So, all water machines, including those used by my Grandad's coffee company, seem to be marked 18.9 litres.... exactly 5 US gallons. What dost thou say of that?

Dunno
I rarely drink 18.9 litres or 5 US gallons at a time!
Those whacked out students these days!!!
Tut tut - in my day we had to work 24 hours full time just to be allowed to see inside the lecture halls....... etc etc etc

They are probably all identical and designed by the same American company.

Martin is right. It is easier to use the same size everywhere and just label it differently. There is really no reason why it has to be a round number.

All the cups here are made in britain and are labelled "7 ounce"

ordinary members of the public: "Woopie Doo" ;-)

7 Br. fl. oz. = 6.7 US fl. oz. And I think an American 8 oz cup is small. That was one of the only two things that bothered me when I was at Cambridge – the tiny drinking glasses. Now, I will hand it to you guys, you do take your alcohol seriously. No wimpy US pint for you guys (only 16.65 Br. fl. oz.). No, you use a full British pint. But your normal glasses, to an American, seem so small. I ordered a large water in a restaurant and the glass they gave me was what we would consider to be a small. What was really bad was when I came back home and ordered a drink. I was so used to your sizes, I could barely lift the enormous water glass they brought me – but no more water refills (over there I would get a minimum of 3 or 4 per meal).

If you are a serious drinker, may I suggest the Oktoberfest in Munich. Beer is usually served in 1 litre glasses.

Or.. go to a good pub which has British quart glasses.

Funny you should mention that. My favorite mug (that I bought at Wal Mart) is a 1-liter beer mug. I call it my 1-quart mug because, filled to the brim, it holds exactly 1 liter. I never put more than a quart in it so my drink doesn’t spill (that’s the US quart of 33.31 Br. fl. oz.).

Bry

Have you ever actually seen quart pots? 1/3 pints are legal too in UK and i've not seen one in 19 years doing current job or in some serious after hours expeditions!

4 pint jugs are common, but quarts? C'mon, name names!!!!

Bryan,

Regarding your question of August 6th @ 11.56 p.m.

''So all water coolers, including those used by my Grandpa's coffee company, seem to be marked as 5 fl.gal. Why is that?''

Bryan, although 5 fl.gal. doesn't fit into the 1 fl. tun, it has been a widespread fluid measure since 1943.

In 1936 the Nationalist Socialist Peoples' Labor Third Way Wehrmacht designed and produced the 1 jerrican of 2 da/l for fuel or water. The jerrican had five substantial advantages over all other manhandled containers. First it could take a lot of knocks, as it was constructed of welded thick sheet steel with strength grooves. Secondly it was an upright rectangular shape that could be compactly stacked with other jerricans, with no loss of space. Thirdly it had a substantial spout that was very secure, could be locked to prevent any tampering with the contents, and that had an internal air pipe that resulted in easy and speedy pouring without any spillage. Fourthly the jerrican could be reused indefinitely, although obviously fuel jerricans could not be reused for drinking water jerricans. And fifthly, the jerrican was so substantially constructed and so secure, that it could transported only partially full of fuel, without danger of explosion.

In 1941 in North Africa, the Britain Empire Army & India Empire Army urgently requested a similar container, in particular for its' tanks.

At that time all Britain Empire Army & India Empire Army vehicles that were out of the reach of fuel depots were refueled by the standard 40 yr. old 1 imp. bucket kerosene tin. This large tin was rectangular, and made out of the same gage as a soup tin. Also it didn't have a spout.

In the vast area of North Africa, the 1 imp. bucket kerosene tin proved completely inadequate. The terrain was usually suitable for tanks, and therefore large numbers were employed, indeed most of the North Africa Britain Empire Army & India Empire Army had access to motor vehicles, even the infantry. But because of the distances involved, the tanks and motor vehicles were often out of reach of fuel depots, and were forced to become completely reliant on the 1 imp. bucket kerosene tin.

