are not capitalized. - Montréalais 22:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote this to make it clear that attoparsec has a special status in nerd humor... and therefore the existence of this article should not be a precedent for creating individual stubby articles on yoctoparsecs, zeptoparsecs, exaparsecs, etc. etc. I didn't want to lose the content. If there's a suitable article that already discusses nerd humor it could be moved there. Dpbsmith 23:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Palapala, I've taken the liberty of editing your notes on km/woche to make them read better in English. Incidentally, I used the phrase "a snail's pace" because it is an English idiom. Is your phrase "the speed of a snail" a translation of a German idiom? Dpbsmith 12:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A "Ranchette" (1/2 picoacre) may qualify for addition here, and as nerd humor also, being used in semiconductor design (see Bob Pease, Electronic Design, March 3, 1997).--DanB 05:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Comment moved to bottom of section) What happened to 'rods to the hogshead'? --69.2.124.11 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a significant unit - AFAIK it's mentioned just once in one episode of The Simpsons...nobody uses it, that's hardly something to mention in Wikipedia. This article is teetering on the edge of being a collection of jokes - if we don't clean it up and try to make it more encyclopedic - it'll be an RfD - and it could easily fail that test. So - let's thin out the junk and try to stick with GENUINE units that people actually use (albeit strangely). SteveBaker 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Page listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Feb 21 to Feb 26 2004. Discussion:

attoparsec - Mainly listed to prevent bad precedence from being created, I don't think this particular prefix/unit combination warrants its own article. The brief mention in parsec is enough IMO. -- Dissident 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. I just rewrote it, emphasizing its special status as a jocularity and therefore (hopefully) making it clear that it's not a precedent for individual article on yoctoparsecs, exaparsecs, etc. Assuming that it really is in jocular use by programmers--I just googled on it and The Jargon File and other sources aren't terribly convincing about this--it's worth preserving, though if there is a suitable article on nerd humor it could be moved there. I think I would argue that if it has an entry in FOLDOC and in the Jargon File, there's a prima facie case for it to have an entry in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 23:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. In its present form, a perfectly good item on a piece of nerd humor. Dandrake 00:09, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a joke with a long tradition (pre-web times...) --Palapala 09:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep; it's got a long tradition. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Relocate, probably under the (as yet non-existant) nerd humour page. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, as it is, where it is. Wonderfully humorous and well explained.Doovinator 15:14, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, highly amusing and very well explained. PMC 17:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. A gem. The comment on the German km/wk was a very nice cross cultural touch. Kd4ttc 19:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above is the former content of the attoparsec talk page: --Palapala 16:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seemeilen(Woche

I had a look at my notes of years ago, and talked to some former collegues. It has been "Semeilen/Woche" (NM/week), not km/week... --Palapala

hubble barn?

Hubble-Barn redirected here, but doesn't seem to be mentioned on the page? [Anon, not signed in]

There's information about it in the article's source text, but it was commented out:

(cur) (last)  02:22, 5 Mar 2004 Palapala (last entry awaiting confirmation)

To see it, click "edit this page" and scroll down near the bottom. Bryan 07:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External links

I decided to revert Icairns's change combining of all the references in the article since they are not free standing references, but instead are specific sources for quotations within the article. Having them down at the bottom all together just makes it harder to associate them with what they are a source for. I actually added one reference back in without realizing that it was already there, at the bottom. JesseW 08:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most Wiki articles have their external links at the end of the article. Inserting them into the body will make this article look out of place. What's wrong with footnotes pointing at a later external link? You will also need to change the appearance of the See also section heading - since your reversion, this is now out of sorts with other Wiki articles. Ian Cairns 08:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right. How do I make footnotes? Regarding the See also part, someone already fixed it. Thanks for responding. JesseW 03:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's a page on Wikipedia:Footnotes. Consensus seems to be that there are a variety of partial solutions. Sigh. I'll look for a way to make anchors, if I remember, there is no good way to do that either. JesseW 05:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can Standard Units Be Strange Enough?

I mostly do cultural stuff on Wiki, but are yottagram and zettagram strange enough units of measurement? Just asking.McDogm--McDogm 07:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Not really, they're SI official. Also they really should be merged to kilogram. R adiant _* 09:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

FFF system=

I don't want to be overly pedantic, but isn't the Firkin a unit of volume, not mass?

Robinh 07:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume the mass is the equivalent of a firkin of water at some standard conditions.

Potrzebie

The basic unit of this system was the potrzebie, which equals the thickness of Mad issue 26, or 2.263348517438173216473 mm.

So that issue has been measured to a sub-atomic level? Christoph Päper 17:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Slightly unrealistic amount of significant figures there ... round it off to 2.263 mm? Proto t c 12:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The measuring was done in a 1950's high-school lab by a very young Donald Knuth -- the number of significant figures is of course a joke... AnonMoos 02:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Organization

This article needs to be organized. I can try to alphabetize it, but if anyone wants to help, please do. Rt66lt 04:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Dismas! Rt66lt 16:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also: "metric butt-load". :) porges 04:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lawyer

The "Lawyer" was added back in August 2004 by Ortolan88 [1], and it seems slightly too good to be true to me. Does anyone know of any references to back it up? I've tried Googling but I'm only finding Wikipedia mirrors. Bryan 04:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm calling B.S. -- THEBlunderbuss 20:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Out it goes, if it's real then someone else will eventually re-add it and hopefully cite sources this time. Bryan 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bee's dick and poofteenth

Do these really belong here? It seems to me they're just humorous ways of saying "fuck all", and aren't related to any real-world phenomenon, whereas most of the others have a defineable size, albeit only used humorously. Even "realtor's throw", while not tightly defined, is a common meme. If we list "bee's dick", I think we have to list every possible phrase in the English language for "not very much", which is not really what this list seems to be for. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

'It seems to me they're just humorous ways of saying "fuck all"' Well, that's where you are quite wrong. It's a humorous way of saying 'just a little bit'. So we say "it's a bee's dick too big" or "move it left a poofteenth". I don't think it's any less valid than "realtors throw", which might be common in the US but is unheard of here (Australia) - and as far as I can tell is only a humorous way of saying "further than you might be led to believe". So, my vote is that if "realtor's throw", stays then so do bee's dick and poofteenth. ;) SilentC 22:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's get rid of all three then. (My point about "realtor's throw" was that the concept of dodgy estate agents is universal - I hadn't heard of the actual phrase before either, as I'm British, not USian). But the point about "bee's dick" is that it's just one of thousands of phrases used in Australia, Britain, the US and elsewhere meaning "just a little bit", none of which belong on a list alongside furlong/firkin/fortnight or the attoparsec. sjorford #£@%&$?! 10:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not too bothered about it. I added them and others have embellished them. I'm not going to get upset if someone removes them. You're probably right that they don't fit the original intention of the article - I think there are a few others in the same category. SilentC 22:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote in favour of deleting such entries. If there's no precedent for someone talking about five (or any amount greater than one) of these at a time, it's just an expression, not actual (albeit obscure/humourous) unit of measurement. Rhialto 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sydharb

I have readded the section on the "Sydharb" unit of measure. I would thank DannyWilde from removing sections because they 'look bogus' and have no stated source, especially when those units have SEVERAL stated sources. I point you to your own opinions, DannyWilde, specifically WikiFiddler, definition 5. --BryanJones

Thanks for your input. I didn't simply remove the assertion without warning. I added a verify tag to the article and left it there for a week. No verification was added to the dubious entries, hence I removed them. The one week limit for verification seems reasonable to me. Do you think I should have left it for longer? I'd like to also point out that several other dubious units were added to the article as "Australian units", and this seemed to be part of the same family. --DannyWilde 23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have just read the sources already listed. And just because it's Australian doesn't mean it's automatically incorrect. Or perhaps, if we find an incorrect American unit, we could remove all of the American units? Also, if the Sydharb goes, then the Football Field measurement can go, as it is used in the same manner. --Added by User:59.167.56.247.

I've just looked at the sources provided which were listed when I deleted it from the page. Unfortunately for your case, they don't prove that the units are being used. They just say "here is a suggestion for some new comedic units", quite strongly demonstrating the point that the units are actually not real units in use. Incidentally there is a unit listed of "one lazy gardener" which seems to be missing from the current page. --DannyWilde 03:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the so-called reference suggests the name "Sydharb" as a joke unit, and there is no evidence of it being used, I have removed the info again, pending verification. --DannyWilde 03:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Where are the 'references' for the others, such as Realtors Throw, Football field, Barleycorns of Liquid Hot Magma etc.? I have certainly seen the term 'sydharb' quoted in articles here (Australia). If this article is to be a list of units of measurement that are actually defined in some technical documentation somewhere, then it needs to be very much shorter than it is now. The deletions have been a bit arbitrary from what I can see.SilentC 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look at the reference provided (the PDF) and it doesn't mention anything about jokes. It is headed 'Australian Conventional Units of Measurement in Water'. Looks legitimate to me. SilentC 03:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh ho ho ho. Since you conveniently removed the other reference, presumably you noticed that it mentioned the name as being a joke and decided to remove it. Not very clever. Here is the reference you removed:

http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=631

And it says

Here’s a comedic suggestion for a new set of water-metrics:

10 long shaves = 1 teenage shower

10 teenage showers = one lazy gardener

100 lazy gardeners = one Olympic pool

100 Olympic pools = 1 dead wetland

100 dead wetlands = one Sydharb, and so on …

~~As for your comment that you've seen it "quoted in articles", I couldn't find anything much on Google about it.~~ --DannyWilde 04:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to retract the above comment. A more careful search for "water" and "sydharb" gives the strong impression that this is a real unit. Apparently it has been included in one dictionary. --DannyWilde 04:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I removed the reference because it obviously was not helpful in establishing the validity of this unit. I'd prefer it if you avoided making personal remarks along the lines of 'not very clever' because you do not know me. When we meet for a beer, then you can call me dumb, not before OK? ;) SilentC 04:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as "football fields" go, here are some examples of their use as units of measure right here on Wikipedia: David Grant USAF Medical Center, Hampton Terrace Hotel, North Augusta, Charles Graner, Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, waste management, Independent State of Rainbow Creek, sniper, Edmonton, Alberta, and Yamato (people). Gene Nygaard 03:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I can find you plenty of examples of 'poofteenth' in use and yet it is no longer represented here ;) Show me a reference where it states that the football field is a unit of measurement. Otherwise, it is just a common means of comparing the sizes of things. Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy for it to stay, I just think that the same rigorous arguments applied to Sydharb and others could also be applied to other items on this page. I'm sure that some paleontologist somewhere thought that 'lawyers' would be a funny joke too but, according to this article, it is in serious use in that field - is there a challenge to verify that, or are we just accepting it because someone said it once or read it somewhere? Why can we not accept that Sydharb is in the same vein? SilentC 04:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a random reference for football field: Units:F. It lists it as a "informal" unit of measurement. (Just for the record, I stuck the unit into this page, I've got nothing against the Sydharb, nor do I want to get pulled into the argument.) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good enough for me!! SilentC 05:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue seems to be settled, but I'll just add an independant corroboration. I have heard the unit "sydharb" used for at least 30 years, only ever in a serious context, and it appears in my 1981 edition of the Macquarie Dictionary. Stephen.frede 12:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Attoparsec

What on earth does "it comes in disguise" mean? Chick Bowen 02:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Back in the early revisions of this page, it meant "Technically this should not be on this page, because it is a real SI unit. However, it is a canonical example of a unit that is never used except to emphasize its deliberate oddness." A rewrite of that sentence is certainly in order. Jonrock 07:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Winger, Shudder

These 'units' of measurement have NO Google hits whatsoever except Wikipedia and answers.com, which mirrors the Squick article. With no verifiable source beyond the person who contributed, PLUS the fact that the MilliWinger is up for an AfD and most likely will be removed from the site, I've removed the units from this article as well until and if someone can provide a verifiable source beyond "Well, my friends and I use the terms" or some such nonsense. Nezu Chiza 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

KKK system

I don't think we should be so quick to remove the KKK system section. I understand that it has connotations to the Ku Klux Klan, but, being in another language, it would have no relation at all. Take a look at the Finnish wikipedia: Kyynärä, Kuukausi, Kannu. Altho, despite these being real units, it still my be a hoax. Zhatt 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Distance

Is the "Distance" a hoax? It is not listed at [2] and the closest thing that I could find in the OED was a length (in horse-racing) that varies depending on the track. Ardric47 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's real. See Cecil Adams' "Straight Dope" books, its where I got it from. I trust Cecil, if he says its true, it should be.Rt66lt 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Perhaps a better name for this article might be "List of unusual units of measurement"? "Strange" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Fragglet 14:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

...or alternatively, how about esoteric units? --Chrisd87 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm... that brings to mind units used in mystical rituals. Grutness...wha? 09:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second the use of "unusual," as it is less POV than "strange." —tregoweth (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kilowatt-hour

Do you suppose kilowatt-hour as a mesurement of energy should be mentioned here? – b_jonas 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? It is a commonly used derived SI unit. What is strange about it? Kusma (討論) 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the 3600 seconds of the hour cancel out with one second in watt (kg·m²/s³) is indeed a bit strange (1 kW·h = 3.6 MJ = 3.6E6 kg·m²/s²); the joule is the SI unit of energy. The use of the hour, not being decimal, is not very scientific, but not that strange. Christoph Päper

That's not strange at all...and the hour is "accepted" by the SI. Ardric47 05:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the usual SI derived units, any unit with any non-decimal factor is at least a bit strange (including the minute and hour). A little less strange are irregulary decimal derived units like the bar, ångström and are. Furthermore, nobody would use kg·m²·s/s³ (rather kg·m²/s²), but some people still are using watt-seconds or kilowatt-hours in place of joules. Christoph Päper 13:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing strange about the kWh. It was for a long time (maybe still is) the standard unit under which electricity is billed in the UK. Rhialto 04:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kiel

The only source I can find for this supposed unit of measurement is a single weblog, http://www.jroller.com/page/rolsen/20051231. Can anyone provide a more reliable source, since otherwise I'll be deleting this entry as a neologism started by someone about their friend. Nezu Chiza 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Better organisation of the article

The present alphabetical organisation of the article could be improved upon IMHO by splitting the article into four sections:

Real units - unconventionally scaled (eg attoparsec - a perfectly legitimate unit - but scaled strangely).
Units for things that are conventionally impossible to measure (Happy, Helen, Warhol, etc)
Units of comparison (cigarette, Wales, hairsbreadth, sydharb).
Obsolete units used in a modern context (hogsheads per fortnight, etc)

Comments? SteveBaker 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but your fourth item should probably come second. Christoph Päper 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reorg'ed the article as discussed. SteveBaker 18:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What should go on this page.

Should "Cut-lunch-and-a-water-bag" be on this list? It really isn't a unit of measurement but seems to be an expression. That is, I don't think anyone would refer to n Cut-lunch-and-a-water-bags. JoshuaZ 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Carrier Pidgeon with Flash memory

The comparison of the bandwidth of a carrier pidgeon (strictly a 'homing pidgeon') holding a flash memory cart - versus the bandwidth of 'the Internet' (whatever that means) is not valid - so I removed it. You may be interested to know why.

Would it be because there's no such thing as a "pidgeon", perhaps? Try 'pigeon'. 194.72.81.2 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The bandwidth of a carrier pidgeon depends critically on the distance. A pidgeon flies at about 30mph over long distances - although a lot depends on wind speeds and directions. It could perhaps carry a 1Gbyte flash memory chip. Over 30 miles, that would be a bandwidth of 1Gbyte/hour which is 2.2 Megabits/second - considerably better than many people's modem connection - perhaps better than a typical broadband link.

However, try it over 300 miles. The pidgeon now takes 10 hours to fly that far and it's bandwidth is now down to 220Kbits/s - still better than a 56kbit/s modem - but now a lot worse than a broadband connection to the Internet will manage.

Now try getting to 3000 miles. The poor pidgeon can't really fly more than ~1500 miles and their homing instincts fail when the distances are very great. So we're going need to switch pidgeons halfway - but still - it's gonna take about 100 hours - at least 4 days - to ship a Gigabyte 3000 miles by homing pidgeon. That's a fairly pathetic 22Kbits/s which is easily out-performed by even a fairly clunky dialup Internet connection.

Now, you may dispute the density of flash memory chip that the bird could carry - or argue that a racing pidgeon can fly at 60mph for short bursts - or you might argue about what bandwidth it is competing against when we talk about "the bandwidth of the Internet" - but that's not the point. The point is that the pidgeons bandwidth depends on the distance it has to fly and the Internet has approximately the same bandwidth irrespective of distance. Hence we can nearly always find a distance at which the Internet is faster and one where the pidgeon wins...no matter what numbers you pick as the size of a flash memory chip or the bandwidth of the Internet.

Hence we cannot compare the two meaningfully. SteveBaker 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: If the unit of measurement specific the distance that the pigeon is traveling would that be better? So for example, if it were always presumed to be through a 10 mile wormhole with no wind or something like that. JoshuaZ 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps if "Homing pidgeon through a wormhole with a flashmemory in it's beak" were an unusual unit of measurement - then we could include it - but it isn't, and WP:NOR definitely applies here! SteveBaker 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously yes, the point was more to see under what circumstances you would consider it acceptable. JoshuaZ 00:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess if people said "When I access this web site that's 30 miles away, my connection's bandwidth is 0.1 FMHP's (flash-memory-homing-pidgeons)" - then one could count a homing pidgeon as a unit - but they don't - so it isn't. However, that's not why I deleted that line from the article. I deleted it because it's demonstrably not true except over very short distances - and because it doesn't say the size of the flash memory or what is meant by 'the bandwidth of the Internet' (Which piece of it? All of it? My connection to it? What?). SteveBaker 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Raise the bar

We seriously need to raise the bar for notability in this article. Might I suggest that all units that are not commonly known or are not supported by references be moved to Talk:List of strange units of measurement/Candidates, and that they only be moved back for the case that proper references for notability be included. Alternatively, they could be moved to the Uncyclopedia right away. -- Egil 07:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good thing. JoshuaZ 07:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mile A Minute ???

My grandmother always used "a mile a minute" to describe someone or something doing something fast. I.e., "he was speaking a mile a minute" to indicate a person was speaking fast. Technically, a mile a minute = 60mph. Is this common? If so, should this be included? 24.222.121.193 23:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I guess it is common: http://www.answers.com/a+mile+a+minute&r=67. So, should it be included?

Discussion to Clarify/Organize Subject Matter

As I see it, most entries on this page fall under one of the following categories (obviously not a unique decomposition, some overlap):

Culturally-standard descriptions. Of course, varies place-to-place.
- Standard comparisons: Things that people routinely compare to for a sense of magnitude. Size of Wales, length of a football field, height of the Empire State Building, cost of a cup of coffee, etc.
- Hyperbole: Common phrases that people use to express "very X". Snail's pace, hairsbreadth, mile-a-minute, stone's throw etc.
- Informal units with procedural definition: Things like measuring distance by the time it takes to smoke a cigarettes, or by the number of farsees. Intended as an actual measurement, not just hyperbole.
Joke and editorial units
- Created units: Invented to be funny or make some editorial point, or both. Some are well-defined and could actually be used, such as a smoot. Others are not, such as hobo power, the warhol, etc.
- Unconventionally scaled common units: Some of these are attempting to get humor simply from obfuscation, such as in hertz per dioptre or attoparsec. Others are simultaneously trying to make other points, as in light-nanosecond, nanocentury, and nanoacre.
- Modern usage of obsolete units: These units aren't unusual in themselves, but modern usage is. The FFF system, etc.
"Actual" units (not culturally-standard descriptions or comical effect)
- For measuring arcane subject matter: The morgan, the langley, the jansky, etc.
- Obscure or obsolete units: Board feet, grave, etc.
- Strange definitions: Assay ton.

I bring this up for two reasons:

It seems it would be useful to separate these three types of measurements, as they are distinct ideas. Could be done by reorganizing, of course. But it seems to me that three separate articles is warranted (with better names, hopefully). Unfortunately, the final category--actual unusual units--seems very uninteresting. Especially since arcane, obscure, and obsolete aren't "unusual" in any sense except "uncommon". And that hardly seems notable.
Even with no reorganization, perhaps we can decide which kinds of units, or sorts of each kind, we wish to include on this page, so as to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Ideas? Comments? Accusations? Jrohrs 08:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a stellar analysis. I disagree that category 3 is uninteresting, as this category contains the items that have gone beyond social constructions to become artifacts of engineering practice. Jonrock 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

someone wanna add a smoot?

It's already here.--MARQUIS111 11:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The milliHelen: not a hoax

I personally remember my Dad telling me this joke way back when I was a kid, but that's hardly a citation. After a bit of searching, I've tracked down a reference from 1985: it is defined in the glossary of a humorous book called "Science made stupid", by an author called Tom Weller, which won the 1986 Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book.

The author's website is at http://www.tweller.com/. It links to a partial (abridged) mirror of the book at http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html. The definition of a milliHelen is at http://www.besse.at/sms/glossary.html.

This does not imply that the author coined the phrase himself, it may have been extant at the time. But how long does something have to have been in common usage before it's no longer considered a hoax? The main page of this article has a boxout, but there's no discussion on the subject here. It's certainly a joke unit, but it's a hoary old joke unit. I believe it's as well qualified as many of the other entries.

I've heard and used it jokingly as well. It's not a hoax. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of it independently a few times before. I think if a few people who've commented here have heard about it, then it's not a hoax. I've removed the hoax box. --James Hales 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerk section: suspected hoax

