Talk:Stone (unit)

Usage

This page contradicts itself - "formerly used in Ireland", and "the stone remains almost universal for use in Britain and Ireland" -- Mongboola

no one actually uses stones for weight descriptions. where are you getting this flawed information? 135.214.66.240 23:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you American, perchance? *I* certainly do. I suppose the flawed information would be my life, then. —Wereon 09:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my fellow countryman's statement. We're not all ugly Americans. I promise. ;) What the article has to say is surprisingly true: over here on this side of the Atlantic, a stone is just something you can skip over a pond. Many Americans you might ask wouldn't even realize it was a measure of weight at all in much the same way as a former professor of mine was utterly shocked when a classmate described themselves as weighing 170 pounds. He honestly didn't know what they meant.

All that said, I'm not sure this article should still be classified as a stub. Perhaps the unit's relation to international pounds and use as a measure of body weight with a "see also: pounds (avoirdupois)" would be enough? --Southpaw018 15:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The stone's relationship to pounds is already quite clearly expressed in the opening paragraph of the text, and the second paragraph describes the use of stones and pounds together. In addition to the discussion stating that its only current use is for body weight, it is already linked in the "See also" section to both human weight and the more general body weight. It is categorized in the relevant categories Category:Units of mass and Category:Imperial units. Geographical distinctions in usage are also set out.

Therefore, because I think it is right and because your criteria for doing this have already been met, I am removing the stub classification. Gene Nygaard 16:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not true that everyone in Britain measures their weight in stones. I use metric and so do a few people that I know. I have amended the word 'universally used' to say 'widely used'. My sister is a secondary school teacher, who tells me that most of her pupils think almost entirely in metric and would tend to give their weight in kilograms.Blaise 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I admin on a site based in the UK and the term 'stone' is used in an off-and-on basis. HalfShadow 02:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

11st 4lb vs. 10st 1lb ?

Pardon me for butting in, but is there a reason why the weight used keeps changing from 10 stone 1 to 11 stone 4 and back again? Richard B 22:30, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty senseless to me; that's why I keep reverting it. An additional problem was Chaosfeary's "1 pounds" the first time he arbitrarily changed those numbers. Gene Nygaard 23:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

11 stone 4 is Leopold Bloom's weight in James Joyce's Ulysses. (It's given early in the Ithaca episode.) Maybe there's a literature buff who keeps changing it? Bschak 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a 32 year-old Canadian, and I'm thankful for this "STONE" information. I was just watching a television program filmed in London, and the dialogue went something like this: 'With renewed energy and more interest in the bedroom, after 8 weeks Christopher lost nearly 3 stone.' I had absolutely no idea what that meant, or that 'stone' meant a measurement of weight. I had to search several places, but 'stone' is such an ambiguous word, and I was getting nowhere until I found this entry here on Wikipedia.

In the AC/DC Song "Whole Lotta Rosie" The lyrics went as follows. Never had a woman, never had a women like you. Doin' all the things, doin' all the things you do. Ain't no fairy story, ain't no skin and bone. But you give it all you got, weighin' in at 19 stone.24.115.227.252 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Justin

Mass vs. Weight

Isn't the stone the Imperial unit of mass? Mass and weight are not the same thing. This should be discussed. Shouldn't this page be Stone (mass)?

Hello. Please, sign your comments. You are right that mass and weight are not the same thing. A stone is definitely a unit of weight. At sea level on Earth, a 63.5-kilogram person weighs ten stone. Far out in the vacuum of space, far from any sources of much gravity, that same person would still have 63.5 kilograms of mass—but 0 stone of weight. Or, on Earth's moon, that same person would have only about 2.33 stones' weight. This is why the article is called "Stone (weight)". — President Lethe 23:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely you meant "A stone is definitely a unit of weight."? —Wereon 11:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! Sorry! I'll fix that. Thanks for pointing it out! — President Lethe 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)\

But the article says The stone is a unit of mass. Should this not be weight? – Pedantic79 ^(talk) 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it now. :-) — President Lethe 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It’s defined in terms of the kilogram (not the newton nor kilogram-force alias kilopond), so it’s definitely a unit of mass. The distinction is of course moot for the usual applications of stones. That’s probably why noöne cared yet to move the article. Christoph Päper 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your source is MISTAKEN. Then what? My opinion: ALL references to mass should be removed from this article. This self-centric over-academic discussion is unbelievable. Drop your classes and go see some reality.96.226.204.58 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's defined as about 6.36 kilograms only under normal conditions at sea level on Earth. The stone is a unit of weight. A unit is a unit of weight if the number of that unit that an object has changes on the basis of the gravity field that the object is in; a unit is a unit of mass if the number of that unit that an object has does not change on the basis of the gravity field that the object is in. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter: Your amount of matter doesn't change if you move from the Earth to Earth's moon; your kilograms stay the same. But how far down you press on a weight-measuring scale does change. Human-defined units of weight and mass are interchangeable only under normal conditions on Earth. — President Lethe 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the stone is defined as exactly 14 avoirdupois pounds (not pound-force). An avoirdupois pound is exactly 0.45359237 kg today and nothing else. The kilogram is the SI base unit of mass. Therefore the stone is a unit of mass. Period.

A common scale of course measures force, but displays mass based upon some local value of g. It needs to be recalibrated when used somewhere with significantly different gravitation.

Imagine the avoirdupois units etc. were units of force. In that case when you brought the national prototypes that had been send out throughout the former English empire together in one place all would have to show slightly different results on the same scale. This isn’t the case, because they were made by comparison to the first prototype.

There also was a fixed relationship between the avoirdupois pound and the imperial gallon under specified condidtions (density, temperature, pressure), which only makes sense when the pound is a unit of mass, because otherwise the imperial units of volume would depend on gravitation, too.

In conclusion the number of your stones doesn’t change on a mountain, at the equator nor on Mars (although a non-recalibrated scale might imply the opposite, use a balance instead). — Christoph Päper 19:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your post, but it contradicts everything else I've ever read on this subject in reputable source—e.g., science textbooks (from all levels of education), various other non-fiction works on the matter, general encyclopedias, &c. The "Weight" article from the 2001 Standard Edition CD-ROM of The World Book Encyclopedia, for example, reads

Weight is the gravitational force put forth on an object by the planet on which the object is located. The weight of an object depends on (1) the distance from the object to the center of the planet, (2) the mass (amount of matter) of the object, and (3) the mass of the planet.

An object's weight is largest if the object is on the surface of the planet. The weight becomes smaller if the object is moved away from the planet. The object has no weight in space, where the gravitational force acting on it is too weak to be measured. If the object were to penetrate inside the planet, its weight would also be smaller.

The mass of the planet also affects the weight of objects on its surface. If the planet has a mass smaller than Earth's, its gravitational force is also smaller. For example, a man who weighs 200 pounds (91 kilograms) on Earth would weigh only 76 pounds (34 kilograms) on Mars. He would weigh 180 pounds (82 kilograms) on Venus and 516 pounds (234 kilograms) on Jupiter.

Common units used to measure weight are the ounce and the pound. The gram and kilogram are units of mass that are also used to measure weight in the metric system.

Metric units are for both weight and mass; but ounces, pounds, and stones, are for weight only. This is why we can say that the 91-kilogram person on Earth weighs 34 kilograms on Mars and that that person continues to have a mass of 91 kilograms on Mars, but we don't say that that person weighs 200 pounds on Mars.

President Lethe 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The first two quoted paragraphs are correct, but you would have to replace every occurence of “pound” and “kilogram” in the third by “pound-force” and “kilogram-force” (or rather “kilopond”) respectively. It’s the fact that force-measuring devices are commonly used to measure mass and the lax handling of terms that causes the confusion. The final quoted paragraph is utter nonsense, because it’s quite the reverse: ounce and pound have a history of being used for both purposes (“pound-mass” and “pound-force”, when explicitely distinguished), whereas the kilogram-force has fallen out of use, at least in science and engineering. The existence of an alternate term, kilopond, probably helped to reduce confusion in the metric world (it’s too easy to drop the “force” suffix).

Your conclusion contradicts the text you cite, at least you’re more correct.

Of course there are (or were) also things like the slug and the poundal to get coherent modern English systems. There used to be a table in pound (mass), that perhaps got moved to some other article lately. It showed the possibilities for English units, I’m giving it here in edited form.

