Talk:Long ton

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. 192.138.51.34 (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). --84.47.117.130 (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)

L/T ?

Do we have any reference for L/T being the symbol for long ton? I've encountered quite a few other possible symbols:

• [1] says "If it is necessary to distinguish the tonne from the British Imperial ton, use tn for the British unit."
• [2] says "Das Einheitenzeichen der Britischen Tonne ist: tn.l."
• [3] "1 Lt = 1.01605 t"

- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin

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 67.173.35.38 (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 80.7.147.13 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Make sense

The introductory phrase: Long ton (weight ton or imperial ton) is the name for the unit called the "ton" ... does not make sense. Globbet (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2010 (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)

Thank you. Your answer jogged my memory. I knew that at one time. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification asked for

Please see Talk:Ton#What is this?. Peter Horn User talk 01:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long ton. 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/20132015295500/http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/glossary.htm to http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/glossary.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Please identify the abbreviation for this unit in the article. There are three units named "ton/tonne" and it's impossible to guess which one "t" and "T" mean. Wikipedia should clearly disambiguate this. 2601:441:4680:3230:81A3:8C2B:198B:F127 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Use in Commonwealth countries

The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article. The article does not have any reference for continued use of long tons in the UK and other unspecified Commonwealth countries. What is says is that it ceased being used in the UK in 1985 (sourced), but still appears on some old road signs in remote areas (unsourced with a citation required tag). It seems very doubtful indeed that it is used in any other Commonwealth country, all of which transitioned to metric long before the UK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: and indeed the UK hasn't yet transitioned to metric. The bit about continued use in the UK is the current consensus in the article, but yes, it is poorly sourced and needs attention. And it doesn't say that it ceased being used in the UK in 1985, it says it was explicitly excluded from use for trade, which is a very different thing. And whether it was, or not, it isn't now - because in the current version of that source it is explicitly allowed for trade in the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not what the article says, nor the source, which says the opposite:

Meaning of “use for trade”.

(1)In this Act “use for trade” means, subject to subsection (3) below, use in Great Britain in connection with, or with a view to, a transaction falling within subsection (2) below where—

(a)the transaction is by reference to quantity or is a transaction for the purposes of which there is made or implied a statement of the quantity of goods to which the transaction relates, and

(b)the use is for the purpose of the determination or statement of that quantity.

(2)A transaction falls within this subsection if it is a transaction for—

(a)the transferring or rendering of money or money’s worth in consideration of money or money’s worth, or

(b)the making of a payment in respect of any toll or duty.

(3)Use for trade does not include use in a case where—

(a)the determination or statement is a determination or statement of the quantity of goods required for despatch to a destination outside Great Britain and any designated country, and

(b)the transaction is not a sale by retail, and

(c)no transfer or rendering of money or money’s worth is involved other than the passing of the title to the goods and the consideration for them.

(4)The following equipment, that is to say—

(a)any weighing or measuring equipment which is made available in Great Britain for use by the public, whether on payment or otherwise, and

(b)any equipment which is used in Great Britain for the grading by reference to their weight, for the purposes of trading transactions by reference to that grading, of hens’ eggs in shell which are intended for human consumption,

shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as weighing or measuring equipment in use for trade, whether or not it would apart from this subsection be so treated.

(5)Where any weighing or measuring equipment is found in the possession of any person carrying on trade or on any premises which are used for trade, that person or, as the case may be, the occupier of those premises shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary is proved, to have that equipment in his possession for use for trade.

The article does not mention any use in Commonwealth countries. It has not been used in Australia since 1975, and while it may have some use somewhere, I doubt it. Any unsourced material that is removed should not be restored without a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: that's the definition of 'use for trade', yes, but the act says the ton, along with most other imperial units, can be used for trade as supplementary indications. And there are no laws stopping them being used for non-trade-related purposes. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I just found that the 1985 act was revised in 1994 to allow several imperial units (including the ton) to be used once more for trade, as supplementary indications.[4] -- DeFacto (talk). 23:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Are separate articles needed for "Ton", "Short Ton" and "Long Ton"?

Added to Talk on all three. There is probably more to be gained by discussing them under a single article than by having three where the Long and Short articles don't add much. 146.198.169.223 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)