The very thin soup tin sheet metal of the 1 imp. bucket kerosene tin, together with its' soldered seams, would be severely dented by the slightest kick or pressure, if not punctured. In fact the 1 imp. bucket kerosene tins leaked so much, that some drivers refused to carry them, in case they started a fire or explosion. Each tank or motor vehicle was supplied with a special spout to punch through the top of the tin, in an effort to reduce spillage. However these spouts were often lost or missing from the vehicle. And so drivers often just punched a hole in the top with a beer can opener, or a knife, and this often resulted in substantial spillage when the fuel was poured quickly, without a funnel. Once a 1 imp. bucket kerosene tin was used, it was just thrown away, as it could not be reused. If there was fuel leftover after refueling, there was no way it could be safely carried in the 1 imp. bucket kerosene tin, so both leftover fuel and the 1 imp. bucket kerosene tin was just thrown away.

The requested container that was quickly manufactured for the North Africa Britain Empire Army & India Empire Army was an exact duplicate of the 1 jerrican, except that it was marked ''4.40 imp.gal.'' instead of ''2 da/l''.

In 1943 the United States Army wanted a container like the 1 jerrican, but decided the 1 jerrican was too expensive to make, and so designed and manufactured their own container, which contained 5 fl.gal. and was quickly called the ''G.I. can''. It is a matter of opinion whether the 1 G.I. can is as good as the 1 jerrican, or not. At first glance the 1 G.I. can certainly looks the same as the 1 jerrican.

The result was that not only did the 1 G.I. can container become widespread throughout industry, but 5 fl.gal. became a widespread fluid measure, even for mountain spring water coolers.

Of course the fact that 1 jerrican is neither 1 da/l or 1 h/l, is anathema to all fascisti and commies, but soldiers have guns, so the dictatorship of the proletariat would just gets its' head blown off if it tried to do anything about it.

Info @

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

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

Water dispensing Machines- all 5 US gallons
August 6 2004 at 11:56 PM Bryan Parry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, all water machines, including those used by my Grandad's coffee company, seem to be marked 18.9 litres.... exactly 5 US gallons. What dost thou say of that?

metre:
What, is there another gallon? Tha's new to me says the Yank.

Sutor, ne ultra crepidam.

I'm hoping that means "Eric is a bloody idiot".

Anyway - I was in the pub on Saturday (after Wales miserable performance trying to stop a 40 yard free kick at 56 mph).

Anyway this girl asks for a half pint of coke, at the bar.

The bartender replied we do "16 oz of coke, is that ok", to which the young girl says "that's fine".

Terrible, this "harsh reality" stuff innit? I bet that coke tasted awful!

;-)

SteveH wrote

<<
Anyway this girl asks for a half pint of coke, at the bar.

The bartender replied we do "16 oz of coke, is that ok", to which the young girl says "that's fine".
>>

Firstly - did you really *mean* sixteen oz Coke, or was it six oz Coke?

(OK, I make a lot of typo's but this one matters).

Either way the barman was wrong. He should have offered her a 275ml or 330ml (depending on what size can/bottle he was opening). 275 ml is just under half a pint (fice fluid oz), while 330ml is just over 6oz.

If he offered sixteen oz, he was badly out of order regardless of any metric regulations.

The pub used widely recognised 16oz coke glasses (the curvy ones).

Her *actual* response was "we only do 16oz"

(I can't imagine her responding with "Pint love? nah, we only do such and such hundreds of millitres" !

At another pub the digital sign shows the servers name and then "16 oz".

At Alton Towers they were doing various sizes, all in ounces.

What exactly is the problem here martin? (Before you answer quoting a regulation number, I plead with you to think of the person in receipt of said coke and how her life may have changed by the word "ounce")

I have never heard a glass of coke referred to by a number of ounces, I assumed that the reason you can't always get a half-pint or a pint of coke was that soft drinks came in metric measures. If coke can be served in imperial why can't you get a pint of it in some pubs?

I think VERY VERY few young people have any idea of fluid ounces at all. I have no idea how many there are in a pint and before anyone tells me, I have absolutely no need to know, even out of curiosity

Well, what pubs do you go to? Almost all that I go to serve coke from a little squirty thing, and they fill the glass up to the half pint mark (altho you can get a pint it you please).

also, twenty ounces.

P.S. Go to the coffee bars around my way and they mostly have sizes like "LARGE (12oz) MEDIUM (8oz) SMALL (6oz).


So there we are, the truth.