	Gravitational	Engineering	Absolute	System
Unit of time	s			Metric and English
Unit of distance	m			Metric
	ft			English
Unit of mass	hyl	kg		Metric
	slug	lb (lbm)		English
Unit of force	kp (kgf)		N	Metric
	lb (lbf)		pdl	English
Newton’s 2nd law	F = m·a	F = m·a/gc	F = m·a	Metric and English
Weight of an object	W = m·g	W = m·g/gc	W = m·g	Metric and English

(g/g_c ≈ 1 on Earth.)

The international system of units (SI) is an absolute metric system. The most-used FPS system is probably the engineering one, today. Christoph Päper 09:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Christoph Päper.

You said that my conclusion contradicted the text I quoted. I figure that you mean my "Metric units are for both weight and mass; but ounces, pounds, and stones, are for weight only. This is why we can say that the 91-kilogram person on Earth weighs 34 kilograms on Mars and that that person continues to have a mass of 91 kilograms on Mars, but we don't say that that person weighs 200 pounds on Mars." This is exactly supported by what I quoted, which, in its penultimate paragraph, shows that the weight in pounds varies with gravity and that, when used as a measure of weight, the number of kilograms also varies, and, in its final paragraph, clarifies that kilograms sometimes measure mass (invariable with gravity) and sometimes measure weight (variable with gravity).

As I said earlier, I grasp what you're saying—but it contradicts everything else that has ever entered my brain on this subject. Perhaps you can quote some sources that say that the pound really, really, really is a unit of mass and that something's 'pound mass' doesn't change with gravity (and, of course, I would want something more than just a source that says that kilogram weight doesn't change with gravity and then happens to convert the kg to pounds in the same ratio as on Earth). I hope you understand that, in the matter of how human beings use words to define external concepts, when I've had years of receiving one input, and then I receive a contradictory input, I don't just instantly allow the new input to supersede the old—because each input makes sense within its own context.

Unfortunately, almost all of my printed sources are in storage right now. But I found the same encyclopedia's "Mass" article of interest:

Mass is often defined as the amount of matter in an object. However, scientists usually define mass as a measure of inertia, which is a property of all matter. Inertia is the tendency of a motionless object to remain motionless and of a moving object to continue moving at a constant speed and in the same direction. See INERTIA.

The greater an object's mass, the more difficult it is to change its velocity. For example, a locomotive has a greater mass than an automobile. For this reason, it takes more force to stop a locomotive than to stop an automobile if both are moving at the same speed.

Force, mass, and acceleration are related by Newton's second law of motion (see MOTION [Newton's laws of motion]). This law is represented by the equation F = ma, where F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration.

The unit of mass depends on the system of mechanical units used. Scientists prefer to use the Meter-Kilogram-Second (MKS) absolute system, in which the unit of mass is the kilogram (1,000 grams). Engineers prefer the Foot-Pound-Second (FPS) gravitational system, in which the unit of mass is the slug. One slug equals 14.594 kilograms.

Mass and weight are not the same thing. Weight is the force on an object due to the gravitational pull of a planet or other heavenly body. An object within a planet's pull of gravity weighs less the farther it is from the planet's surface. However, the object's mass remains constant, no matter where it is.

Conservation of mass. The law of the conservation of mass states that mass cannot be created or destroyed. This law has also been called the law of conservation of matter because scientists once thought that an object lost mass only by giving up some of its matter. However, we now know that an object also loses mass when it loses energy and gains mass when it gains energy.

In chemical reactions, the mass changes are very small. For example, when coal burns, it produces heat energy along with carbon dioxide, water vapor, and ash. This reaction results in a loss of only 0.0003 gram for every million grams of coal burned. But nuclear reactions, such as those that occur in a nuclear reactor, result in a huge release of energy accompanied by a significant loss of mass. A million grams of uranium undergoing nuclear fission loses about 750 grams.

Most of the energy lost by burning coal or fissioning uranium is reabsorbed by other atoms and becomes mass again, according to Albert Einstein's famous equation E equals m times c-squared. In this formula, E represents energy, m represents mass, and c is the speed of light. See also E EQUALS M TIMES C-SQUARED.

I also come across this article, in the same source:

Pound is a unit of weight used primarily in the United States. In science and technology, weight refers to the gravitational force on an object, and the pound is used as a unit of force. This unit also appears in the term pounds per square inch (psi), which is used as a measure of pressure. In commercial and everyday use, the term weight is understood to mean mass (quantity of matter), and so the pound is also used as a unit of mass.

In the system of weights called the avoirdupois (pronounced (av uhr duh POYZ) )system [sic], which is used to weigh most objects, there are 16 ounces to a pound. As a unit of force, the avoirdupois pound is equivalent to 4.448 newtons in the metric system; as a unit of mass, 0.454 kilogram in the metric system. In the troy weight system, used throughout the world to measure precious metals, a pound equals 12 ounces and is equivalent to 0.373 kilogram.

The abbreviation for pound is lb. The abbreviation stands for the Latin word libra, which means pound or balance. Libra was the name of a unit of weight used by the ancient Romans, and it was the name for a balance, or scale, that Romans used to measure weight. The symbol # is sometimes used for pound.

... I am becoming somewhat convinced, but only within these "In commercial and everyday use" limits.

Maybe you, I, or someone should edit this Wikipedia article to describe the triple (mass, weight, pressure) nature of the pound (and thus the stone). What think you?

President Lethe 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pounds

I hope it's not too much clutter, but I added "pounds" to the list of stone-to-kilogram equivalences, which I thought was very helpful since 14 isn't exactly the easiest number to multiply.

I don't think the list is of much use at all, because of its overly precise conversions and the fact that the weights of many people, for which stone is used the most AFAIK, are more than 75 kg. Anyone who needs a conversion should use the definition herein and a calculator (some brains feature one). Christoph Päper

Origin

Does anyone know why the British introduced the stone into the avoirdupois system (and subsequently changed the larger units -- see the avoirdupois entry)? Or why the term is "stone"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.25.30 (talk • contribs) 04:21, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology dictionary: "The British measure of weight (usually equal to 14 pounds) is from 1390s, originally a specific stone." (if that helps at all). I think the rationale behind the stone is to have a unit that is a multiple of seven; a pound of potatoes a day is a stone a fortnight, etc. Changing the definition of units so that they are integer multiples of others is not uncommon; cf. the "statute mile", which was 5280 rather than 5000 feet, and hence was an integer number of yards. —Wereon 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd heard once that a stone in the context of body weight had a much more nefarious origin. Consider that if you are weighing potatoes on a balance, a rock of the correct mass (a "stone") is a rapid way to check under- or over-weight. But when does one put a human on a balance (aside from Monty Python's Holy Grail)? When you're going to hang him. That is... I've heard that the origin of giving someone's weight in 'stone' was a way of figuring out how much counterweight you need to keep the noose from slipping! I have been searching unsuccessfully for a citation for this... but if someone can find one, I recommend adding this to the main entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.211.16 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Any particular reason why we need this ridiculous section? I can't think of a single reason why it would be of interest to anybody. —Wereon 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can think of why it would be of interest to someone; but I don't think it's a strong enough reason to keep it in the article. I wouldn't mind if it disappeared; but, as long as it's here, I'll try to keep it tidy, as I've been doing. — President Lethe 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section, there was nothing worth keeping here. --Xyzzyplugh 15:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not in USA?

I realise that stone isn't used in USA but why not? What I mean is that, historically, a lot of settlers would have arrived there from Britain and thus would probably have used 'stone' to count. So was it used at one point in the long distant past before dying out? Valenciano 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe during their time on the boat they forgot about it? Just as they forgot how to spell. 81.178.254.17 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, actually, many "U.S." spellings are either archaic British spellings such as "organization", which is the preferred Oxford variant IIRC, or variations. However, it is true, there were efforts at simplification by people such as that of Daniel Webster's famous dictionary. Frankly, I'm American, but prefer the British spellings and use them when I can. As for the origins of stone as U.S./Imperial usage, I too, am perplexed that it is not used in the U.S. and also Canada (?), which seems to use pounds unofficially when referring to body weight, which leads me to believe that the current usage of stone as a measurement in the U.K. and in Australia and New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries is relatively new, vis-a-vis the British colonization of North America. And, I always seem to find myself back at this article in an effort to find out why this is. I would be curious to know the usage in other (Pan) American British-colonized countries: Bermuda, Belize, Jamaica, etc. Though their continued close links with Britain would suggest a usage of stone if it was. --Larry G 11:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Webster? I think you mean Noah Webster. 71.205.170.70 (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

US is officially metric

The article states that the US unlike Canada has not switched to metric. That's not really true. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 designated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures for US trade and commerce, and directed federal agencies to convert to the metric system, to the extent feasible, including the use of metric in construction of federal facilities. It also created the United States Metric Board to assist in the conversion.

