Why oh why?
I know Canada adopted the metric system in the '70s, but my perspective is from the U.S. of A. I remember hearing about weights and measures in the '70s, but I don't remember seeing the metric system hardly ever used until the '80s. I remember a bank in the late '70s that had a sign giving the temperature in both Fahrenheit and Celsius, but that was about it.
I think of the metric system as an '80s or even a '90s thing. I think there was one point around 1994 when the U.S. actually came very, very close to switching everything to metric, but the government lifted the timeline on this.
There was a big push to make the US go metric in the 70s, but it petered out by the early 80s. There used to be a metric distance sign between Memphis and Nashville on Interstate 40 at the 100-km point.
The marketplace is changing things, however. The 2-liter bottle of Coke in the 80s was the first major metric product. Other items, like drugs, became quantified in grams and not lids. Then Procter & Gamble, which was "SAE till I die," started marking metric sizes on their packages and selling shampoo in 400-mL bottles. That was half the ballgame.
Nowadays you need metric wrenches to work on late-model American cars and engines are sized in liters, not CC's.
Quote from: Road Hog on February 20, 2021, 10:41:32 PM
....
Nowadays you need metric wrenches to work on late-model American cars and engines are sized in liters, not CC's.
I believe you mean cubic inches, not ccs–the latter refers to cubic centimetres, which is a metric measurement.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 20, 2021, 10:53:16 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on February 20, 2021, 10:41:32 PM
....
Nowadays you need metric wrenches to work on late-model American cars and engines are sized in liters, not CC's.
I believe you mean cubic inches, not ccs–the latter refers to cubic centimetres, which is a metric measurement.
You're right, I was thinking of motorcycles.
There was a push to adopt SI in the 1970s. Products started to be labeled with metric sizes in parallel with the customary measures, and schools started teaching it. I think it was the Reagan Administration that decided to abandon the governmental push, but nevertheless more and more sectors of the economy have used it anyway. It's hard to be the only country using a system of measure.
I remember the metric push in the 70s, not the 80s.
The first small step towards a metric US was quite a bit earlier. The Metric Act of 1866 says:
QuoteIt shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system.
Also in 1866, the government introduced the [cupro-]nickel five-cent coin (which quickly replaced the inconveniently-small silver half dime). The mass of the nickel was, and still is, five grams.
On I-80 in IL, there were a few BGS mileage signs installed in the 70s that had dual measurements in miles and kilometers. I remember one with Chicago 62 miles - 100 kilometers. They were taken down within a year or 2. When I worked at IDOT there was a big federal push to do highway plans in metric units in the 90s which turned out to be a big fiasco as the construction industry wanted nothing to do with it. We had metric sets of plans where the bridge form carpenters were converting millimeters back to inches so they could use their inch rulers. The last construction job in my District that was issued and bid with metric plans was IL 47 though Yorkville, IL. IDOT at the time had already abandoned the metric system but it would have been an expensive undertaking to convert everything back to English, so they just went with it and dealt with it in the field.
One thing I kept in my head from those days was all the metric conversions. I still to this day know that a meter is 3.2808 feet and an inch is 25.4 mm.
Quote from: kkt on February 21, 2021, 12:02:21 AM
There was a push to adopt SI in the 1970s. Products started to be labeled with metric sizes in parallel with the customary measures, and schools started teaching it. I think it was the Reagan Administration that decided to abandon the governmental push, but nevertheless more and more sectors of the economy have used it anyway. It's hard to be the only country using a system of measure.
Industries would switch really fast, if the governments would simply offer its products in metric and buy products in metric. The FAA switched to Celsius for all temperatures back in about 1994 or 5. Up until then, temperatures on the ground were in Fahrenheit and the ones in the air were in Celsius. It took about a week to get that switch done.
One switch that would be easy to make would be to 24 hour time.
Write the laws in metric and let courtesy approximations in customary units be made for those who need them (and keep in mind that customary units are defined in metric).
I've noticed that very small values use the metric system, even in the US. Coins have their mass in grams and their diameter in millimeters. Pencil leads are typically 0.5, 0.7, or 0.9 mm. Nutrition labels are in grams (except for calories), and medications are in milligrams or micrograms.
They tried to teach us the metric system in the 60's in school. But they did a bad job of it. Things like, "How many inches is 3.9 cm?" That's not teaching the metric system, that's giving us more multiplication and division problems.
Another use of the metric system was during the oil embargo when gasoline prices first went over a dollar per gallon. Many pumps at the time couldn't go over 99.9 cents. But wait - we can set the pump to liters. So that's what they did, and they had to post signs telling you what the conversion was into dollars per gallon.
Of course, pop (soda for you great unwashed masses) is sold in 1/2 liter and 2 liter bottles.
I do remember when they introduced the plastic 2-liter Pepsi bottles, they ran a TV commercial with the slogan "The bottle that doesn't act like a bottle!" It showed the bottle slowly darting around the room with some weird sounds. It made it appear as if the bottle couldn't spill or break.
I haven't seen this ad in over 40 years, and everyone thinks I'm making it up. That ad might have been 1979.
I still struggle with the various conversions for American measurements because when I was in kindergarten through about third grade, the focus was on teaching metric measurement (not coincidentally, that was from around 1978 to 1982), so I never quite got all of the American ones. For a long time I thought there were 12 ounces in a pound and I didn't understand the difference between liquid and dry ounces. The other thing that drives me crazy is that the units used in recipe instructions do not match the units on the packaging at the store–it doesn't help when it says a "cup" of some dry ingredients that are sold only in "dry ounces." I downloaded an app called "Kitchen Calculator" that helps with that.
Conversely, I often convert recipes to metric units simply because it's more precise when I use the kitchen scale to weigh something in grams rather than fractions of a pound. Grams are a smaller unit and it's just plain easier to get the right amount.
Random question: how many basic metric-imperial measurements do you know off hand?
1 mile = 1.6 km
1 yard ≈ 1 m
1 foot ≈ 30 cm
32° F = 0° C
-40° F = -40° C
212° F = 100° C
I think that's it for me. That is... not a lot.
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 11:27:16 AM
Random question: how many basic metric-imperial measurements do you know off hand?
1 mile = 1.6 km
1 yard ≈ 1 m
1 foot ≈ 30 cm
32° F = 0° C
-40° F = -40° C
212° F = 100° C
I think that's it for me. That is... not a lot.
Pound? Gallon? Ounce? Inch?
I remember one time in grade school, we were out on the ballfield and some kid kept kicking dirt. So the gym teacher said, "If you don't stop kicking that dirt, I'm gonna make you eat a gallon of it."
But how??? It was dry dirt, not a liquid. I thought gallons were for liquids.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 21, 2021, 11:51:27 AM
I remember one time in grade school, we were out on the ballfield and some kid kept kicking dirt. So the gym teacher said, "If you don't stop kicking that dirt, I'm gonna make you eat a gallon of it."
But how??? It was dry dirt, not a liquid. I thought gallons were for liquids.
These are 5 gallon buckets of sand. Bon appetit!
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/10/28/NPOH/6f562b36-71da-4b7b-80ad-e2f45dd71630-110420-ypd-sand-buckets1t.jpg)
And I would grab a pint if blueberries.
(https://d2lnr5mha7bycj.cloudfront.net/product-image/file/large_da5a26b8-7542-41a7-9368-ccaa6fe8c9f9.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 21, 2021, 11:13:13 AM
For a long time I thought there were 12 ounces in a pound and I didn't understand the difference between liquid and dry ounces.
You weren't completely wrong. There are 12 Troy ounces in a Troy pound, used for precious metals...
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 11:27:16 AM
Random question: how many basic metric-imperial measurements do you know off hand?
My favorite gotcha is confusing U.S. customary units with Imperial units. The length and weight units are either identical or very similar, but the Imperial gallon is 20% bigger than the U.S. gallon - different enough to trap the unwary. However, in the past 50 years or so most uses of the Imperial gallon have gone away in favor of liters, in the UK and Commonwealth countries.
The metric system's main virtue is that the units have NOT been defined differently in different places. A gram's a gram everywhere.
Quote from: kkt on February 21, 2021, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 21, 2021, 11:13:13 AM
For a long time I thought there were 12 ounces in a pound and I didn't understand the difference between liquid and dry ounces.
You weren't completely wrong. There are 12 Troy ounces in a Troy pound, used for precious metals...
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 11:27:16 AM
Random question: how many basic metric-imperial measurements do you know off hand?
My favorite gotcha is confusing U.S. customary units with Imperial units. The length and weight units are either identical or very similar, but the Imperial gallon is 20% bigger than the U.S. gallon - different enough to trap the unwary. However, in the past 50 years or so most uses of the Imperial gallon have gone away in favor of liters, in the UK and Commonwealth countries.
The metric system's main virtue is that the units have NOT been defined differently in different places. A gram's a gram everywhere.
Nautical vs statute mile are not going anywhere, though
metric system is associated with physics class for me
It's been a slow, snail-like changeover that will probably not even be done in my lifetime (I'm hoping on another 40 years to the century mark), but I've been comfortable with the gallon, miles, inches, pint, etc. If they had really wanted to do the change, they should have given a date (like 1/1/80) and everything had to be manufactured and labelled in metric, and the signs would have had to been changed on the roads, etc. That would have started a whale of grumbling and fighting back, but within 10 years or less, it would have subsided and we would move on. I'm not suggesting this to be done, but that's one way it could have been completed.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on February 21, 2021, 01:58:27 PM
It's been a slow, snail-like changeover that will probably not even be done in my lifetime (I'm hoping on another 40 years to the century mark), but I've been comfortable with the gallon, miles, inches, pint, etc. If they had really wanted to do the change, they should have given a date (like 1/1/80) and everything had to be manufactured and labelled in metric, and the signs would have had to been changed on the roads, etc. That would have started a whale of grumbling and fighting back, but within 10 years or less, it would have subsided and we would move on. I'm not suggesting this to be done, but that's one way it could have been completed.
It was supposed to be that way, but Reagan killed the process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Conversion_Act
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 11:27:16 AM
Random question: how many basic metric-imperial measurements do you know off hand?
1 mile = 1.6 km
1 yard ≈ 1 m
1 foot ≈ 30 cm
32° F = 0° C
-40° F = -40° C
212° F = 100° C
I think that's it for me. That is... not a lot.
1 lb = 454 g
12 oz ~ 355 ml
1 pt ~ 500 ml
5°C = 41°F
10°C = 50°F
15°C = 59°F
20°C = 68°F
25°C = 77°F
30°C = 86°F
35°C = 95°F
40°C = 104°F
45°C = 113°F
50°C = 122°F
Agree that the big problem with metrication in the US was making it voluntary and not mandatory, but there's no way that wouldn't have been hugely unpopular. Nobody likes the overeducated scolds pushing metrication, and that's the biggest political problem.
QuoteWrite the laws in metric and let courtesy approximations in customary units be made for those who need them (and keep in mind that customary units are defined in metric).
Agree with this to an extent, but I'd go further - redefine the most common units in their metric equivalent, but keep the names for the most part. You'd still buy gas by the gallon and beer by the pint, but it would be a 4 liter gallon and a 500 ml pint. Rather than have a 2.54 cm inch, it would just be 2.5 cm (1 decimeter = 4 in). The only real opposition would be from engineers and construction companies, but that's inevitable whatever you do.
Quote from: kalvado on February 21, 2021, 11:46:55 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 11:27:16 AM
Random question: how many basic metric-imperial measurements do you know off hand?
1 mile = 1.6 km
1 yard ≈ 1 m
1 foot ≈ 30 cm
32° F = 0° C
-40° F = -40° C
212° F = 100° C
I think that's it for me. That is... not a lot.
Pound? Gallon? Ounce? Inch?
Nope... this is not to my credit, but I don't even know any of those metric equivalents without looking them up. I do know that a kilogram is roughly two pounds, but even that is very approximate. :meh:
The Omnibus Act of 1988 required use of the metric system for all Federal projects beginning after the end of the 1992 fiscal year. All of the transit projects that I worked on in the mid-1990s were designed in metric. ISTR several large highway projects being designed and signed in metric during this timeframe, but I never saw any. After emerging from a number of years mostly on NYCT subways, I came back into the world in 1999 to find that Federal projects were being designed under the Imperial system again (with metric equivalents). At that time, everyone had settled on rounding to three decimal places.
I remember a discussion on one large project arguing whether metric measurements should be rounded to millimeters (0.001m) versus English measurements rounded to mils (0.001 inch). There was even a discussion about rounding both set of measurements to the closest tenths. Since there were a large number of items designed in Japan, it was finally (and properly) agreed to give exact measurements as designed and round to mm/mils as appropriate. Even then, there were a number of arguments about whether the standard gage track width of 56-1/2 inches should be rounded to 143.510 cm (versus the UIC accepted standard of 1435 mm).
Me personally, I switched over to designing and programming in metric in 1990 because of the confusion caused by using pounds-force and pounds-mass in the same calculation. I was trying to fix a bunch of minor software errors in the process of certifying the hardware and software in Germany. I had the revisions 99% complete when the client's consultant recommended that the software be certified because of the intense safety protocols used in developing bench tests and field test procedures. Some 25 years later, they eventually converted everything to metric (and I'm assuming they didn't dig the old software out of the archives).
Part of what's stupid about the whole debate is that regardless of what Congress sets as the standard for road signs or products sold in stores, there is nothing stopping anyone from using whatever measurements you want in your daily life, nor is there anything stopping any store from having a chart to tell them how much, say, cold cuts to give you if you ask for a pound of corned beef (indeed when I've been to grocery stores in English-speaking parts of Canada, they often have reference charts for employees for that very reason, both because of American visitors and because of Canadians who don't bother to use kilograms in their daily life). It's not like you're going to throw out all your old cookbooks and such just because the standard changes, right? Of course it would make grocery shopping mildly more challenging in terms of figuring out how much you might need, but that's already a nuisance for the reason I mentioned in an earlier comment.
(Heh, I was actually looking at a pasta recipe I found in a magazine I picked up at Heathrow Airport, so most of the measurements are in grams and I'll have to convert them before going to the store.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 21, 2021, 11:13:13 AM
I didn’t understand the difference between liquid and dry ounces.
Nobody ever taught me there even was a difference between liquid and dry volume measurements.
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 11:27:16 AM
Random question: how many basic metric-imperial measurements do you know off hand?
2.54 cm = 1 inch
30 cm ~ 1 foot (thanks, rulers!)
1 m ~ 39 inches ~ 1 yard
1 km ~ 5/8 mile
5 cm³ = 5 ml ~ 1 tsp
1 L ~ 1 quart
3.78 L ~ 1 gal
2.2 lb ~ 1 kg
101.325 kPa = 1013.25 mb = 1 atm = 760 torr (~mmHg) ~ 29.92 inHg ~ 14.7 psi
-40ºC = -40ºF
273.15 K = 0ºC = 32ºF
10ºC = 50ºF
20ºC = 68ºF
298.15 K = 25ºC = 77ºF
30ºC = 86ºF
37ºC = 98.6ºF
40ºC = 104ºF
373.15 K = 100ºC = 212ºF
(Why do I know all these temperature conversions off the top of my head? Turns out in the meteorological field, the C-F conversion is probably the most common unit conversion you'll do.)
Quote from: kalvado on February 21, 2021, 12:14:31 PM
Nautical vs statute mile are not going anywhere, though
You're right.
Another note on meteorology: while the scientific side of it is almost entirely metric, a significant amount of the public-facing side is aviation - which uses quite a mishmash of units. In the US, a routine aviation weather report will contain:
- Wind in knots (1 kt = 1 nautical mile per hour = 1.15 mph)
- Visibility in statute miles (sometimes also runway visual range in feet)
- Cloud heights and ceilings in hundreds of feet
- Temperatures in degrees Celsius
- Altimeter setting pressure in inches of mercury, and often also a sea level pressure in millibars
International formats have all pressure readings in millibars and report visibility in meters ... but they still use hundreds of feet for cloud height and knots for wind speed.
If I could pick one unit I want to get rid of forever, it would be the inch of mercury for pressure. If American pilots can use Celsius for temperature, they definitely can use millibars for pressure like the rest of the world - and the general public doesn't use pressure units often enough to justify keeping inches of mercury around.
Metric at least in the USA is confined to science, mathematics and engineering fields.
^^ The Civil Engineering use of metric system was compulsory for US roads plan in 1996. It over like a lead balloon so they went back to English in 1998.
Quote from: bing101 on February 21, 2021, 09:29:06 PM
Metric at least in the USA is confined to science, mathematics and engineering fields.
Which of those are soft drinks?
Quote from: kkt on February 21, 2021, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 21, 2021, 09:29:06 PM
Metric at least in the USA is confined to science, mathematics and engineering fields.
Which of those are soft drinks?
The fizzy lifting drinks are still in development.
Medicine has also mostly switched over to metric, though some over-the-counter liquid products still use tablespoons.
Quote from: formulanone on February 22, 2021, 05:42:55 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 21, 2021, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 21, 2021, 09:29:06 PM
Metric at least in the USA is confined to science, mathematics and engineering fields.
Which of those are soft drinks?
The fizzy lifting drinks are still in development.
Medicine has also mostly switched over to metric, though some over-the-counter liquid products still use tablespoons.
Believe it or not, but there are customary and metric tablespoons for measurement purposes.
Metric is 15 ml, US tablespoon is 1/2 fl oz = 14.8 ml.
Since tablespoon measurements are used in low accuracy measurements to begin with, 1.3% difference is within the tolerance and usually ignored.
The moral of the story, I guess, is that mouth size is about the same regardless of measurement preferences
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 11:27:16 AM
Random question: how many basic metric-imperial measurements do you know off hand?
Temperature1°C = 1.8°F
–or– 1°F = 5/9°C (for doing conversions, and I find the first one much easier to do in my head)
-10°C = approx. 15°F (between cold and uncomfortably cold)
0°C = 32°F (freezing point)
10°C = 50°F (between windows open overnight and windows shut overnight)
20°C = 68°F (supposed room temperature, as determined by those with more body fat than I have)
30°C = 86°F (between swimming weather and shivering at the poolside weather)
40°C = somewhere above 100°F (really hot weather)
Distance/Length1 km = 0.621 miles
–or– 1 mile = approx. 1.6 km1 inch = 2.541 cm1 meter = approx. 3'3"
Highway speed60 km/h = somewhere around 35 mph
70 km/h = ??? somewhere between 60 and 80!
80 km/h = 50 mph
90 km/h = 56 mph
100 km/h = 62 mph
110 km/h = 68 mph
120 km/h = ??? somewhere between 110 and 130!
130 km/h = 80 mph
Liquid volume1 gallon of gasoline = 3.785 liters of gasolineWeight1 kg = 2.2 pounds
I highlighted in bold the only few conversions I know
from US customary to metric equivalent. Almost all the conversions I know are the other way around. I think that's because I rarely ever have to figure out a customary→metric conversion in real life. It's always a metric→customary conversion that I end up having to do.
As for °C to °F, here's how I do it in my head:
1. Multiply by 2.
2. Subtract one tenth of the total from the total.
3. Add 32.
So, to pick a random temperature.... 17°C:
1. 17°C x 2 = 34
2. 34 - 3.4 = 30.6
3. 30.6 + 32 = 62.6°F
I don't mind seeing km used on our roads, because higher numbers and less exit suffixes, two things I like. Imagine a speed limit of 140 km/h instead of 85 mph on TX 130 and Exit 1235A instead of Exit 768A for I-10's exit to I-45 North.
0 Celsius = 273 Kelvin
The United States almost got in on the ground floor of the Metric System. It was born out of the French Revolution and we were tight with them after they helped us secure victory at Yorktown. A ship bound for America was carrying 'official' kilograms and meters to set us up while Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State. But as luck would have it, that ship hit terrible weather, was blown off course and captured by pirates. I guess there was no follow up on the whole Metric thing so it fell by the wayside.
Amazing to think, though, that we could have been the second country in the world to adopt the Metric System if not for a maritime mishap. The square mile grid of the township and range system of the Northwest Ordinance that dominates the western 2/3rds of this country would be a square kilometer grid. The speed limit would 100 kph. A football field would be a hundred meters. The size limit for walleyes here would be 38 centimeters.
Instead, we're one of the last hold outs clinging to our feets and ounces. Too bad.
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2021, 03:57:20 PM
0 Celsius = 273 Kelvin
That's one I've told my kids. Except one of them was a bit confused, apparently. When we told him the temperature was going to drop below zero recently, he thought that meant all life would stop and the universe would fall apart.
Quote from: kkt on February 21, 2021, 12:02:21 AM
There was a push to adopt SI in the 1970s. Products started to be labeled with metric sizes in parallel with the customary measures, and schools started teaching it. I think it was the Reagan Administration that decided to abandon the governmental push, but nevertheless more and more sectors of the economy have used it anyway. It's hard to be the only country using a system of measure.
The likely reason for abandoning such was on the grounds of the conversions being an unfunded mandate.
It's worth noting that there was an attempt to revive metric/SI conversions (the then new-DE 1 had its mile-marker based interchange numbers converted to km-based ones at the time) in the U.S. during the first 2 years of the Clinton Administration. However, such was shot down in 1995 when the new Congress implemented a temporary moratorium on unfunded mandates.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 21, 2021, 12:12:05 AM
I remember the metric push in the 70s, not the 80s.
While there was a push for it in the 70s; the intent was to make such official in the US by 1985. Needless to say, such didn't happen per the above.
They had a long phase-in period, so manufacturing plants could just adopt hard metric sizing the next time their tooling wore out and had to be replaced anyway. They may have claimed it was an unfunded mandate, but the issue was misplaced American exceptionalism. If they'd ripped off the bandaid it would have been over 30 years ago. Instead we're still dealing with it.
Quote from: kphoger on February 22, 2021, 02:58:46 PM
1 inch = 2.541 cm
Wait, what? An inch is currently defined as exactly 2.54 cm (as a result of an international agreement defining a yard as 0.9144 meters).
This thread makes me wonder:
What has kept miles firmly in use in the UK over the years? Similar reasons to why we use them here?
--
Continuing with the theme of "which metric/SI equivalents do you know off-hand"...
Going to the Philippines as often as I have since 2016, I've learned to do the distance conversions rather easily, all based off knowing 1.6 km (actually 1.6034 more exactly, according to Google) is a mile. I've done those conversions before in following auto racing (where NASCAR has used both 500km and 500 miles for event lengths, and the old Group C sports car formula of the 80s commonly used 1000km/625 miles).
400m = approximately 1/4 mile
500m = approximately 1/3 mile
1km = approximately 5/8 mile
37C = 100F
0C = 32F
Quote from: TheStranger on February 23, 2021, 03:32:22 AM
This thread makes me wonder:
What has kept miles firmly in use in the UK over the years? Similar reasons to why we use them here?
--
Continuing with the theme of "which metric/SI equivalents do you know off-hand"...
Going to the Philippines as often as I have since 2016, I've learned to do the distance conversions rather easily, all based off knowing 1.6 km (actually 1.6034 more exactly, according to Google) is a mile. I've done those conversions before in following auto racing (where NASCAR has used both 500km and 500 miles for event lengths, and the old Group C sports car formula of the 80s commonly used 1000km/625 miles).
400m = approximately 1/4 mile
500m = approximately 1/3 mile
1km = approximately 5/8 mile
37C = 100F
0C = 32F
1mile is 160
9 meters, 1609.34 to be precise.
For driving purposes, accuracy is limited by tyre wear anyway...
Regarding temperature, there's an old poem to help people get a sense for Celsius that goes something like, "0 is freezing, 10 is not. 20 is spring-like and 30 is hot." I might quibble with whether 30°C is really "hot" (it's 86°F), but it's close enough to give the general idea, and in much of the USA you don't see 40°C (which definitely is hot) all that often.
Quote from: US 89 on February 23, 2021, 01:21:05 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 22, 2021, 02:58:46 PM
1 inch = 2.541 cm
Wait, what? An inch is currently defined as exactly 2.54 cm (as a result of an international agreement defining a yard as 0.9144 meters).
Well, that certainly makes mental math easier!
I do wonder where that idea came from. Must have slipped over from the thousandths place of 0.62
1 miles being a kilometer.
I was caught up in the metric push of the 70s in school. It failed, in no small part, because teachers did not understand what the goal was. First, not really knowing the system, they thought that any prefix would work with any unit. While this is technically true, real world usage has some units simply not in common use. But the main problem is they say it as a way to just make up difficult math problems based on the unnecessary skill of converting normal measurements to metric and v-v, rather than just teaching what the units were and how much they contained.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 23, 2021, 07:41:03 AM
Regarding temperature, there's an old poem to help people get a sense for Celsius that goes something like, "0 is freezing, 10 is not. 20 is spring-like and 30 is hot." I might quibble with whether 30°C is really "hot" (it's 86°F), but it's close enough to give the general idea, and in much of the USA you don't see 40°C (which definitely is hot) all that often.
There's only three Celsius/Fahrenheit conversions that I know off-hand: freezing, boiling, and -40 (the point where the two are equal).
But I do have a general idea of what corresponds: low negatives are like our 20's, low 20's are like our room temperature, and so on, even without knowing the exact conversion.
Some customary units dominate worldwide due to US influence of the industry.
-TV sizes are measured in inches.
-Automotive tire/wheel sizes are still measured in inches despite Michelin's myriad attempts to metric it (TRX, PAX).
-Aeronautical speed measurements are in knots.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 23, 2021, 02:22:11 PM
Some customary units dominate worldwide due to US influence of the industry.
-TV sizes are measured in inches.
-Automotive tire/wheel sizes are still measured in inches despite Michelin's myriad attempts to metric it (TRX, PAX).
-Aeronautical speed measurements are in knots.
Sony happily provides screen size in cm(inches) in UK and France (did a quick check for just those two cases): https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/tv/t/oled-televisions
Common tire size notation - 225/55R17 for my car - contains mm as a first number and inches as a last number :confused:
Last one is inherited from UK marine dominance. I don't think there is any use for nautical miles outside of aviation and naval navigation in US.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 23, 2021, 12:49:03 PM
I was caught up in the metric push of the 70s in school. It failed, in no small part, because teachers did not understand what the goal was. First, not really knowing the system, they thought that any prefix would work with any unit. While this is technically true, real world usage has some units simply not in common use.
I remember having to learn prefixes like
deci- and
hecto- and then having a physics teacher in 11th grade who basically told us that most of the way the metric system was taught was more confusing than it needed to just be understood. Almost nobody was using those prefixes, except in very specialized contexts (decibels, for example). Just using the base units and usually 1/1000 of it and just grams/kilograms/liters, not
centimeters,
dekagrams, and
hectoliters would have made it a lot simpler.
Temperature is another matter, but I think scaling it to the typical "feelings" associated with -20, -10, 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 might have made it easier to understand from a younger age (of course, there's always going to be
That Guy Who Wears Shorts Outdoors When It's 5 Out There...).
Centimeters is a useful in-between unit because a millimeter is too small for most uses. "About 60 mm" - no, just say 6 cm.
I'm surprised dekagrams aren't used more for things up to a half kilogram. A gram is so small, you usually have to have hundreds of them to have a decent pile of something.
I didn't know customary measures were called that until 5th grade when my math book called it that. I was in 5th grade in 1983-84, and the math book had a bunch of pages on the metric system but just one tiny little page on customary measures, which appeared to be an afterthought.
My main memory of 5th grade math though was when a classmate lost his math book, but later he miraculously found it right at the same time mine disappeared. You should have seen the look on his face when the teacher later found my name inside the cover of the found book. You guessed it! This kid stole my book to replace the one he lost.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 23, 2021, 04:36:58 PM
I didn't know customary measures were called that until 5th grade when my math book called it that. I was in 5th grade in 1983-84, and the math book had a bunch of pages on the metric system but just one tiny little page on customary measures, which appeared to be an afterthought.
I remember having a book that clearly stated the USA would have completely converted to metric by 1983.
One logistical issue with conversion in the US would be the sheer number of road signs. Canada apparently changed every speed limit sign in the country over Labour Day weekend in 1977. I can't imagine it being possible to convert every speed limit sign in the USA that quickly.
Some (a lot of?) things would simply never change, for practical reasons. I mean, farmers are still going to "plow the northwest forty", rather than "plow the northwest 16.1874 hectares", no matter what. And, if they sell a portion of their land, it's still going to be "a quarter-section" rather than "0.647497 square kilometers". Chicago's street grid will still be "eight blocks to a mile", no matter if highways signs have kilometers on them or not.
Quote from: GaryV on February 23, 2021, 04:27:53 PM
Centimeters is a useful in-between unit because a millimeter is too small for most uses. "About 60 mm" - no, just say 6 cm.
I'm surprised dekagrams aren't used more for things up to a half kilogram. A gram is so small, you usually have to have hundreds of them to have a decent pile of something.
Some things, mainly nutrition, are "per 100 grams"; they just don't call it a hectogram (dekagrams are 10 grams, not 100).
(https://i.redd.it/dd2jootpxyd31.jpg)
"cal" should be capitalized...
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 05:07:35 PM
Some (a lot of?) things would simply never change, for practical reasons. I mean, farmers are still going to "plow the northwest forty", rather than "plow the northwest 16.1874 hectares", no matter what. And, if they sell a portion of their land, it's still going to be "a quarter-section" rather than "0.647497 square kilometers". Chicago's street grid will still be "eight blocks to a mile", no matter if highways signs have kilometers on them or not.
"eight blocks to a mile" can easily become "five blocks to a km"...
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 05:09:47 PM
"cal" should be capitalized...
...because technically, they're kilocalories.
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 05:07:35 PM
Some (a lot of?) things would simply never change, for practical reasons. I mean, farmers are still going to "plow the northwest forty", rather than "plow the northwest 16.1874 hectares", no matter what. And, if they sell a portion of their land, it's still going to be "a quarter-section" rather than "0.647497 square kilometers". Chicago's street grid will still be "eight blocks to a mile", no matter if highways signs have kilometers on them or not.
"eight blocks to a mile" can easily become "five blocks to a km"...
However, that would not match up to where the major roads/streets are, which are on the section lines.
Back in the seventies, there was thought that the US, just like Canada, was on the brink of conversion to SI. But it never happened. I was taught SI (metric) measurements. It is really hard to learn metrics if you try to equate them to standard US measurements. I prefer metric measurement for its neat ten based design. It is also consistent. A ML is always a ML. but a US fluid ounce could be several different similar but inexact measurements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems
We were taught metric in the late 90s/early 2000s, but rather than focusing on unit conversions it was the k-h-dk-u-d-c-m conversion chart. In contrast, I don't remember ever being taught anything about customary measurements; I guess they assumed you learned those from the ether or something.
So as a result, I still have problems with customary measurements and avoid them when at all possible. I have never managed to get a handle on how many quarts are in a pint or how many of those are in a gallon, or even which of them is bigger, because I never use those to measure anything. Gallons I know because milk comes in gallon jars. But nobody specifies smaller units of liquid smaller than a half gallon as, like, 0.4 of a gallon.
Inches are the worst unit of measure anyone ever came up with; there is nothing more frustrating than having to stare at the ruler trying to count off sixteenths of an inch if you don't measure things often enough to just be able to know from looking at the ruler. ("Okay, 1/16, 1/8, 3/16, uh... what's that next one, a fourth?") And why do some rulers have 1/16" marks only between the 0" and 1" mark? What if you need to measure something that's 4 7/16"? It's just a lot less hassle to flip the ruler around to the cm side. ("Okay, it's between the 7 and 8 cm marks, and it's past the long 5 mm mark, so that's 75, 76, 77, 78 mm. Or 7.8 cm.")
On the other hand, I have no use for Celsius. There's no real need to convert between units (we didn't make every seven °F equal a temperature ounce or something idiotic like that), and I don't intentionally cause water to freeze that often, so it's nice having the smaller and more precise degree units.
That being said, I never really have to worry about converting between one or the other except when I'm talking to someone in another country and they, say, describe their height in cm or something. I tend to measure things in metric and leave them in metric, unless I'm working on something like a building which has already been measured in a different unit of measure.
Another thing like this is the "new math." I remember seeing a math book around 1980 that made a big deal out of "sets."
Quote from: bandit957 on February 23, 2021, 06:33:03 PM
Another thing like this is the "new math." I remember seeing a math book around 1980 that made a big deal out of "sets."
Sets are nowhere near new, but they're more of an advanced topic.
Let's talk home building. 4x8 piece of plywood/drywall. Joists 16" on center. 3/4" pipe. 30" wide stove. Doors 6'8" tall. Would be annoying to change those to metric. No, I'm not going to get into why a 2 by 4 is really 1 1/2 x 3 1/2" , but a 2 by 8 is 7 1/4" . Except when you're working on an older house...
Quote from: davewiecking on February 23, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Let's talk home building. 4x8 piece of plywood/drywall. Joists 16" on center. 3/4" pipe. 30" wide stove. Doors 6'8" tall. Would be annoying to change those to metric. No, I'm not going to get into why a 2 by 4 is really 1 1/2 x 3 1/2" , but a 2 by 8 is 7 1/4" . Except when you're working on an older house...
Those sound more annoying how they are now, to be honest.
A door is 6'8". How far would halfway up it be? Easy, 3'4". How about a quarter of the way up? Uuuuuh....
Quote from: bandit957 on February 23, 2021, 06:33:03 PM
Another thing like this is the "new math." I remember seeing a math book around 1980 that made a big deal out of "sets."
Apparently there is some other form of new math now. My brother-in-law and his wife were saying the way their kids are taught math is incomprehensible and makes it impossible for them to help their kids when they struggle with their homework–if the kids don't show their work using the technique the teachers are required to teach, then they're deemed to have gotten it wrong even if their ultimate answer is correct.
Apparently there is a lot of drawing circles and they don't learn to carry or borrow. Makes me wonder how they do long division.
I'd rather the lumber did have metric measurements if they were true measurements and not code for a dimension minus the "carrying charges".
If you buy half a liter of soup, you get 500 ml, not 450 ml because some of it boiled off in the making.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 23, 2021, 06:33:03 PM
Another thing like this is the "new math." I remember seeing a math book around 1980 that made a big deal out of "sets."
Ah hah! The answer to the OP's question is that the metric system was a key focus of "New Math" in the 1970s. Of which I am a byproduct thereof. Don't know if that's good or bad.
Quote from: Brandon on February 23, 2021, 05:38:56 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 05:07:35 PM
Some (a lot of?) things would simply never change, for practical reasons. I mean, farmers are still going to "plow the northwest forty", rather than "plow the northwest 16.1874 hectares", no matter what. And, if they sell a portion of their land, it's still going to be "a quarter-section" rather than "0.647497 square kilometers". Chicago's street grid will still be "eight blocks to a mile", no matter if highways signs have kilometers on them or not.
"eight blocks to a mile" can easily become "five blocks to a km"...
However, that would not match up to where the major roads/streets are, which are on the section lines.
Does it match up with the dimensions as of today? I just went to Cook county's tax map and measured some distance in a well-defined grid area. Sure enough, it was 0.503 mile street center to street center - good enough for the estimate, but error is similar to rounding a mile to 1.6 km.
I really doubt you can do much better given the spherical shape of the planet and non-flat terrain.
Accuracy of odometer would be still limited by tire wear, for tax purposes one needs to take street width into account...
So I doubt the change would be that problematic..
I think metric vs. US customary is like learning a language. If you're fluent in a language, you're not constantly translating between it and your native language - you're thinking in that language. The same is true with metric. Trying to teach people metric by having them convert between metric and US customary probably wasn't a good idea - it just creates more math problems and frustration.
The last time I was in Canada (2014), I actually developed a good sense of using metric for distances and speeds. I wasn't saying "oh, that's 70 km, so it's 43 miles" - I was just thinking in km (even then, trying to translate km and miles wasn't great, though I'm better with kph and mph, and now I'm even worse due to lack of use). It helps that my car has a digital speedometer and odometer, so I'm not reading the little numbers, I just push a button and everything switches. It's worth noting, however, that the same did not happen for temperature (in my head or in the car - and the latter no doubt played a part in the former!). The same is true with liters and gallons (and as such I have no clue how to compare gas prices between the US and Canada). Sure, the car does switch miles per gallon to liters per 1000 km, but those aren't easy to compare directly since they're basically opposites, and I'd encounter nothing helping to convert (especially as the car was new at the time and I didn't have the same sense of how big the tank was that I do now (these days, I can predict how much gas I'll need within a gallon or two; back then, I couldn't); the fact that I only refueled in Canada once doesn't help).
Honestly, I wish the US had switched to metric, if only to eliminate the differences in units on each side of the border. That said, the US and Canada are probably more similar to each other relative to the rest of the world than they appear at first glance. Both countries halted conversion part way, but Canada got a few very high profile things done first (road signs, gas, weather reports, etc.) that the US hadn't. And, as mentioned, the UK still uses miles (which is arguably even worse than the US, as both they and the EU use Vienna Convention signs, and there's no obvious difference to clue you in to the fact that speed limits use different units - you just have to know which country you're in and that the UK uses mph, even on the Ireland/Northern Ireland border). Saying "the US is one of only a couple countries not using metric" vastly oversimplifies things.
What does Canada still use Imperial or customary measures for?
Driving in Europe, it was easy to figure your ETA. Instead of figuring one minute per mile at 60 mph, you estimated one minute per 2 KM at 120 kph and just go from there.
120 to 130 kph was typical Autobahn speed at the time ... 130 kph = about 80 mph which was plenty fast. But if you didn't want to ride with the big dogs, you kept your ass in the right lane.
I've barely been to Canada. but the last time I was there (many years ago), I kept calling kilometers "short miles." It was easier to say.
Quote from: kkt on February 23, 2021, 09:43:30 PM
What does Canada still use Imperial or customary measures for?
I was in Quebec in July 2019. Picture frame sizes were still in inches.
Quote from: 1 on February 24, 2021, 06:42:30 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 23, 2021, 09:43:30 PM
What does Canada still use Imperial or customary measures for?
I was in Quebec in July 2019. Picture frame sizes were still in inches.
There was an interesting review at some point about penetration of metric system in different countries. Interestingly enough, there are leftovers of traditional units pretty much everywhere. Sometimes obscured, like 1524 mm rail gauge, sometimes converted to metric, like 200 mg carat.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2021, 06:20:10 PM
I still have problems with customary measurements and avoid them when at all possible. I have never managed to get a handle on how many quarts are in a pint or how many of those are in a gallon, or even which of them is bigger, because I never use those to measure anything. Gallons I know because milk comes in gallon jars. But nobody specifies smaller units of liquid smaller than a half gallon as, like, 0.4 of a gallon.
Same here. Except I know a pint is the size of a carton of cream, so a quart must be bigger. How many of each go into the other, though, I always have to ask someone else. Even then, though, the recipe invariably calls for a certain number of cups, so I still have to convert, no matter what. Most other ingredients are easier to figure out, but those are they ones I'm safe to just eyeball. Go figure that the ingredients most crucial to measure exactly (liquids and baking ingredients) don't have units that line up between cookbook and product label.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2021, 06:20:10 PM
Inches are the worst unit of measure anyone ever came up with; there is nothing more frustrating than having to stare at the ruler trying to count off sixteenths of an inch if you don't measure things often enough to just be able to know from looking at the ruler. ("Okay, 1/16, 1/8, 3/16, uh... what's that next one, a fourth?")
I think it's worse to measure millimeters on a ruler, when none of them are labeled between the centimeter marks, or only the 5mm mark if you're lucky.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2021, 06:20:10 PM
That being said, I never really have to worry about converting between one or the other except when I'm talking to someone in another country and they, say, describe their height in cm or something. I tend to measure things in metric and leave them in metric, unless I'm working on something like a building which has already been measured in a different unit of measure.
It comes up for me every time I look at the weather forecast in Mexico. Hmm, I wonder if tomorrow will be jacket weather or not.... OK, time to do mental math!
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 08:23:10 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 23, 2021, 05:38:56 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 23, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 05:07:35 PM
Some (a lot of?) things would simply never change, for practical reasons. I mean, farmers are still going to "plow the northwest forty", rather than "plow the northwest 16.1874 hectares", no matter what. And, if they sell a portion of their land, it's still going to be "a quarter-section" rather than "0.647497 square kilometers". Chicago's street grid will still be "eight blocks to a mile", no matter if highways signs have kilometers on them or not.
"eight blocks to a mile" can easily become "five blocks to a km"...
However, that would not match up to where the major roads/streets are, which are on the section lines.
Does it match up with the dimensions as of today? I just went to Cook county's tax map and measured some distance in a well-defined grid area. Sure enough, it was 0.503 mile street center to street center - good enough for the estimate, but error is similar to rounding a mile to 1.6 km.
I really doubt you can do much better given the spherical shape of the planet and non-flat terrain.
Accuracy of odometer would be still limited by tire wear, for tax purposes one needs to take street width into account...
So I doubt the change would be that problematic..
Precision is irrelevant in this context. But, at any rate... I can easily figure out how far it is in Wichita from, say, 45th/Oliver to Central/Rock, because each major road along the way north-south is one mile farther, and each major road along the way east-west is a half-mile farther:
45th/Oliver → 45th/Edgemoor = 0.5 mi.
45th/Edgemoor → 45th/Woodlawn = 0.5 mi., total 1 mi.
45th/Woodlawn → 37th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 2 mi.
37th/Woodlawn → 29th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 3 mi.
29th/Woodlawn → 21st/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 4 mi.
21st/Woodlawn → 13th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 5 mi.
13th/Woodlawn → Central/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 6 mi.
Central/Woodlawn → Central/Armour = 0.5 mi., total 6.5 mi.
Central/Armour → Central/Rock = 0.5 mi., total 7 mi.
Oh, and hey, look,
that's exactly how far it is (https://goo.gl/maps/HuMJcvtm5eV4QUjD9)!
I do this kind of adding in my head all the time to figure out how far away something is in town. I remember my grandpa doing it out loud all the time for distances within Chicago, too. How would you my Wichita example–just as easily and intuitively–using kilometers instead?
I-19 is still signed in metric, for both distances and exit numbers. I wonder if there was a plan to do the same thing for all the other Interstates at the time? (although I wouldn't be surprised if such plans existed)
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
Precision is irrelevant in this context. But, at any rate... I can easily figure out how far it is in Wichita from, say, 45th/Oliver to Central/Rock, because each major road along the way north-south is one mile farther, and each major road along the way east-west is a half-mile farther:
45th/Oliver → 45th/Edgemoor = 0.5 mi.
45th/Edgemoor → 45th/Woodlawn = 0.5 mi., total 1 mi.
45th/Woodlawn → 37th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 2 mi.
37th/Woodlawn → 29th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 3 mi.
29th/Woodlawn → 21st/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 4 mi.
21st/Woodlawn → 13th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 5 mi.
13th/Woodlawn → Central/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 6 mi.
Central/Woodlawn → Central/Armour = 0.5 mi., total 6.5 mi.
Central/Armour → Central/Rock = 0.5 mi., total 7 mi.
Oh, and hey, look, that's exactly how far it is (https://goo.gl/maps/HuMJcvtm5eV4QUjD9)!
I do this kind of adding in my head all the time to figure out how far away something is in town. I remember my grandpa doing it out loud all the time for distances within Chicago, too. How would you my Wichita example–just as easily and intuitively–using kilometers instead?
Not being familiar with Chicago area, I cannot go through street names; let me try to do just the numbered part:
45th/Woodlawn → 40th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 1 km.
40th/Woodlawn → 35th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 2 km.
35th/Woodlawn → 30th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 3 km.
30th/Woodlawn → 25th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 4 km.
25th/Woodlawn → 20th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 5 km.
20th/Woodlawn → 15th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 6 km.
15th/Woodlawn → 13th/Woodlawn = 0.4 km. total 6.4 km.
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2021, 06:20:10 PM
Inches are the worst unit of measure anyone ever came up with; there is nothing more frustrating than having to stare at the ruler trying to count off sixteenths of an inch if you don't measure things often enough to just be able to know from looking at the ruler. ("Okay, 1/16, 1/8, 3/16, uh... what's that next one, a fourth?")
I think it's worse to measure millimeters on a ruler, when none of them are labeled between the centimeter marks, or only the 5mm mark if you're lucky.
Every metric ruler I own has a longer line every 5 mm, which makes things considerably easier. Still, though, it's easier to count "51, 52, 53, 54..." than keeping track of four different line lengths and which denominator each of them represents. To me at least. I'm not a fraction kind of guy.
I wonder if they have rulers that measure by 0.1 inch rather than by fractions. Of course, that probably wouldn't be terribly useful, because if I'm measuring something that was designed in customary units they probably made it 7/16" instead of 0.4" just to piss me off.
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2021, 06:20:10 PM
Inches are the worst unit of measure anyone ever came up with; there is nothing more frustrating than having to stare at the ruler trying to count off sixteenths of an inch if you don't measure things often enough to just be able to know from looking at the ruler. ("Okay, 1/16, 1/8, 3/16, uh... what's that next one, a fourth?")
I think it's worse to measure millimeters on a ruler, when none of them are labeled between the centimeter marks, or only the 5mm mark if you're lucky.
What ruler are you using? Every ruler I've ever used has a mark for each mm.
The thing is that a millimeter is small enough that you have to squint and count each tick mark, and then count it again to make sure you counted right. Unlike the inch side where the different fractions are different lengths, all the mm tick marks are the same size except for maybe the 5 mm mark. And good luck drawing a line accurate to within a mm when the tip of your pencil is actually wider than that...
Quote from: US 89 on February 24, 2021, 01:28:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2021, 06:20:10 PM
Inches are the worst unit of measure anyone ever came up with; there is nothing more frustrating than having to stare at the ruler trying to count off sixteenths of an inch if you don't measure things often enough to just be able to know from looking at the ruler. ("Okay, 1/16, 1/8, 3/16, uh... what's that next one, a fourth?")
I think it's worse to measure millimeters on a ruler, when none of them are labeled between the centimeter marks, or only the 5mm mark if you're lucky.
What ruler are you using? Every ruler I've ever used has a mark for each mm.
The thing is that a millimeter is small enough that you have to squint and count each tick mark, and then count it again to make sure you counted right. Unlike the inch side where the different fractions are different lengths, all the mm tick marks are the same size except for maybe the 5 mm mark. And good luck drawing a line accurate to within a mm when the tip of your pencil is actually wider than that...
Our local Staples surely has some mechanical pencils with 0.5 mm lead...
Quote from: kalvado on February 24, 2021, 01:20:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
Precision is irrelevant in this context. But, at any rate... I can easily figure out how far it is in Wichita from, say, 45th/Oliver to Central/Rock, because each major road along the way north-south is one mile farther, and each major road along the way east-west is a half-mile farther:
45th/Oliver → 45th/Edgemoor = 0.5 mi.
45th/Edgemoor → 45th/Woodlawn = 0.5 mi., total 1 mi.
45th/Woodlawn → 37th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 2 mi.
37th/Woodlawn → 29th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 3 mi.
29th/Woodlawn → 21st/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 4 mi.
21st/Woodlawn → 13th/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 5 mi.
13th/Woodlawn → Central/Woodlawn = 1 mi., total 6 mi.
Central/Woodlawn → Central/Armour = 0.5 mi., total 6.5 mi.
Central/Armour → Central/Rock = 0.5 mi., total 7 mi.
Oh, and hey, look, that's exactly how far it is (https://goo.gl/maps/HuMJcvtm5eV4QUjD9)!
I do this kind of adding in my head all the time to figure out how far away something is in town. I remember my grandpa doing it out loud all the time for distances within Chicago, too. How would you my Wichita example–just as easily and intuitively–using kilometers instead?
Not being familiar with Chicago area, I cannot go through street names; let me try to do just the numbered part:
45th/Woodlawn → 40th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 1 km.
40th/Woodlawn → 35th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 2 km.
35th/Woodlawn → 30th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 3 km.
30th/Woodlawn → 25th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 4 km.
25th/Woodlawn → 20th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 5 km.
20th/Woodlawn → 15th/Woodlawn = 1 km. total 6 km.
15th/Woodlawn → 13th/Woodlawn = 0.4 km. total 6.4 km.
Wichita, by the way.
Great, you can subtract with numbered streets. That totally leaves out the rest of the exercise. Being able to do it
with or without numbered streets is the whole point.
To do an actual Chicago example: Harlem/Division to Cicero/Kinzie.
Harlem/Division → Oak Park/Division = 0.5 mi.
Oak Park/Division → Ridgeland/Division = 0.5 mi.
Ridgeland/Division → Austin/Division = 0.5 mi.
Austin/Division → Central/Division = 0.5 mi.
Central/Division → Laramie/Division = 0.5 mi.
Laramie/Division → Cicero/Division = 0.5 mi.
Cicero/Division → Cicero/Chicago = 0.5 mi.
Cicero/Chicago → Cicero/Kinzie = 0.5 mi.
Total = 4 miles.
That's only a tenth-mile off according to
Google Maps (https://goo.gl/maps/7j8W82EL9DmWgwSf7), which is darned close enough for any real-world application. And yes, those intermediate points are pretty easy for me, considering they correspond with station stops on the Green Line L.
Quote from: US 89 on February 24, 2021, 01:28:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2021, 06:20:10 PM
Inches are the worst unit of measure anyone ever came up with; there is nothing more frustrating than having to stare at the ruler trying to count off sixteenths of an inch if you don't measure things often enough to just be able to know from looking at the ruler. ("Okay, 1/16, 1/8, 3/16, uh... what's that next one, a fourth?")
I think it's worse to measure millimeters on a ruler, when none of them are labeled between the centimeter marks, or only the 5mm mark if you're lucky.
What ruler are you using? Every ruler I've ever used has a mark for each mm.
The thing is that a millimeter is small enough that you have to squint and count each tick mark, and then count it again to make sure you counted right. Unlike the inch side where the different fractions are different lengths, all the mm tick marks are the same size except for maybe the 5 mm mark. And good luck drawing a line accurate to within a mm when the tip of your pencil is actually wider than that...
I didn't say they weren't marked. I said they weren't labeled (with a longer line). Even with half-centimeter lines being longer/labeled, that still leaves four tiny lines in between. At least fractions of an inch often have various line lengths. Therefore, we're actually in agreement.
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
I can easily figure out how far it is in Wichita from, say, 45th/Oliver to Central/Rock, because each major road along the way north-south is one mile farther, and each major road along the way east-west is a half-mile farther:
That's all well and fine in a city with a grid, but there are many cities where that doesn't work. Boston, for example.
Quote from: webny99 on February 24, 2021, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
I can easily figure out how far it is in Wichita from, say, 45th/Oliver to Central/Rock, because each major road along the way north-south is one mile farther, and each major road along the way east-west is a half-mile farther:
That's all well and fine in a city with a grid, but there are many cities where that doesn't work. Boston, for example.
Yeah, I totally get that. In Boston, it probably wouldn't make any difference either way. But in places like Chicago and Wichita, figuring distances would be more difficult in metric.
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 01:47:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 24, 2021, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
I can easily figure out how far it is in Wichita from, say, 45th/Oliver to Central/Rock, because each major road along the way north-south is one mile farther, and each major road along the way east-west is a half-mile farther:
That's all well and fine in a city with a grid, but there are many cities where that doesn't work. Boston, for example.
Yeah, I totally get that. In Boston, it probably wouldn't make any difference either way. But in places like Chicago and Wichita, figuring distances would be more difficult in metric.
I mean, that's part of the problem, when something is built to one measure but you want to use another one. US cities were built using miles so using km to measure them doesn't work very well.
Similar problem with a building I'm renovating: we need to replace some blocks in a concrete-block wall. I'd be perfectly happy to measure the block cuts in cm, but the blocks and mortar thickness are all a standardized number of inches so I'd end up with a bunch of squirrelly decimals.
Quote from: kkt on February 23, 2021, 09:43:30 PM
What does Canada still use Imperial or customary measures for?
Anything associated with personal info (height, weight) or construction.
QuoteBut in places like Chicago and Wichita, figuring distances would be more difficult in metric.
15 minutes away is still 15 minutes away, even in the metric system
QuoteI mean, that's part of the problem, when something is built to one measure but you want to use another one. US cities were built using miles so using km to measure them doesn't work very well.
Just means you see a lot of 400 m, 600 m, 800 m, 1200 m, 1600 m, and 3 km road signs (at least in BC) instead of 500 m, 1000 m, 1500 m, and 2 km signs like you do in Europe.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 24, 2021, 02:39:55 PM
15 minutes away is still 15 minutes away, even in the metric system
But I don't know something is 15 minutes away if I don't know how far it is.
Say I'm walking home, and my wife calls to ask how long till I get back. ??
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 03:03:59 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 24, 2021, 02:39:55 PM
15 minutes away is still 15 minutes away, even in the metric system
But I don't know something is 15 minutes away if I don't know how far it is.
Say I'm walking home, and my wife calls to ask how long till I get back. ??
Well, if you're walking home, you should know approximately how many minutes away you are, even if you don't know anything about the metric
or imperial systems of measurement.
Quote from: webny99 on February 24, 2021, 03:24:52 PM
Well, if you're walking home, you should know approximately how many minutes away you are, even if you don't know anything about the metric or imperial systems of measurement.
Nope. I rarely walk farther than a few blocks anymore, so I don't have a good feel for how many minutes away different places are.
But if our car is in the shop or my wife needs it, and I need to catch a bus, how many minutes should I allow to get from home to the bus stop? I can easily calculate that based on how many minutes it takes me to cover a mile, because major roads are either a half-mile or a mile apart.
Or the time a few years ago that I had to renew my tags, drove to the tag office, locked my keys in the car, and had to walk 3.5 miles home to grab my wife's set of keys. I didn't even have to measure that distance on Google Maps just now: I could figure it in my head based on the mile-grid system. I also did so on my way home from the tag office, when I called her on my cell phone and told her I'd be there in about 50 to 55 minutes, based on my typical walking speed of 4 mph.
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 03:03:59 PMBut I don't know something is 15 minutes away if I don't know how far it is.
Say I'm walking home, and my wife calls to ask how long till I get back. ??
Same answer I give: "I'll be there when I
get there!"
:bigass:
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 03:32:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 24, 2021, 03:24:52 PM
Well, if you're walking home, you should know approximately how many minutes away you are, even if you don't know anything about the metric or imperial systems of measurement.
Nope. I rarely walk farther than a few blocks anymore, so I don't have a good feel for how many minutes away different places are.
But if our car is in the shop or my wife needs it, and I need to catch a bus, how many minutes should I allow to get from home to the bus stop? I can easily calculate that based on how many minutes it takes me to cover a mile, because major roads are either a half-mile or a mile apart.
Or the time a few years ago that I had to renew my tags, drove to the tag office, locked my keys in the car, and had to walk 3.5 miles home to grab my wife's set of keys. I didn't even have to measure that distance on Google Maps just now: I could figure it in my head based on the mile-grid system. I also did so on my way home from the tag office, when I called her on my cell phone and told her I'd be there in about 50 to 55 minutes, based on my typical walking speed of 4 mph.
Folks, do you think we should tell him what "taxi" is before trying to explain different systems of measurements?
Quote from: renegade on February 24, 2021, 03:38:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 03:03:59 PMBut I don't know something is 15 minutes away if I don't know how far it is.
Say I'm walking home, and my wife calls to ask how long till I get back. ??
Same answer I give: "I'll be there when I get there!"
:bigass:
Ah, you didn't pass the Marriage 101 course.
Quote from: kalvado on February 24, 2021, 03:42:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 03:32:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 24, 2021, 03:24:52 PM
Well, if you're walking home, you should know approximately how many minutes away you are, even if you don't know anything about the metric or imperial systems of measurement.
Nope. I rarely walk farther than a few blocks anymore, so I don't have a good feel for how many minutes away different places are.
But if our car is in the shop or my wife needs it, and I need to catch a bus, how many minutes should I allow to get from home to the bus stop? I can easily calculate that based on how many minutes it takes me to cover a mile, because major roads are either a half-mile or a mile apart.
Or the time a few years ago that I had to renew my tags, drove to the tag office, locked my keys in the car, and had to walk 3.5 miles home to grab my wife's set of keys. I didn't even have to measure that distance on Google Maps just now: I could figure it in my head based on the mile-grid system. I also did so on my way home from the tag office, when I called her on my cell phone and told her I'd be there in about 50 to 55 minutes, based on my typical walking speed of 4 mph.
Folks, do you think we should tell him what "taxi" is before trying to explain different systems of measurements?
Taxis (and Ubers) are expensive compared to walking. Buses are pretty cheap, but not every route has one.
The notion kphoger mentions of knowing the distance based on a "mile-grid system" is utterly alien to me because we have no grid system of that sort here. To be clear, I'm not saying that as criticism of kphoger; rather, it's more an observation on how where you live can clearly influence your opinions on this sort of issue in ways that may not even remotely occur to someone living elsewhere.
Quote from: renegade on February 24, 2021, 03:38:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 03:03:59 PM
But I don't know something is 15 minutes away if I don't know how far it is.
Say I'm walking home, and my wife calls to ask how long till I get back. ??
Same answer I give: "I'll be there when I get there!"
:bigass:
But if the question is "Should I start setting the table for dinner?" do you become less irritated? :nod:
Quote from: kalvado on February 24, 2021, 03:42:29 PM
Folks, do you think we should tell him what "taxi" is before trying to explain different systems of measurements?
Should we tell you what "money" is?
Quote from: renegade on February 24, 2021, 03:38:21 PM
Taxis (and Ubers) are expensive compared to walking. Buses are pretty cheap, but not every route has one.
Yep. The Wichita bus system operates on a hub-and-spoke model, which means all the routes converge downtown. Even though it was almost a straight shot from the tag office to my house, there's no bus line directly between the two, and I had no idea how long I'd have to wait for the next bus anyway. After getting my wife's car keys, I did take the bus back up to the tag office–which took about an hour and a half including the transfer.
Am I the only person who grew up calling the metric temperature scale "centigrade" instead of "Celsius?"
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 04:09:54 PM
Am I the only person who grew up calling the metric temperature scale "centigrade" instead of "Celsius?"
I remember it was always called "centigrade" until about 1980 (in the rare case it was mentioned at all).
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 04:09:54 PM
Am I the only person who grew up calling the metric temperature scale "centigrade" instead of "Celsius?"
My father called it centigrade. The name makes sense when you think about what it means. I recall one of my early teachers, most likely my second-grade teacher, explaining that the two terms meant the same thing.
I grew up hearing both terms.
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 03:32:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 24, 2021, 03:24:52 PM
Well, if you're walking home, you should know approximately how many minutes away you are, even if you don't know anything about the metric or imperial systems of measurement.
Nope. I rarely walk farther than a few blocks anymore, so I don't have a good feel for how many minutes away different places are.
I don't usually walk far away from home either, and yet I'd still almost always be able to approximate how many minutes away I am from home, certainly for anywhere within 5 miles (I was originally going to say 10 miles, but I'll be conservative).
And we don't have a real grid around here, so this comes from just knowing the area. To be honest, I would feel like a bit of a failure if I couldn't give a reasonably close estimate of how far away from home I was at any given moment. Usually, I think of this in terms of the driving distance, but it would be no different if the context was such that I was on foot.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 04:09:54 PM
Am I the only person who grew up calling the metric temperature scale "centigrade" instead of "Celsius?"
Even in my career, I called it centigrade until I started working on a project in Frankfurt. After my fourth or fifth overseas project, I was eventually weaned off of it. Folks in Canada really didn't seem to mind, and often enjoyed the American flair to have the Imperial system with just a twinge of Metric. I do remember a factory visit in Kingston, Ontario where this got pretty funny. It was just at freezing when I arrived in Toronto and Lake Ontario only had a tad of ice chunks along the banks. Two days later in Kingston, it got down to minus-20 and we had to shut down testing. When somebody in the main office asked Fahrenheit or Metric, and I answered "Yes, Fahrenheit and Centigrade". The Canadians thought it belonged on SCTV. To which, I got distracted and had to talk about the episode from the night before.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 04:09:54 PM
Am I the only person who grew up calling the metric temperature scale "centigrade" instead of "Celsius?"
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 24, 2021, 05:41:54 PM
Even in my career, I called it centigrade until I started working on a project in Frankfurt. After my fourth or fifth overseas project, I was eventually weaned off of it. Folks in Canada really didn't seem to mind, and often enjoyed the American flair to have the Imperial system with just a twinge of Metric. I do remember a factory visit in Kingston, Ontario where this got pretty funny. It was just at freezing when I arrived in Toronto and Lake Ontario only had a tad of ice chunks along the banks. Two days later in Kingston, it got down to minus-20 and we had to shut down testing. When somebody in the main office asked Fahrenheit or Metric, and I answered "Yes, Fahrenheit and Centigrade". The Canadians thought it belonged on SCTV. To which, I got distracted and had to talk about the episode from the night before.
Oh, and at minus-20 for two straight days Lake Ontario froze solid and the big trucks were running for the Thousand Islands as fast as they could before the thaw. Mindblowing.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 24, 2021, 05:41:54 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 04:09:54 PM
Am I the only person who grew up calling the metric temperature scale "centigrade" instead of "Celsius?"
Even in my career, I called it centigrade until I started working on a project in Frankfurt. After my fourth or fifth overseas project, I was eventually weaned off of it. Folks in Canada really didn't seem to mind, and often enjoyed the American flair to have the Imperial system with just a twinge of Metric. I do remember a factory visit in Kingston, Ontario where this got pretty funny. It was just at freezing when I arrived in Toronto and Lake Ontario only had a tad of ice chunks along the banks. Two days later in Kingston, it got down to minus-20 and we had to shut down testing. When somebody in the main office asked Fahrenheit or Metric, and I answered "Yes, Fahrenheit and Centigrade". The Canadians thought it belonged on SCTV. To which, I got distracted and had to talk about the episode from the night before.
At -20, it can't be both Fahrenheit and Centigrade, even if you allow a margin of error.
Quote from: kalvado on February 24, 2021, 07:19:02 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 24, 2021, 06:42:30 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 23, 2021, 09:43:30 PM
What does Canada still use Imperial or customary measures for?
I was in Quebec in July 2019. Picture frame sizes were still in inches.
There was an interesting review at some point about penetration of metric system in different countries. Interestingly enough, there are leftovers of traditional units pretty much everywhere. Sometimes obscured, like 1524 mm rail gauge, sometimes converted to metric, like 200 mg carat.
Thank you for the info about picture frames!
1524 mm is a broad gauge, broader than Russian even. Perhaps a rapid transit system?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 04:09:54 PM
Am I the only person who grew up calling the metric temperature scale "centigrade" instead of "Celsius?"
It was explained to me that SI adopted the name Celsius because as a proper name it wouldn't be spelled differently from one language to another. I suppose so, although grams and meters are spelled almost the same everywhere.
Quote from: kkt on February 24, 2021, 07:01:01 PM
I suppose so, although grams and meters are spelled almost the same everywhere.
They're metres in most countries.
Quote from: kkt on February 24, 2021, 06:54:35 PM
1524 mm is a broad gauge, broader than Russian even. Perhaps a rapid transit system?
I though 1524 mm (5 ft) is Russian gauge. I haven't been on a 1524 mm gauge railway before (many metro systems in former Soviet territory uses that), but Toronto uses 1495 mm (4 ft 10.875 in) on their subway, which is also broader than standard.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 24, 2021, 07:05:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 24, 2021, 06:54:35 PM
1524 mm is a broad gauge, broader than Russian even. Perhaps a rapid transit system?
I though 1524 mm (5 ft) is Russian gauge. I haven't been on a 1524 mm gauge railway before (many metro systems in former Soviet territory uses that), but Toronto uses 1495 mm (4 ft 10.875 in) on their subway, which is also broader than standard.
1524 was soviet standard, brute forced to 1520 metrication without full hardware overhaul and getting troubles as a result. Just for the sake of getting a more round metric number.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 24, 2021, 07:05:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 24, 2021, 06:54:35 PM
1524 mm is a broad gauge, broader than Russian even. Perhaps a rapid transit system?
I though 1524 mm (5 ft) is Russian gauge. I haven't been on a 1524 mm gauge railway before (many metro systems in former Soviet territory uses that), but Toronto uses 1495 mm (4 ft 10.875 in) on their subway, which is also broader than standard.
Looking into it more, I see 1524 mm (exactly 5 feet) was the nominal standard Russia adopted in the mid 1800s. However, the USSR adopted 1520 mm as the official standard and tightened the tolerance in the late 1960s. A small change and most running stock could be used without modification.
Quote from: kkt on February 24, 2021, 08:39:19 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 24, 2021, 07:05:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 24, 2021, 06:54:35 PM
1524 mm is a broad gauge, broader than Russian even. Perhaps a rapid transit system?
I though 1524 mm (5 ft) is Russian gauge. I haven't been on a 1524 mm gauge railway before (many metro systems in former Soviet territory uses that), but Toronto uses 1495 mm (4 ft 10.875 in) on their subway, which is also broader than standard.
Looking into it more, I see 1524 mm (exactly 5 feet) was the nominal standard Russia adopted in the mid 1800s. However, the USSR adopted 1520 mm as the official standard and tightened the tolerance in the late 1960s. A small change and most running stock could be used without modification.
From what I heard it was NOT without problems...
Quote from: Road Hog on February 23, 2021, 09:56:34 PM
Driving in Europe, it was easy to figure your ETA. Instead of figuring one minute per mile at 60 mph, you estimated one minute per 2 KM at 120 kph and just go from there.
120 to 130 kph was typical Autobahn speed at the time ... 130 kph = about 80 mph which was plenty fast. But if you didn't want to ride with the big dogs, you kept your ass in the right lane.
Too bad Canada doesn't have 120 limits outside of some freeways in British Columbia. Heck, Québec and most of Ontario are stuck at 100!
Quote from: kkt on February 23, 2021, 09:43:30 PM
What does Canada still use Imperial or customary measures for?
Lots of little things. Basically, in 1985 the government decided to halt further forced metric conversion (and the tradespeople were revolting over metric before then anyways; this was actually an election issue). Construction is a big one. Cooking is another. Stores advertise meat and produce per pound (even if the package is labeled per kilogram), and products tend to be sized in US customary, just labeled in metric (so a bottle might be the seemingly random size of 355 ml, which is 12 fluid ounces). The freight railroads also still use imperial. Wikipedia goes into detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Canada#Products_and_retail
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2021, 03:53:01 PM
The notion kphoger mentions of knowing the distance based on a "mile-grid system" is utterly alien to me because we have no grid system of that sort here. To be clear, I'm not saying that as criticism of kphoger; rather, it's more an observation on how where you live can clearly influence your opinions on this sort of issue in ways that may not even remotely occur to someone living elsewhere.
I've read that some Canadians use miles for short distances and km for long distances (despite the relative size of the two units) because of that grid system.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 24, 2021, 05:45:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2021, 04:09:54 PM
Am I the only person who grew up calling the metric temperature scale "centigrade" instead of "Celsius?"
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 24, 2021, 05:41:54 PM
Even in my career, I called it centigrade until I started working on a project in Frankfurt. After my fourth or fifth overseas project, I was eventually weaned off of it. Folks in Canada really didn't seem to mind, and often enjoyed the American flair to have the Imperial system with just a twinge of Metric. I do remember a factory visit in Kingston, Ontario where this got pretty funny. It was just at freezing when I arrived in Toronto and Lake Ontario only had a tad of ice chunks along the banks. Two days later in Kingston, it got down to minus-20 and we had to shut down testing. When somebody in the main office asked Fahrenheit or Metric, and I answered "Yes, Fahrenheit and Centigrade". The Canadians thought it belonged on SCTV. To which, I got distracted and had to talk about the episode from the night before.
Oh, and at minus-20 for two straight days Lake Ontario froze solid and the big trucks were running for the Thousand Islands as fast as they could before the thaw. Mindblowing.
They let trucks on Lake Ontario even though it was only that cold for a couple days!? :wow:
Just a few observations:
* The 1970's metric push involved all of the English-speaking settler nations--not just the US, but also Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the last three of which carried conversion more or less to completion.
* When section-line roads, mile-spaced arterials, etc. are quoted as a reason not to convert to metric, the argument is implicitly about the US Public Land Survey System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System). Lands surveyed to the PLSS have extent in all US states with the exceptions of the original thirteen colonies plus Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas. However, these states with no PLSS coverage have populations aggregating to 140.4 million, or 42% of the population of the fifty US states. It is often argued that Canada made the conversion successfully despite having large areas surveyed on a mile-based system, but it has long been my sense (albeit as a casual visitor) that the range/concession system is nowhere near as entrenched historically and culturally there as sections, townships, and ranges are here (they are, for example, tied to railroad building, school founding, and allotment of Indian lands--much more than just road layout and urban design, or dialect features like "back forty," "lower forty," etc. for various quarters of a quarter section).
* In terms of traffic signing, the US metric push stalled after I-19 was signed in metric (ultimately only for guide signs, not warning and regulatory signs as originally provided for in the plans) and a number of states introduced various types of dual-unit signing (in California, the sign spec sheets for these remained valid into the early noughties). In the UK a similar push was considered with regard to traffic signs, but ultimately was progressed only as a change to "maximum authorised mass" (expressed as tonnes, i.e., metric tons, and as "T" on signs) as the basis for weight restrictions, weak bridge signs, etc. provided for in TSRGD 1981. Earlier (but still post-Worboys) signs referenced "tons" (in a small-caps treatment).
I've often wondered if there is a good book-length account of the 1970's metric push that looks at how it unfolded from an international perspective.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 24, 2021, 11:47:42 PM
I've often wondered if there is a good book-length account of the 1970's metric push that looks at how it unfolded from an international perspective.
There is a book titled 'What Ever Happened To The Metric System?' that talks about the metric system.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 24, 2021, 11:47:42 PM
* When section-line roads, mile-spaced arterials, etc. are quoted as a reason not to convert to metric, the argument is implicitly about the US Public Land Survey System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System). Lands surveyed to the PLSS have extent in all US states with the exceptions of the original thirteen colonies plus Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas.
I was thinking more about this last night.
I use the mile grid not just in town, but out in the country as well. For reasons both personal and professional, I sometimes find myself driving in rural Butler County. The east-west roads there are numbered, the numbers increasing by 10 every mile. If I'm running a delivery with my wife, and we need to turn on NW 50th St, and we just passed SW 10th St, then I know my turn is six miles away. I look down at the trip odometer and see that it's at, say, 107.4; when it gets to 113 on the odometer, I slow down and start looking for REA lines crossing the road to know where my turn is.
Back when I was growing up in Rawlins County, the rural roads had no street signs. That's because they didn't even have
names then. They weren't numbered/lettered for 9-1-1 purposes until after I moved away in 1999. We moved there in 1990, when my dad was called as pastor of a church in town and a church out in the country. There were a lot of farmers in both congregations. The previous pastor had made a database of where each member family lived, for the purpose of visitation. But the actual address would have been worthless (how do you drive to "Rural Route 4, Box 25" when RR4 refers to a mail delivery route and not a road name?) Instead, the database contained entries like 7E4S1W2S. That meant, to get to that farmhouse, you drive 7 miles east of town, then 4 miles south, then 1 mile west, then 2 miles south. Doing so was really easy, because there would be a crossroad at almost every mile-point. So, after turning south from the highway, you'd just count four crossroads and turn right, then turn left at the next crossroad, then look around for the farmhouse at the second crossroad after that.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 24, 2021, 11:47:42 PM
(they are, for example, tied to railroad building, school founding, and allotment of Indian lands--much more than just road layout and urban design, or dialect features like "back forty," "lower forty," etc. for various quarters of a quarter section)
When I originally mentioned phrases like 'the lower forty' or 'the north half', it was to show that some things would naturally never change–even if we were to adopt the metric system. The lower forty would still be 40 acres to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 16.1874 hectares. The north half would still be a half-section to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 1.29499 km².
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 10:47:19 AMWhen I originally mentioned phrases like 'the lower forty' or 'the north half', it was to show that some things would naturally never change–even if we were to adopt the metric system. The lower forty would still be 40 acres to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 16.1874 hectares. The north half would still be a half-section to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 1.29499 km².
Not to mention converting acres to hectares for official documents is easily accessible to anyone with a smartphone.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 25, 2021, 02:18:28 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 10:47:19 AM
When I originally mentioned phrases like 'the lower forty' or 'the north half', it was to show that some things would naturally never change–even if we were to adopt the metric system. The lower forty would still be 40 acres to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 16.1874 hectares. The north half would still be a half-section to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 1.29499 km².
Not to mention converting acres to hectares for official documents is easily accessible to anyone with a smartphone.
Yeah, but my point is that everyone and their uncle would still say things like "What are you growing this year on the northwest quarter?" or "Remember when Dad got bit by that rattler out on the lower forty?" or "We're considering selling a half-section when Dean goes off to college."
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 02:24:06 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 25, 2021, 02:18:28 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 10:47:19 AM
When I originally mentioned phrases like 'the lower forty' or 'the north half', it was to show that some things would naturally never change–even if we were to adopt the metric system. The lower forty would still be 40 acres to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 16.1874 hectares. The north half would still be a half-section to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 1.29499 km².
Not to mention converting acres to hectares for official documents is easily accessible to anyone with a smartphone.
Yeah, but my point is that everyone and their uncle would still say things like "What are you growing this year on the northwest quarter?" or "Remember when Dad got bit by that rattler out on the lower forty?" or "We're considering selling a half-section when Dean goes off to college."
"Below zero" only means below freezing in Canada. It didn't retain the older meaning of below 0°F.
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 02:24:06 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 25, 2021, 02:18:28 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 10:47:19 AM
When I originally mentioned phrases like 'the lower forty' or 'the north half', it was to show that some things would naturally never change–even if we were to adopt the metric system. The lower forty would still be 40 acres to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 16.1874 hectares. The north half would still be a half-section to anyone involved: it wouldn't be 1.29499 km².
Not to mention converting acres to hectares for official documents is easily accessible to anyone with a smartphone.
Yeah, but my point is that everyone and their uncle would still say things like "What are you growing this year on the northwest quarter?" or "Remember when Dad got bit by that rattler out on the lower forty?" or "We're considering selling a half-section when Dean goes off to college."
And the number of people that these sorts of phrases would be relevant to are comparatively low. I grew up in rural McClain County OK and, at least in the part I was in, it was pretty uncommon for anyone to have as much as 40 acres. We lived on a 1 acre lot; most lots seemed to be 5 to 10 acres.
My current workplace is on a 45-acre lot, and that feels like oceans of space; more than enough for our greenhouse and a herd of cattle to coexist on, and being that the cattle are not my problem (unless they decide they want to be), there are parts of the lot I would never have any reason to visit.
Quote from: formulanone on February 22, 2021, 05:42:55 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 21, 2021, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 21, 2021, 09:29:06 PM
Metric at least in the USA is confined to science, mathematics and engineering fields.
Which of those are soft drinks?
The fizzy lifting drinks are still in development.
Medicine has also mostly switched over to metric, though some over-the-counter liquid products still use tablespoons.
Yes and peer review journals in biology tends to have data written in metric for data when papers have to get attention in publications in multiple countries.
Quote from: mass_citizen on February 25, 2021, 04:23:54 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2020, 04:05:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2020, 02:15:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2020, 12:16:52 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.
Absolutely ridiculous
Are you being facetious?
Nope. We're 50 years overdue on metrication. We're continuing to dig in our heels for frankly stupid reasons.
I'm sure if somehow the country reverses (again) and goes back to Metrication, FHWA will be able to put metric specs back into the MUTCD a lot faster than it will take the states to invest in and replace their signage (again)
To be fair, I know of at least 1 other country that has switched over to metric, but a hell of a lot of their signage is still in imperial... see: UK
In fact, the UK and US started to transition to metric at around the same time, however, the US just didn’t go through with it. Which is annoying. Everyone says it will be expensive, because we need to replace all our infrastructure... no, not really. If we had went through with going to metric, nothing would really need to have changed right away. We would just need to make sure no NEW signs are imperial. Probably having new signs say “SPEED LIMIT XX KPH” with a sign below it saying “APPX XX MPH”. Maybe I’ll draw a concept in Inkscape. And for distances, we can do something similar, such as “1 KM — 1/2 MILE.
But, alas, nothing happened, to the annoyance of me, as the metric system wasn’t invented by an English guy on opium. Seriously, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and however tf many feet in a mile (5820?) WTF!
EDIT to add: 5,280 ft in a mile, 1,760 yards in a mile. Also, fl ozs, cups, pints, quarts, and gallons are the bane of my existence. 8 Fl oz in a cup, 2 cups in a pint, 2 pints in a quart, (makes sense so far, I guess...) and 4 quarts in a gallon. (There goes that last thing about making sense...)
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
and however tf many feet in a mile (5820?) WTF!
It's 5280. I've never understood why they stuck an 11 in there. At least the pound sterling was 240 old pence, which is 2*2*2*2*3*5, and it can be easily subdivided into pretty much anything.
If it was 5820, that would be even weirder; one of its prime factors is 97.
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
And for distances, we can do something similar, such as “1 KM — 1/2 MILE.
I think Maine (https://www.teresco.org/pics/portland-20011118/signs/PB180017.JPG) and New Hampshire (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7320789,-71.4541123,3a,50.8y,150.03h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ_XvaiRPhtaVFDBSj_x2kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) did something similar to that when signs were replaced around the 1990's-2000's. Is this a similar concept, but for your concept, the km would be first following the miles in parenthesis?
EDIT: I forgot some signs on I-265 in Jefferson County KY (https://usma.org/metric-signs/kentucky) have it very similar to the Maine and New Hampshire examples but flipped.
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
But, alas, nothing happened, to the annoyance of me, as the metric system wasn't invented by an English guy on opium. Seriously, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and however tf many feet in a mile (5820?) WTF!
Yeah, what's a third of a meter? A repeating decimal.
What's a third of a yard? A foot. And what's a third of a foot? Four inches.
Duodecimal makes for easy fractions, whereas decimal does not.
None of that, however, makes me at all sure of how many pints are in a gallon, or how many cups are in a quart. Our system is a mix of twos and threes, and that's the worst part about it.
Example:
16 (2x2x2x2) cups in a gallon
16 (2x2x2x2) tablespoons in a cup
3 (WTF?) teaspoons in a tablespoon
Quote from: GaryV on February 24, 2021, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: renegade on February 24, 2021, 03:38:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 03:03:59 PMBut I don't know something is 15 minutes away if I don't know how far it is.
Say I'm walking home, and my wife calls to ask how long till I get back. ??
Same answer I give: "I'll be there when I get there!"
:bigass:
Ah, you didn't pass the Marriage 101 course.
Oh, yes I did ... 35 years ago and counting!
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
But, alas, nothing happened, to the annoyance of me, as the metric system wasn't invented by an English guy on opium. Seriously, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and however tf many feet in a mile (5820?) WTF!
Yeah, what's a third of a meter? A repeating decimal.
What's a third of a yard? A foot. And what's a third of a foot? Four inches.
Duodecimal makes for easy fractions, whereas decimal does not.
None of that, however, makes me at all sure of how many pints are in a gallon, or how many cups are in a quart. Our system is a mix of twos and threes, and that's the worst part about it.
Example:
16 (2x2x2x2) cups in a gallon
16 (2x2x2x2) tablespoons in a cup
3 (WTF?) teaspoons in a tablespoon
I would rather have 1/3 of a meter be 33.333····, than the current system tbh. And, our system isn't perfect either. Try to express 1/7th in any decimal system besides heptedecimal and it's multiples. See what happens.
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 03:25:54 PM
Duodecimal makes for easy fractions, whereas decimal does not.
Hell, if that's the goal, go hexadecimal and get powers of two really working for you. 0x10 cups in a gallon!
Time to take Marriage 102.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 25, 2021, 03:41:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 03:25:54 PM
Duodecimal makes for easy fractions, whereas decimal does not.
Hell, if that's the goal, go hexadecimal and get powers of two really working for you. 0x10 cups in a gallon!
How do thirds work in hexadecimal? (not a math nerd)
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 03:44:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 25, 2021, 03:41:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 03:25:54 PM
Duodecimal makes for easy fractions, whereas decimal does not.
Hell, if that's the goal, go hexadecimal and get powers of two really working for you. 0x10 cups in a gallon!
How do thirds work in hexadecimal? (not a math nerd)
Repeating decimal.
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 03:43:12 PM
Time to take Marriage 102.
This sounds like a new thread of "That's When the Fight Started" jokes.
Example:
Quote
My wife and I were relaxing in the den one evening and she commented, "It would be nice if we had more quiet time together."
I said, "That's fine with me. So, could you please be quiet?"
And that's when the fight started....
Quote from: 1 on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
and however tf many feet in a mile (5820?) WTF!
It's 5280. I've never understood why they stuck an 11 in there. At least the pound sterling was 240 old pence, which is 2*2*2*2*3*5, and it can be easily subdivided into pretty much anything.
If it was 5820, that would be even weirder; one of its prime factors is 97.
The 11 would be the fault of the unit called a "chain". There are 22 yards (66 feet) in a chain, then 10 chains in a furlong and 8 furlongs to a mile (so 80 chains to a mile). I must admit the Imperial system gets a lot more crazy if you look into all the units that aren't really used anymore.
Chainage is still the British/Commonwealth English term for what we call station, though highway design in those countries has been metric for decades and we now do stationing in hundreds of feet.
Quote from: stevashe on February 25, 2021, 06:16:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
and however tf many feet in a mile (5820?) WTF!
It's 5280. I've never understood why they stuck an 11 in there. At least the pound sterling was 240 old pence, which is 2*2*2*2*3*5, and it can be easily subdivided into pretty much anything.
If it was 5820, that would be even weirder; one of its prime factors is 97.
The 11 would be the fault of the unit called a "chain". There are 22 yards (66 feet) in a chain, then 10 chains in a furlong and 8 furlongs to a mile (so 80 chains to a mile). I must admit the Imperial system gets a lot more crazy if you look into all the units that aren't really used anymore.
Yes, it makes for nice, whole numbers when dividing plots of land.
Assuming I've done all my math correctly...
| 4 rods = 1 chain
| 10 chains = 1 furlong
| 8 furlongs = 1 mile
| 1 mi² = 1 section
1 section = 5280x5820 feet
1 section = 1760x1760 yards
1 section = 320x320 rods
1 section = 80x80 chains
1 section = 8x8 furlongs
1 section = 640 acres
1 half = 5280x2640 feet
1 half = 1760x880 yards
1 half = 320x160 rods
1 half = 80x40 chains
1 half = 8x4 furlongs
1 half = 320 acres
1 quarter = 2640x2640 feet
1 quarter = 880x880 yards
1 quarter = 160x160 rods
1 quarter = 40x40 chains
1 quarter = 4x4 furlongs
1 quarter = 160 acres
half-quarter = 2640x1320 feet
half-quarter = 880x440 yards
half-quarter = 160x80 rods
half-quarter = 40x20 chains
half-quarter = 4x2 furlongs
half-quarter = 80 acres
quarter-quarter = 1320x1320 feet
quarter-quarter = 440x440 yards
quarter-quarter = 80x80 rods
quarter-quarter = 20x20 chains
quarter-quarter = 2x2 furlongs
quarter-quarter = 40 acres
half-quarter-quarter = 1320x660 feet
half-quarter-quarter = 440x220 yards
half-quarter-quarter = 80x40 rods
half-quarter-quarter = 20x10 chains
half-quarter-quarter = 2x1 furlongs
half-quarter-quarter = 20 acres
quarter-quarter-quarter = 660x660 feet
quarter-quarter-quarter = 220x220 yards
quarter-quarter-quarter = 40x40 rods
quarter-quarter-quarter = 10x10 chains
quarter-quarter-quarter = 1x1 furlong
quarter-quarter-quarter = 10 acres
1 acre = 8 rods x 20 rods
1 acre = 1 chain x 1 furlong
1 acre = 160 rods²
1 acre = 10 chains²
half-acre = 80 rods²
quarter-acre = 40 rods²
half-quarter-acre = 20 rods²
quarter-quarter-acre = 10 rods²
half-quarter-quarter-acre = 5 rods²
Thus, in a city with eight blocks to a mile (such as Chicago), one city block is exactly ten acres. Cut that city block in half (as the city blocks in Wichita are), and each block is exactly five acres. Divide that block in half (for two facing streets), and each half-block is exactly 400 rods². Divide that half-block up into ten properties (as is the block I actually live on), and each property is exactly 40 rods² or exactly one quarter-acre.
(https://i.imgur.com/5uoDGkj.jpg)
I decided to make a graphic illustration of the system in this neck o' the woods. This is how my city is laid out (actually rotated 90 degrees). Chicago is similar.
Dark lines are streets. Each rectangle (20 per city block) represents a typical residential lot. Obviously, some blocks and neighborhoods have larger lots than this, so it doesn't always work out to 20 each.
If I pretend our own property extends out to the middle of the street, and that we live on a corner, then the yellow rectangle could be our house's lot. My block has this exact layout.
1 lot = 1 chain x 10 rods = ¼ acre
1 city block = 1 furlong x 5 chains = 5 acres
Major avenues are located along section lines.
Through collector streets are located along half-section lines.
Residential streets are located every furlong or half-furlong, depending on EW/NS.
(https://i.imgur.com/CtwcWKG.png)
Quote from: kphoger on February 26, 2021, 01:48:28 PM
(math...)
When I was applying for a land use permit for a greenhouse last year, one of the things we had to have was the full legal description of the property, which is 45 acres shaped kind of like the Tetris "S" block. The way it was done, specifying sections and quarters and such, was absurdly lengthy, and kind of reminded me of one of corco's I-86 proposals.
I have used furlongs for exactly one thing in my life–they are still routinely used to quote horse race lengths. Hollywood Charles Town in WV regularly runs 6½ furlong races, for instance. Not all tracks do this; Los Alamitos tends to just specify them in yards since a majority of their races involve quarter horses.
Here, there are a lot of grids and sometimes they match up, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they meet each other at wacky angles. The Public Lands Survey System is for recording land ownership, not for navigation.
At the big grid used for most new subdivisions in the county after about 1900, there's 2000 house numbers per mile and streets are numbered as the house number divided by 100. Some blocks are thicker and when that happens the street numbers will skip a street, but the house numbers carry on regardless.
Quote from: 1 on February 24, 2021, 07:02:23 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 24, 2021, 07:01:01 PM
I suppose so, although grams and meters are spelled almost the same everywhere.
They're metres in most countries.
By country, it could be, but I was curious about how it worked by language, and so I headed over to the Wikipedia, and I found that the most common spellings are:
21 Meter
15 Метр
13 Metro
8 Metre
I thought it also interesting that the original French spelling, Mètre, is used in only French and Occitan, another language spoken in France.
The full list is as follows. (International characters may not render correctly.)
21 Meter
15 Метр
13 Metro
8 Metre
7 Metr
5 Méter
5 Metru
4 متر
4 米
4 Metri
3 मीटर
3 Metar
2 Метар
2 میٹر
2 মিটার
2 Mètre
2 Meeter
1 Μέτρο
1 Метер
1 Метър
1 Миэтэрэ
1 Мэтар
1 Мєтро
1 Մետր
1 מטר
1 מעטער
1 ميترو
1 مەتر
1 މީޓަރު
1 मिटर
1 मितर
1 মিটাৰ
1 ਮੀਟਰ
1 મીટર
1 மீட்டர்
1 మీటరు
1 ಮೀಟರ್
1 മീറ്റർ
1 เมตร
1 ແມັດ
1 སྨི།
1 မီတာ
1 မဳတာ
1 მეტრა
1 მეტრი
1 ሜትር
1 メートル
1 公尺
1 미터
1 Gŭng-chióh
1 Huehcan
1 Kûng-chhak
1 Kong-chhioh
1 Läng
1 Mèt
1 Mète
1 Mèter
1 Méadar
1 Mét
1 Mítà
1 Mɛtɛlɛ
1 Meatair
1 Mehter
1 Metatra
1 Metras
1 Metros
1 Metrs
1 Metrum
1 Miita
1 Mita
1 Mitara
1 Mitir
1 mitre
1 Mitru
1 Myjter
1 Temira'ãha
As I illustrated earlier, our system of land measurement is beautiful. There are 40 acres in a quarter-quarter-section, there are 40 square rods in an acre. Large parcels of land are easy to divide by powers of two and then, when it gets small enough to be actual fields or residential lots, it becomes easy to divide them into strips of ten. Nice, round numbers, all the way down to the size of a garden.
Then, too, our system of measuring everyday materials–lumber, fabric–is quite handy as well. Twelve inches to a foot means you can divide it into 6, 4, 3, or 2 and come out with a whole number. A yard can be divided evenly into 18, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, 3, or 2 and come out with a whole number of inches. This is really useful in real-world application.
But the two systems don't go together. My theoretical residential lot illustrated earlier can be neatly measured as 0.25 acres, with a perimeter of one chain by ten rods. But, in yards? Oh, that would be 22 yards by 55 yards. Multiples of eleven! What number could possibly be worse to work with than eleven? It's like seven, only larger and more unwieldy. A rod is 5½ yards long? What the heck kind of number is that?
The solution: make the inch exactly 10% longer than it currently is. There would still be 12 inches in a foot and three feet in a yard. But, with the inch 10% longer, the following would be true:
5 yards = 1 rod
20 (2²x5) yards = 1 chain
200 (2x10²) yards = 1 furlong
400 (2²x10²) yards = 1 quarter-mile
800 (2³x10²) yards = 1 half-mile
1600 (2²x2²x10²) yards = 1 mile
4800 (3x2²x2²x10²) feet = 1 mile
57,600 (3²x26x10²) inches = 1 mile
(This would lead to an interesting situation in which a yard would differ from a meter by less than 6 mm.)
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2021, 08:52:36 AM
Multiples of eleven! What number could possibly be worse to work with than eleven? It's like seven, only larger and more unwieldy.
The Norwegian (Trafikkalfabetet) and German (DIN 1451) road sign typefaces, instead of being based on fourths as FHWA Series is, is based on sevenths. The lowercase "x" is 5/7 the height of the capital X (in FHWA Series it's 3/4). This caused me a lot of heartburn when I was drawing Trafikkalfabetet from scratch in 2018. (Need to get around to finishing/releasing that...)
Then again, Clearview's x-height is 21/25. No accounting for taste, I guess.
Please don't redefine a unit we've already got. If you want a new unit, give it a new name. Survey inches thank you.
Quote from: kkt on February 27, 2021, 10:06:11 PM
If you want a new unit, give it a new name.
I'll use the washing machine unit (https://bit.ly/2ZVa2Yv) from now on
"Smoot" is already used, so don't use that for your new unit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot
mi/km ≈ φ
(mi/km)⁸ ≈ 45
-tan(mi/km) ≈ marathon/mi
Even more surprising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.96 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.96) gives the value of significance as 1.9599639845400... standard deviations.
(mi/km)^√2 = 1.95995299582040...
IMO the metric system isn't old fashioned. The US customary system is. I would expect the so-called Third World, and not an advanced country, to be still using their own systems. I'm tired of having to indicate I want km to Google Maps when asking for a route in the USA.
On the vein of new custom units, I prefer to combine very large and very small units for some measurements. For lengths I use the attoparsec, which is a parsec (3.26 light-years) combined with the SI prefix atto, which causes it to be 18 orders of magnitude smaller and be a human-scaled unit of about 1.2 inches (about 3 cm). For volume I use the barn-megaparsec, multiplying a barn (used for cross-sectional areas of atomic nuclei) by a megaparsec (one million parsecs) to obtain an unit equalling about 2/3 of a teaspoon (about 3 ml). Both can be used in Google :sombrero:.
I also have a customary unit, equalling the distance from my home to one of my favorite towns (which I currently have out-of-reach due to travel restrictions thanks to you know what). I have defined it as exactly 120 miles. The reason I have it defined from a non-SI unit is because the original measurement came out to be 193.1 km, and it took me a while to realize that was 120 miles to within two feet.
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:39:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2021, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
But, alas, nothing happened, to the annoyance of me, as the metric system wasn't invented by an English guy on opium. Seriously, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and however tf many feet in a mile (5820?) WTF!
Yeah, what's a third of a meter? A repeating decimal.
What's a third of a yard? A foot. And what's a third of a foot? Four inches.
Duodecimal makes for easy fractions, whereas decimal does not.
None of that, however, makes me at all sure of how many pints are in a gallon, or how many cups are in a quart. Our system is a mix of twos and threes, and that's the worst part about it.
Example:
16 (2x2x2x2) cups in a gallon
16 (2x2x2x2) tablespoons in a cup
3 (WTF?) teaspoons in a tablespoon
I would rather have 1/3 of a meter be 33.333····, than the current system tbh. And, our system isn't perfect either. Try to express 1/7th in any decimal system besides heptedecimal and it's multiples. See what happens.
Slightly late to the off-topic conversation, but in my mind, it would seem that the liquid measurements would be amongst the easiest metric measurements for the US to adopt.
1 tsp = 4.92 mL. But if we were to redefine the tsp to 5 mL, it would be a lot easier to work with metric. In fact, even the FDA for purposes of nutrtion labeling adopts 1 tsp to 5 mL. See item 9 on this link:
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-guidelines-determining-metric-equivalents-household-measures#:~:text=For%20purposes%20of%20nutrition%20labeling,)(5)(viii)).
Keeping the 1 tsp = 5mL approximation would lead to the following:
1 TBSP = 15mL instead of 14.79 mL
1 fl OZ = 30 mL instead of 29.57 mL. Heck I would even label small bottles as being TMLs (thirty millileters) in place of fl oz to keep the relative familiarity of a fluid ounce that seems universal on bottles here.
1 cup = 240 mL instead of 236.6 mL*
1 pint = 480 mL instead of 473.1 mL*
1 quart = 960 mL instead of 946.4 mL*
1 half-gallon = 1.920 L instead of 1.893 L
1 gallon = 3.840 L instead of 3.785 L*
* To the extent that one is able to break the 8 fl oz to a cup model, one can just redefine the cup as 8 1/3 fl oz or 250 mL or 1/4 L. That would be a significant breaktrhough as if we replace quarts for liters and gallons for 4 liters, the metric system is simply adopted without even having to think of it. Heck a lot of drinks are already sold in metric, a standard wine bottle is 750 mL, not fifth-gallon, and large soda bottles are 2 L, not half-gallon. Milk and gasoline seem to be holdouts to the gallon.
Miles, on the other hand, would be very hard to give up. 60 MPH = 1 mile per minute, using milepost markers and speed to estimate the time to your destination is quite easy. And it is especially hard to do in so much of the Midwest and West where the largest streets in the city are on a mille grid. If every major street were a mile apart, you'd put your freeway exits a mile apart. Each exit would be mileage based and also sequential at the same time. How long to travel from Ave A to Ave B? Well, they are exactly a mile apart and I'm driving 60 MPH on the freeway, so I will pass each exit about a minute later.
That doesn't translate as nicely with kms.
Quote from: mrsman on February 28, 2021, 11:57:34 AM
Milk and gasoline seem to be holdouts to the gallon.
And every size of soft drink smaller than a liter. You know, like normal bottles (24 fl oz) and cans (12, 8, or 7½ fl oz).
Quote from: mrsman on February 28, 2021, 11:57:34 AM
Miles, on the other hand, would be very hard to give up. 60 MPH = 1 mile per minute, using milepost markers and speed to estimate the time to your destination is quite easy. And it is especially hard to do in so much of the Midwest and West where the largest streets in the city are on a mille grid. If every major street were a mile apart, you'd put your freeway exits a mile apart. Each exit would be mileage based and also sequential at the same time. How long to travel from Ave A to Ave B? Well, they are exactly a mile apart and I'm driving 60 MPH on the freeway, so I will pass each exit about a minute later.
That doesn't translate as nicely with kms.
1. As for major streets and roads being spaced one mile apart in the Midwest and West, you are correct. Converting to kilometers would disrupt the simplicity and ease of calculating distances based on the grid.
2. As for estimating time based on distance and speed limit, you are incorrect.
150 kilometers at 100 km/h is just as easy to estimate as 90 miles at 60 mph.
235 kilometers at 110 km/h is no more difficult to estimate than 145 miles at 65 mph.
Quote from: kphoger on March 01, 2021, 10:21:48 AM
1. As for major streets and roads being spaced one mile apart in the Midwest and West, you are correct. Converting to kilometers would disrupt the simplicity and ease of calculating distances based on the grid.
In the midwest, yes. In the far west, it's iffy. The land has to be pretty flat and the roads aligned north-south, east-west. In most of the west it's mountainous and the roads are aligned to the mountains rather than NSEW. Even in the California Central Valley, a lot of the smaller roads are NSEW aligned but the main highways I-5 and CA 99 and some others are aligned with the river and the railroad NNW to SSE.
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 02, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 02, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?
Why would you use real liters and ml that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use quarts and gallons? ;-)
Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do :sombrero:.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 03, 2021, 10:42:22 AM
Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do :sombrero:.
Wow! Anybody remember when HP started producing graphing calculators back in the mid-1980s? The handbook for the HP-28 included a method for converting barn-megaparsecs to gallons. I was too old to be forced to learn how to use, and too young to have the resources to afford one just for the fun of it. My son has one of the newer versions, and it looks pretty cool but I've never taken the time to learn how to use it in graph mode. I'll still to Microsoft Excel, but I still have Lotus 1-2-3 and a DOS machine if I ever need to go back in time.
It's online: https://literature.hpcalc.org/books/hp28-pb.pdf
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 02, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?
The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 03, 2021, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 02, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?
The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.
Some recipes don't scale linearly.
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 05:42:07 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 03, 2021, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 02, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?
The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.
Some recipes don't scale linearly.
At which point, why are you working from a recipe? It would be trial and error anyway.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 03, 2021, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 02, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?
The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.
Which is OK for the loaf of bread. But what about filling 9000 gallon LN2 tank or 550 gallon fuel oil tank or 30,110 gallon rail car? Those spills may be expensive to deal with.
Look at Gimli Glider story (no, Tolkien is not involved) as an example of what can come out of messing with units...
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 03, 2021, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 02, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?
The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.
Unless you added eggs. Or yeast by the teaspoon. Or it had to bake for a certain length of time.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 03, 2021, 10:58:28 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 03, 2021, 10:42:22 AM
Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do :sombrero:.
Wow! Anybody remember when HP started producing graphing calculators back in the mid-1980s? The handbook for the HP-28 included a method for converting barn-megaparsecs to gallons. I was too old to be forced to learn how to use, and too young to have the resources to afford one just for the fun of it. My son has one of the newer versions, and it looks pretty cool but I've never taken the time to learn how to use it in graph mode. I'll still to Microsoft Excel, but I still have Lotus 1-2-3 and a DOS machine if I ever need to go back in time.
It's online: https://literature.hpcalc.org/books/hp28-pb.pdf
The main thing I remember about those being introduced was controversy over whether they should be permitted in high school math classes.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 03, 2021, 10:42:22 AM
Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do :sombrero:.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 03, 2021, 10:58:28 AM
Wow! Anybody remember when HP started producing graphing calculators back in the mid-1980s? The handbook for the HP-28 included a method for converting barn-megaparsecs to gallons. I was too old to be forced to learn how to use, and too young to have the resources to afford one just for the fun of it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2021, 07:43:55 AM
The main thing I remember about those being introduced was controversy over whether they should be permitted in high school math classes.
That's the main concern I have with one-size-fits-all college prep versions of math and science. My son needs some courses totally without devices (he behaves with the calculator, but gets distracted with his smart phone and laptop). He hasn't been able to use pencil and paper to solve problems since COVID locked things down. And that's totally different than those who struggle with wanting to cheat using their devices. On the other hand, I am one that grabs every tool I can get my hands on to solve tough problems (oftentimes, that means mechanics tools). We also need specific classes that push kids to improvise when the problems get too tough to solve on paper. (Which might take us back to barn-megaparsecs).
In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter. My favorites:
wh%7J = 2 joules. It looks like a random string of characters, but it actually means something. (In this context, % is modulo.)
mm^-2 to mpg = 2.35214583 miles per gallon. In fact, anything with units of length^-2 is treated as fuel economy.
Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 08:05:39 AM
In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter.
Google Chrome is the same way. Only in the regular browser, though, not incognito.
Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 08:05:39 AM
In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter. My favorites:
wh%7J = 2 joules. It looks like a random string of characters, but it actually means something. (In this context, % is modulo.)
mm^-2 to mpg = 2.35214583 miles per gallon. In fact, anything with units of length^-2 is treated as fuel economy.
The latter happens because fuel economy is length divided by volume, i.e. the reciprocal of surface. Now I think, since over here fuel economy is expressed in liters per 100 km (i.e. surface!), I might start using square centimeters (cm^2) to express that xD.
Also works on Firefox BTW.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 04, 2021, 09:57:23 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 08:05:39 AM
In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter. My favorites:
wh%7J = 2 joules. It looks like a random string of characters, but it actually means something. (In this context, % is modulo.)
mm^-2 to mpg = 2.35214583 miles per gallon. In fact, anything with units of length^-2 is treated as fuel economy.
The latter happens because fuel economy is length divided by volume, i.e. the reciprocal of surface. Now I think, since over here fuel economy is expressed in liters per 100 km (i.e. surface!), I might start using square centimeters (cm^2) to express that xD.
Also works on Firefox BTW.
You can visualize that as a filament filled with fuel, which is burnt as vehicle drives along. Cross-section of that filament is the fuel economy. 1 mm square is 1 liter/km = 100 liters/100 km. MPG arithmetic is a bit more involved.
The more fuel vehicle burns, the larger that filament should be.
Quote from: kkt on March 04, 2021, 12:32:40 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 03, 2021, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 02, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
I don't know why you wouldn't just round cups up to 250 ml and pints to 500. Then you just replace quarts with liters and have a 4 l gallon.
Why would you have fake quarts and gallons that could confuse you if you use old recipes, when you could just use real liters and ml?
The ratios are the same, you'd just have a little bit more of it.
Unless you added eggs. Or yeast by the teaspoon. Or it had to bake for a certain length of time.
You're looking for ways to make it a problem, rather than looking at the rest of the world where this is not an issue at all.
Eggs are added... by the egg.
Dry ingredients are measured by mass, not by volume (so you'd add 3 g of yeast, or 3.15 if you had to be exact, which you almost never do. Also you should be weighing dry ingredients anyway).
Last I checked, you never bake by the clock, it's only a guide.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 11:51:35 AM
Also you should be weighing dry ingredients anyway
And not follow any recipe I have? which all measure dry ingredients by the cup.
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 11:53:28 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 11:51:35 AM
Also you should be weighing dry ingredients anyway
And not follow any recipe I have? which all measure dry ingredients by the cup.
Yup. Weight is far more accurate and consistent (you don't get any lumpy cups). You can find the conversions anywhere online.
Here's an example:
Cups | Grams | Ounces |
1/4 c | 34 g | 1.2 oz |
1/3 c | 45 g | 1.6 oz |
1/2 c | 68 g | 2.4 oz |
1 c | 136 g | 4.8 oz |
A kitchen scale you can pick up for $10 makes it easy, and you won't have to worry about being sure you have a flat cup again. 136 g is always 136 g.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 12:07:42 PM
Cups | Grams | Ounces |
1/4 c | 34 g | 1.2 oz |
1/3 c | 45 g | 1.6 oz |
1/2 c | 68 g | 2.4 oz |
1 c | 136 g | 4.8 oz |
The numbers you just gave imply a density of 0.58 g/cm³, which is very low for anything you would cook with (water is 1, and anything made from living things is near this value).
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 12:07:42 PM
A kitchen scale you can pick up for $10 makes it easy, and you won't have to worry about being sure you have a flat cup again. 136 g is always 136 g.
Does it come with extra counter space, built-in calculator, conversion chart displayed on the side, ...?
(Seriously, I have precious little counter space as it is.)
My scale converts between ounces and kilograms. It's handy to have around for things other than measuring out weight for cooking (for instance, measuring out a serving size to prevent eating too big of a portion).
Most people can make the counter space up by putting their spices in a cupboard where they belong, since the darkness helps keep them from going bad as quickly.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 04, 2021, 07:57:04 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 03, 2021, 10:42:22 AM
Nah, just use barn-megaparsecs like I do :sombrero:.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 03, 2021, 10:58:28 AM
Wow! Anybody remember when HP started producing graphing calculators back in the mid-1980s? The handbook for the HP-28 included a method for converting barn-megaparsecs to gallons. I was too old to be forced to learn how to use, and too young to have the resources to afford one just for the fun of it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2021, 07:43:55 AM
The main thing I remember about those being introduced was controversy over whether they should be permitted in high school math classes.
That's the main concern I have with one-size-fits-all college prep versions of math and science. My son needs some courses totally without devices (he behaves with the calculator, but gets distracted with his smart phone and laptop). He hasn't been able to use pencil and paper to solve problems since COVID locked things down. And that's totally different than those who struggle with wanting to cheat using their devices. On the other hand, I am one that grabs every tool I can get my hands on to solve tough problems (oftentimes, that means mechanics tools). We also need specific classes that push kids to improvise when the problems get too tough to solve on paper. (Which might take us back to barn-megaparsecs).
Part of the issue when I was in high school was a fairness issue: Graphing calculators were new and were relatively expensive as far as calculators went. Not all kids could buy them, and not all parents who could buy them for their kids were willing to buy them. So there was a legitimate fairness question about whether the kids who had them should be allowed to use them.
Regarding the cooking measurements discussion, I have a compact kitchen scale I pull out when necessary. The one trick is that, as "1" noted, the conversion from volume to mass isn't necessarily the same for every ingredient. I have an iPhone app called Kitchen Calculator Pro that will perform such conversions and will ask you what the ingredient is. Very useful for that sort of thing.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2021, 02:05:29 PM
Most people can make the counter space up by putting their spices in a cupboard where they belong, since the darkness helps keep them from going bad as quickly.
People keep their spices on the counter?? All my spices are in a rack, mounted to the wall in the back hall.
The toaster oven is on top of the mini fridge in front of the window. On the counter are two big jars of cooking utensils (one for metal and one for plastic/wooden ones), the microwave oven, the Keurig, and some clear canisters of specialty baking ingredients for my wife's diet (with the extra bags stored in cupboards). We only have one counter–half on the right side of the sink and half on the left. No island, no secondary counter space.
We have an in-sink dish drainer. By state regulation, kitchen knives are stored away in a locked cupboard (under the sink, along with cutting boards and baking sheets). The canisters of regular baking ingredients are kept in the dining room on a baker's rack, along with the crock pot. Less-used big things like the stand mixer and food processor are stored in the basement. Trust me, we've already moved as much as possible off the countertop.
Considering that we have no need for a kitchen scale, why would we get one? All our recipes are measured in cups, and we have those. I know how to pack a cup of brown sugar and how to
not pack a cup of flour.
Some kitchens are just very small.
We do have a kitchen scale, but it lives in a cabinet and is more likely to be pulled out to estimate postage than to measure ingredients.
I keep the measuring (either by mass or by volume) to a minimum when I cook, except for water for soup and ingredients for dishes (such as hot oatmeal) that are mixed from scratch and then cooked in the microwave for fixed lengths of time.
Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 08:05:39 AM
In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter. My favorites:
wh%7J = 2 joules. It looks like a random string of characters, but it actually means something. (In this context, % is modulo.)
mm^-2 to mpg = 2.35214583 miles per gallon. In fact, anything with units of length^-2 is treated as fuel economy.
The fun one is the difference between a cms (light milliseconds, a unit of distance) and cms (the incorrect plural of centimeters, another unit of distance) and cm-s (centimeter-seconds, a unit of distance-time), and cm/s (a rather slow unit of velocity or speed).
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 12:07:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 11:53:28 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 11:51:35 AM
Also you should be weighing dry ingredients anyway
And not follow any recipe I have? which all measure dry ingredients by the cup.
Yup. Weight is far more accurate and consistent (you don't get any lumpy cups). You can find the conversions anywhere online.
Here's an example:
Cups | Grams | Ounces |
1/4 c | 34 g | 1.2 oz |
1/3 c | 45 g | 1.6 oz |
1/2 c | 68 g | 2.4 oz |
1 c | 136 g | 4.8 oz |
A kitchen scale you can pick up for $10 makes it easy, and you won't have to worry about being sure you have a flat cup again. 136 g is always 136 g.
It really, really depends what you're measuring. Ingredients can have very different densities.
Quote from: michravera on March 04, 2021, 03:28:28 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 08:05:39 AM
In Safari (and probably other browsers), entering something in the search bar compatible with Google Calculator (except currency) will calculate it, even without pressing enter. My favorites:
wh%7J = 2 joules. It looks like a random string of characters, but it actually means something. (In this context, % is modulo.)
mm^-2 to mpg = 2.35214583 miles per gallon. In fact, anything with units of length^-2 is treated as fuel economy.
The fun one is the difference between a cms (light milliseconds, a unit of distance) and cms (the incorrect plural of centimeters, another unit of distance) and cm-s (centimeter-seconds, a unit of distance-time), and cm/s (a rather slow unit of velocity or speed).
I like (and actually use!) the fact that 1 light nanosecond is 1 foot (2% off)
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 02:29:44 PM
By state regulation, kitchen knives are stored away in a locked cupboard
What? Really? You can't just have them in a knife block on the counter, or in a regular drawer?
What do you do with a dirty knife before you do the dishes?
Quote from: GaryV on March 04, 2021, 04:52:02 PM
What? Really? You can't just have them in a knife block on the counter, or in a regular drawer?
My wife runs a licensed home daycare. We have to have knives locked away.
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 05:02:44 PM
Quote from: GaryV on March 04, 2021, 04:52:02 PM
What? Really? You can't just have them in a knife block on the counter, or in a regular drawer?
My wife runs a licensed home daycare. We have to have knives locked away.
Maybe a specific issue with schools and similar facilities. I don't see anything for home kitchens
Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 12:10:07 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 12:07:42 PM
Cups | Grams | Ounces |
1/4 c | 34 g | 1.2 oz |
1/3 c | 45 g | 1.6 oz |
1/2 c | 68 g | 2.4 oz |
1 c | 136 g | 4.8 oz |
The numbers you just gave imply a density of 0.58 g/cm³, which is very low for anything you would cook with (water is 1, and anything made from living things is near this value).
Bread flour
QuoteIt really, really depends what you're measuring. Ingredients can have very different densities.
It's a good thing you can look up the conversion on practically any phone nowadays. Not to mention more and more cookbooks include both weight and volume (some weight alone).
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 07:53:20 PM
It's a good thing you can look up the conversion on practically any phone nowadays.
but...
Quote from: kphoger on January 13, 2021, 11:01:14 AM
About a month ago or so, I finally got so sick of being addicted/married to my smartphone that I took the plunge. I downgraded to the phone shown below. I keep my old smartphone in my desk drawer at work, because I use it for a mobile VPN pass, which I can access via Wi-Fi to the company router.
(https://www.sonimtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/XP5S_RFANGLE_GEN.png)
I wanted a flip phone, but my periodic travels in Mexico require me to get a phone that can roam on GSM networks. This was the only GSM-capable dumbphone sold by Verizon that isn't a piece of crap. And actually, it's made really well. It was built with construction workers in mind: it's waterproof, dustproof, solid construction. It's big and heavy enough that I bought a leather belt-clip holster for it.
The only downsides are that it's difficult to view pictures on the smaller screen, and that I'm back to texting in T9.
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 04, 2021, 07:53:20 PM
It's a good thing you can look up the conversion on practically any phone nowadays.
but...
Quote from: kphoger on January 13, 2021, 11:01:14 AM
About a month ago or so, I finally got so sick of being addicted/married to my smartphone that I took the plunge. I downgraded to the phone shown below. I keep my old smartphone in my desk drawer at work, because I use it for a mobile VPN pass, which I can access via Wi-Fi to the company router.
(https://www.sonimtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/XP5S_RFANGLE_GEN.png)
I wanted a flip phone, but my periodic travels in Mexico require me to get a phone that can roam on GSM networks. This was the only GSM-capable dumbphone sold by Verizon that isn't a piece of crap. And actually, it's made really well. It was built with construction workers in mind: it's waterproof, dustproof, solid construction. It's big and heavy enough that I bought a leather belt-clip holster for it.
The only downsides are that it's difficult to view pictures on the smaller screen, and that I'm back to texting in T9.
If only there were some other electronic repository of information that you could be using at this very moment...
– You should be measuring ingredients by weight.
– I don't have a kitchen scale.
– You should rearrange your kitchen to make room.
– My recipes don't measure things by weight.
– You should look up the conversions on your smartphone.
– I don't have a smartphone.
– You should move your computer into your kitchen.
– How about I just measure things by volume?
Even if measuring things by volume, you can switch to metric: mL or cm³.
– You should be measuring ingredients by weight.
– I don't have a kitchen scale.
– You should rearrange your kitchen to make room.
– My recipes don't measure things by weight.
– You should look up the conversions on your smartphone.
– I don't have a smartphone.
– You should move your computer into your kitchen.
– How about I just measure things by volume?
– You should at least measure in metric units.
– But none of my recipes are written for metric units.
– You should look up the conversions on your smartphone.
– * sigh *
Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 12:33:43 PM
– You should be measuring ingredients by weight.
– I don't have a kitchen scale.
– You should rearrange your kitchen to make room.
– My recipes don't measure things by weight.
– You should look up the conversions on your smartphone.
– I don't have a smartphone.
– You should move your computer into your kitchen.
– How about I just measure things by volume?
– You should at least measure in metric units.
– But none of my recipes are written for metric units.
– You should look up the conversions on your smartphone.
– * sigh *
Nobody asks you to throw away your measurement cups and spoons once (rather,
if) conversion occurs. And measuring cups from a 5 lb package is no different from measuring cups from 2 kg package.
As for going from volume to weight... If you're running a big operation, you are still buying everything (except maybe eggs) by weight - either lb or kg, so you need to track your consumption by weight anyway.
For home cooking, volume measurement is usually good enough, although you generally don't expect result as consistent as for commercial restaurant. Switching from one cup to the other would have little effect in home kitchen. A bit sweeter or dryer will not kill you.
You do need to go to weights, regardless of metric/imperial system, to achieve more consistent result. Again, a must for consistent commercial operation, not a big deal for home - but a good idea nontheless. On the same token, timers and food thermometers are also a good idea even for home cooking and a must for a restaurant.
You do need to go to moisture-content adjusted weights, especially for flour, if you want to do higher class baking. But that is a whole different level of operation.
Oh yeah, I forgot about this:
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
Nobody asks you to throw away your measurement cups and spoons once (rather, if) conversion occurs. And measuring cups from a 5 lb package is no different from measuring cups from 2 kg package.
There's no bloody point in changing the label on an 8-ounce can of tomato paste to say 227 grams instead. Yes, I know they say both as it is, but who the heck cares that it's 227 grams? Do your recipes say to add 227 grams of tomato sauce to the pot? If they do, then I guarantee you those recipes started their life in US customary units and simply got converted to metric for no good reason. If, on the other hand, your recipes say to add 200 grams of tomato sauce, then have fun finding a 7-ounce can of tomato sauce at the corner store.
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
As for going from volume to weight... If you're running a big operation, you are still buying everything (except maybe eggs) by weight - either lb or kg, so you need to track your consumption by weight anyway.
OK, so it's a wash either way. Also, I'm not running a big operation. I'm running a household kitchen with hardly any counter space.
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
For home cooking, volume measurement is usually good enough, although you generally don't expect result as consistent as for commercial restaurant. Switching from one cup to the other would have little effect in home kitchen. A bit sweeter or dryer will not kill you.
But using the method that the cookbook was actually written for will result in a predictably better result than using a method it wasn't written for. If the recipe says a quarter-cup of packed brown sugar and 2.5 cups of (not packed) bread flour, then I should get the same result by doing that. The author probably didn't know or care how many grams that quarter-cup of brown sugar weighed, but he or she got consistently good results with a quarter-cup, so why should I mess with that?
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
You do need to go to weights, regardless of metric/imperial system, to achieve more consistent result. Again, a must for consistent commercial operation, not a big deal for home - but a good idea nontheless.
I flatly disagree, at least on a home kitchen scale. If a recipe is written for volume measurement, and then I do a conversion based on a chart someone developed, then I am automatically introducing a margin of error that didn't exist beforehand. As mentioned already, the author of the recipe got good results by volume, so that's the best course of action when following the recipe.
Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 02:04:32 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
Nobody asks you to throw away your measurement cups and spoons once (rather, if) conversion occurs. And measuring cups from a 5 lb package is no different from measuring cups from 2 kg package.
There's no bloody point in changing the label on an 8-ounce can of tomato paste to say 227 grams instead. Yes, I know they say both as it is, but who the heck cares that it's 227 grams? Do your recipes say to add 227 grams of tomato sauce to the pot? If they do, then I guarantee you those recipes started their life in US customary units and simply got converted to metric for no good reason. If, on the other hand, your recipes say to add 200 grams of tomato sauce, then have fun finding a 7-ounce can of tomato sauce at the corner store.
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
As for going from volume to weight... If you're running a big operation, you are still buying everything (except maybe eggs) by weight - either lb or kg, so you need to track your consumption by weight anyway.
OK, so it's a wash either way. Also, I'm not running a big operation. I'm running a household kitchen with hardly any counter space.
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
For home cooking, volume measurement is usually good enough, although you generally don't expect result as consistent as for commercial restaurant. Switching from one cup to the other would have little effect in home kitchen. A bit sweeter or dryer will not kill you.
But using the method that the cookbook was actually written for will result in a predictably better result than using a method it wasn't written for. If the recipe says a quarter-cup of packed brown sugar and 2.5 cups of (not packed) bread flour, then I should get the same result by doing that. The author probably didn't know or care how many grams that quarter-cup of brown sugar weighed, but he or she got consistently good results with a quarter-cup, so why should I mess with that?
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
You do need to go to weights, regardless of metric/imperial system, to achieve more consistent result. Again, a must for consistent commercial operation, not a big deal for home - but a good idea nontheless.
I flatly disagree, at least on a home kitchen scale. If a recipe is written for volume measurement, and then I do a conversion based on a chart someone developed, then I am automatically introducing a margin of error that didn't exist beforehand. As mentioned already, the author of the recipe got good results by volume, so that's the best course of action when following the recipe.
A recipe is often written as a compromise. 8 oz or 200 gramm of tomato paste will have some effect, but not a big one. Is it possible that they had to substitute 210 or 240 gram, which they found to be an optimum, to a commercial can to begin with?
Process window for cooking is pretty broad in general. Moisture content in dough may be the most sensitive parameter, and that is usually accounted for with dough consistency check (doesn't stick, pretty soft, etc). That criteria alone should give you an idea of how much tolerance is in there...
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 02:34:39 PM
A recipe is often written as a compromise. 8 oz or 200 gramm of tomato paste will have some effect, but not a big one. Is it possible that they had to substitute 210 or 240 gram, which they found to be an optimum, to a commercial can to begin with?
Possibly. Which they then accounted for with the amount of water or stock or wine required for the same recipe. Or by telling you to drain or not drain a can of beans. Or by telling you to leave the lid on or off while it cooks. Or who knows what else. So, even if 210 or 240 grams is somehow "better", the rest of the recipe will be off, because it was written with that 8-ounce can in mind.
Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 01:50:19 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about this:
I kind of disagree with some of the guy's points. Part of that is because I'm starting to get the picture (between this and other posts I've seen here) that my grocery store sucks less than most grocery stores tend to. Also, because I have to monkey around with portion sizes on recipes anyway, so these niceties he seems to value aren't something I ever get to have.
To begin with, he's wrong about the meat; at Crest, the butcher department grinds the beef themselves, packages and weighs it, and puts it out in the cooler for you to buy. That being said, they go for "about a pound" or "until the package is full", and usually this means I always get a package with more than a pound of beef in it. The most recent package of ground round I've bought (which I am about to fry up into burgers) is 1.18 pounds, for instance. This is not really a problem, since I usually only use half a pound of beef at a time. (I use half for either burgers or Hamburger Helper, and the other half for tacos. Tacos don't care if you have 0.18 lb extra beef in them.)
Now, if for some reason I needed exactly 500 g of beef for a recipe I was doing, I feel like going to the butcher counter and saying "Hey, I have a recipe that calls for 500 g of beef, can you help me with that?" would be a reasonable request. 1.1 pounds does come off as picky, but not if you mention why you need that exact amount. I would be very surprised if Crest's scales don't let them weigh in grams; it's not like nobody in Oklahoma has never looked up a non-American recipe on the Internet. (Of course, I do have a kitchen scale so I could weigh off the 500 g myself, but we're pretending I don't for the sake of this paragraph.)
Additionally, when I cook, I cook for two (me and my wife), and most recipes seem to serve 4. So I have to halve anything anyway (or make extra and throw it away, as I can't make myself eat leftovers), so I'm always dealing with fractional amounts of boxes and everything anyway. It's really no big deal–when I buy pasta, I put the leftover bit in a plastic canister, then the next time I buy a box I pour that box into the canister. Pasta is now a fluid measurement, not a fixed one. (Also anyone who measures pasta instead of throwing it in handful by handful until it looks like enough is a weirdo.)
The big problem is really eggs, of course, since you cannot meaningfully have half an egg. And if the ratios are off with eggs, really weird stuff can start to happen.
In any event, since I do have a kitchen scale, metric recipes aren't a problem really. I just switch my scale over to metric and use the mL side of my measuring cup and things work out fine.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
To begin with, he's wrong about the meat; at Crest, the butcher department grinds the beef themselves, packages and weighs it, and puts it out in the cooler for you to buy. That being said, they go for "about a pound" or "until the package is full", and usually this means I always get a package with more than a pound of beef in it. The most recent package of ground round I've bought (which I am about to fry up into burgers) is 1.18 pounds, for instance. This is not really a problem, since I usually only use half a pound of beef at a time. (I use half for either burgers or Hamburger Helper, and the other half for tacos. Tacos don't care if you have 0.18 lb extra beef in them.)
We buy our ground beef at Aldi, and it comes in packages of exactly one pound. On the rare occasion we buy it at Dillon's, we buy it by the tube, which are either exactly three pounds or exactly five pounds or whatever. It's only the foam-tray-with-cling-wrap-on-top packs of meat that end up having weird weights, and we rarely buy those. Really, we only buy ground pork that way, which we don't use very often (and buy at yet a
third grocery store).
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
Now, if for some reason I needed exactly 500 g of beef for a recipe I was doing, I feel like going to the butcher counter and saying "Hey, I have a recipe that calls for 500 g of beef, can you help me with that?" would be a reasonable request. 1.1 pounds does come off as picky, but not if you mention why you need that exact amount. I would be very surprised if Crest's scales don't let them weigh in grams; it's not like nobody in Oklahoma has never looked up a non-American recipe on the Internet.
Again, Aldi. No counter, no butcher.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
when I buy pasta, I put the leftover bit in a plastic canister, then the next time I buy a box I pour that box into the canister. Pasta is now a fluid measurement, not a fixed one.
Unless you're doing lasagna. Or do you keep leftover lasagna noodles in a canister too?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
(Also anyone who measures pasta instead of throwing it in handful by handful until it looks like enough is a weirdo.)
I generally agree with that statement, but chiefly because I almost always cook pasta and sauce separately. For dishes in which they cook together or at least end up together in the same pan, I can see it being important that the pasta-to-sauce ratio be somewhat precise.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 03:39:53 PM
The big problem is really eggs, of course, since you cannot meaningfully have half an egg. And if the ratios are off with eggs, really weird stuff can start to happen.
Yes, the egg is a fixed object. Even using medium instead of large, or
vice versa can get interesting if you're baking (which is when precision is most needed).
If volume measurements of your ingredients haven't been a problem so far, why change?
But if you decide to try a recipe from other countries, or a professional grade recipe from the U.S., a lot of them are by weight, and it can be handy to have a scale. Or if some recipes don't come out right on warm days that may be the problem.
Adapting recipes from other countries is more of a series of puzzles. In Cornwall, they make pasties, a meat and potato pie with all the ends closed. I got the recipe there. All the amounts are by grams, because it's a commercial shop with the recipe scaled down to make four pasties. But that's not the hard part. The hard parts are ingredients called by different names:
Quote500g strong bread flour. It is important to use stronger than normal as you need the extra strength in the gluten to produce strong pliable pastry.
Okay, we can get bread flour in a variety of different glutens and they usually have a percentage gluten. But the Cornish recipe doesn't include the percentage gluten, just a vague "hard". Does this mean more gluten than regular bread flour, or just more gluten than "all purpose" flour?
Quote25g pastry margarine (cold from the fridge)
Never seen something called pastry margarine and I'm not sure how it would be different from regular margarine.
Quote250g swede
I've never seen something called a "swede" in cooking. Some kind of vegetable?
QuoteGas mark 6
What?
Britain has some classifications of flour and sugar (and probably other things) that we aren't used to in the US. Just watch The Great British Baking Show sometime.
And "swede" is probably a rutabaga.
Quote from: GaryV on March 05, 2021, 05:06:07 PM
Britain has some classifications of flour and sugar (and probably other things) that we aren't used to in the US. Just watch The Great British Baking Show sometime.
And "swede" is probably a rutabaga.
Thanks! But my point was that the units and even weight vs. volume measurements are the least of your problems in converting recipes.
Quote from: kkt on March 05, 2021, 04:28:58 PM
QuoteGas mark 6
What?
The conversion to F is pretty simple:
F = 250 + 25GM
So, gas mark 6 is 250 + 25 × 6 = 400.
Good thing it isn't metric, then... :-P
Quote from: GaryV on March 05, 2021, 05:06:07 PM
Britain has some classifications of flour and sugar (and probably other things) that we aren't used to in the US. Just watch The Great British Baking Show sometime.
And "swede" is probably a rutabaga.
Not probably, it is. We Yoopers know how to make a pasty too, and yes, the authentic ones have rutabaga.
I actually used the kitchen scale with it set to pounds tonight. We got in a shipment of fresh scallops (harvested Wednesday!) from Maine and I wanted to split it up into five one-pound portions and freeze them.
I have a vintage baker's scale, balance beam with a sliding scale for ounces and a platform for counterweights on the other side. It used to be my mom's. When I was a newborn, I was underweight and my pediatrician was concerned and said I should be weighed every week, so she weighed me on the baker's scale. It could weigh up to 10 pounds with enough counterweights. I do use it for weighing ingredients too, one of my cookbooks loves giving weights rather than volume measures.
Quote from: bandit957 on February 21, 2021, 11:51:27 AM
I remember one time in grade school, we were out on the ballfield and some kid kept kicking dirt. So the gym teacher said, "If you don't stop kicking that dirt, I'm gonna make you eat a gallon of it."
But how??? It was dry dirt, not a liquid. I thought gallons were for liquids.
Gallons are a measure of volume. A gallon of a given liquid should always be the same (at standard temperature and pressure.) Since sand is a solid, it would not be
identically the same. That said, IDENTICALLY. A gallon of (the same type of) sand would be extremely close to the same amount every time. You likely wouldn't know the difference. As far as that goes, when it comes to eating sand, a cup and a gallon probably would be little different. A half a liter would likely choke you out!
Volume measurements are less precise even with liquids than weight or mass. People get into measuring cooking ingredients by weight in this thread.
I'll bet you forgot this was a bandit thread (you being everyone). It might be the most substantive bandit thread of all time.
Oh yeah, I remembered a new beef about the customary system. I like to cook Tuna Helper sometimes, since my mom made it a bunch for me growing up so it's comfort food. My wife hates it, though, so whenever I cook it I only make it half a box at a time. The directions call for 1⅔ cup hot water and 3 tbsp butter, among other things.
So I'm halving this "recipe", which means I need half of 1⅔, whatever the hell number that is. The first time I did this, I got a deer-in-the-headlights look in my face, and just decided to measure out ½ cup, then ⅓ cup, taking two trips from the water dispenser to the skillet. This time, remembering this thread, I decided to sit down and figure out what 1⅔ ÷ 2 is. ⅚! Excuse me, I'm supposed to put ⅚ cup of water in this thing? I have never seen a sixth-cup measuring cup in my life. So that means the way I was doing it–two trips to the pan–was the only way I could have done it! What kind of ass-backward measuring system requires that?
1 cup is 236 mL, so ⅚ of a cup would be 197 mL. I could probably get away with rounding that up to 200 mL. At least that I have the tools to measure!
Same goes for my butter measurement: there is no way to measure 1½ tbsp, because I don't have ½ tbsp measuring spoons, only 1 tbsp and various fractions of tsp, and 1 tsp = ⅓ tbsp! At least I buy stick butter so I can measure it by the markings on the wrapper, but still...
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 06, 2021, 09:00:49 PM
Same goes for my butter measurement: there is no way to measure 1½ tbsp, because I don't have ½ tbsp measuring spoons, only 1 tbsp and various fractions of tsp, and 1 tsp = ⅓ tbsp! At least I buy stick butter so I can measure it by the markings on the wrapper, but still...
Could always measure it as 1 tbsp + 1 tsp + 1/2 tsp. Even then though, I find it somewhat surprising you don't have a 1/2 tbsp...I have one and they seem to be fairly common.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3562058,-68.3332332,3a,23.7y,316.98h,92.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3ih0VtBXDzj-6B2-875C1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 where gas is advertised by the liter in US dollars
Do you have one of the glass measuring cups with the ounces marked? You want 5/6 of one cup. One cup = 8 oz. liquid. So you could put in 7 oz. of hot water and call it good. Or you could put in 6 oz. (3/4 cup) of hot water and then add a little more water at the end if it's too thick. I try to avoid making extra measurements too :)
Measuring the butter by the markings on the stick should work fine. I never bother to weigh that, unless the stick has melted into an uneven shape. Pay attention that the end of the tbsp markers lines up with the end of the butter.
Quote from: kkt on March 07, 2021, 12:51:33 AM
Do you have one of the glass measuring cups with the ounces marked? You want 5/6 of one cup. One cup = 8 oz. liquid. So you could put in 7 oz. of hot water and call it good. Or you could put in 6 oz. (3/4 cup) of hot water and then add a little more water at the end if it's too thick. I try to avoid making extra measurements too :)
Sure...but it's also got mL marked, and now I know that ⅚ cup is about 200 mL ;)
Quote from: 1 on February 25, 2021, 03:14:54 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 03:10:40 PM
and however tf many feet in a mile (5820?) WTF!
It's 5280. I've never understood why they stuck an 11 in there. At least the pound sterling was 240 old pence, which is 2*2*2*2*3*5, and it can be easily subdivided into pretty much anything.
If it was 5820, that would be even weirder; one of its prime factors is 97.
If you want weird, there's 231 cubic inches in a gallon. It's got an 11 and also a 7 in it: 231 = 3 × 7 × 11.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 06, 2021, 11:08:20 PM
//snipped// where gas is advertised by the liter in US dollars
I'm surprised they don't give the $Cdn prices too.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 06, 2021, 09:00:49 PM
I like to cook Tuna Helper sometimes, since my mom made it a bunch for me growing up so it's comfort food. My wife hates it, though, so whenever I cook it I only make it half a box at a time.
I'm with your wife. I don't like tuna salad, but I like straight tuna out of the can. I tried fixing Tuna Helper once. It was awful. I took two bites and dumped the rest of it.
^^ This may belong in the strange habits thread, but I can only eat tuna if it is straight out of the can.
Quote from: Big John on March 07, 2021, 11:39:58 PM
^^ This may belong in the strange habits thread, but I can only eat tuna if it is straight out of the can.
Same here, plus I make sure to drain whatever liquid was in the can. I do, however, also like tuna straight out of those foil packets -- even those flavored like lemon pepper. But with no other additives beyond that!
I put all sorts of cool stuff in tuna salad, including taco sauce, cheese, and horseradish sauce. I think I've even used onion powder and vinegar. Deelish!
The French First Republic attempted to introduce decimal time, and a decimal calendar, in the 1790s. It didn't work well at all for a host of reasons. Do a Google search for "French Republican Calendar" (or look it up on Wikipedia).
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 06, 2021, 09:00:49 PM
Oh yeah, I remembered a new beef about the customary system. I like to cook Tuna Helper sometimes, since my mom made it a bunch for me growing up so it's comfort food. My wife hates it, though, so whenever I cook it I only make it half a box at a time. The directions call for 1⅔ cup hot water and 3 tbsp butter, among other things.
So I'm halving this "recipe", which means I need half of 1⅔, whatever the hell number that is. The first time I did this, I got a deer-in-the-headlights look in my face, and just decided to measure out ½ cup, then ⅓ cup, taking two trips from the water dispenser to the skillet. This time, remembering this thread, I decided to sit down and figure out what 1⅔ ÷ 2 is. ⅚! Excuse me, I'm supposed to put ⅚ cup of water in this thing? I have never seen a sixth-cup measuring cup in my life. So that means the way I was doing it–two trips to the pan–was the only way I could have done it! What kind of ass-backward measuring system requires that?
1 cup is 236 mL, so ⅚ of a cup would be 197 mL. I could probably get away with rounding that up to 200 mL. At least that I have the tools to measure!
Same goes for my butter measurement: there is no way to measure 1½ tbsp, because I don't have ½ tbsp measuring spoons, only 1 tbsp and various fractions of tsp, and 1 tsp = ⅓ tbsp! At least I buy stick butter so I can measure it by the markings on the wrapper, but still...
Ah much easier to just make the whole batch and then have bomb leftovers. Helper is great re-heated; all them flavors have time to soak into the noodles. Hells yeah.
To me, there is no such thing as a "bomb leftover". Reheated food (other than pizza) is repulsive to me, so if I make more than I can eat it just goes to waste (if I try to package up leftovers, I'll put off eating it long enough that it goes bad, so it's easier to not pretend like I'm going to, and just throw it away).
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 06, 2021, 09:00:49 PM
The directions call for 1⅔ cup hot water and 3 tbsp butter, among other things.
I only guesstimate how much a tablespoon of butter is anyway. It's, what, about the thickness of my finger or something? It's no surprise that my wife does the baking...
Quote from: kkt on March 07, 2021, 12:51:33 AM
Measuring the butter by the markings on the stick should work fine. I never bother to weigh that, unless the stick has melted into an uneven shape.
There are no markings on the stick of butter. The markings are on the
wrapper, which is somewhere halfway down the trash can by the time I need to actually use the butter. Whenever we use up a stick of butter, we get the next one out of the package, unwrap it, and put it in a butter dish (one in the fridge door, one left out at room temperature).
Besides which, half the time, we buy butter that doesn't even come in sticks–like the picture below. We then cut it into sticks ourselves.
(https://i0.wp.com/pattycooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/butter.jpg)
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 02:29:44 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2021, 02:05:29 PM
Most people can make the counter space up by putting their spices in a cupboard where they belong, since the darkness helps keep them from going bad as quickly.
People keep their spices on the counter?? All my spices are in a rack, mounted to the wall in the back hall.
The toaster oven is on top of the mini fridge in front of the window. On the counter are two big jars of cooking utensils (one for metal and one for plastic/wooden ones), the microwave oven, the Keurig, and some clear canisters of specialty baking ingredients for my wife's diet (with the extra bags stored in cupboards). We only have one counter–half on the right side of the sink and half on the left. No island, no secondary counter space.
We have an in-sink dish drainer. By state regulation, kitchen knives are stored away in a locked cupboard (under the sink, along with cutting boards and baking sheets). The canisters of regular baking ingredients are kept in the dining room on a baker's rack, along with the crock pot. Less-used big things like the stand mixer and food processor are stored in the basement. Trust me, we've already moved as much as possible off the countertop.
Considering that we have no need for a kitchen scale, why would we get one? All our recipes are measured in cups, and we have those. I know how to pack a cup of brown sugar and how to not pack a cup of flour.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
Some kitchens are just very small.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
This is our kitchen, where we cook for our family of five. Not a whole lot of counter space for the taking.
(taken on Saturday, hence the unlocked cupboard under the sink)
(https://i.imgur.com/PFbPnn7.jpg)
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 02:46:45 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2021, 03:23:56 PM
Some kitchens are just very small.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
[image of kitchen snipped]
Wow. That is a very small kitchen, possibly even the smallest I've ever seen (no, I have not had much exposure to small kitchens).
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 02:11:38 PM
There are no markings on the stick of butter. The markings are on the wrapper, which is somewhere halfway down the trash can by the time I need to actually use the butter. Whenever we use up a stick of butter, we get the next one out of the package, unwrap it, and put it in a butter dish (one in the fridge door, one left out at room temperature).
Besides which, half the time, we buy butter that doesn't even come in sticks–like the picture below. We then cut it into sticks ourselves.
You could take a new stick of butter out of the fridge and hold it next to the stick of butter in the dish to measure. Or, what I do, keep the butter you cook with in the fridge so you can slice it off easily using the markings on the wrapper.
Otherwise, either guestimate or look up the weight of a tbsp of butter and weigh it.
If you cook a lot, I'd suggest splurging for the butter that comes in sticks with markings on the wrapper.
Quote from: kkt on March 08, 2021, 03:17:10 PM
If you cook a lot, I'd suggest splurging for the butter that comes in sticks with markings on the wrapper.
The butter without markings on it IS the splurge. It's Irish butter, which is has a little higher fat content than regular butter.
Quote from: kkt on March 08, 2021, 03:17:10 PM
... or look up the weight of a tbsp of butter and weigh it.
Are you spamming me?
We tend to have multiple butters around the house–Country Crock margarine and/or Irish butter for spreading on bread, and then the sticks of butter, which are a nicety for me (who does the cooking), because measuring butter or margarine with a spoon is unpleasant. (It always sticks to the spoon and is nigh-impossible to get out in a timely manner without using a finger to scoop it out, which seems like poor form.) Given that, taking the wrapper off the butter upon purchase would be defeating the whole purpose of buying it in the first place–in that case, I'd just use the margarine.
I suppose one could have their cake and eat it too by scoring the tbsp marks into the corner of the butter before unwrapping it and putting it in the dish.
Not being a baking grandma, I don't have any confidence in my eyeball-measuring abilities, so I am a stickler for measuring, even for things I have cooked hundreds of times.
Also, kphoger, your kitchen would absolutely give me claustrophobia. I already feel cramped with my wife or one of the cats in the room, and my kitchen is at least twice the size of yours!
(https://photos.zillowstatic.com/fp/6980f17db133590d025eecd1af0056ce-uncropped_scaled_within_1536_1152.webp)
(Photo from the real estate listing on our house, before we'd had the chance to move in and dirty it up. Other than the appliances, none of the stuff shown is ours; the selling agent took it with them when we closed.)
We open the wrapper when we place the stick of butter on the dish, but we otherwise leave it in place so that the tablespoon marks are still visible. The one exception to this is if we are having people over (which has not happened, other than my mom, since prior to last March). In that case we use the nicer butter dish, rather than the white plastic one that stays in the refrigerator, and we remove the wrapper.
My mom gave me a butter-cutting device that is supposed to enable you to measure various amounts of butter and then you lift up the knife and it cuts off that amount. I've only tried it once or twice. She found it in a drawer earlier this year and didn't want it, so she gave it to us and I just haven't had much reason to try it yet. It looks similar to this thing:
(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.pMRR3VuHy65HzfsppA2SJgHaDA&pid=Api&P=0&w=417&h=170)
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 04:07:34 PM
My mom gave me a butter-cutting device that is supposed to enable you to measure various amounts of butter and then you lift up the knife and it cuts off that amount. I've only tried it once or twice. She found it in a drawer earlier this year and didn't want it, so she gave it to us and I just haven't had much reason to try it yet. It looks similar to this thing:
(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.pMRR3VuHy65HzfsppA2SJgHaDA&pid=Api&P=0&w=417&h=170)
Is that based on a normal stick of butter, which is to say the stick must be the standard size? Because the Kerrygold Irish butter we buy is the same weight as four sticks of Kroger brand, but it isn't the same dimensions as four sticks of Kroger brand. When we cut it into quarters, each stick is a little fatter and shorter than typical.
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 04:07:34 PM
My mom gave me a butter-cutting device that is supposed to enable you to measure various amounts of butter and then you lift up the knife and it cuts off that amount. I've only tried it once or twice. She found it in a drawer earlier this year and didn't want it, so she gave it to us and I just haven't had much reason to try it yet. It looks similar to this thing:
(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.pMRR3VuHy65HzfsppA2SJgHaDA&pid=Api&P=0&w=417&h=170)
Is that based on a normal stick of butter, which is to say the stick must be the standard size? Because the Kerrygold Irish butter we buy is the same weight as four sticks of Kroger brand, but it isn't the same dimensions as four sticks of Kroger brand. When we cut it into quarters, each stick is a little fatter and shorter than typical.
And just because I cannot resist... You mentioned you use pretty different flavor of butter, right?
But using the groceries that the cookbook was actually written for will result in a predictably better result than using groceries it wasn't written for. If the recipe says a quarter-cup of butter, then I should get the same result by using same stuff as author used - US standard butter. The author probably didn't know or care how Irish butter is different, but he or she got consistently good results with US butter, so why should I mess with that?
Quote from: kalvado on March 08, 2021, 05:06:49 PM
And just because I cannot resist... You mentioned you use pretty different flavor of butter, right?
But using the groceries that the cookbook was actually written for will result in a predictably better result than using groceries it wasn't written for. If the recipe says a quarter-cup of butter, then I should get the same result by using same stuff as author used - US standard butter. The author probably didn't know or care how Irish butter is different, but he or she got consistently good results with US butter, so why should I mess with that?
If I'm helping my wife with baking, I don't use the Irish butter, for exactly that reason. For regular cooking, there's no real difference, but I've read the difference in fat content can mess with cookies, for example. However, I asked her about it a few weeks ago, and she says she's used the Irish butter in cookies and cakes before and never had them turn out weird. So maybe the difference is overrated.
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 05:16:18 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 08, 2021, 05:06:49 PM
And just because I cannot resist... You mentioned you use pretty different flavor of butter, right?
But using the groceries that the cookbook was actually written for will result in a predictably better result than using groceries it wasn't written for. If the recipe says a quarter-cup of butter, then I should get the same result by using same stuff as author used - US standard butter. The author probably didn't know or care how Irish butter is different, but he or she got consistently good results with US butter, so why should I mess with that?
If I'm helping my wife with baking, I don't use the Irish butter, for exactly that reason. For regular cooking, there's no real difference, but I've read the difference in fat content can mess with cookies, for example. However, I asked her about it a few weeks ago, and she says she's used the Irish butter in cookies and cakes before and never had them turn out weird. So maybe the difference is overrated.
I would say the accuracy of existing measurement is overrated, and increased fat content doesn't play any more role than those rounding errors we discussed previously...
And by the way... if you don't want to use electronic devices for conversion purposes, this may work. Is you kitchen big enough for an extra laminated sheet?
I know this version is non-ideal, no spoons, but you get the idea:
(https://img.taste.com.au/JYIAxRIX/taste/2007/04/weights-127727-1.jpg)
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 04:07:34 PM
My mom gave me a butter-cutting device that is supposed to enable you to measure various amounts of butter and then you lift up the knife and it cuts off that amount. I've only tried it once or twice. She found it in a drawer earlier this year and didn't want it, so she gave it to us and I just haven't had much reason to try it yet. It looks similar to this thing:
(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.pMRR3VuHy65HzfsppA2SJgHaDA&pid=Api&P=0&w=417&h=170)
Is that based on a normal stick of butter, which is to say the stick must be the standard size? Because the Kerrygold Irish butter we buy is the same weight as four sticks of Kroger brand, but it isn't the same dimensions as four sticks of Kroger brand. When we cut it into quarters, each stick is a little fatter and shorter than typical.
Yes, I assume it's based on the standard American size, although I don't have the packaging. I've seen the type of butter you reference and I assume it wouldn't work for that. I was mentioning the device more in the context of the remark about taking out a stick, removing the wrapper, putting it in the butter dish, and throwing away the wrapper. This sort of thing could be a solution to that.
(https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.pMRR3VuHy65HzfsppA2SJgHaDA&pid=Api&P=0&w=417&h=170)
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2021, 06:30:35 PM
Yes, I assume it's based on the standard American size
There are actually two American sizes for sticks of butter, one more common in the east and the other in the west. The eastern size is 4.75 × 1.25 × 1.25, while the western size is 3.25 × 1.5 × 1.5. To spare you the math, you get a bit more with the eastern size, although not much, a bit more than 1/3 teaspoon.
Quote from: kalvado on March 08, 2021, 05:40:55 PM
And by the way... if you don't want to use electronic devices for conversion purposes, this may work. Is you kitchen big enough for an extra laminated sheet?
I know this version is non-ideal, no spoons, but you get the idea:
(https://img.taste.com.au/JYIAxRIX/taste/2007/04/weights-127727-1.jpg)
Do you not remember the part where I said I don't have a scale, nor do I want one, nor do I have the counter space for one?
Tell you what: if you buy me a kitchen scale, then mail me that chart, then buy us a house with a bigger kitchen–then I'll
consider going by weight. Although I probably won't, because it's so much easier to just do what the recipe says.
I happen to have two sizes of "butter" sticks in my fridge now.
Tillamook butter, from Oregon, each stick
4-5/8 x 1-1/4 x 1-1/4 inches = 7.2265 cu. in.
Earth Balance vegan spread, each stick
3-1/4 x 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 inches = 7.3125 cu. in.
Both come four sticks to the 1-pound package.
The only conclusion I have is that it's not that precise. There's probably a permissable range that it can be less or more than the labeled weight, and save the manufacture from obsessing over calibrating the assembly line every hour...
Quote from: kkt on March 08, 2021, 07:27:42 PM
I happen to have two sizes of "butter" sticks in my fridge now.
Tillamook butter, from Oregon, each stick
4-5/8 x 1-1/4 x 1-1/4 inches = 7.2265 cu. in.
Earth Balance vegan spread, each stick
3-1/4 x 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 inches = 7.3125 cu. in.
Both come four sticks to the 1-pound package.
The only conclusion I have is that it's not that precise. There's probably a permissable range that it can be less or more than the labeled weight, and save the manufacture from obsessing over calibrating the assembly line every hour...
Permissible range is set by NIST document, and is about +\-10%
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:36:57 PM
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
I would say - it depends. Sometimes being off here and where by quite a bit is OK, sometimes you better be careful. I assume this is one of those things people learn in culinary schools, or if they really want to be good cooks. I know a few dishes only. In particular, grilling wise , I went from "oh shit, we cannot get the correct type of pomegranate juice for this one" to "OK, what do we have handy? Nah, that should work!" over the past year. Being able to read a few books and having to deal with whatever is available definitely helped.
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:36:57 PM
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
That works for cooking. Baking, though, is more precise.
Quote from: kalvado on March 08, 2021, 08:11:36 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 08, 2021, 07:27:42 PM
I happen to have two sizes of "butter" sticks in my fridge now.
Tillamook butter, from Oregon, each stick
4-5/8 x 1-1/4 x 1-1/4 inches = 7.2265 cu. in.
Earth Balance vegan spread, each stick
3-1/4 x 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 inches = 7.3125 cu. in.
Both come four sticks to the 1-pound package.
The only conclusion I have is that it's not that precise. There's probably a permissable range that it can be less or more than the labeled weight, and save the manufacture from obsessing over calibrating the assembly line every hour...
Permissible range is set by NIST document, and is about +\-10%
10%?? Jeez. Don't knock yourself out.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:09:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:36:57 PM
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
That works for cooking. Baking, though, is more precise.
Not necessarily. I bake and have generally found it to be true still (i.e., being a smidge off with flour or whatnot).
Quote from: kalvado on March 08, 2021, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:36:57 PM
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
I would say - it depends. Sometimes being off here and where by quite a bit is OK, sometimes you better be careful.
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:09:11 PM
That works for cooking. Baking, though, is more precise.
Not necessarily. I bake and have generally found it to be true still (i.e., being a smidge off with flour or whatnot).
Spices are different, depending on which one you're measuring. For things like basil or garlic powder or paprika, I just eyeball it–and usually end up adding quite a bit more than the recipe calls for. But adding too much ground cloves or ginger can have a big negative impact on the final product. Salt can be that way too.
And, with baking, it can depend on the recipe. Too much fat can make cookies spread too much, for instance, but some cookie recipes are more finicky than others.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 08, 2021, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:36:57 PM
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
I would say - it depends. Sometimes being off here and where by quite a bit is OK, sometimes you better be careful.
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:09:11 PM
That works for cooking. Baking, though, is more precise.
Not necessarily. I bake and have generally found it to be true still (i.e., being a smidge off with flour or whatnot).
Spices are different, depending on which one you're measuring. For things like basil or garlic powder or paprika, I just eyeball it–and usually end up adding quite a bit more than the recipe calls for. But adding too much ground cloves or ginger can have a big negative impact on the final product. Salt can be that way too.
And, with baking, it can depend on the recipe. Too much fat can make cookies spread too much, for instance, but some cookie recipes are more finicky than others.
When I say you can be off a smidge, it's a proportional smidge to the amount called for in a recipe. If it calls for 1/4 tsp of ginger and you put in 1/4 cup, sure, that's going to have some effect.
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 08, 2021, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:36:57 PM
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
I would say - it depends. Sometimes being off here and where by quite a bit is OK, sometimes you better be careful.
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:09:11 PM
That works for cooking. Baking, though, is more precise.
Not necessarily. I bake and have generally found it to be true still (i.e., being a smidge off with flour or whatnot).
Spices are different, depending on which one you're measuring. For things like basil or garlic powder or paprika, I just eyeball it–and usually end up adding quite a bit more than the recipe calls for. But adding too much ground cloves or ginger can have a big negative impact on the final product. Salt can be that way too.
And, with baking, it can depend on the recipe. Too much fat can make cookies spread too much, for instance, but some cookie recipes are more finicky than others.
When I say you can be off a smidge, it's a proportional smidge to the amount called for in a recipe. If it calls for 1/4 tsp of ginger and you put in 1/4 cup, sure, that's going to have some effect.
If you can only be off by a smidgen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_weights_and_measures#United_States_measures), there's not much room for error...
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:09:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:36:57 PM
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
That works for cooking. Baking, though, is more precise.
Not necessarily. I bake and have generally found it to be true still (i.e., being a smidge off with flour or whatnot).
Yes, so much of it is by feel, but I can tell that advice isn't going to appeal to some of the more literal-minded posters around here.
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 10:34:30 AM
When I say you can be off a smidge, it's a proportional smidge to the amount called for in a recipe. If it calls for 1/4 tsp of ginger and you put in 1/4 cup, sure, that's going to have some effect.
And my point is that it's not just proportional to the amount, but is also dependent on the ingredient.
If it calls for a teaspoon of onion powder and you put in a tablespoon, then you probably won't even notice the difference. If basil or paprika, it'll probably taste even
better that way. But if cloves or ginger or black pepper or salt, then all bets are off.
How do metric recipes list herbs and spices? Do they expect you to weigh them out? I mean, if a recipe calls for eight different ones...?
I have read that most recipes aimed at popular audiences are designed to give acceptable results for main ingredients in the range of 50%-200% of the quantities specified when cooking (though baking normally demands a greater degree of accuracy). In the interests of better heart health, I usually substitute potassium chloride (No-Salt or similar) for table salt. I also bake very rarely since nearly all of my recipes for both sweet and savory baked goods call for animal fats (butter or cream cheese), which are quite high in saturated fat. Thus, I've been keeping my use of measuring cups and spoons to a minimum.
I also have experience of cooking and baking in the UK, and in storage I think I have a copy of Mrs. Beeton's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Beeton%27s_Book_of_Household_Management) (a cookbook whose first edition came out during Queen Victoria's reign). There are odd units--e.g., the dessertspoon--as well as imperial volume measures, which are based on a slightly different fluid ounce (28.4 mL versus 29.6 mL in the US) and a different number of fluid ounces in a pint (20 versus 16), but all of these can be bridged with appropriate definitions of each unit (their respective metric conversions furnish a convenient reality check, since metric units are the same everywhere). The real difficulties come with solid ingredients being quoted by mass or weight rather than volume and with ingredient availability. For the former, I either used a kitchen scale directly or converted to volume measures using nominal densities. One example of the latter is American-style brown sugar, which is a rich golden-brown color, being difficult to find--the reliably available alternatives were demerara sugar, which is the same hue but has a coarser texture, and what the British call brown sugar, which is a very dark brown due to much higher molasses content.
Even ingredients that are essentially the same on either side of the Atlantic are packaged to different standards. For example, stick butter as we know it in the US basically does not exist there. It comes in rectangular bricks of 250 g, wrapped in foil or wax paper. I used a hard conversion of 16 T (US) per 250 g (about 10% higher than nominal for the US, and well within my acceptable range of error when using wrappers to measure).
Nothing I ever made in Britain to a US recipe proved to be inedible, but the taste was usually at least subtly different.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 10:34:30 AM
When I say you can be off a smidge, it's a proportional smidge to the amount called for in a recipe. If it calls for 1/4 tsp of ginger and you put in 1/4 cup, sure, that's going to have some effect.
And my point is that it's not just proportional to the amount, but is also dependent on the ingredient.
If it calls for a teaspoon of onion powder and you put in a tablespoon, then you probably won't even notice the difference. If basil or paprika, it'll probably taste even better that way. But if cloves or ginger or black pepper or salt, then all bets are off.
How do metric recipes list herbs and spices? Do they expect you to weigh them out? I mean, if a recipe calls for eight different ones...?
I see at least some scripts using teaspoons for spices. After all, tea/tablespoons are more or less the same across the world as humans have similar anatomy and moth size. There may be a difference between 1/6 oz US teaspoon and 5 ml european teaspoon, but a bit more/less cinnamon is not going to make a difference. Not more than the difference between fresh and last year's package of cinnamon anyway.
Before you ask, eggs also go in terms of countable eggs (one egg, two eggs), not by ml.
Moreover, there is a hardware conversion device for you convenience!
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61BJLjJOeJL._AC_SL1500_.jpg)
Some metric recipes have oh-so-helpful instructions like: 3-4 sprigs each rosemary, sage, and savory
Unhelpful recipes can be in any system of units!
Quote from: US 89 on March 09, 2021, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 08, 2021, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:36:57 PM
Heh. Dated a woman who went to culinary school. It is a great, strong myth that you have to follow a recipe exactly. Being off a little here and there is just fine.
I would say - it depends. Sometimes being off here and where by quite a bit is OK, sometimes you better be careful.
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:09:11 PM
That works for cooking. Baking, though, is more precise.
Not necessarily. I bake and have generally found it to be true still (i.e., being a smidge off with flour or whatnot).
Spices are different, depending on which one you're measuring. For things like basil or garlic powder or paprika, I just eyeball it–and usually end up adding quite a bit more than the recipe calls for. But adding too much ground cloves or ginger can have a big negative impact on the final product. Salt can be that way too.
And, with baking, it can depend on the recipe. Too much fat can make cookies spread too much, for instance, but some cookie recipes are more finicky than others.
When I say you can be off a smidge, it's a proportional smidge to the amount called for in a recipe. If it calls for 1/4 tsp of ginger and you put in 1/4 cup, sure, that's going to have some effect.
If you can only be off by a smidgen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_weights_and_measures#United_States_measures), there's not much room for error...
But I didn't say smidgen.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 10:34:30 AM
When I say you can be off a smidge, it's a proportional smidge to the amount called for in a recipe. If it calls for 1/4 tsp of ginger and you put in 1/4 cup, sure, that's going to have some effect.
And my point is that it's not just proportional to the amount, but is also dependent on the ingredient.
If it calls for a teaspoon of onion powder and you put in a tablespoon, then you probably won't even notice the difference. If basil or paprika, it'll probably taste even better that way. But if cloves or ginger or black pepper or salt, then all bets are off.
How do metric recipes list herbs and spices? Do they expect you to weigh them out? I mean, if a recipe calls for eight different ones...?
Somebody's overthinking this. :D
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 04:17:53 PM
Somebody's overthinking this. :D
Is that the aaroads.com slogan?
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2021, 01:01:51 PM
Some metric recipes have oh-so-helpful instructions like: 3-4 sprigs each rosemary, sage, and savory
Unhelpful recipes can be in any system of units!
I fail to see what is unhelpful about that? Sprigs of each of those are not dramatically different in size. 3-4 of rosemary, 3-4 of sage, and 3-4 of savory.
Chris
Not particularly useful if you're using store-bought dried herbs, though.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 04:23:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 04:17:53 PM
Somebody's overthinking this. :D
Is that the aaroads.com slogan?
:-D
On that wikipedia page for U.S. common measures, there's a lot of measures I wouldn't recognize as being exact volumes. In particular, drop, smidgen, pinch, and dash are all imprecise volumes. Drops are one drop for an eyedropper, which will naturally be bigger for viscous fluids (cream, for example) and smaller for thinner fluids (spirits, for example).
From the "weights and measures" table on the endpaper of Fanny Farmer,
Quotea few grains, pinch, dash, etc. (dry) = less than 1/8 teaspoon
a dash (liquid) = a few drops
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 09, 2021, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2021, 01:01:51 PM
Some metric recipes have oh-so-helpful instructions like: 3-4 sprigs each rosemary, sage, and savory
Unhelpful recipes can be in any system of units!
I fail to see what is unhelpful about that? Sprigs of each of those are not dramatically different in size. 3-4 of rosemary, 3-4 of sage, and 3-4 of savory.
Chris
It gives you some idea of how much to use, but a big sprig can easily be 3 times the size of a little sprig.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 04:39:48 PM
Not particularly useful if you're using store-bought dried herbs, though.
Well, no, but if you're substituting items in a recipe, you'll have to use a conversion. No difference between something like this and something that says "juice of one orange" vs. 2.5 oz of orange juice. Especially in the case of herbs as dried vs. fresh require drastically different amounts (especially for something like dill which is 3:1 fresh to dried).
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2021, 04:43:31 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 09, 2021, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2021, 01:01:51 PM
Some metric recipes have oh-so-helpful instructions like: 3-4 sprigs each rosemary, sage, and savory
Unhelpful recipes can be in any system of units!
I fail to see what is unhelpful about that? Sprigs of each of those are not dramatically different in size. 3-4 of rosemary, 3-4 of sage, and 3-4 of savory.
Chris
It gives you some idea of how much to use, but a big sprig can easily be 3 times the size of a little sprig.
I guess if I had purchased six sprigs, I'd pick the median sprig and try to get 3-4 that size. Having worked in fine dining restaurants for most of my life, I can assure you that a little more herb or spice here or there will not impact the dish substantially. There are rarely ingredients that have to be measured out that specifically (sesame oil comes to mind).
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 09, 2021, 04:51:25 PM
No difference between something like this and something that says "juice of one orange" vs. 2.5 oz of orange juice. Especially in the case of herbs as dried vs. fresh require drastically different amounts (especially for something like dill which is 3:1 fresh to dried).\\
And a GOOD recipe will say something like "juice of one orange (2.5 oz)".
Also, dill isn't 3:1 fresh to dried. The actual measurements are "just dump a whole bunch in, because dill is the bomb diggity".
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 09, 2021, 04:51:25 PM
Having worked in fine dining restaurants for most of my life, I can assure you that a little more herb or spice here or there will not impact the dish substantially. There are rarely ingredients that have to be measured out that specifically (sesame oil comes to mind).
Yes, unless it's a mild-flavored dish to begin with (in which case the spice might stand out too much) or a strong-flavored ingredient (in which case it might overpower everything else). In those cases, the remedy is always the same: add more garlic.
(from another thread)
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 03:12:21 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 09, 2021, 02:45:46 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 09, 2021, 01:33:49 PM
Well my lot is on acreage. Why the 1/2 acre lot max? Heck the City of Brentwood wants 1 acre lot minimums now.
My house is 2/5 of an acre. Long Island is about 6000 square feet. 1/2 acre is plenty to maintain a suburban character[opinion]. Any more than that is just NIMBYism[disputed].
FTFY
I have no intuitive concept of what an acre is. And I can't go by side length – 66×660 is not a square number.
Quote from: 1 on March 09, 2021, 07:00:32 PM
I have no intuitive concept of what an acre is. And I can't go by side length — 66×660 is not a square number.
A smidge less than 91 yards of a football field, not including the end zones:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Acre_superimposed_over_football_fields.svg/404px-Acre_superimposed_over_football_fields.svg.png)
Or to put it more roads-ier, about 500 feet worth of two lane interstate, including shoulders in both directions, with a 50-foot median, but not including anything outside the right shoulder.
Quote from: 1 on March 09, 2021, 07:00:32 PM
I have no intuitive concept of what an acre is. And I can't go by side length – 66×660 is not a square number.
Just reverse-think it based on the context. In my neighborhood, it's roughly the size of four residential lots put together. (I earlier erroneously said I live on a half-acre lot, when I actually live on a quarter-acre lot. Lots are also just slightly smaller than a quarter-acre, because streets and alleys exist.)
(https://i.imgur.com/hy5Itql.png)
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 06:45:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 04:23:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 04:17:53 PM
Somebody's overthinking this. :D
Is that the aaroads.com slogan?
(https://i.imgur.com/HeMhJI5.png)
Am I the only one who scrolled up to see if he had actually changed the image on the forum itself?
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2021, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2021, 06:45:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 04:23:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2021, 04:17:53 PM
Somebody's overthinking this. :D
Is that the aaroads.com slogan?
(https://i.imgur.com/HeMhJI5.png)
Am I the only one who scrolled up to see if he had actually changed the image on the forum itself?
...Isn't that overthinking it?