Horsepower (British) to Donkeypower

A horse can sustain about 0.7 hp over a working day, and briefly peak at 10–15 hp during a gallop or heavy pull. Watt's definition was deliberately generous — he wanted his steam engines to look good compared to the horses they replaced. A fit human can sustain about 0.1 hp and peak at ~1–2 hp briefly. So a horse is roughly 7× a human in sustained output, which aligns well with historical accounts of animal labor replacing human workers.

Because American engineering inherited the British unit directly — the US was a British colony when Watt defined horsepower in the 1780s. Both equal 550 ft·lbf/s = 33,000 ft·lbf/min = 745.7 W. The "international" horsepower adopted in 1956 formalised this same value. The only reason it's sometimes called "British" is to distinguish it from the metric horsepower (PS) used in continental Europe, which is 1.4% smaller.

Watt's own improved steam engines: 10–20 hp. Brunel's SS Great Eastern ship engines: 8,000 hp. The Rolls-Royce Merlin (WW2 Spitfire): 1,030–1,760 hp depending on variant. Concorde's Olympus 593 engines: 38,000 hp each (with reheat). The Rolls-Royce Trent XWB (A350 engine): about 97,000 hp. In 240 years, British engines went from 20 hp to 97,000 hp — a 5,000-fold increase.

Almost. "bhp" stands for "brake horsepower" — power measured at the engine output shaft using a dynamometer (historically a brake). "hp" can technically mean the gross figure including power consumed by accessories. Since 2005, European regulations require "net" power (engine with all standard accessories), so bhp and hp are effectively identical for modern cars. The "b" in bhp is mostly a British tradition to emphasize that the number is a real dynamometer measurement, not a theoretical calculation.

From 1910 to 1947, Britain taxed cars by "RAC horsepower" — a formula based on cylinder bore and number of cylinders, not actual power. This incentivised narrow-bore, long-stroke engines with terrible performance. A car rated at "10 RAC hp" might actually produce 30–40 real hp. The tax warped British car design for decades, producing underpowered engines that only made sense as tax dodges. The system was scrapped in 1947, but its legacy shaped British car culture for years after.

It's both. The value of 250 watts is well-defined and occasionally referenced in engineering education and humorous technical papers. It never achieved official recognition from any standards body, but it has appeared in legitimate engineering textbooks as a pedagogical tool. The unit highlights a genuine gap in the power scale — many household devices and human activities fall in the 50–500 W range where fractional horsepower feels awkward. "Two donkeypower" sounds better than "0.67 horsepower."

A real donkey can sustain about 125–200 watts (0.5–0.8 dp) of useful mechanical work over a full day, and briefly peak at 750–1,500 W (3–6 dp) during a short burst. So the unit slightly overestimates a donkey's sustained output — much like horsepower overestimates a horse. A working donkey in a developing country might turn a water pump or grain mill for 6–8 hours, delivering roughly 0.5–0.7 dp of sustained useful work.

A desktop computer (200–300 W), a bread toaster on low setting (250 W), a box fan on high (200–250 W), a sewing machine motor (250 W), and a human cycling at a moderate sustainable pace (200–250 W). It's a delightfully human-scale unit — roughly the sustained mechanical output of one fit person, or the electrical draw of one modest appliance. Your entire body at rest produces about 0.35 donkeypower of heat.

There's "manpower" (about 75 W sustained, or 0.3 dp), which was used in ancient and medieval engineering for human-powered machines like treadwheels and capstans. "Oxpower" appears in some agricultural texts at roughly 500 W (2 dp). None are standardized. Some engineers have jokingly proposed "hamster power" (~0.5 W, so 0.002 dp) and "ant power" (~10⁻⁵ W). The zoo of animal power units perfectly illustrates why SI standardisation was necessary.

It would actually make more sense for many applications. A blender at "3/4 horsepower" sounds industrial; "2 donkeypower" is more honest and relatable. A hand mixer at "1/8 hp" is awkwardly fractional; "1/3 donkeypower" is cleaner. But the ship has sailed — horsepower (and watts) are too entrenched. Donkeypower's true legacy is as a beloved teaching tool and pub quiz answer. It reminds engineers that units are human inventions, not laws of nature.