She asked for 6 units of something and was persuaded to accept 16 units of the same thing. Something is wrong somewhere. Maybe you can tell me.

What are you on about martin?

I don't know if she asked for a pint or half pint of coke, but she was told that they only had 16 oz glasses of coke.

So if she really wanted a pint she paid a bit less and got a bit less.

If she wanted a pint she would have paid a bit more and got a bit more.

Please believe me when I tell you that there was no "weight and measurement" issue between bar tender and customer.

No look of dissapointment.

And, if truth be told, no "elation" either.

In fact - *nothing*. Just normal day-2-day stuff.

I agree Bryan, most pubs tend to do pints and half pints of coke.

And if the barman had said 0.6 ounces or 160 ounces I reckon the response would have been exactly the same.

<<If he offered sixteen oz, >>

Both people in the transaction were young ladies.

The pub is a student haunt.

There were used giros everywhere.

<<<Well, what pubs do you go to? >>>

Too many.

I know most do pints of coke, but some don't.

http://www.grayden.co.uk/page2.htm

Either scroll your way down or do a text search for "coke" to see the glass I'm talking about.

I pretty much gaurantee that you'll all go "Ahhh! Yes, I know those glasses" with Andy adding "I didn't know they were 16 oz"

Carlyle, if he could post here, would simply say "no they don't"

I think metric must fry the brain. (We should make one of those anti-drug style commercials -- "this is your brain on metric.") Only the metric users are having trouble getting a handle on this. I had an analogous situation happen to me. I walked into my local Subway (sandwich shop – you have them there, too) and ordered a small drink with my six-inch sub. They apologized and said they only had medium, large, and extra-large. I said, “fine,” and ordered a medium drink. I was unconcerned by this since I wanted a drink and those were the sizes available.


Metricators, I’m sorry for the confusion. A six-inch sub measures 15.24 cm.

By the way, I didn’t actually eat at a Subway while I was there; though I did pop my head in to check out the prices. I didn’t catch the sandwich descriptions. Are they allowed to sell six-inch and foot-long subs there? (Metricators, one foot equals 30.48 cm. Sorry, again, for the confusion.)

Re: Water dispensing Machines- all 5 US gallons September 6 2004, 7:27 PM

L/N:
I think metric must fry the brain.

metre:
Well for that to happen you have to have one. So there is no threat of this ever happening to imperialists.

Re: Water dispensing Machines- all 5 US gallons September 6 2004, 4:59 AM

L/N:
Sutor, ne ultra crepidam.

metre:
So what are you sticking to? I can think of a very approbriate substance.

^^Blip^^

Yes Niles, our subways sell them as "foot longs" or 6".

It'd be nice to know how the european peeps sell them so that we can wind old-boy up (again)

Surely "foot long" in this case is a trade name rather than actually selling by imperial measurements, same as "quarter pounder" and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that names such as these should be changed to metric. This is the kind of rubbish that the tabloids use to sensationalise the issue.

I know other European countries use different names but that is because the word "quarter pounder" doesn't mean much to them, not because the words are illegal

When you buy a quarter pounder does it actually weigh 1/4lb anyway? And is a foot-long sub exactly a foot long? I very much doubt it.

Daft argument Andy.

If I pour out my medicine and find its 1ml out from what the label says, shall I claim it as some sort of victory for the "Imperialists"?

You're starting to sound like euric.

Foot-longs are 12" long. To make the 6" they cut them in ... yes you guessed it .. half.

'Quarter pounder' refers to weight of the meat before it is cooked.

Check their website and you'll see that the UK is imperial and France is metric (quelle surprise!)

http://www.fra.subway.com/Countries/frmMenu.aspx?CC=FRA&LC=FRE&Mode=

http://www.subway.co.uk/menu.html

I think you've completely missed my point.

I know what "quarter pounder" refers to, but does it legally have to be exactly that weight to be described as such? My guess is no, and they are actually produced using metric - with "quarter pounder" being simply a name.

Strange that in France Subway calls them 30cm subs. Some people would no doubt expect them to be referred to as 30.48cm.

No-one except for the odd extremist would support a law banning the use of the words "quarter pounder" and "foot long sub"

Yes, I shall have a thirty centimetre sub as well. Or just a footlong sub. And therein lies the folly of metric...

