Hello GHMB,
It's been a while since I submitted a topic for review and discussion on the Board since there are so few metrologic researchers here any longer alas. However this topic is one that seems to have been overlooked for way too long. It's only been within the last year or so, that I have had the opportunity to study some of the metrologist AE Berriman's book "Historic Metrology", published in 1953. This provided great insights to many later metrologic researchers such as John Michell and others in their studies which quoted his book on occasion. On pg. 8 of this book, he described two calculation methods for obtaining the weight of a cubic inch of Gold as follows. The 1st. being a 9/10th proportion of the early Saxon Moneyers Lb. of 5400gr x 9/10 = 4860 gr., which he dubbed the Gold Mina Lb. The 2nd. method was 10 Avoirdupois ounces x 10/9 ratio, or 4375gr. x 10/9 = 4861.111gr. The discrepancy between these two calculation methods is the all too familiar Ragism Comma value of 4374/4375. What makes this 2nd. calculation more interesting is that this value of grains, also equates to the value of Roman Ft. expressed in so called British Imperial Ft. of 12ins., as the Roman Mille or mile. This value can also be calculated as 12in. x 35/36 ratio = 11.666in. x 5000 = 4861.111Ft. The term Mille or one thousand describes a pace step of 4.86111Ft. x 1000. Furhtermore it was also widely known that 75 of the Roman Mille equated to 1 degree of latitude in the circumference of the Earth according to early historians. I can't understand why this figure has been overlooked for so long in metrologic studies and discussions on the board. In the past I have made reference to this linear figure of a Roman Mille, but until I actually read Berriman's book excerpt, it never crossed my mind as to how this figure could also arise as a cubic in. of Gold in modern grain units.
I have in the past expressed what I regard as a standardized cubic inch of Water in grains being 252gr. many times before that appears to have been utilized by many ancient civilizations and cultures. The specific density of Gold to Water in this case being 4861.111gr. / 252gr. = 19.29012346. The modern calculated density of Gold is stated to be 19.32 instead of the figure I calculated. The differential in this case is the density of Water in the modern calculation is determined as 20C. or 68F. temp, whereas the initial calculation of Water density formerly utilized was a more temperate 80F. or 26.666C. The information provided on the online website called the Engineer's Toolbox found here:[www.engineeringtoolbox.com], confirms this discrepancy to a very high degree of precision. The differential density of Water per cu.ft. stated there at 20C. or the current specific density of Gold factor, is 62.316 Av. Lbs. / the density of Water at 80F or 26.666C. being 62.22 Av. Lbs. 62.316 / 62.22 = 1.0015429 x 4861.111 gr. = 4868.611268gr. / 252gr. Water, = 19.31988 ratio density, which is close enough for comparison to the stated figure in modern terms mentioned of 19.32 in this case.
This situation as helps to resolve the reported discrepancies mentioned by the explorer John Greave's studies of two particular Roman Ft. values called Statillius and Cossutius. The one he called Statillius being around 1944 units of his 2000 division English 12 in. ruler or commonly referenced being 11.664ins. And the Cossutius Ft. being around 1934 units. being 11.604ins. The former was utilized as a land area measure, whereas the latter was predominantly used as a volumetric Ft. unit. However, both are curiously connected by an early Assyrian volumetric and weight unit of a talent of 393,750gr. Which divided by a cubic in. of Water value 252gr. = 1562.5cu/ins. which has a cube rt. value of 11.603972ins. or close enough I think to Greaves stated value of this Cossutius Ft. of 11.604ins. being identical. What is more interesting in this case however, is that this earlier Assyrian talent weight, / 81 units also equals 4861.111gr. or Gold Mina as termed by Berriman, or as the case may as well be, 5000 Roman Statilius Ft. in their Mille.
Best regards,
Stephen
It's been a while since I submitted a topic for review and discussion on the Board since there are so few metrologic researchers here any longer alas. However this topic is one that seems to have been overlooked for way too long. It's only been within the last year or so, that I have had the opportunity to study some of the metrologist AE Berriman's book "Historic Metrology", published in 1953. This provided great insights to many later metrologic researchers such as John Michell and others in their studies which quoted his book on occasion. On pg. 8 of this book, he described two calculation methods for obtaining the weight of a cubic inch of Gold as follows. The 1st. being a 9/10th proportion of the early Saxon Moneyers Lb. of 5400gr x 9/10 = 4860 gr., which he dubbed the Gold Mina Lb. The 2nd. method was 10 Avoirdupois ounces x 10/9 ratio, or 4375gr. x 10/9 = 4861.111gr. The discrepancy between these two calculation methods is the all too familiar Ragism Comma value of 4374/4375. What makes this 2nd. calculation more interesting is that this value of grains, also equates to the value of Roman Ft. expressed in so called British Imperial Ft. of 12ins., as the Roman Mille or mile. This value can also be calculated as 12in. x 35/36 ratio = 11.666in. x 5000 = 4861.111Ft. The term Mille or one thousand describes a pace step of 4.86111Ft. x 1000. Furhtermore it was also widely known that 75 of the Roman Mille equated to 1 degree of latitude in the circumference of the Earth according to early historians. I can't understand why this figure has been overlooked for so long in metrologic studies and discussions on the board. In the past I have made reference to this linear figure of a Roman Mille, but until I actually read Berriman's book excerpt, it never crossed my mind as to how this figure could also arise as a cubic in. of Gold in modern grain units.
I have in the past expressed what I regard as a standardized cubic inch of Water in grains being 252gr. many times before that appears to have been utilized by many ancient civilizations and cultures. The specific density of Gold to Water in this case being 4861.111gr. / 252gr. = 19.29012346. The modern calculated density of Gold is stated to be 19.32 instead of the figure I calculated. The differential in this case is the density of Water in the modern calculation is determined as 20C. or 68F. temp, whereas the initial calculation of Water density formerly utilized was a more temperate 80F. or 26.666C. The information provided on the online website called the Engineer's Toolbox found here:[www.engineeringtoolbox.com], confirms this discrepancy to a very high degree of precision. The differential density of Water per cu.ft. stated there at 20C. or the current specific density of Gold factor, is 62.316 Av. Lbs. / the density of Water at 80F or 26.666C. being 62.22 Av. Lbs. 62.316 / 62.22 = 1.0015429 x 4861.111 gr. = 4868.611268gr. / 252gr. Water, = 19.31988 ratio density, which is close enough for comparison to the stated figure in modern terms mentioned of 19.32 in this case.
This situation as helps to resolve the reported discrepancies mentioned by the explorer John Greave's studies of two particular Roman Ft. values called Statillius and Cossutius. The one he called Statillius being around 1944 units of his 2000 division English 12 in. ruler or commonly referenced being 11.664ins. And the Cossutius Ft. being around 1934 units. being 11.604ins. The former was utilized as a land area measure, whereas the latter was predominantly used as a volumetric Ft. unit. However, both are curiously connected by an early Assyrian volumetric and weight unit of a talent of 393,750gr. Which divided by a cubic in. of Water value 252gr. = 1562.5cu/ins. which has a cube rt. value of 11.603972ins. or close enough I think to Greaves stated value of this Cossutius Ft. of 11.604ins. being identical. What is more interesting in this case however, is that this earlier Assyrian talent weight, / 81 units also equals 4861.111gr. or Gold Mina as termed by Berriman, or as the case may as well be, 5000 Roman Statilius Ft. in their Mille.
Best regards,
Stephen