Talk:FFF system

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nano vs. Micro? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Electricity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mass or volume?

message: 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)
thread_title: Density

message: Since when is "fortnight" an obscure term? Markb (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the United States is a major English-speaking country.  It's almost never used here. --Carnildo (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fortnight 

message: The examples given include the speed of  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)
thread_title:  Radial velocity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outdated? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fortnight units 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fred Flintstone Format 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Luminosity