Talk:FFF system

Deletion

• So i see the article is proposed for deletion. This system is mentioned elsewhere in wikipedia, and i just started it hoping to improove it. Once i finish linking the base units page to this page, i will go do more research on the subject. Give it a week before deletion please. At least see its potential first. Also, the FFF system is not something 'made up at school one day'. A quick google search of "Furlong Firgin Fortnight" reveals pages and pages of relevent results. While completely nonpractical, the FFF system is still noteworthy and deserves an entry in wikipedia. Burkeyturkey 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• After considerable expantion, i have removed the deletion warning. If anyone still feels that this subject is not up to wikipedia standards, i look forward to friendly discussion here.Burkeyturkey 01:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, this is real, if only a joke. I prod'ed it just because it looked like many of the other made-up Wikipedia articles. eaolson 14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be real and only a joke, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worthy encyclopaedia material. We just need to dig up a couple of reliable sources that make significant references to it, though. --McGeddon 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How can an encyclopedia include Shire Reckoning but leave out Furlong Firgin Fortnight?Matdaddy 01:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can agree that the FFF System is noteworthy. I also realize that it might be better suited merged into a pre existing article. Does it need its own page? before this page all you got at the FFF disambiguation page was a link to the table of the units. Does FFF deserve its own page?Burkeyturkey 03:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article on List of unusual units of measurement in which the FFF system is noted, so I don't see any harm in having a separate page for it if we can fill in more detail. Malathos 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia can include an entry for 'ecky thump', without threat of deletion, then I don't see why FFF is deserving of deletion. Please remove the deletion proposal, whoever put it there... Peter phelps (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is playing out here - we have to wait for it to play out and for an admin to give a verdict, but you're welcome to leave a comment on that page if you have anything to add. (Although WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an old, flawed argument, for what it's worth.) --McGeddon (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I think it's clear that notability has been asserted in this article. I personally believe that the topic is notable: Aside from being frequently referenced as a joke, one of the references is to a tertiary-level text. The article is not simply a dictdef, and does not attempt to trace the FFF origins with unreliable sources. I don't see anything in WP:NEO excluding this article.

That said, I also don't think it's likely that notability will be asserted any further than it currently is, so the notability tag is inappropriate. I'm going to remove the tag. If anyone wants to question the notability, it should be taken to AfD as non-notable. Mark Chovain 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The firkin

From its beginning the article has assumed a water density of 1 kg/l. Let us for a moment set this assumption aside and consider what alternatives there exist. The imperial gallon (upon which the real firkin, the volume, is based) was originally defined as the volume of 10 pounds of distilled water weighed in air with brass weights with the barometer standing at 30 inches of mercury and at a temperature of 62 °F. Hence we have a density of 10 lb/gal. This makes for a far simpler conversion to pounds (the joke is obscurity not over-complexity). It seems like a more likely conversion to me fitting in with the imperial system flavour of the metric system (the maximum density thing is a metric system one). Either way an assumption should be noted as such.

JЇѦρ 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how far you go back. The firkin is definitely measured in imperial gallons, but the size of the imperial gallon has changed over the years :D. Since 1824, the imperial gallon has been defined as the volume of 10 pounds of water at 62°F.[1]

You have alluded to an inconsistency in the conversions. You are absolutely right. While the imperial gallon is defined at 62°F, water's density is defined at 4°C. -- Mark Chovain 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Water's density isn't defined. The kilogram was defined. It was originally defined as the mass of a litre of water at maximium density (and standard pressure), which is attained just below 4 °C. The kilogram and the litre have been subsequently redefined such that the 1 kg/l measure is only approximate at maximum density. The imperial gallon was originally defined as the volume of 10 lb of water (at 30 inHg and 62 °F, the water is warmer so less dense). The imperial gallon and the pound have undergone redefinitions also so 10 lb/imp gal is also approximate. Say we go calculating the mass of a firkin of water we could take the current definitions for the pound and imperial gallon but we've still got to choose a density or a temperature and pressure. We could choose water's maximum density, we could choose 1 kg/l, we could choose 30 inHg and 62 °F, we could choose 10 lb/imp gal. There's no reason to be bound to any particular density. If we're defining the firkin (not the imperial firkin but the FFF firkin), 10 lb/imp gal would be the most sensible choice since it gives 90 lb exactly. Of course, the choice isn't up to us but to the inventors of the system but unless we can determine what their choice was (if they even made a choice) we could either make an assumption (and note it as such) or leave the conversion blank. I'd say that leaving it blank would be unhelpful so I reckon assuming a density of 10 lb/imp gal is our best bet. JIMp _talk·cont 06:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nano vs. Micro?

I don't know anything about this (although the page seems relevent to me, since I needed the info and the page was perfect), but in the first two paragraphs Nanofortnight and Microfortnight are given the same value. Is this correct or a mistake? Either way there should be a small explanation.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.146.11 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no mistake. As the article states, 1 microfortnight = 1.2096 seconds and thus 1 nanofortnight = 1.2096 milliseconds. 91.105.58.150 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Electricity

The current required to generate a force of two furlong·firkin/fortnight² (~11.22 nN) per furlong between two parallel conductors one furlong apart is ~237 mA.

Or, more in keeping with the spirit of the system, one could simply use either the faraday [mole of electrons] (96.5 kC - per fortnight = 79.7 mA) or the franklin [statcoulomb] (333 pC, per fortnight = 275 aA) as the unit of charge.

This is of course all OR, but on the other hand I've seen an actual "Furlong/Fortnight/Farad/Faraday" system, whose unit of mass would be faraday²fortnight²/(farad·furlong²) which is 336 Eg (3.36×10¹⁷ kg) - substitute the franklin instead of the faraday and it is ~4 ng

OTOH for temperature the choice is simpler: Fahrenheit. --Random832 (contribs) 21:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose for angular measure we could define a "fortnight of arc" to be 336 degrees. Solid angle can be measured in "fractions of the sphere", so that one's OK. We should really document this discussion somewhere, it's off-topic for the talkpage and original research for the article! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For the base unit of quantity, instead of the mole we could use the "few," equal to 3. So now we have the furlong, firkin, fortnight, farad, arc fortnight, fraction, and the few (and the faraday which is a derived unit). The unit of force should be the force, equal to the firkin furlong / fortnight². There should be a unit of luminosity (like the candela) and one of heat (like the calorie), and one of area (like the hectare). What else . . . pressure? Work? Power? There are LOTS of SI units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.132.197 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A furlong is 1/8 of a mile, an acre is defined as a furlong (660 feet) by a chain (66 feet, or 4 rods). So area is already covered, just not by an 'f' unit. A subunit of the furlong could be the fathom (6 feet, or 1/110 of a furlong). Perhaps light could be related to the old flashbulb. Nerfer (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same (i.e. the faraday). The franklin is interesting too; this would give a system compatible with the equations for cgs units. Fahrenheit goes without saying. The fortnight of arc i.e. 14×24° (a minute of arc being a 1⁄60 of a degree), that's interesting. I dunno, the "few" seems too few (and why three?). The luminosity unit could be called the "fire". Seven base units would be fine everything else can be derived, e.g. area would be the square furlong (10 acres), energy would be the firkin square furlong per square fortnight (work and heat are just forms of energy, there's no need for seperate units). JIMp _talk·cont 07:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass or volume?

In everywhere else I've checked, including Wikipedia and a dictionary (that's right, everywhere), the firkin is defined as nine imperial gallons, which is a quarter of a barrel.

Surely that depends on the size of the barrel? Markb (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the firkin is 9 imp gal in the normal world but in the FFF system it refers to the mass of a firkin of water. JIMp _talk·cont 14:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to define the mass of a firkin using a more obscure version of the stone, such as a wax stone (12 lb.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.179.201 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Density

When mass is expressed in the weight of a firkin of water (in firkin[?!]) then how do i state Density (mass per Volume) in the FFF-System (and how do i make shure it is not mistaken for a mass per mass percentage (fraction))? 139.18.183.181 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Firkins per cubic furlong. EmleyMoor (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fortnight

Since when is "fortnight" an obscure term? Markb (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the United States is a major English-speaking country. It's almost never used here. --Carnildo (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, "if it doesn't relate to the USA, it's obscure". Should we put this on the main page? Markb (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When three-quarters of the world's native English-speakers have never heard the term, it's obscure. --Carnildo (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

57.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Markb (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This one wasn't: it's a synthesis of information in United States, English language, and fortnight, and checked against my personal experience. --Carnildo (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Using obscure words like "synthesis" doesn't make something right! Markb (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Err - fortnight is in common usage in the UK, Australia, and other Commonwealth countries. -- Mark Chovain 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

... many from the european mainland consider Stone, kilopond per square-inch, gallons and even yards rather obscure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.183.181 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, kindly note that Americans are even less likely to be familiar with "stone" than with "fortnight". Gambaguru (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This American has been familiar with "fortnights" since before reaching double digit ages (and that was more than a few (as defined as "3" in an earlier conversation) decades ago). I am, however, still unclear as to how many pounds are in a stone but do instantly recognize a stone as a unit of weight. --Khajidha (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There are also fourteen, FWIW, but no one uses them outside the UK (even in the other Commonwealth countries, from what I've heard). Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Radial velocity

The examples given include the speed of 1 m (3 ft 3.370 in) long clock hands. "Speed" here is not correct really, because the clock hands have radial velocity, not speed. It should say "the distance traced by the tip of a clock hand..."

Incidentally, I see the system has no supplementary measure for plane or solid angles; the angular mil and could perhaps be employed to extend the system. Si Trew (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Outdated?

I removed the reference to the base units being 'outdated' as they are still in use, and replaced them with the term 'unusual'. Markb (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fortnight units

Why is the time listed in Seconds for SI and days for Imperial? This implies that day belongs to the Imperial system. I get that it is matching the rest of the table, but it doesn't make any sense to me. I feel like a note should be added stating that it isn't Imperial or the cell should have an N/A in it. lukini (talk | contribs) 16:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

f.q.

Do we have a cite on the abbreviation for fortnight? —Wiki Wikardo 17:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fred Flintstone Format

Google has found "FFF stands for Fred Flintstone Format" (which is mm/dd/yyyy). 94.30.84.71 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FFF system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060306161426/http://www.uk-rec-sheds.org.uk/faq60.txt to http://www.uk-rec-sheds.org.uk/faq60.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Luminosity

There are mentions of units for luminosity above. I thought perhaps we could use the pharos, the light intensity from the ancient lighthouse. It reportedly could be seen at 29 miles but I'm not sure how to relate this to candelas (or the old candle-power).

Can we promote some of the earlier suggestions regarding Farads (or Faradays), and the few, together with a luminosity unit up into the list of base units. We need seven of them to be compatible with the SI system. Beowulf (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory firkin values

The table currently says a firkin is 25.40117272 kg, or 90 lbs. That's false at a glance: 25 kg is about 56 lbs, not 90.

Elsewhere in Wikipedia, a firkin is defined as 25 kilograms when used for selling butter and cheese. The other definitions of the unit are for volume, not weight or mass, so let's follow the butter one. EACH (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

An IP changed the kilogram value (30 May 2024) as their only edit. I reverted. See note [a] given in the table. I don't know how accurate it is but it looks convincing and has been in the article for a long time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)