Anyway, I am not sure I udnerstand what you mean when you say this: "And if the barman had said 0.6 ounces or 160 ounces I reckon the response would have been exactly the same."

He really thinks that young people don't understand what that means, Bryan.

That's why there are so many OAP's in the student pub (*not*)

I suspect that if the subways were called 30 centimetrers he'd make capital out of it.

Like the way he cannot understand that the uncooked meat *IS* a quarter of a pound in the same way 500ml *IS* half a litre of coke.

Both could be out by n% but hardly a means of either side to champion any cause becasue of that!

What a strange argument!

<<<Yes, I shall have a thirty centimetre sub as well. Or just a footlong sub. And therein lies the folly of metric...>>>

er, what? please explain

<<<Anyway, I am not sure I udnerstand what you mean when you say this: "And if the barman had said 0.6 ounces or 160 ounces I reckon the response would have been exactly the same.">>>

What I mean is that the average person doesn't have a clue how many ounces a glass of coke is. The reason it causes no confusion is because no one cares.

<<<I suspect that if the subways were called 30 centimetrers he'd make capital out of it.

Like the way he cannot understand that the uncooked meat *IS* a quarter of a pound in the same way 500ml *IS* half a litre of coke.

Both could be out by n% but hardly a means of either side to champion any cause becasue of that!

What a strange argument!>>>

You clearly still don't understand what I'm trying to say! I am not saying they are not measured exactly because they are imperial, I am saying they might not be measured exactly because they are trade names rather than exact measurements.

And again let me CONFIRM:

A 1/4 lb burger has a meat content that weighs one quarter of a pound when uncooked. This is what it says in the small print. You check it out.

<<What I mean is that the average person doesn't have a clue how many ounces a glass of coke is. The reason it causes no confusion is because no one cares>>

Most do know ounce sizes, especially ladies (apparently).

However I will raise your little "factette" next time anyone on the pro-met side professes a large glass of wine to be 250ml against a small one of 175ml.

[sound of trap closing]

Let me "humanize" the actual pub conversation:

Young girl at bar: "Half a pint of coke please"
Young girl behind bar: "We do 16 oz coke"
girl at bar: "What?"
girl behind bar: " I said we only do 16 oz glasses of coke, not pints"
girl at bar: "Ok, that's fine"

I have deliberately left out one element of this conversation but I want to see if Andy makes capital out of something first.

It's not a nasty trap, Andy, but I want your reaction first - before I tell you what that "missing item" is.

All I said was that hardly anyone understands ounces in relation to glass sizes. I spend a lot of time in pubs and I do not ever recall any mention of ounces for glass sizes. However this conversation goes, I still believe that if the barman said "we only do 0.6 ounce glasses of coke" or "we only do 160 ounce glasses of coke" the customer wouldn't bat an eyelid.

<<"we only do 0.6 ounce glasses of coke" or "we only do 160 ounce glasses of coke" >>

Unless one has lived under a stone for most of one's life, being confronted by those two extremes should lead to a very surprised customer!

and thats my point..I don't think your average pub customer would be surprised at either of the two extremes.

The customer knows the rough size of the glass, but has very little if any comprehension of ounces.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<Yes, I shall have a thirty centimetre sub as well. Or just a footlong sub. And therein lies the folly of metric...>>>

er, what? please explain
<<<<<<<<<<<<


Yes, simple sizes and practical sizes are not simply expressed in metric because the metric units are not useful for everyday things on the whole.

<<<Young girl at bar: "Half a pint of coke please"
Young girl behind bar: "We do 16 oz coke"
girl at bar: "What?"
girl behind bar: " I said we only do 16 oz glasses of coke, not pints"
girl at bar: "Ok, that's fine"

I have deliberately left out one element of this conversation >>>

The element was 'very loud music'.
I was sorting of hoping Andy would have latched onto the "What?" bit and say "see? she didn't understand 16oz".

Good one Andy, you didn't fall into the trap this time.


(Grrrr, I'll get you next time [rubs hands])

;-)

And here's why the glass is 16 ounces. Coca-Cola is an American company. 16 ounces is a pint. So, in the US, the girl would have laughed had the bartender said what she said.

