Talk:Grain (unit)

message: 64 wheat grains were set to weigh as much as 45 (barley) grains, when used as a unit. That makes one wheat grain 92.158449…7 mg by modern conventions.
The math doesn't work out.  If 64 wheat grains is equal in weight to 45 barley grains, then the wheat grain would weigh less than the barley grain.  Either the weight of the wheat grain is wrong, or the ratio is wrong (perhaps it should be 45 wheat grains to 64 barley?).  I don't know which is correct, so I can't fix it. Nik42 21:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different meanings of "grain". I'll disambiguate. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the previous version was immensely confusing (I was confused myself) I repaired it with the knowledge I gained after sifting through several coin-related sites. The real barley and wheat grains are currently in the range of metric grain, i. e. 50 mg, and at the time of establishment of grain-based standard weighed even less - ca. 45 mg. There are almost no variety of grain (except for some experimental hybrids) that would demonstrate such high weight as 64,8 mg, so it is SURELY not the real barley grain that is referred to here. 78.60.54.188 (talk)
Something seems to be wrong. I have verified that the "1000 kernel weight" of modern barley is in fact typically in the range 30-45 g. It seems that the barley kernel is what we mean by the grain here. (Or does obtaining the kernel involve some non-trivial peeling process?) So apparently average barley grain masses are 30-45 mg. Similarly, average wheat grain masses are 30-40 mg.
This does not seem to fit with the conventional wisdom of historians that 4 wheat grains or 3 barley grains make a carat or siliqua, i.e. about 190 mg. So what's wrong? My guess is that mediaeval grains were even smaller, but that the largest grains of an ear (which is what we are directed to consider) are considerably heavier than the average. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what did they select? My guess is that the farmers were interested in large average size of the kernel, and in relatively uniform kernels. The maximal kernel size within an ear could theoretically even have gone down, although I doubt it. What I would like to know is: What's the typical weight of the largest kernel in modern two-row barley? (The analogous questions for wheat are interesting as well.) --Hans Adler (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond selecting for yield per unit area of land planted, I don't know. But if one selected for ease of threshing, for example, it might change the grain size inadvertently (this is called pleiotropy). I'll look into this a bit. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that this is just an old ritual formula is the conclusion to which I have come myself. Unfortunately there are some formally reliable sources which claim otherwise, so if they are wrong it would be great to have more accurate reliable sources. Can you provide any? Hans Adler 12:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added another source. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion around weights of physical grains

message: Article mentions a Tower grain, but was this actually used (eg before 1527) or is it a modern supposition ? Rod57 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

text: That is to say, it was definitely used before 1527 and is not a modern supposition. For example, Fleta (c. 1290) says, Sterlingus...qui debet ponderare xxxij. grana frumenti mediocra. This is a description of the silver penny in terms of grains. The whole weight system for silver coinage was named "Tower" because the London mint was located on Tower Hill. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

text: However, I'm finding sources that say there was no Tower grain in the Anglo-Saxon period. Apparently the wheat grain is a distinctly non-English unit and may have been introduced by Henry of Anjou. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, thanks. Henry of Anjou ? You mean Henry III of France, "Duke of Anjou from 1551 to his death in 1589" ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any evidence for use of Tower grain 

message: The  section (now called Current usage, see below) only has two citations, and they only cover minor points in the section.
On top of it, I assume the IPSC Canada ref it being used as a source for the last part of the sentence — "bullets are measured in increments of one grain, gunpowder in increments of 0.1 grains" — but the source doesn't say this at all. It uses grains as a unit for bullet mass in one section, but doesn't say they are measured in increments of one grain, nor that the unit is standard or common. It doesn't mention gunpowder anywhere at all. I have tagged it with .
The only sentence in the entire section with a valid source is the last one — "Grains are used to measure the amount of moisture per cubic foot of air, a measure of absolute humidity." The sentence preceding it may appear to be verified by the source given for the last sentence, as sometimes entire paragraphs have a single reference at the end, but this is not the case.
I don't think the material needs removing. Most of it is probably correct. It just needs citations.  I have tagged it with , and will try to add some reliable sources for the information when I have time. Any help from other editors would be appreciated.TimofKingsland (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In adding citations for this section, I've removed the mentions of gold foil and fencing. A search for gold foil on the internet reveals it is not commonly sold in grains, and without a reference, this shouldn't be here. I couldn't find any reference to the use of grains in fencing weight measurement either. The US Fencing Association uses grams throughout their rules, and don't mention grains as unit of weight anywhere. TimofKingsland (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've renamed the section to Current usage. Grains for bullet weight, archery, etc. are used worldwide. Current usage is more appropriate. TimofKingsland (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten a lot of the material in the section, and added a lot of refs. Everything is referenced now, so I've removed the  tag. TimofKingsland (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Zyxwv99 for the sources on dentistry gold foil. I've reworded the sentence from: Gold foil used in dentistry is measured in grains, but not the much thinner gold leaf used in the decorative arts.to: In dentistry, gold foil, used as a material to restore teeth, is measured in grains. [new source added]None of the sources given mention the much thinner gold leaf used in the decorative arts, they only refer to gold foil used in dentistry. While a look around the internet shows that gold leaf isn't often sold in grains (if at all), that's just my original research. "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia". It would be good to find a reliable source saying that gold leaf is commonly sold in some unit (or not in grains). But without a source, I don't see any need to mention decorative golf leaf in the grain article at all. TimofKingsland (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for Usage in North America section 

message: This article has four references to "Connor, R.D.; Simpson, A.D.C. (c2004). Weights and Measures in Scotland. East Linton" all without page numbers. Page numbers can be added with Template:Rp. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper reference  

message: from the article:
"The grain is commonly used to measure the mass of bullets and gun propellants. The term also refers to a single particle of gunpowder, the size of which varies according to requirements. In archery, the grain is the standard unit used to weigh arrows."
The term "grain" in referring to the single particle of gunpowder is unrelated to the unit of measure, and while it's true that, like sand, gun powders are generally granular, I wonder if the way this is included (that is, inserted between two instances where 'grain' DOES refer to the standard weight (or mass? I've love more clarity on that also) might tend to increase confusion.
50.50.87.116 (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad (confusing) inclusion. 

message: from the article:
"A new pound of 7680 ounces was inadvertently created by at 16 troy ounces..." That HAS to be 7680 grains, rather than ounces. I'm unsure what I might need to do to back that change up.
from the article:
"The carat was eventually set to 205 milligrains (1877), and later 2000 milligrains."
This didn't make any sense to me. I am thinking that in this part, milligrams (mg, from the metric system) is intended. If "milligrains" is a real unit (and so-called), I'm unaware of it. Further, I think it was meant to state two hundred, rather than the rather drastic two thousand written.
50.50.87.116 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Apparently a series of recent edits by Wendy.krieger  contains a number of typos. Maybe I will look at this later. Hans Adler 22:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  I fixed them up.  7680 is correct, it ought to be grains.  The other reference is to milligrams, not milligrains.  It ought be 200, not 2000, as stated.  The British carat was before this, thst 606 grains, or 151.5 carats, make the troy oz, so the carat was 3.1683168 BI grains. Many other countries had their own carats (eg prussia was 4.5 prussian grains), but it was forst set to 205 milligrams in 1877, and later to 200 milligrams.  Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors related to math / units / numbers 

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:food grain -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the barleycorn article says "Not to be confused with the grain, a related unit." It should be made clearer the reason barley seeds were used for units of weight and length. Their consistent size made it possible, the size was much more consistent than modern cultivars and varieties. Also the history of the use of the two units is obviously the same. According to this ancient book the use has followed the trade routes which took barley cultivation from India, via Ancient Arabia and Portugal to England.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KAibOR651tkC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&f=false87.102.44.18 (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Grain"