I've been threatening to open a new topic on Sirfiroth's post concerning the Cubit lately. Just as a followup to my presentation a couple yrs. back during May of 2015. Been a while since that discussion which was very interesting to say the least. But it also opened up a can of anomalies that I didn't elaborate on fully.
So if you think ole King Henry had a big ft. at 12 imperial inches, you should get a look at this footprint of 12.9624161 ins. Wonder who that belongs to? Not as large as that Indus Monster ft. of 13.2 ins. But definitely a close cousin I think. This ft. is the cubic of 2178 cu/ins., otherwise known as the Old Bushel capacity that predated the later Winchester bushel unit that I mentioned in my last presentation found here:
<What is funny in this instance, is that the current Winchester Bushel capacity per acre seed distribution rate, equate this amount at 9.72 seeds per sq.ft. ratio., or 11.664/12 = .972 x 10, x 43,560 sq.ft. per acre, divided by the canonical Wheat factor of 196.875 gr per cu. ins., equals 2150.619429 cubic inch Winchester bushel capacity. Some of this information, had to have been known at the time of the Winchester bushel's establishment by statute in 1670, thereabouts. But to read the reports concerning this measure, it's pretty clear that those doing the investigation don't have a clue, LOL!>
I was having a few font scalar issues when I wrote that presentation then, that I didn't understand at the time having to do with my laptop mouse pad movements expanding and contracting while I typed. LOL! Hadn't gotten the hang of using such a sophisticated contraption I had just acquired at the time of that presentation. The primary anomaly in this case being that this older bushel capacity was in ratio to the later Winchester bushel by a very familiar one I've been using for many years to calculate what I call the Polar Meridian Circumference Earth Model, which I initially discovered back in 2003 existed between the Lb. weights Avoidupois of 7000 grs. and the Troy lb. of 5760 grs. I'm thinking of changing that label to the Commercial Capacity Circumference Earth Model, since so much of what it entails, had to do with trade activities of so many ancient civilizations that continue to this day.
To make a long narrative shorter, I will use this fractional shortcut that Jacob noticed regarding this ratio of the units being 875/864 between the Imperial Ft. of 12 ins. and the Commercial Circ. Ft., also known as the ancient Meter equivalent to today's use. 12 in. x 875/864 = 12.152777 etc. ins. This larger unit x the geographic divisional system used today that comes from the remote Babylonian era of 360 degrees x 60 mins. x 60 secs. x 100 ft. per arc. sec. = 1,575,000,000 ins. / 40,000,000 parts = 39.375 ins. as the old Meter standard.
As I've also mentioned a time or two around here, I'm not the only one on this planet that has discovered this same value in their research studies. Mick Sander's, who used to post on this board for many yrs. also referenced it is his metrologic research, as well as Martin Doutre in his dissertation on ancient metrologic analysis which was published online and still is, since 2002, or a year before my own mention of this figure. Each of us used a different method to obtain the same result in this situation. But none of us at the time of discovery could integrate it into a more cohesive interface between other Earth based Geodetic models such as the late John Michell's Canonical Earth model of well reknown. John Michell's Canonical Circ. Ft. Was originally derived from a starting basis on the Greek Ft. of Samos that was in ratio to the English ft. as 126/125 or 12 ins. x 126/125 = 12.096 ins. To which he added another expansion factor of 176/175 to generate the Canonical Geo. Ft. of 12.16512 ins. This some tend to call the Olympic ft. or have their own version of that unit. In reduced ratio terms, the En.ft as 1:1.01376 ins.
So back to that anomaly I mentioned after that rather long winded refresher course on early research studies.
In my last presentation, I noticed that the Old Barleycorn bushel of 2178 cu/ins. was in ratio to the current Winchester bushel still used today in the USA, as that same factor of 875/864, since 2178 x 864/875 = 2150.619429 cu/ins. Which is what I first mentioned in my last presentation reference. How was this possible I thought then and still today?
But if that were the only mystery concerning this situation I would not have opened this new topic. Recently I discovered a second one to add to it, as that same Old Bushel capacity of 2178 cu/ins., divided by John Michell's Canonical Ft. ratio of 1/1.01376 = 2148.4375 cu/ins. Now where had I seen that figure posted before? Oh yes, here we are:
<The earliest surviving bushel prototype is a bronze vessel from Henry VII (made in 1497) of 2144.81 cubic inches; another made at the behest of Elizabeth I (1601) is 2148.28 cubic inches.1 Both can now be seen at the Science Museum in London.>
Not a lot of difference between that Queen Elizabeth bushel of 2148.24 cu/ins, and the one I just calculated is there?
Best regards to all Mysteries participants gathered here,
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20-Feb-17 10:16 by magisterchessmutt.