I meant that if you find a recipe with both English and metric units
displayed, you should stick with the same units all through the thing.
Not advised to use metric measurements for the small quantity liquids
and then using English for the flour, sugar, etc, because you have no
metric measuring implements.

?

H.

In article >,
(Charlie Sorsby) wrote:

> In article >,
> Rowbotth > wrote:
> = The differences won't matter if you stick one unit and stay with it. If
> = you use Metric for the first measurement, use it all the way through the
> = recipe and you will be OK. You will only get into trouble if you use
> = both units in the same recipe.
>
> I'm not sure I see what you mean by this.
>
> As long as you use the *right* unit, it shouldn't matter whether
> they're all one, all the other, of a mix of both.
>
> Are you simply suggesting that you can use the same numbers and
> call them either cups or litres, pounds or kilograms, etc?
>
> If so, I'm not convinced that you're right. The proportion
> between, e.g., cups and litres is different to that between pounds
> and kilograms, etc.
>
> One cup is half a pint which is *approximately* one quarter litre
> (250 millilitres). One pound, on the other hand is somewhat less
> than half a kilogram.
>
> Consider a recipe (for nothing you'd want to make as an example:
>
> Original:
>
> 1 litre water
> 1 kilogram flour
>
> Replacing litre with cup and kilogram with pound yields:
>
> 1 cup water
> 1 pound flour
>
> The real (approximate) translation would be
>
> 1 quart water (i.e. 4 cups)
> 2.2 pound flour
>
> So, reducing the properly translated recipe to the equivalent
> one-cup version, would yield (approximately):
>
> 1 cup water
> 0.55 pound flour
>
> showing that simply substituting US units for metric ones while
> using the same numbers yields a version in this example where one
> has, relatively, twice as much flour (approximately) as one should
> have.
>
> Will there be specific cases where one can get away with that?
> Probably. Can one depend on it in every case? Absolutely not.
>
> So I must be misinterpreting what you're saying above.
>
> Can you clarify?