# How can 128 ounces = 133.5 ounces? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 1, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876 "2016-02-01T19:53:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/41 "2016-02-03T06:42:07Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > 2.5 cups to the pint I don’t doubt you, but that’s even more archaic, and it’s 2:1 now, just like US customary, even if the absolute size is different, right? > [@](#): > > Two and a half cups to the pint… why do you think the Hobbitses were excited that beer came in pints? 3 pints is enough to cook up some coney and taters, boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/42 "2016-02-03T07:14:14Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > You mean like when they called a unit the ton(ne) and said “screw it, 2000 is close enough to 2200”? Or when they said a calorie is the same thing as 1000 calories? Nitpick: A tonne is 1000kg - equivalent to about 2,205 imperial pounds. An imperial ton (after which the tonne was named) is 2,240 pounds, not 2,000. So ‘close enough’ is closer than you stated. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Niply\_Elder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@The\_Niply\_Elder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Niply_Elder)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/43 "2016-02-03T07:37:43Z")
Cookbook users aren’t going to use a spreadsheet while cooking, much less measure ingredients with accuracy to the 16th decimal place. Two significant digits oughta be good enuff for cooking purposes. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/44 "2016-02-03T07:50:26Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > You mean like when they called a unit the ton(ne) and said “screw it, 2000 is close enough to 2200”? Or when they said a calorie is the same thing as 1000 calories? Those aren’ t metric. Or was that your point? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/45 "2016-02-03T11:41:09Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > Simple way of thinking about this. > > Stop talking about water. Exactly. Get your measuring cup out of the closet. Pour in about eight ounces of molten lead, or gold if you have enough on hand. Let it cool. Now put those eight (fluid) ounces of lead on the scale. How much do they weigh? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/46 "2016-02-03T13:40:41Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The American system of units is a royal mess. Sometimes, the pound is treated as a unit of force, with the corresponding unit of mass being the slug. Sometimes, the pound is treated as a unit of mass, with the corresponding unit of force being the poundal. And sometimes, it’s treated as being a unit of both force _and_ mass, which can’t possibly be consistent but which engineers insist upon doing anyway, which does terrible violence to basically all of the formulas in physics. The SI system is very good when clear accuracy is needed, like in science. The USA system is very good if you’re trying to rip off the consumer. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/47 "2016-02-03T14:41:54Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Here’s a two-page thread by the same OP from about one year ago on essentially the same topic. [What formula switches from pints to milliliters? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=750297) > > He proved impervious to our educational efforts then. I predict a similar result here. > [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#): > > Cookbook users aren’t going to use a spreadsheet while cooking, much less measure ingredients with accuracy to the 16th decimal place. Two significant digits oughta be good enuff for cooking purposes. See the thread reffed in my earlier post in this thread (above) for where that idea bounced off the OP’s skull repeatedly. He has some very fixed ideas about how things are, and seems unable to accommodate differing reality-based info. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/48 "2016-02-03T14:52:24Z")
These conversions are not really needed anyway, most of my kitchen measuring thingies have both metric and USA markings. If the recipe calls for 6 hectares of flour, I just simply turn the measuring cup around. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/49 "2016-02-03T15:24:36Z")
6 hectares of flour?? We’re gonna need a bigger kitchen!! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Niply\_Elder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@The\_Niply\_Elder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Niply_Elder)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/50 "2016-02-03T15:45:48Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > See the thread reffed in my earlier post in this thread (above) for where that idea bounced off the OP’s skull repeatedly. > > He has some very fixed ideas about how things are, and seems unable to accommodate differing reality-based info. Yes, quite troubling. Also troubling: it’s taken almost a year to work on a spreadsheet. :smack::eek: ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/51 "2016-02-03T16:07:43Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > I don’t doubt you, but that’s even more archaic, and it’s 2:1 now, just like US customary, even if the absolute size is different, right? > > 3 pints is enough to cook up some coney and taters, boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. Imperial measure (British gallon) a quart was two pints, a pint was two and a half cups. Since the USA is the last bastion of non-imperial non-metric measure and source of many cookbooks, I suspect people just take their word for what a pint is. Google pint to cup, and the Google measure converter shows up. Select “Imperial pint” and “Imperial fluid ounces” and it’s 20 ounces to the pint. QED. I seriously doubt anyone is busy redefining obsolete measurements to something completely different. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/52 "2016-02-03T16:45:51Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Those aren’ t metric. Or was that your point? Huh? Yes they are. Metric doesn’t just mean SI, and even so that system acknowledges them, even if things like joules are preferred. > [@md2000](#): > > Imperial measure (British gallon) a quart was two pints, a pint was two and a half cups. > > Since the USA is the last bastion of non-imperial non-metric measure and source of many cookbooks, I suspect people just take their word for what a pint is. > > Google pint to cup, and the Google measure converter shows up. Select “Imperial pint” and “Imperial fluid ounces” and it’s 20 ounces to the pint. QED. > > I seriously doubt anyone is busy redefining obsolete measurements to something completely different. I mean do you have a link? The sources I found say it’s 2 (not calculators). ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/53 "2016-02-03T18:00:58Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Also, something which is completely irrelevant to your question, is that grams measure mass, whereas ounces measure weight. A subtle difference that makes no difference if you always do your measurements in a gravity field of 9.8 m/s^2. > > So if you mass 70 kilos you’ll still mass 70 kilos on the Moon. But if you weigh 150 pounds on Earth you’ll only weigh 25 pounds on the Moon. Nitpick, weight and mass are fundamentally the same thing due to the Einstein equivalence principle. The defined way of measuring them may be slightly different but they measure the same fundamental property. As they are defined mass is a measure of the energy required to move an object and weight is the observed force of an object being accelerated due to gravity which is the same fundamental force in this universe. Second note that while the change may be harder to observe the changes in mass due to the relative small numbers but it is not constant either. As an example, if you are measuring the mass of a clock it will have more mass when it is running than when it is stopped. Third note, the avoirdupois ounce is defined as exactly 28.349523125 g, and thus is based off the prototype kilogram so they are just different scales of the same exact measure. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Niply\_Elder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@The\_Niply\_Elder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Niply_Elder)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/54 "2016-02-04T04:31:58Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Nitpick, weight and mass are fundamentally the same thing due to the Einstein equivalence principle. The defined way of measuring them may be slightly different but they measure the same fundamental property. As they are defined mass is a measure of the energy required to move an object and weight is the observed force of an object being accelerated due to gravity which is the same fundamental force in this universe. > > Second note that while the change may be harder to observe the changes in mass due to the relative small numbers but it is not constant either. As an example, if you are measuring the mass of a clock it will have more mass when it is running than when it is stopped. This is not quite correct. Mass and weight are different things. Mass is a constant quantity for a given object regardless of the gravitational field. Can you elaborate on the broken clock v running clock difference? ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/55 "2016-02-04T06:18:34Z")
I think he is trying to say that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. But not getting it quite right. The clock example is a well worn one. It isn’t that the clock is running or not - it is whether it is wound up or not (pedantically, a wound clock can be stopped). A wound clock has more mass than one that has run down because of the extra energy stored in the clockspring. But weight, unless you are a some kinds of engineer, is a force. You weigh more or less depending upon how space is curved. A large nearby mass can curve space around you, and that can change the force upon you, and hence your weight. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/56 "2016-02-04T06:46:02Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Huh? Yes they are. Metric doesn’t just mean SI, and even so that system acknowledges them, even if things like joules are preferred. > > I mean do you have a link? The sources I found say it’s 2 (not calculators). The metric tonne is 1000 kg. So your reference to its everyday use for some multiples of pounds is not metric. The calorie-kilocalorie equivalence I’ll almost give you, but I’d like to see a breakdown on where the stupid definition is used. I know that the US, not a metric country, hasn’t reined in the silliness, whereas in Norway, a metric country, the kilocalorie is used almost exclusively. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/57 "2016-02-04T07:07:33Z")
2200 pounds is rounded, please don’t take it literally. I didn’t say it was everyday, but it’s name is based on the 2000 pound version. In the US calorie means kilocalorie 99.999999% of the time. The smaller unit would only be used in science and would probably require a qualifier. I’ve never really encountered it. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/58 "2016-02-04T07:59:18Z")
At most altitudes, as long as you’re on the Earth, IMHO weight and mass are interchangeable. Of course, if you’re in a microgravity or on the moon or Mars, they’re not. I liked “slugs” as soon as I learned about them, but I don’t think anyone uses them except in Physics 101, and that’s just to mention them. But I like Furlongs per Fortnight for velocity, and have been trying to come up with more quantities based on a Smoot. Smoots per Second has alliteration going for it, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/59 "2016-02-04T08:43:52Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > 2200 pounds is rounded, please don’t take it literally. I didn’t say it was everyday, but it’s name is based on the 2000 pound version. > > In the US calorie means kilocalorie 99.999999% of the time. The smaller unit would only be used in science and would probably require a qualifier. I’ve never really encountered it. But those are not problems with metric, they are problems with the half assed acceptance of metric in the US. The Norwegian word “mil” at the time of conversion to metric in 1879 meant a distance of 36 000 Norwegian feet, 11,295 m, but no one is confused today about the “metric” meaning of 10 km and if Norway had been using the old definition alongside all that time I wouldn’t blame the confusion on “metric”. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876/60 "2016-02-04T09:56:18Z")
> [@naita](#): > > But those are not problems with metric, they are problems with the half assed acceptance of metric in the US. Please elucidate. The US does not use the metric ton to any regularity, yes. My comment is that metric (which != strictly SI) is very inconsistent also. And the US uses the calorie pretty consistent with other similar countries. Half assed = most English-speaking countries. The UK uses stones for example. > [@](#): > > The Norwegian word “mil” at the time of conversion to metric in 1879 meant a distance of 36 000 Norwegian feet, 11,295 m, but no one is confused today about the “metric” meaning of 10 km and if Norway had been using the old definition alongside all that time I wouldn’t blame the confusion on “metric”. I do not understand the relevance of this part, there are many definitions of e.g. miles in the same country, but one is only used in very narrow situations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-128-ounces-133-5-ounces/744876.md?page=4)