Bob:

You are correct. It does not mean that you can operate boats up to
200,000. The Tonnage term is left over from the old days, and refers to
how much cargo a ship can carry. The measurment of the tonnage is called
admeasurement. Our boats do not haul cargo, but still have a Tonnage
rating based on formulas.

Jeff

bob england wrote:

To be more precise, the 100 ton ticket actually uses the wording "vessels of not
more that -100- Gross Tons" in describing the vessels that the license holder
can operate.

Gross tonnage is a measurement of volume, not of displacement (i.e., weight).
The gross tonnage is the number you will find listed on a documented vessels
papers.

So, the short answer to your original question about a 100 ton license on a
200,000 pound boat is "maybe"! It all depends on what the GROSS tonnage of the
vessel is, not that the displacement is 200,000 pounds.

A gross ton is equal to 100 cubic feet of usable volume. A good description of
this can be found on the Transport Canada web site at
www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/CES/Small-Commercial-Vessels/GT.htm

For a bit of overkill on definitions of various kinds of "tonnage", take a look
at the US Navy web page at
http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/glossary.htm

Kevin Redden

Mike, you are correct, however a little more trivia is needed to bring
the discussion to a close.  This is dredged up from one of my first
Navel Architecture courses way back in the 1960's.  If I'm remembering
correctly, and given my age this is not a slam dunk given :-) back in
the olden days a "tun" was the term used to describe the cask that was
used to ship sherry from Spain to England.  So a measure of the carrying
capacity of a vessel was the number of tuns it could carry and hence the
amount of taxes/port fees etc. that could be charged against the
vessel.  You now know more than you really needed to!

Not sure what the volume of the tun was.  100 cu ft seems on the high
side for the cargo handling equipment back then, given that it was
filled with wine and must of weighed a good amount.

John Blackburn
44 DeFever "Yak Rack"
Deale, MD

Mike Maurice wrote:

Mike,

While your measure for a long ton was correct, the rest of the statement above
was a bit off. In the same paragraph you were mixing the measurment of volume
(i.e., gross tons and net tons), and measurements of weights (i.e., long tons
and short tons). This is akin to mixing apples and oranges!  :-)

2,240 pounds is not the weight of 100 cubic feet of sea water at all. Since sea
water is 64.1 lbs/cubic foot, 100 cubic feet of sea water would weight 6,410
lbs, not the 2,240 lbs. that you had thought.

Kevin

Long Ton (sometimes known as a Gross Ton, Weight Ton, or Imperial Ton) is
the name for the unit called the "Ton" in the Avoirdupois or Imperial
system of measurements, as formerly used in the United Kingdom and
several other Commonwealth countries. It has been replaced by the metric
tonne. It is equal to 2240 pounds (exactly 1016.0469088 kilograms). It
has some limited use in the US, most commonly in measuring the
displacement of ships, and was the unit prescribed for warships (e.g.,
battleships limited to 35,000 tons) in the international agreements
between the World Wars.

The standard ton in the U.S. measurement system is the "short ton", equal
to 2000 pounds (exactly 907.18474 kg). Both long and short tons are
defined as 20 hundredweights, but a hundredweight is 112 pounds (which is
equal to 8 stone) in the Imperial system (long or gross hundredweight)
and 100 pounds in the US system (short or net hundredweight).

The spelling "tonne" denotes the metric tonne of 1000 kilograms
(approximately 2204.623 pounds).

A long ton-force is 2,240 pounds-force (9,964 newtons).

Kevin Redden wrote:

-----Original Message-----
A "TON" is defined as 100 cubic feet and in maritime circles is the long
ton, not the more common short ton of 2000 lbs. The long ton is 2240
pounds. Long tons are used in maritime because that is the weight of 100
cubic feet of sea water(not fresh).

Mike,

While your measure for a long ton was correct, the rest of the statement above
was a bit off. In the same paragraph you were mixing the measurment of volume
(i.e., gross tons and net tons), and measurements of weights (i.e., long tons
and short tons). This is akin to mixing apples and oranges!  :-)

2,240 pounds is not the weight of 100 cubic feet of sea water at all. Since sea
water is 64.1 lbs/cubic foot, 100 cubic feet of sea water would weight 6,410
lbs, not the 2,240 lbs. that you had thought.

Kevin
_______________________________________________  http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to  trawlers-and-trawlering-request@lists.samurai.com  with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.

Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.