|
Does any one know how many cups to an ounce?
Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use
ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx |
wrote: > Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use > ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx Try he http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm |
> wrote in message
oups.com... > Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use > ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx > 8 ounces = 1 cup. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
|
> wrote in message oups.com... > Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use > ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx You can buy measuring cups in supermarkets or kitchen shop Ophelia Scotland |
> wrote in message oups.com... > Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use > ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx > There are fluid ounces (volume) and there are dry (avoirdupois weight) ounces. Fresh water converts easily between volume and weight - Other things do not convert easily - and unless you like having a food-covered calculator in your recipe stores: since you are British, it is probably a lot easier long run to pop over to Harrads (sic) and get a set of US-measure measuring cups and spoons for less than the cost of the ride there. Or check a local cooking shoppe. Or order a set on the internet. mo 1) Replicating cooking recipes is supposedly most reliable when done by weight. Use of the common cup and spoon measures indirectly delivers the proper weight of the ingredient. 2) Fresh water, used as the standard so the old labs and merchants could set up their measures at a common point, converts easily between volume and weight - 1 measured cup water = 8 fluid ounces = avoir. 8 ounces. ( similar to using water in old metric common point: 1cc=1ml=1g ) Note: I do not think the Imperial gallon at 10 lbs a gallon was originally part of the system and follows these rules, however. I believe it is akin to the bakers dozen, devised so the provider of goods could not be hanged for shorting a customer by mistake, back when brit leaders were on a death penalty craze. 3) You may have heard the memory tool "pint's a pound the world around" . For water: 1 measured cup water = 8 fluid ounces = avoir. 8 ounces =16 tablespoons. And there are 16 cups and 8 pints and about 8 lbs of water per gallon. It is octal-based ( i.e., "on multiples of just fingers, because the thumbs are busy holding the food" someone said) 4) Most other things do not convert easily , because their volume per weight varies. A cup of flour or a cup of shortening does not weigh 8 ounces. Some people's baked goods and souffles, however, well exceed 8 ounces a cup. and BTW, don't eat baked goods that exceed 1 kg per cup. |
|
Actually its more like how many ounces to a cup. 1 cup = 8 oz. 16 oz
= 1 pound. Hope this helps |
One time on Usenet, Katra > said:
> In article >, > (Gal Called J.J.) wrote: > > One time on Usenet, said: > > > Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use > > > ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx > > > > One cup = 8 fluid ounces. One pound = 16 dry ounces. HTH... > > Hmmmmm... Last financial report, 1 British pound was $1.91. ;-) Hey now, there's no room for smart-assery in RFC. Now if I could just say that with a straight face... -- J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~ "You still haven't explained why the pool is filled with elf blood." - Frylock, ATHF |
> In article .com>,
> wrote: > >>Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use >>ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx A good one <http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/volume> > There are 8 oz. to a cup. Yes, but British fluid ounces are a different size. 16 British ounces = 15 1/3 US ounces. > 1 oz. is roughly 30 mls. US ounce = 29 1/2 mls - close, but when scaling up, it distorts rather quickly. A US gallon is only .8 of an Imperial gallon. But it all comes to nothing here because most everybody but the US cooks by weight. Brits typically use their kitchen scales to cook with - much more accurate than volume measure. Those ounces... Any conversions from volume to weight in the kitchen can only be approximate. Pastorio |
> In article >,
> (Gal Called J.J.) wrote: > > >>One time on Usenet, said: >> >> >>>Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use >>>ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx >> >>One cup = 8 fluid ounces. One pound = 16 dry ounces. HTH... One pound isn't dry ounces, it's avoirdupois ounces. Dry ounces are still volume measure, like fluid ounces. Pastorio |
In article >,
(Gal Called J.J.) wrote: > One time on Usenet, Katra > said: > > In article >, > > (Gal Called J.J.) wrote: > > > One time on Usenet, said: > > > > > Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use > > > > ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx > > > > > > One cup = 8 fluid ounces. One pound = 16 dry ounces. HTH... > > > > Hmmmmm... Last financial report, 1 British pound was $1.91. ;-) > > Hey now, there's no room for smart-assery in RFC. Now if I could > just say that with a straight face... <giggles>... -- K. |