Curious -- do they use American or British glasses? 16 of our ounces is larger than 16 of your ounces. If the before-tax price is the same or more than the American before-tax price, you're getting ripped off.

If they're using American glasses, I hope the TSO doesn't see this post -- don't want to get anyone in trouble.

Re: Water dispensing Machines- all 5 US gallons September 7 2004, 6:10 PM

Bryan:
<<<Yes, I shall have a thirty centimetre sub as well. Or just a footlong sub. And therein lies the folly of metric...>>>

er, what? please explain
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes, simple sizes and practical sizes are not simply expressed in metric because the metric units are not useful for everyday things on the whole.

metre:
Says a metric ignorant!

<<metre:
Says a metric ignorant!>>

I'm wondering if that is an admition there by eric?

Niles - I suspect that the glasses were made in the UK. I can't imagine the benefit in shipping glasses all the way from the US of A

<<<<Yes, simple sizes and practical sizes are not simply expressed in metric because the metric units are not useful for everyday things on the whole.>>>>

That is absolute rubbish. Apart from the foot, which has no metric equivalent the units of both systems are of a broadly similar size.
cm/inches
metres/yards
km/mi
etc.

Please give me an example of an everyday thing that is not easily expressed in metric units!

Steve said: "I can't imagine the benefit in shipping glasses all the way from the US of A"

Response: I didn't expect that it was shipping glasses. Coca-Cola would, of course, have it's own bottling plants in the UK. They either make, or have bottles made, to their specifications -- the same with their line of drinking-glasses. I was simply wondering if they changed the specifications of their glasses distributed in the UK to use the Imperial ounce.


* * *

AndyA said: “Please give me an example of an everyday thing that is not easily expressed in metric units!”

Response: Standard wrenches, the exact volume of a US gallon, the US survey acre, the US survey mile, the exact volume of a teaspoon, etc. (I define ‘easily’ in this case ‘as not requiring a calculator’.)

Sorry, wrong Andy. I meant 'Andy', not 'AndyA' -- I had just read a post of his in another thread and the handel stuck in my mind.

So you admit the foot is extremely useful? Good on you.

Alsoo, some of those units there compared are absurd. But anyway, I shall humour you:

Imperial: fluidounces, pints, quarts, gallons, bushels
Metric: millilitres, litres.

Imperial: ounces, pounds, stone, hundredweight
Metric: grams, kilograms, Quintal




Also, note how the metre, centimetre etc are not even close to anthropcentric whereas the Imperial units almost always are.

I would agree with the interchangability of tons and tonnes and to a smaller degree metres/yards.

But thats about it

Oh, yeah – I forgot .22, .35, .45, and .50 caliber firearms.

<<<So you admit the foot is extremely useful? Good on you.>>>

I said its a useful size because theres no metric equivalent, but now I'm thinking about it I can't think of a situation where this advantage is apparent.

<<<note how the metre, centimetre etc are not even close to anthropcentric whereas the Imperial units almost always are. >>>>

Why does that matter? Give me a real-life example of where this is an advantage

At the end of the day there is nothing that cannot be measured or weighed as easily in metric as it can in imperial.

There are loads of things that cannot be done as easily in imperial

Andy said: "There are loads of things that cannot be done as easily in imperial"

Response: Like loosening bolts on a German car, perhaps?

Did you know that European ski-ing resorts cater for the Brits.

I'm not sure why I wanted to slide that one in there, but there you go...

No, no – it's relevant. It’s all about market forces. Metricators can’t stand that there is a demand for customary units. This horrid and chaotic tendency of free people to do what they want gets in the way of their dream of a completely uniform utopia – and it has to be stopped; hence anti-Imperial legislation. If there were no widespread demand for customary units, there would be no compulsory metric laws – and then you might get extreme pro-Imperial types pushing for Compulsory Imperial laws – which I would also oppose. (See: Forum – Trading Standards Alert; Thread - Austrian pub owners under threat for using litre steins; URL - http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=101370&messageid=1035133073&lp=1094399763)

re (Niles): "This horrid and chaotic tendency of free people to do what they want gets in the way of their dream of a completely uniform utopia – and it has to be stopped; hence anti-Imperial legislation"

REPLY: Out of the tens of thousands of postings on the BMWA Discussion Boards to date, this is probably the profoundest statement of them all, and helps to explains the desperation and sheer nastiness evident in the UK Metric Association's recent report

The truth is a powerful tool.

Re: Water dispensing Machines- all 5 US gallons September 8 2004, 3:42 PM

Niles:
No, no – it's relevant. It’s all about market forces. Metricators can’t stand that there is a demand for customary units. This horrid and chaotic tendency of free people to do what they want gets in the way of their dream of a completely uniform utopia – and it has to be stopped; hence anti-Imperial legislation. If there were no widespread demand for customary units, there would be no compulsory metric laws – and then you might get extreme pro-Imperial types pushing for Compulsory Imperial laws – which I would also oppose. (See: Forum – Trading Standards Alert; Thread - Austrian pub owners under threat for using litre steins; URL - http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=101370&messageid=1035133073&lp=1094399763)

metre:
For truth's sake let's sort fiction from reality . Who apart from Americans wants customary units? Your precious freedom goes dow the drain if you use legally un-sanctioned units in public transactions. For people with more than their own welfare in mind, changing to metric removes an unnecessary burden from US children and teachers. Prevents needless deaths and other costly problems caused by using 2 measuring modes and helps the country economically in the long term.
So what does that leave of your most profound statement as Tony says - absolute zilch!

<<

Re: Water dispensing Machines- all 5 US gallons September 8 2004, 3:42 PM

Niles:
No, no – it's relevant. It’s all about market forces. Metricators can’t stand that there is a demand for customary units. This horrid and chaotic tendency of free people to do what they want gets in the way of their dream of a completely uniform utopia – and it has to be stopped; hence anti-Imperial legislation. If there were no widespread demand for customary units, there would be no compulsory metric laws – and then you might get extreme pro-Imperial types pushing for Compulsory Imperial laws – which I would also oppose. (See: Forum – Trading Standards Alert; Thread - Austrian pub owners under threat for using litre steins; URL - http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=101370&messageid=1035133073&lp=1094399763)

metre:
For truth's sake let's sort fiction from reality . Who apart from Americans wants customary units? Your precious freedom goes dow the drain if you use legally un-sanctioned units in public transactions. For people with more than their own welfare in mind, changing to metric removes an unnecessary burden from US children and teachers. Prevents needless deaths and other costly problems caused by using 2 measuring modes and helps the country economically in the long term.
So what does that leave of your most profound statement as Tony says - absolute zilch!>>




Erm, is this a long way of saying "I've never been ski-ing in Europe", eric?


How off-topic can you get?

I lived this bit "Who apart from Americans wants customary units?"

Tee hee! You, like about 80 - 90% of Brits do, mate.

Guess that makes us all Americans in your incredibly narrow vision!

Eddie,

Regarding your statement of September 3rd @ 10.53 a.m.

‘’Each 5 fl.gal. water cooler will supply 80 fl. cups of fresh pristine pure mountain spring water to thirsty staff, from the water cooler individual paper cones provided.’’

Eddie, you better measure those paper cones again. All water cooler papers cones are made in one size only:

1 fl. jill = 7.200 cu.’’

The paper cones have a pointed bottom, and therefore can’t be set down somewhere while the drinker gets on with another task. Once filled, the paper cone must be held constantly in the hand until all the contents are consumed. A 1 fl. jill will give ‘’thirsty staff’’ at least 160 drinks out of 1 G.I. can, not 80 drinks.

1 G.I. can = 2/3 cu.’
1 G.I. can = 1152.000 cu.’’
1 G.I. can = 5 fl.gal.
1 G.I. can = 80 fl. cups
1 G.I. can = 160 fl. jills
1 G.I. can = 320 fl. jacks
1 G.I. can = 640 fl.oz.

But the 1 fl. jill of water is only achieved if the water cooler paper cone is filled exactly to the brim with 4 fl.oz. of water. Most folks fill the paper cone with only 3 fl.oz. of water, so that the paper cone doesn’t spill. That means that in practice folks will get the following number of drinks out of the water cooler:

1 G.I. can = 213 1/3 drinks

Info @

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

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure