-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Don't use any technology and tell me how many fluid ounces are in 15 pounds
- Thread starter BladeoftheImmortal
- Start date
Fair enough I suppose. If we knew the liquid it would be an easy comparison.Someone said volume and mass can't be compared, not in response to OP specifically, but as a general statement. Yes they can, if you have the density, you can use one to get the other, thanks to the formula. Really shouldn't be a controversial statement imo
Look at this list of lengths defined as "foot":
It's madness.
Oh now I get it. So from this point of view, correct me if I've got it wrong, we can compare any two dimensionally distinct quantities as long as there exists a third quantity expressing the relationship between the two.
So, how many ampères in 6 volts? Resistance is just the name for a relationship between amps and volts, after all.
Exactly, that's what I meant.
Concerning the exercise in OP itself, I instantly assumed it was about water at 4°, since that's the typical math class example. Dumb question, but do people in the US not do stuff like that? "The pool is X times Y times Z large. How many liters of water, bla bla bla"?
I mean, of you get it, then why do you ask me to do maths without the necessary variables? Gimme watts or ohms.
Again, wasn't talking about OP specifically, but the general convertibility.
In your example, there is not even a default measurement to assume, is there?
Edit: It's 6/R, btw. Comparison achieved.
Last edited:
I'm almost certain OP meant
While OP screwed up, I think it's much more likely that he meant that, since it's volume and mass, like the original question, and the typical liquid where you can get the answer using just your head
I much prefer Metric over imperial. It's so much simpler and scales better. Imperial is all over the place, and not even consistent between regions. Living in the UK where we use a mix of both, it can be quite annoying. Even though bar Road speeds (mph) metric is being used much more.
Where imperial annoys me most is in cooking. I've recently gotten into it more and want to experiment, but you get measurements like a cup of flour, a pinch of basil, jug of water and tablespoons of vanilla. Like how much is each measurement? Give the recipe in a way where you can easily calculate what you need via a scale or a measuring jug. All these nonsensical units are annoying
Where imperial annoys me most is in cooking. I've recently gotten into it more and want to experiment, but you get measurements like a cup of flour, a pinch of basil, jug of water and tablespoons of vanilla. Like how much is each measurement? Give the recipe in a way where you can easily calculate what you need via a scale or a measuring jug. All these nonsensical units are annoying
Well I certainly did in my science/physics classes but I went to a private school so I'm not sure how representative that is.
Well, I'd welcome more people telling me about their experiences.
Related to that, I barely know how to use non metric measurements. Is something like "You have a plastic box measuring x times y times z inches. How much water is needed to fill it 3/4? " easily doable?
Is there a formula for this? It sounds like it doesn't make any sense, like there is no relation, while there absolutely is a formula to get from volume to mass. They are not two unrelated concepts.
OP
OP
I mean, it is a bit of a weird decision to have volume and weight using the same unit of ounces (most people drop the fluid part anyway). Makes for some confusing recipes.
But the thread title is a bit of a backfire...
But the thread title is a bit of a backfire...
This is basically how I did it in my head tho I did 6x15.
I always split things up though like this poster.
But the concepts are related. Mass = Density times Volume. Why doesn't the question make sense?
I mean, it doesn't really make sense to use these units for it, but I think that's the point
I did, which I meant with my second post. Corrected the first one.
Since I think you're talking about me: no, I was talking specifically of the OP, via some loops.
I get what you mean, but nonchalantly adequating mass and volume, while working for the specific example of water and most water-based liquids, is confusing as hell for people who didn't do some basic physics, and leads to bad results. I've seen this with my mother, which is why I tend to correct people who do it.
This may be a dumb question, but isn't physics like.. Mandatory? It is in Austria, even if only a little
when I was in high school it was optional, and you took it your senior year, and had a math requirement. There were only 2 physics classes a year at my school, which means in the graduating class of about 550 or so people, only around 60 of them took physics.
Came to post this lol
Also, for the poster talking about slide rules in relation to the post about the carrier pigeon - you can browse Era on your slide rule? Lol
Last edited:
Increasing pressure always increases density, while increasing temperature usually decreases it. That's why density is defined under a set of conditions.
If nothing is specified, it should be a safe assumption that the question is about water. If it's something where it actually matters from an engineering standpoint, it would of course have to be strictly defined - though you would never use US/Imperial units to begin with.
They are distinct units where one is a measure of volume and the other is a measure of mass, but I believe they should be equal for water.
When looking this up I found that it gets even more confusing though.
Not only are there multiple pints - Imperial, US fluid, and US dry - there are multiple types of fluid ounce as well!
A US customary fluid ounce is defined as 29.5735295625 ml, while a US food labeling fluid ounce is exactly 30 ml.
So far I've ended up with four different results for this:
- 240 fl oz if you use the "a pint's a pound, the world around" saying - which is approximate, but wrong.
- ≈229.94 fl oz if you divide 15 lb by 1.04375 lb (US pints of water) and multiply the result by 16 (pints to ounces) to get fl oz.
- ≈230.07 fl oz if you convert 15 lb to kg (using the US value of 1 kg = 2.20462234 lb) and use the definition of one fl oz as 29.5735295625 ml.
- ≈226.80 fl oz if you convert 15 lb to kg (as above) and use US food labeling fluid ounces value of 30 ml.
I thought this was stupid before, but now I think even less of US/Imperial systems.
I would say it would be more annoying to have to weight everything instead of using a teaspoon, for example.
My point is that it's technology. I certainly wasn't pretending it's as powerful and embedded a technology as electronics. The original poster probably meant something like "without using an electronic digital calculator".
It's far easier to get right. Put the container of whatever ingredient it is on the scales, tare them, and then use a spoon to get 4g. Or set the bowl on the scales, tare, and add your ingredient.
No need for a set of measuring spoons, or room for error if you don't have any. Quick, simple, and precise. Other measurements like "cups" are even worse than a teaspoon, half teaspoon, heaped teaspoon, dessertspoon, tablespoon etc.
What? Why would it need to die?
(Edit: But good luck, considering how in German, 1.3/1,3 would be pronounced as "Eins Komma Drei")
Last edited: