Talk:Tonnage

message: :A long ton measures weight. Its value is 2,240 pounds. (The common ton in use in the Imperial and U.S. systems of measurements is the short ton of 2,000 pounds.)
I don't know where the 'Imperial' in the bracketed part of the above came from but the reverse is true - the short ton is almost never used in the UK, 'ton' (and 'Imperial ton') almost always meaning the 'long' ton of 2,240lb.
:A measurement ton measures space. Its value is 100 cubic feet.
This is the Registered Ton as used in shipping, which is why ocean liners like the Titanic and the two Queens used to be measured in Gross registered tonnage (GRT), which has nothing to do with the weight of the ship (displacement) but is the amount of space the ship has for carrying cargo, in units of 100 cubic feet. The 'registered' part of the name comes from the amount of cargo space the ship was registered at Lloyds to safely use.
Warships are measured in displacement tonnage, which is why a liner like the Queen Mary appeared to weigh more than most battleships, which of course wasn't true, as what was being measured in the liner was space not weight. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.113.204 (talk • contribs) 
:Actually RMS Queen Mary did displace nearly 80,000 tons (and also measured about 81,000 tons gross).  And she therefore was heavier than the Yamato class battleships, the heaviest ever built.  But the point is correct; displacement and gross tonnage measure two different things.  And in recent years shallow draft cruise ships with large superstructures boast enormous gross tonnages on relatively modest displacements.  Kablammo 03:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Britlish

message: I've removed the following material, because for now I can't see how it fits in (the article certainly doesn't explain):
:*A measurement ton measures space. Its value is 100 cubic feet (2.832 cubic meters).
:*A freight ton also measures space. Its value is 40 cubic feet (1.133 cubic meter).
:*A long ton measures weight. Its value is 2,240 pounds (1,016.05 kg). (This is the common ton in use in Imperial measurements; the ton of the U.S. system of measurements is the short ton of 2,000 pounds (907.18 kg).)
:*A metric ton (commonly written tonne and abbreviated t) equals 1,000 kilograms.
How should this be re-introduced (if at all)?  For example, I think "measurement ton" belongs under gross/net tonnage, because one ton = 100 cubic feet in those systems (as far as I know).  So where does "freight ton" come in?  I think the definitions of "long ton" and "tonne" should simply be left to the long ton and tonne articles.
As for the paragraph "Gross Tonnage ... is often expressed in gross tons, measurement tons, or cubic meters."  Quite apart from being absurdly circular, isn't this just totally wrong?  Isn't one gross ton equal to 100 cu ft? — Johantheghost 19:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found some references, and had a go at re-doing all the above.  I think freight ton belongs in ton. — Johantheghost 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of "ton" 

message: No mention seems to have been made of "old measurement" and "new measurement" which were used to describe ships in the 19th century (perhaps just in Britain?). I agree that there has been a ridiculous number of different systems in use over the centuries!
When a book lists "registered tonnage" I assume it means gross, not net?
Some mention perhaps needs to be made of exactly which dimensions were used for which tonnage measurements.
Also, in military use, there was nominal displacement, standard displacement etc. which were designed, in one case, to hide the amount of water torpedo protection used by British ships, and so excluded internal water. These are perhaps interesting historically but I've not enough information to do them myself.
SpookyMulder (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: some questions etc.

message: There has been confusion about this term in the article, with at least two incorrect wikilinks. With regard to ships, "stores" are consumable materials on board, except fuel, that have to do with the operation of the ship. Stores include drinking water, food, maintenance materials, repair parts, etc. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article that describes this, so the links have been bad. Lou Sander (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stores 

message: These coefficents used in calculation of GT and NT will be calculated using the formula specified in the convention and will have some value, for eg: K1 will be between 0.22 to 0.32 depending on ship's size. 
Could you advise, what does these coefficents actually mean? What exactly does it mean, when the factor say, K1 is multiplied to total volume to get GT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.197.51 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coefficients K1, K2, K3 

message: yeah that does seem odd. Looking at the Tun (unit) article my guess is it was defined as "252 wine gallons" (which I guess is US gallons), and someone converted this to SI, but decided SI should be the primary unit displayed. I think it should say something like "Historically, tonnage was the tax on tuns (casks) of wine by King Edward I that held 252 wine gallons (954 litres) of wine". It would be nice if we had a source so we don't have to apply guesswork and OR. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Would Richard I have been using US gallons? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but he would have called them wine gallons, not US gallons. The US never adopted all the other gallons, just the wine gallon, and since they only had one they just called it the gallon. When the UK switched to imperial gallons around 1820, the US kept the wine gallon. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Than you for explaining (it wasn't clear to me from the article). Once we find a suitable source, perhaps we can clarify that point too. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval use of litres 

message: There's no need to get huffy. My only objection was that "Gross register tonnage" and "Net register tonnage" don't belong in the "Current maritime units" section, because they're not currently used. I'm happy with the way you've got it organized now. Please try to assume good faith. GA-RT-22 (talk)
: Nope. You're the one getting huffy here, taking things personally, and forgetting to assume good faith. Literally my comment was solely about the poor organization created and alternatives for how to deal with it. You had baldly stated that your changes were to reflect that the moved units were solely historical but left a current measurement in the section you moved, etc. — LlywelynII 01:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections