JUICED UP
PIPPED OUT
TOTALLY STONED

Martin,

Regarding your statement of February 14th @ 7.48 a.m.

"Another example of how Common Weights & Measures don't match up. No one knows how many av.lb. does a 2 fluid pint carton of orange juice weigh. This would be useful when you are doing the shopping."

2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. wine
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. grape juice
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. grapefruit juice
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. cherry juice
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. peach juice
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. apple juice
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. pear juice
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. lemon juice
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. lime juice
2 fl.pt. = 2 av.lb. ORANGE JUICE

2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. wheat
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. grape pips
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. grapefruit pips
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. cherry STONES
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. peach STONES
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. apple pips
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. pear pips
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. lemon pips
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. lime pips
2 dry pt. = 2 av.lb. ORANGE PIPS

1 fl.qt. = 2 fl.pt.

Martin, whether you pound your brains or pint your brains, look at site:

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

Dear XCOLE,

In England we use **IMPERIAL** pints (when we are not using litres), not US pints. Your therefore totally irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic and indeed it is illegal to sell anything in the United Kingdom by the US pint.

1 US gallon = 3.4 litres (approx)
1 Imperial gallon = 4.5 litres (approx)

1 litre has the same volume wherever you are in the world. This is one very good reason to use the metric system.

I kinda doubt his list anyway.
Since the pint is defined via milliliters which is a measurement of *volume*, the actual weight of that volume will depend on the average density of the mass occupying that space.
So it's rather 1fl.pt ~ 2 av.lb and not *equal*.
Besides, since when do you distinguish between dry and fluid pints ?

Ralf

Ralf,

It appears that the Americans have a dry pint as well as a liquid pint - both are different to the British pint. Don't ask me the difference between the two types of US pint.

BTW, the US liter is different to the UK litre (at least the spelling is, but the quantity that they represetn is the same). :-)

Since all you Brits have problems understanding the US system, I will summarize it here concisely. (For an explanation about the weight of water, see my Furniture Shop post).

The American fluid measures are based upon the Queen Anne gallon of 231 cubic inches and by custom divided as follows:

3 teaspoons = 1 tablespoon
2 tablespoons = 1 fluid ounce
8 fluid ounces = 1 fluid cup
2 fluid cups = 1 fluid pint
2 fluid pints = 1 fluid quart
4 fluid quarts = 1 gallon
31.5 gallons = 1 barrel (general)
31 gallons = 1 barrel (beer)
42 gallons = 1 barrel (petroleum)

The American dry measures are based upon the Winchester Bushel of 2150.42 cubic inches and it is a struck measure and is divided as follows:

2 dry cups = 1 dry pint
2 dry pints = 1 dry quart
8 dry quarts = 1 peck
4 pecks = 1 bushel

In the US, everything fluid (excluding hard liquor and wine) is sold in fluid measures. All grain and dry commodities such as fruit when sold by volume, are sold in dry measures.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Ralf

MattS wrote

<<
42 gallons = 1 barrel (petroleum)
>>

And form this measurement comes one of the most ridiculous units of measure that the petroleum industry could develop - barrels per acre-foot (the production capacity of an oilwell). THis measure is ridiculous because oilfields in EUrope (eg the North Sea) are measured in hectares, not acres and wells are calibrated in metres, not feet.

Since barrels per acre-foot is dimensionless, the logical unit to use is to express the production capacity as a percentage.

MattS wrote

<<
The American fluid measures are based upon the Queen Anne gallon of 231 cubic inches and by custom divided as follows:

3 teaspoons = 1 tablespoon
2 tablespoons = 1 fluid ounce
8 fluid ounces = 1 fluid cup
2 fluid cups = 1 fluid pint
2 fluid pints = 1 fluid quart
4 fluid quarts = 1 gallon
31.5 gallons = 1 barrel (general)
31 gallons = 1 barrel (beer)
42 gallons = 1 barrel (petroleum)
>>

I count nine different units. Wouldn't it be much easier to use just three units:

1. millilitre
2. litre
3. cubic metre (or, nor technically correct, kilolitre).

These three units cover the same range as the nine described by MattS and are readily related ot each other. FUrhtermore, 1 milliltre water weighs 1 gram, 1 litre water weight 1kilogram and 1 cubic metre of water weighs 1 tonne (1000kg).

Stop trying to confuse the Yanks and imperialists with a simple, easy to understand system.

It just won't wash. Life's meant to be much more complicated than that !

It's only complicated because you never grew up with it. It makes sense to the entire population of the United States because we use it everyday. It's not inexact, nor as complicated as you might think. It's basically on a system of 2 rather than 10.

2 cups to a pint
2 pints to a quart
2 quarts to a half gallon
2 half gallons to a gallon

It's a fractional system. Each unit is divided in twos and threes and fours and eights. These numbers are symetric numbers. The units we divide things in most often. Try dividing a pizza into ten equal slices. It's obvious that most human minds work better on a fractional system rather than a decimal one. We ask for fractions of things. Each thing is divided into fractional parts. It was not a system created; it was a system developed. It worked this way because people had needs to half, third, quarter and double things. We want half of something or a third of something (which is impossible in the metric world). It's useful for everyday measures, not for science. I could care less how much water weighs. I would rather know how much milk I need to put in my cake if I want to third the recipe.

That's all well and good.

It still doesn't explain why you need different units, all with the same name, depending on whether it's dry or wet or whether it's beer or petrol.

A particular volume is the same no matter what it is you are measuring.

So once again. It's just too complicated !

We don't *need* two sets of volumes, but we *have* two sets of volumes and we are very *comfortable* with two sets of volumes.

That's the way it's done here and it suits everyone well. We've been selling wheat the world around with the Winchester bushel forever and no one seems to mind. Gasoline always will come in a gallon of 231 inches and no one cares because the price is low, and it makes no difference because no one gives a hoot about how many inches are in a gallon. Gallons are for gasoline and milk and cubic yards are for soil and bushels for wheat. That's customary and we get along just fine. It's exact and no one needs to convert between anything. Once we have them, we just halve and double and third. They are of convenient sizes. That's the beauty of customary measures. They are their size they are because they are easy to deal with in everyday life, unlike metric measures which were defined without consideration to peoples' everyday needs. A cup is a cup because that's a nice amount to drink. A bushel is a bushel because that's an easy amount for a human to haul in a basket. It's about setting a convenient size and then subdividing it.

"31.5 gallons = 1 barrel (general)
31 gallons = 1 barrel (beer)"

Intuitively obvious I'm sure.

Martin asked:

"Wouldn't it be much easier to use just three different units: the millilitre, centilitre and cubic metre/litre?"

ANSWER: No. Because if you used just those three measurements, instead of nine, you'd often be using very large numbers - which are much more difficult for the human mind to conceive. The human mind is not the same as a computer (though it is infinitely superior to it in most respects)

In practice, the mind will mentally blank off any superfluous zeros. I had a very good example of this in January last year. At the time I was working in Naples. The Italian Euro preparations were among the worst im Europe and those in Naples were worsew than most of Italy.

Our office usually patronised a particular restaurant at lunch times where items were 6000 lira, 8000 lira, 9000 lira etc. The girl at the till was quite used to handling these large numbers (as Tony calls them). When the Euro was introduced, she got into quite a tizz, not knowing how to handle small numbers like 310, 205 etc. After about two weeks she seemed to have got the hang of it and by the end of January (when I finished in Naples), she was no longer havong any problems.

Moral of the story - large numbers are al in the mind and people get used to changes much quicker than is imagained.

^^ Probably the worst advert for metric I've seen so far - lining it up with the Euro!

Steve,

The point that I was making was that ordinary people (eg girls at the till) can easily handle large numbers, thereby showing that Tony's comment about "large numbers" was a red herring.

The Euro merely created a scenario in which I could put my theory about "large numbers" to the test.

It's easier (especially for kids) to measure out a "quarter" of something than so many hundres of grammes of something.

I'm 5ft11in - this looks hideous in mm, cm, m, or dm

Steve,

If you are 5'11" you are below the phsyologically important 6' mark.

If however you express your hieght in metric units, you will be 1.8m (or 180cm) which is within this psychologically important limit.

It has nothing to do with large or small numbers. The fact that there are 9 different units makes no difference because people do not on a regular basis make conversions between them. Things customarily come in small units of one of them.

Milk comes in fractions of a gallon (1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 which just happens to work out into quarts and pints but no one cares).

Drinks at a fast-food restaurant come in ounces (16, 20, 24, 28, 32) and we never want to know how many cups that is, but if we did, we know that there are 8 ounces in a cup and thus those above numbers are just 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 cups. Instead of learning your tens tables, you just double things in your mind, which is very visual.

We use cups in recipes and then fractions thereof.

Fruit comes in pecks and quarts.

I don't think the average person deals with bushels, but many farmers do with ease.

There is not usually a reason to move between all these units. Once you know what one is in your mind, you only have to subdivide it into halves thirds and quarters, or double tripple or quadruple and by default you will come out with another unit (but you really don't care that 2 cups are a pint when baking a cake, because the recipe says 2 cups). I could usually care less how many pints of gasoline my tank holds or for that matter cubic feet; I know how many gallons, because that's how gasoline is sold.

Ask yourself how many times you want to know how many milliliters of water you used last month, and I think you'll tell me never, because it's measured in liters, and then you'll say, but if I did I'd just have to multiply by 1,000, and I'd say well if I wanted to know how many quarts I used instead of gallons, I'd multiply by 4 (like that's so hard).

Some interesting points you put there, MattS. We tend to do it like this:

Milk - One Pint and Two Pint Containers
Drinks at fast food - Ounces
"Splash" drink (like coke, for your vodka) - Ounces (although the vodka has a state enforced "ml" usage)
Beer - Half and One pint glasses
Fruit - depending where you go: lb and kg, or either.
Recipes - Lb/Oz rather than cups - although very small measures are in spoon sizes, until you get down to a "pinch".

BTW, martin, I don't mind being five-eleven - that makes me 2 inches taller than the average man which is psychologically good enough for me!

I always thought it strange that you Brits tend to use weight when cooking rather than volume. Capacity seems to be more convenient to measure than weight in the kitchen. There are very limited applications of weight in American recipes. I'm not sure why that is, but I'd like anyone's thoughts on that.

BTW, we only use dry measures for fruit like berries (eg. strawberries and rasberries come in pint and quart containers). Every other fruit is sold by weight, in avd. pounds of course.

Again, I stress that each thing measured has a customary corresponding unit and that never changes, so thus, conversion between 9 units is rarely done, and is not necessary because each fraction of one unit tends to be a whole of another.

<<I always thought it strange that you Brits tend to use weight when cooking rather than volume. >>

Strange - I always thought the same "in reverse". I've got one of those old fashioned style "balance" scales at home (brand new - looks "olde") there's a sense of fun putting the little bronze weights on one side and putting the ingredient on the other! And besides - our "cups" tend to be all different sizes!
I saw a measuring device in "cargo" (a shop) in Marlow. It's made from metal and like a funnel but with the tapered bottom set upon a stand. Written down the inside was common things you'd like measured, split into three columns - ounces for us Brits, cups for you yanks and metric for "the rest of the word" (usually referred to as continental europe!).


<<Again, I stress that each thing measured has a customary corresponding unit and that never changes, so thus, conversion between 9 units is rarely done, and is not necessary because each fraction of one unit tends to be a whole of another.>>

This can be seen on the roads - miles and yards, but never miles *with* yards.

Our cups are all standardized because there are 8 ounces in them and there are guarenteed to be. Thus 1/2 a cup is also 4 ounces (US ounces mind you). Our measuring cups are like little pitchers for fluids with the markings on the side of the glass, and little cups with long handles for dry stuff (so that it can be measured exactly by leveling the top). If the recipe calls for 1/2 a cup of flour, then you fill the little 1/2 cup measure with flour and level it. I think it provides quite a uniform set of kitchen measures starting with the quarter teaspoon and going through the cup.

BTW, we never use yards on roadways (yards are not generally used for land distance). Things are done in miles or feet, but similarly, never miles AND feet.

I always found that quite interesting (the feet on roads bit)

One of the plus points about imperial over metric is the desire to keep numbers low.

Thus we have miles, half miles, quarter miles, then 800,600,400,200 yards.

When I've driven on the US roads I commonly saw signs like "Men Working, 1500ft" - apart from that being the size of a small mountain(!) that's quite a large number to visualise - I usually (rapidly) "convert" it to 500yards to get a Brit person's perspective!

A similar thing happens with weight - I'm 13st8lb (slightly overweight) and 5ft11in. All nice low numbers. In the US you only use lbs.

One other strange thing - I always wondered why your roads (the motorway ones) were so "loud" when driven on at about 70mph! (This is in Florida and Baltimore)

I'm not exactly sure why there is the emphasis on yards over feet for you British. It may be one of those things that was changed after the Revolutionary War because it was felt it was too British; I'm not sure. One would think that Americans would like yards for distance because football fields are done in yards and people sometimes use a 100 yard football field to estimate a distance. We use only feet (or inches) in construction. Historically in surveying, the units were the foot, tenth, chain, perch and link, not the yard. We do reckon soil by cubic yard, and you buy fabric by the yard, but that's about it.

I like the foot much better for measuring things because it's a convenient size (another plus for customary measures since the meter is too big and the centimeter too small and no one uses decimeters). I can fit a 12" ruler in my bag (whereas a meter stick is too large).

As for the weight thing, we do not use stones in this country because we do not use the long ton. The unit of a 14 pound stone only makes sense if you use 1 ton broken into hundredweights and quarters. In the US we use pounds, and then our hundredweight is just that, 100 pounds, and then 20 hundredweight is 1 ton (I believe you Brits call it a cental).

As for the highway thing, I'm not sure what you mean about them being loud. I live in Baltimore and I never thought them loud.

I like the yard coz its about the length of a "good" stride (a metre is too long). Thus if the sign says "Pub 300yds" then I won't have long to go (however walking *from* the pub back to that point commonly feels like 300 feet!! - I think that's called "beer miles").

Motorways: I'm thinking more of the ones which I think were made from slabs of white/grey concrete and as you drive over them you get a "thud-thud" every second or so!

It might have just been Florida. Tell you what though, some of the potholes I encountered were so big you could drive into them, have a picnic, then drive out of them! I had a blow-out after one of them!

(as in tyre blowout, not a 'large meal')

To MattS

Actually, feet feature a great deal in the British weights and measures system. Examples include:

1. The heights of hills and mountains
2. Depths below the sea (also fathoms)
3. Heights of people and buildings
4. How far people fall (cliff accidents etc.)
5. Length, width and height of rooms in a house
6. Area of rooms in a house
7. Length of gardens
8. Width/height of furniture
9. Height of aircraft
10. Length of long objects e.g. boats and ships
11. Area of rooms, office space and small building plots - as witness the 99% or so of signs for office space in the U.K. which are only in square feet (with a handful in metric as well as square feet)
12. Heights of low bridges on roads...and much more...

Yards are really only used in the U.K. for walking/surface distances of up to half a mile or so. It's just that the U.S. developed feet for measuring these particular distances whereas we developed yards

So, which one is wrong then ? Foot or yard ?
According to your theories, those measurements evolved to fit their needs.
If you have two for the same thing, one must be wrong then (or at least less evolved), right ?

Ralf

When should one use yards and when should one use feet? Well never - use metres instead and avoid the confusion.

When reading historical works, I have noticed that feet tend to be used for measurements that are in straight lines (such as pieces of wood) whereas yards are used for measurements that can have bends (such as pieces of rope, lengths of paths etc).

"When reading historical works"

What you actually mean is "when reading any newspaper", or "when listening to the average Brit"

How else should I impart these gems of wisdom while still aining my line?

eh?

Ralf,

Neither is wrong. One is a multiple of the other and one has different uses than the other (duh, 1 yd = 3 ft). That's like saying that centimeters must be wrong and meters must be right, or the other way around.

Sometimes it's more convenient to use yards and some times feet. It depends on the use. Just like you wouldn't use meters to measure rain depth, but you wouldn't use millimeters to measure snow depth. Feet are traditionally used to measure some things and yards others. Both are legal measures and both are related.

Matt,

my point was that Americans never use yards (except in sports maube), whereas Brits use quite often. Doesn't that mean that one of them is wrong or less evolved ?

Ralf

As far as I know an American may comfortably say something like "the hardware shope is about 200 yards on ther left"

It ain't rocket science

Americans never use yards....that's a laugh

We use yards for the following things:
-When buying fabric, yarn, trim, ric-rack and other sewing supplies, it all comes by linear yard.
-When buying soil it comes by cubic yard.
-When buying mulch it comes by the square yard.
-When buying carpet/flooring it comes by square yard.
-When measuring amounts of concrete, it's done in cubic yards.
-When buying wire fencing, it's sold by linear yard.
-When buying bulk wire, it's sold by the linear yard.
-When buying sod, it comes by the square yard.
-When quoting or measuring the "range" of a gun or bullhorn or other similar projection it's done in yards.

Every classroom has at least one yardstick at the chalkboard. The yardstick is one of the most used measuring devices and everyone knows what it is.

Not to mention (as you said) all the uses in sports, such as golf and football to name a few.

Steve,

We would never use that phrase, because it's the "hardware store" *not* the "hardware shop" but you would most definitely hear people quote you the distance in yards, feet, or miles (depending on the person and distance).

When does the term "shop" get used in the US then? Just as the verb?

"Store" and "shop" as nouns are generally used interchangeably, though "shop" is not usually used to describe large-scale retail establishments, i.e. it would be odd to hear Wal-Mart referred to as a shop.

Generally, in a phrase, "store" is used. As Matt said, "hardware store" is used and "hardware shop" is not. There are exceptions, however: "bookshop" is as common as "bookstore" (and that is a compound more often than not). "Sub shop" refers, oddly, to a restaurant or deli that serves submarine sandwiches. I've never heard "sub store".

I personally prefer to use "shop" more often than "store" because of the socialistic implications of the latter.

That's more or less what it is in the UK - my "hardware shop" was and imaginary small one, owned by a family, situated in a small village.

Blimey.

Those big "walmart" style ones we call "hypermarkets"

Submarine sandwiches? What on earth are they? Do Americans hunt Russian subs, then slice them up and eat 'em? Or are they sarnies you can eat under water? Do enlighten me.

Round where I live and work there are "subways" popping up all over the place (a "fast" food place).

If you find one, go in and have a look - *THATS* a sub!

Visualise a 12" long french stick that is soft and fatter and not crusty.

Don't fancy a foot-long? Ask for a 6"er and they'll cut it in half.

They then get filled with whatever you like - ham, tuna, meatballs ...etc etc.

Actually, they're quite nice!

As Steve's description makes clear, the sub sandwich is named for its resemblence to a submarine.

You mean you're just now getting Subway in Britain?

I take it you don't have Blimpie or Quizno's yet either, then?

Subway's subs don't even come close to Quizno's.

Subway has always had a small presence in the UK, but recently they have expanded a bit.

EasyInternet (part of EasyJet) commissioned subway to be their inhouse restaurant/snack place - that must have pleased them (financially!).

No the others don't exist here.

Big shame (re fast food) - is that Wendy's collapsed in the UK - they were much better than Wimpy/BKing/McD.

My favourite American fast food chain has got to be In 'n Out Burger.

Couldn't help but have a little childish giggle every time I saw one.