|WikiProject Measurement||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
Over accurate numbers?
In the article, a few weight comparison values are referenced to the 7th decimal point. Example: "It is equal to 2,240 pounds (1,016.0469088 kg)." In most cases there shouldn't be a need to be more accurate than 1kg, where the Imperial Unit is only accurate to 1lb. This diminishes the value & meaning of the information, and can lead to a false sense of accuracy. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Changed precision to be 2-3 sigfigs. Reads much better now. --XaXXon (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- That change was not really useful. Mind you that this is an article about units, so their conversions should be as accurate as possible; if it says that one thing is equal to some other thing, then it really ought to be equal, not just "approximately equal". Everyone can round it to their heart's content, but without the precision and the accuracy of the facts, the otherwise promisingly encyclopedic article is pretty useless as a reference material. I have therefore changed it to either full precision (in almost all of the cases), or as great precision as the respective template permits it (as in the case of kg to lb conversion). --188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are many cases where conversions are needed to an accuracy of greater than 1kg. It is entirely wrong to say that the Imperial unit is only accurate to 1lb. A long ton is precisely, not approximately, 2,240 lbs. There was no false sense of accuracy.HighsideUK (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any reference for L/T being the symbol for long ton? I've encountered quite a few other possible symbols:
-  says "If it is necessary to distinguish the tonne from the British Imperial ton, use tn for the British unit."
-  says "Das Einheitenzeichen der Britischen Tonne ist: tn.l."
-  "1 Lt = 1.01605 t"
I believe that the origin of the "Ton," was for shipping liquid. 2000 lbs of liquid and the standard barrell weighed 240 lbs. Thus the ton was 2,240 LBS... Bill Davis, Plainfield, IL.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) on 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC); Please sign your posts!
- The 'ton' comes from this one: Tun - it was a unit of measurement of liquids such as wine and beer, which were widely transported by ship in these casks during the Middle Ages and later. The weight of a full tun (one filled with liquid) later gave its name to the unit of weight, the long ton. The weight of a full tun varied with what liquid was used, due to different liquids having different specific gravities, and so IIRC this 'ton' was later standardised to be the weight of a tun filled with freshwater, but I may be wrong on that.
- Later the 'ton' came also to refer to the space taken up by the tun in the ship's hold, so it effectively became a measure of volume/area available for carrying other types of cargo within the ship. This later became the Register ton, based on the internal volume of the hold and of any useful deckspace, measured in multiples of 100 cubic feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, is it correct that the long ton and the tonne are two different measurements? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely - they are units from different measurement systems. The long ton is an imperial unit defined as 2,240 lb, the tonne is a metric unit defined as 1,000 kg. Coincidentally, they happen to be approximately equal with the long ton being about 1.7% greater than the tonne. But because they represent a similar mass, one must be careful not to confuse them for being the same unit. Wcp07 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)