In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote: > > In article .com>, > > wrote: > > > >>Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use > >>ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx > > A good one <http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/volume> > > > There are 8 oz. to a cup. > > Yes, but British fluid ounces are a different size. 16 British ounces > = 15 1/3 US ounces. > > > 1 oz. is roughly 30 mls. > > US ounce = 29 1/2 mls - close, but when scaling up, it distorts rather > quickly. > > A US gallon is only .8 of an Imperial gallon. > > But it all comes to nothing here because most everybody but the US > cooks by weight. Brits typically use their kitchen scales to cook with > - much more accurate than volume measure. > > Those ounces... > > Any conversions from volume to weight in the kitchen can only be > approximate. > > Pastorio > Exactly... :-) And unless I am baking (which is rare since I live low carb), I rarely ever measure _anything_ when I am cookng..... <G> It's far more fun to make it up as I go along! -- K. Sprout the Mung Bean to reply... There is no need to change the world. All we have to do is toilet train the world and we'll never have to change it again. -- Swami Beyondanada >,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katraatcenturyteldotnet>,,< http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:22:57 -0500, "Bob (this one)"
> wrote: >Dry ounces are >still volume measure Hi Bob, You offer that as if it were some widely accepted fact, but I think it is far more ambiguous. If someone told me to add eight ounces of flour to something, I would weigh it (as would many other people.) I certainly would not deny that some would pull out a half-cup measure, but I think that is hardly as likely as you seem to believe. All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:35:59 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote: >half-cup measure Ooops... should have been "cup measure" 'Sorry, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
In rec.food.cooking, "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
> Dry ounces are > still volume measure, like fluid ounces. Does anyone know how it happened that "ounces" refers to either weight or volume, depending on usage? Is there some nexis between the two? All I can imagine is that one fluid ounce of water at STP weighs one ounce. Is that it? -- In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. -- Dwight David Eisenhower |
In article >,
Kenneth > wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:22:57 -0500, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: > > >Dry ounces are > >still volume measure > > Hi Bob, > > You offer that as if it were some widely accepted fact, but > I think it is far more ambiguous. > > If someone told me to add eight ounces of flour to > something, I would weigh it (as would many other people.) > > I certainly would not deny that some would pull out a > half-cup measure, but I think that is hardly as likely as > you seem to believe. > > All the best, If it said 8 oz., I'd weigh it. If it said 1/2 cup, I'd use a measuring cup. -- K. Sprout the Mung Bean to reply... There is no need to change the world. All we have to do is toilet train the world and we'll never have to change it again. -- Swami Beyondanada >,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katraatcenturyteldotnet>,,< http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra |
Excellent post. Thanks. It clarified lots and lots of stuff that I had been wondering about for a long time. In rec.food.cooking, -- > wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use > > ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx > > > There are fluid ounces (volume) and there are dry (avoirdupois weight) > ounces. > Fresh water converts easily between volume and weight - > Other things do not convert easily - and unless you like having a > food-covered calculator in your recipe stores: > since you are British, it is probably a lot easier long run to pop over > to Harrads (sic) and get a set of US-measure measuring cups and spoons for > less than the cost of the ride there. > Or check a local cooking shoppe. > Or order a set on the internet. > mo > 1) Replicating cooking recipes is supposedly most reliable when done by > weight. Use of the common cup and spoon measures indirectly delivers the > proper weight of the ingredient. > 2) Fresh water, used as the standard so the old labs and merchants could set > up their measures at a common point, converts easily between volume and > weight - > 1 measured cup water = 8 fluid ounces = avoir. 8 ounces. > ( similar to using water in old metric common point: 1cc=1ml=1g ) > Note: I do not think the Imperial gallon at 10 lbs a gallon was originally > part of the system and follows these rules, however. I believe it is akin to > the bakers dozen, devised so the provider of goods could not be hanged for > shorting a customer by mistake, back when brit leaders were on a death > penalty craze. > 3) You may have heard the memory tool "pint's a pound the world around" . > For water: > 1 measured cup water = 8 fluid ounces = avoir. 8 ounces =16 tablespoons. > And there are 16 cups and 8 pints and about 8 lbs of water per gallon. > It is octal-based ( i.e., "on multiples of just fingers, because the > thumbs are busy holding the food" someone said) > 4) Most other things do not convert easily , because their volume per weight > varies. A cup of flour or a cup of shortening does not weigh 8 ounces. > Some people's baked goods and souffles, however, well exceed 8 ounces a > cup. > and BTW, don't eat baked goods that exceed 1 kg per cup. -- In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. -- Dwight David Eisenhower |
-- wrote:
> 3) You may have heard the memory tool "pint's a pound the world around" . > For water: > 1 measured cup water = 8 fluid ounces = avoir. 8 ounces =16 tablespoons. > And there are 16 cups and 8 pints and about 8 lbs of water per gallon. The British do not have this rhyme. The British equivalent is "A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter". 1 imperial pint weighs 20 oz. 1 imperial gallon (8 pints) weighs 10 lbs. Noises Off |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:40:43 -0600, Katra
> wrote: >In article >, > Kenneth > wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:22:57 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >> > wrote: >> >> >Dry ounces are >> >still volume measure >> >> Hi Bob, >> >> You offer that as if it were some widely accepted fact, but >> I think it is far more ambiguous. >> >> If someone told me to add eight ounces of flour to >> something, I would weigh it (as would many other people.) >> >> I certainly would not deny that some would pull out a >> half-cup measure, but I think that is hardly as likely as >> you seem to believe. >> >> All the best, > >If it said 8 oz., I'd weigh it. >If it said 1/2 cup, I'd use a measuring cup. Hi Katra, That is exactly my point... I think most people would do what you describe. All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
"Noises Off" > wrote in message ... > -- wrote: > >> 3) You may have heard the memory tool "pint's a pound the world around" . >> For water: >> 1 measured cup water = 8 fluid ounces = avoir. 8 ounces =16 tablespoons. >> And there are 16 cups and 8 pints and about 8 lbs of water per gallon. > > The British do not have this rhyme. The British equivalent is "A pint of > water weighs a pound and a quarter". > > 1 imperial pint weighs 20 oz. > 1 imperial gallon (8 pints) weighs 10 lbs. The American pint is 2 cups = 16 oz. The imperial pint is 4 gills (1 gill = 5 oz.) = 20 oz. Talk about confusing to a Canadian kid who learned that 8 oz = 1 cup 2 cup = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon -- but, children, our gallon is bigger than the Americans'. "Explain please? Is their ounce smaller? Our cup bigger? Why is our gallon bigger?" Never got an answer. But then again I never got an answer when I asked "If a year has 52 weeks and a week has 7 days, why doesn't a year have 364 days?" Gabby |
"Gabby" > wrote in message
... > > > But then again I never got an answer when I asked "If a year has 52 weeks > and a week has 7 days, why doesn't a year have 364 days?" > > Gabby > Since a year does not have 52 weeks (exactly) the question is meaningless and silly. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
Gabby wrote:
> But then again I never got an answer when I asked "If a year has 52 weeks > and a week has 7 days, why doesn't a year have 364 days?" The best question is "Why do they put the extra leap year day in February? Why not put it in August when the weather would be better?" Noises Off |
In article >, "Gabby"
> wrote: > But then again I never got an answer when I asked "If a year has 52 weeks > and a week has 7 days, why doesn't a year have 364 days?" I'd like to know also. I'm assuming that I've been lied to for the last 55 years, and a year really has approximately 52 weeks. -- Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS |
"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message . .. > "Gabby" > wrote in message > ... >> >> >> But then again I never got an answer when I asked "If a year has 52 >> weeks and a week has 7 days, why doesn't a year have 364 days?" >> >> Gabby >> > > Since a year does not have 52 weeks (exactly) the question is meaningless > and silly. Not to the 10 year old me who asked the question after being taught categorically that there ARE 52 weeks in a year. Gabby |
|
Noises Off wrote: > Gabby wrote: > > The best question is "Why do they put the extra leap year > day in February? Why not put it in August when the weather > would be better?" > > Noises Off Because at one time March 1st was the first day of the year. That made February the last month of the year and when leap year came along they simply tacked on the extra day at the end of the year. This also explains the naming of the months of September, October, November, and December. Sept, oct, nov, and dec are the Latin prefixes for 7, 8,9, and 10. With March being the first month of the year that made September the 7th month, October the 8th month, November the 9th month, and December the 10th month. |
"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
. com... > > wrote in message > oups.com... >> Hiya, would like to try some of these recipes, but I'm british and use >> ounces in cooking. Does anyone know the conversion? Thanx >> > > 8 ounces = 1 cup. > According to The Food Lover's Companion it's a bit more complicated than that. A British cup is 1.25 US cups, and an imperial ounce is .96 US ounces. Best, Marc |
Kenneth wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:22:57 -0500, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: >=20 >>Dry ounces are still volume measure > Hi Bob, >=20 > You offer that as if it were some widely accepted fact, but > I think it is far more ambiguous. No, really isn't ambiguous at all. It has a very specific meaning.=20 "Dry ounces" is a standard of measure. It's what comprises a dry pint=20 and that's how berries are sold - those pints and quarts are=20 different than fluid measures with the same names. You're confusing=20 them with "avoirdupois ounces" which are measures of weight. There's=20 no direct interchangeability. The clich=E9 that says a volume ounce of=20 water weighs an ounce avoirdupois is wrong. Close but no cigar. > If someone told me to add eight ounces of flour to > something, I would weigh it (as would many other people.) <LOL> Right. That would most likely be a cup in the US and a weight=20 measure just about everyplace else that uses ounces (not many places=20 left). I'd suggest you ask the person for clarification. The final=20 recipe will vary significantly if he meant weight and you used volume=20 or vice versa. It's just guesswork that way. What many other people would or wouldn't do isn't germane to the=20 discourse. There are defined standards for volume and weight with=20 conventional names. Guessing about them is merely guessing, no matter=20 how many people do it. > I certainly would not deny that some would pull out a > half-cup measure, but I think that is hardly as likely as > you seem to believe. You know, there are standards for recipe notation. They vary from=20 country to country and culture to culture. To see the American=20 standard, get a copy of "Recipes Into Type" by Whitman and Simon. Few American kitchens have scales because of Fanny Farmer and her=20 approach to writing recipes. She published her book just about at the=20 right time for the industrial revolution to provide standardized=20 measures. Little glass cups with numbers on them are cheap. Scales are=20 not. So cups it was and so it remains except in the professional=20 kitchens. Anyone who told you to add 8 ounces of anything customarily referred=20 to by volume is merely adding distraction and confusion. If people are=20 going to play in the kitchen, it behooves them to learn the local=20 language. Pastorio |
In rec.food.cooking, Noises Off > wrote:
> The best question is "Why do they put the extra leap year > day in February? Why not put it in August when the weather > would be better?" I never thought of it that way. But you raise an excellent point! Hell, why not make it a Monday Holiday!? If it were all up to me, I'd make ten months, each with 36 days, made up of 6 six-day weeks. The extra 5 or 6 days would be the "holiday season" centered around the winter solstice, during which time nobody would work. -- In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. -- Dwight David Eisenhower |
"Marc Wolfe" > wrote in
: > According to The Food Lover's Companion it's a bit more complicated > than that. A British cup is 1.25 US cups, and an imperial ounce is > .96 US ounces. > > Best, > > Marc > A british imperial pint is 20 british ounces...hence a british imperial cup is 10 british ounces. After conversion to metric, the british cup was relegated to 300 ml. A canadian cup was relegated to 250 ml. An american Cup is 247 (I believe) ml. So if you're british for convienence, use a metric measuring cup and if the recipe is american use a 250 ml cup. (I included the 3 mls, for ease of measuring). It's been well over 20 years since britan 'went' metric, so it is time you 'embraced' the future and got new kitchen measuring equipment. -- No Bread Crumbs were hurt in the making of this Meal. Type 2 Diabetic 1AC 5.6mmol or 101mg/dl Continuing to be Manitoban |
|
"Gabby" > wrote in message ... > > "Noises Off" > wrote in message > ... > > -- wrote: > > > >> 3) You may have heard the memory tool "pint's a pound the world around" .. > >> For water: > >> 1 measured cup water = 8 fluid ounces = avoir. 8 ounces =16 tablespoons. > >> And there are 16 cups and 8 pints and about 8 lbs of water per gallon. > > > > The British do not have this rhyme. The British equivalent is "A pint of > > water weighs a pound and a quarter". > > > > 1 imperial pint weighs 20 oz. > > 1 imperial gallon (8 pints) weighs 10 lbs. > > The American pint is 2 cups = 16 oz. > The imperial pint is 4 gills (1 gill = 5 oz.) = 20 oz. > > Talk about confusing to a Canadian kid who learned that > 8 oz = 1 cup > 2 cup = 1 pint > 2 pints = 1 quart > 4 quarts = 1 gallon -- but, children, our gallon is bigger than the > Americans'. > > "Explain please? Is their ounce smaller? Our cup bigger? Why is our > gallon bigger?" > Never got an answer. > > But then again I never got an answer when I asked "If a year has 52 weeks > and a week has 7 days, why doesn't a year have 364 days?" > it did, once. But the ole orbit is slowing down, and its longer in the year now. > Gabby > > |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:45:55 -0500, "Bob (this one)"
> wrote: >Kenneth wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:22:57 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >> > wrote: >> >>>Dry ounces are still volume measure > >> Hi Bob, >> >> You offer that as if it were some widely accepted fact, but >> I think it is far more ambiguous. > >No, really isn't ambiguous at all. It has a very specific meaning. >"Dry ounces" is a standard of measure. It's what comprises a dry pint >and that's how berries are sold - those pints and quarts are >different than fluid measures with the same names. You're confusing >them with "avoirdupois ounces" which are measures of weight. There's >no direct interchangeability. The cliché that says a volume ounce of >water weighs an ounce avoirdupois is wrong. Close but no cigar. > >> If someone told me to add eight ounces of flour to >> something, I would weigh it (as would many other people.) > ><LOL> Right. That would most likely be a cup in the US and a weight >measure just about everyplace else that uses ounces (not many places >left). I'd suggest you ask the person for clarification. The final >recipe will vary significantly if he meant weight and you used volume >or vice versa. It's just guesswork that way. > >What many other people would or wouldn't do isn't germane to the >discourse. There are defined standards for volume and weight with >conventional names. Guessing about them is merely guessing, no matter >how many people do it. > >> I certainly would not deny that some would pull out a >> half-cup measure, but I think that is hardly as likely as >> you seem to believe. > >You know, there are standards for recipe notation. They vary from >country to country and culture to culture. To see the American >standard, get a copy of "Recipes Into Type" by Whitman and Simon. > >Few American kitchens have scales because of Fanny Farmer and her >approach to writing recipes. She published her book just about at the >right time for the industrial revolution to provide standardized >measures. Little glass cups with numbers on them are cheap. Scales are >not. So cups it was and so it remains except in the professional >kitchens. > >Anyone who told you to add 8 ounces of anything customarily referred >to by volume is merely adding distraction and confusion. If people are >going to play in the kitchen, it behooves them to learn the local >language. > >Pastorio Hi Bob, I did misinterpret what you have written... I was not taking your comment to relate to the phrase "Dry Measure" but rather understood your comment to relate to how people measured dry stuff. Thanks for the clarification, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
> wrote in message ... > In rec.food.cooking, Noises Off > wrote: > > > The best question is "Why do they put the extra leap year > > day in February? Why not put it in August when the weather > > would be better?" > > I never thought of it that way. But you raise an excellent point! > > Hell, why not make it a Monday Holiday!? > > If it were all up to me, I'd make ten months, each with 36 days, made up > of 6 six-day weeks. The extra 5 or 6 days would be the "holiday season" > centered around the winter solstice, during which time nobody would work. > Wasn't that like the old Julian calendar? Extra days for a sinful holiday, no extra days in months for catching up. Heard from some cynic somewhere that when the powers that be fixed the Julian, they made it more God-like and gave the christian holiday months their due, and also fixed it properly so the taxes and special assessment holidays were in the longer months, etc. February, the month of no harvest and no holidays and thus no tithing payments or taxes, was made short. And the months with the big christian holidays were made longer (Christmas was Jan 6 back then, I think? ) heard that somewhere. Third stall down, probably. Since you could be burned at the stake for using science and reason instead of faith at the time, it was tjust as likely hat or some other good political reason -- as ever involving taxes and the public morality. > -- > In the councils of government, we must guard against the > acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, > by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the > disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. > -- Dwight David Eisenhower |
Bob (this one) wrote: > But it all comes to nothing here because most everybody but the US > cooks by weight. Brits typically use their kitchen scales to cook with > - much more accurate than volume measure. About the only thing I weigh regularly is pasta. Due to the varying shapes and irregular nature, it works out much better that way. I have an old spring-type kitchen scale, and that's good enough. I don't need precision or even that much accuracy, just consistency. That makes it easy to divide up a pound package of noodles or vermicelli or whatever into relatively even portions. Brian |
> wrote in message ... > In rec.food.cooking, "Bob (this one)" > wrote: > > > Dry ounces are > > still volume measure, like fluid ounces. > > Does anyone know how it happened that "ounces" refers to either weight or > volume, depending on usage? Is there some nexis between the two? All I > can imagine is that one fluid ounce of water at STP weighs one ounce. Is > that it? as i understand - the old labs of the amateur scientists 400-500 years or so back needed a way to calibrate their instruments (tolerance was somewhat slack back then than now) . Later, after merchants picked up those measures, they also needed an easy way to be checked. Water was commonly available, so weight and temperature scales were established and agreed upon using water-related parameters. If you had the container of the correct dimensions, call it one "pint", and you filled it with water, you had a lb weight. Calibration can be done. So the volume of a pint measure hanging on the wall of the lab defined the weight of one pound, and the volume of a pint. Volume meets weight. The old easily-remembered-by-ordinary-uneducated-humans 3 by 4 system in use at the time was not good enough for them, so someone wanted to change it to a more logical 8 based system. Divide the measure into 2x8 parts and call it an ounce, and if you are not too careful defining which measure it was, and either by design so we could remember it or by accident, we get 16 ounces and 16 ounces, weight and volume. ------------------- Similar for the metric system, except someone in France decided that one millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole was better than using the weight of water in a measured container that those evil English were using. They then set the nexis at 1ml liquid = 1gram mass = 1 cubic centimeter volume when using water, so instruments could also be calibrated easily in the metric system. ------------- humans remember 3s and 4s groups more readily than any other values sets of 8 is the most natural when using octal or counting when your thumbs are used as the next digit (why octal for the uneducated? count to eight twice using your fingers as the ones and use the thumbs as the next-place-holder eights, and you get two thumbs worth, i.e., 16 - you can count to sixteen on your hands without remembering in octal, while the evil enemy the french with their new-fangled metrics can only count to ten before they have to scratch a mark in the dirt to go higher) the original metric had (and some still do have) 100 degrees in a circle, 100 degrees between water boiling and freezing, 100 parts to a time and geometry minute, 10 increments in everything. works ok in theory, and quite well in many applications, but in geometry, in time, in most water-based applications such as steam calculations which were devised to be simple by using "specific" parameters, forces ( several measures), pressures (there are probably six or seven metric measures that can drive the engineer nuts), and rapid mental calculation of small digital amounts, the British 3-4 and octal length-force-second system and the 60 multiple time, temperature, and geometry units beats the original metric length-meter-mass hands down. All those odd measure - chains, barrels, tons, are standards for specific purpose that were used by both countries in international commerce are blamed on the british system. As I understand, one of the french kings had all of France surveyed in great part to scrap the old and get the new measure in place or so the story goes > > -- > In the councils of government, we must guard against the > acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, > by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the > disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. > -- Dwight David Eisenhower |
"djs0302" > wrote in message ups.com... > > Noises Off wrote: > > Gabby wrote: > > > > The best question is "Why do they put the extra leap year > > day in February? Why not put it in August when the weather > > would be better?" > > > > Noises Off > > Because at one time March 1st was the first day of the year. That made > February the last month of the year and when leap year came along they > simply tacked on the extra day at the end of the year. This also > explains the naming of the months of September, October, November, and > December. Sept, oct, nov, and dec are the Latin prefixes for 7, 8,9, > and 10. With March being the first month of the year that made > September the 7th month, October the 8th month, November the 9th month, > and December the 10th month. that makes a lot more sense than what I heard TSD about taxes and tithes and holidays thanx > |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter