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.
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.
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.
Those aren’ t metric. Or was that your point?
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?
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.
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.
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.
6 hectares of flour?? We’re gonna need a bigger kitchen!! 
Yes, quite troubling. Also troubling: it’s taken almost a year to work on a spreadsheet. :smack::eek:
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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”.
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.
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.