I suspect this section to be a hoax. No verifiable source, and it seems highly unlikely that astrophysics should use units convenient for nuclear weapons - there ought to be too many orders of magnitude in between. --DrTorstenHenning 08:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, according to Wikipedia jerk means rate of change in acceleration. Of course, that wouldn't prevent it from being a unit of measurement as well.Rich 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, physicists usually don't like mixing up names of quantities and names of units. As for the quantity jerk, I must confess that I am highly suspicious of Wikipedia as a source, especially if the article on jerk has an external link to a page on which it says (about some quantities, including the Shake): "Needless to say, none of these are in any kind of standards, yet. We just made them up on usenet." --DrTorstenHenning 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly heard of the "shake" in the context of nuclear weapons, well before the advent of the usenet. The shake already has its own wikipedia page shake See also http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictS.html. On that basis, I have removed the "disputed" flag. However, I cannot verify its use in astrophysics. Jrvz 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of the "jerk" as a unit though - nuclear weapon yields are always given in units of tons (of TNT). Incidentally, this is one of several definitions of "ton" that could be added to this page, see http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictT.html Jrvz 23:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a hoax. Both 'jerk' and 'shakes' are terms that have been used by astrophysicists and weapons physicists within the original poster's hearing. Tons of high explosive is a conventional method for describing nuclear events, but is not as conducive to order-of-magnitude estimation as the jerk. The jerk is not commonly used in proper publications, but the definition may be found on line 160 of http://nuclear.llnl.gov/CNP/apt/apt/aptconm.html. This link is a Fortran subroutine used by the Computation Nuclear Physics group at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the express purpose of defining natural constants and conversion factors for Monte Carlo simulation. As for the objection about orders of magnitude, until we are capable of igniting our own stars, experimental astrophysics will have to be somewhat more conservative in energy. (And don't you dare say 'experimental astrophysics' is a hoax, either.) --Jerhill 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the link (a little further down the code), 1 jerk=1 GJ. I do not think that life becomes so much easier when one simply replaces the term "gigajoule" by "jerk", so I'd like to see if there is any indication of an established use of this unit outside a rather narrow community. Otherwise, I would consider the term "jerk" simply to be a neologism in this context, and not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. The use as an abbreviation in program source code is not enough of an indication for me. --DrTorstenHenning 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerhill, by whom or at what institutions etc is experimental astrophysics being conducted? Are there experiments in that field that don't involve nuclear explosions? Can you give a list of people who consider themselves experimental astrophysicists and where they have published? I'm afraid your phrasing "don't you dare" makes me dig my heels in. It is a reasonable field of study, especially in the future. But with all due civility, you could be pulling our legs. Rich 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerk: you may consider it a neologism (even though it predates the SI system and the general usage of the prefix 'giga',) but as it is a working term used for half a century across several institutions, I think it can hardly be dismissed as irrelevant. In contrast with 'barn-megaparsecs' and 'hobos' this is a real word used by real scientists to produce real (and rather dramatic) results. I suppose if it wasn't used by a 'narrow community' it wouldn't belong on a list of 'strange units.'

More references for jerk:

Experimental astrophysics:

etc. etc. The first link has an explicit list of experimental astrophysicists and their publications. (First item from googling "Experimental Astrophysics papers.") "Don't you dare" was meant as a jibe, considering a simple google of the phrase "Experimental Astrophysics" should indicate that I am not pulling anyone's leg. -Jerhill 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rich 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Graham and Barr

Section is unsourced. At best it is not encyclopedic or merciful. At worst it could be a clever lie by someone with a personal vendetta. Also, it could get Wikipedia in legal trouble.Rich 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.perldesignpatterns.com/?MilliGraham mentions one, but not that much. You'd have to find an IRC group and ask them. 68.39.174.238 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not notable then.Rich 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Graham Barr himself was aware of the measurements, and his reaction seems more one of honor than of insult. However, yes, since it's not widespread, I can see that a removal is appropriate. No hard feelings. --Randal L. Schwartz 01:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortnights aren't obsolete

a rather large, obsolete unit (fortnight)

This must be some strange meaning of the word "obsolete": most of the rest of the English-speaking world is happily still talking about fortnights, you know. The Wednesday Island 00:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every Western household has a bible?

"Since nearly every Western household has at least one Christian Bible, and the Bible is a comparatively long book, it was often chosen for this purpose." Really? I'm sure it's a book that most Westerners have heard of, and probably have a rough idea of its length. But I'd need to see a very reliable source to be convinced that "nearly every" household has one, even for loose interpretations of "nearly every." How about a qualifying remark in there?

The Slug

Why would someone use this unit of measurement for mass. Newtons work just fine for me, let alone the poundals, i don't even want to get into that!

The unit of mass in the foot-pound-second (British engineering) system, equal to the mass that will require an acceleration of 1 ft/s when subjected to a force of 1 pound. It is therefore equal to 1 lb s ft, 32.1740 pound-mass or 14.5939 kg

External link: Recipe

Just something that uses this page that might be an interesting link: Sagans and Sagans of Chocolate Chip Cookies