Most federal agencies including all military braches use metric now as a standard. Many Commercial and scientific interests use metric especially if they work internationally. The reason people assume the US never attempted to switch is that the common public resist changing just like many people in the UK still measure speed in Miles per hour but the measure distance in Kilometers. People in the US measure gasoline by the gallon and soda by the liter. Medications is CC's and ML's food ingredients in OZ's. As the article reports many people in the UK still use the old stone measure despite the switch to metric.

What is a decal?

"(a similar usage persists in Canada, decal)"

This link leads to the article about transferring designs to surfaces. Is it maybe meant to lead to Decalitre? --Art Carlson (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone is not used in Australia

I should mention that the stone is non-existant in Australia, and has been for well over 30 years. In fact, most people under 40 probably wouldn't know what it is. Many people over 40 even have long forgotten it. Unlike the UK & Canada, kilograms are the ONLY unit of measurement currently used here. It is a similar situation with Fahrenheit temperatures, where it is not only no longer used, but no longer KNOWN by the majority of people. This contrasts with feet and inches, for example, which are still fairly common (TV screens, car tire sizes, and so forth).Davez621 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This has always surprised me (British) a bit. Surely Australians see enough US stuff to know that "it's 110 degrees out there" means "it's extremely hot", even if they couldn't translate it exactly into Celsius? 86.132.137.5 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But 110 is extremely hot in Celsius as well, so what's the difference? The two could be used interchangeably without any knowledge of Fahrenheit. That's a little different then. On the other hand, if you said it's 50F outside, very few people here would know that that means it's cold.Davez621 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they shouldn't, since 50 degrees F is not cold, it's temperate ;). 32 degrees is the freezing point. 71.205.170.70 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The stone may be out of use in Australia, but it is a historical usage that is known to many living Australians, just as Fahrenheit and Australian pounds are. It's hyperbole to say that people over 40 have "long forgotten" it. Any older Australian who heard it would remember it in a flash, which is a lot different from saying they've "long forgotten" it. 221.222.124.58 (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Stone is a unit of weight, not mass.

Mass is a measure of inertia and is independent of gravity; the correct and complete term is "inertial mass". Weight is the force exerted by that inertial mass in a gravity field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.127.194 (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pffft! You don't know what you're talking about. A one stone mass is a one stone mass, whether at the equator, at the top of Mt. Everest, at the bottom of a pond, on the surface of The Moon or Mars, or floating in deep space. —Quicksilver^{T @} 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hold your horses. (All of you.) You must not confuse "mass" in the scientific definition of a physicist and "mass" in the common definition of everyday people. It is NOT the same. Nor would many be able to explain "weight" from a physicist's point of view. In German, this is better: "weight" as scientific term translates to Gewichtskraft, where "Kraft" means "force". "Weight" in everyday use translates to "Gewicht", though. -andy 92.229.108.243 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that I had settled this argument for once and for all when I dug up and published a reference to the last time that the stone was legally defined in the United Kingdom. On that occasion it was defined as being either a mass or a weight. Since Wikipedia is about verifiability WP:VERIFY, this argument has, for purposes of Wikipedia, been settled (unless of course somebody can find a definition of equal of greater authority). Martinvl (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, people, you really need to get a grip here.

Hydragyrum, there's no need to get all up in Mr. Unsigned IP's face. What he said in no way contradicted your assertion that mass is independent of gravity. So stop being a dickhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.164.32 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

st

I think the abrev. is st? --Diwas (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes of 1 March 2010

I have reverted the two changes made today.

• There was an edit war going ago on a few months ago as to whether the stone was a weight or a mass. Scientists and engineers say that it cannot be both. However British legislation stated that it was both, which in my opinion, is ridiculous. That is why the [sic] statement appeared.
• The stone was not used in South Africa in the period leading up to 31 May 1961 (the date on which it left the Commonwealth). I was there at the time and I can vouch for that fact. I believe, though I do not have references to the fact, that this situation also applied to a number of other Commonwealth countries. Martinvl (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)