You know what- even if I go through this exercise of filling a bucket to figure out how long it will take to fill my pool , and and I only know the capacity in liters and for some reason I only have a five-gallon bucket (not a bucket measured in liters) and it has to be so precise that 1L = 1 qt won’t work - I’m still going to do what I have actually done when filling a pool. I don’t sit there watching it nor do I leave the house/go to sleep with the water running. If I’m going to check on it every so often either way, why would I try to figure out how long it will take?
I’d way rather use metric than imperial - but coming up will reasons like this isn’t going to convince anyone that we should switch. What it’s going to do is make an awful lot of people think that there isn’t any better reason to switch than to do things more quickly that don’t really need to be done to begin with.
Any pool owner in the USA knows the size of their pool in gallons.
Mine was 18,500 gallons (before I had it filled in with dirt!)
The reason is for water chemistry. Everything you do with your pool to maintain pH, remove cloudiness, deal with green water, scale, and a half-dozen other pool maladies, is done with chemicals that you buy at your local pool store after they test your water. And the first question they ask is always “how many gallons?”
The “how long will it take to fill” argument is not that important. You start filling it and take a look every few hours–it takes as long as it takes. It’s not like we fill our pools over a long weekend while we are away visiting relatives.
Verifying your bill just isn’t in the cards either: filling a pool doesn’t cost that much. My pool was 16’ x 32’ and had a deep end of 8’, so at a rate of around $5/100cu-ft it cost about a hundred dollars to fill the pool. Draining and filling is super rare (I did it exactly once in 20 years of pool ownership), and it is typically part of a larger project that is costing thousands, so the water is negligible.
Besides, if you are filling your pool, it’s because something was just done by pool maintenance guys (repairing walls, liner change, or whatever) and so you ask the guy and he says “It’ll take about two days”
See? You had to calculate how many cubic yards of dirt to buy for a 18,500gal pool and I bet it was the most challenging trial of your entire life. Virtually impossible.
The guy just kept bringing truckloads of dirt until it was full. He didn’t have a big dump truck, so it was probably 10 or 12 trips to wherever fill dirt comes from. Definitely not building Swiss watches
Side note: when the guy was in the back with his back hoe digging up everything, I wondered what it would be like if he suddenly unearthed the evidence of where the previous owner’s ex went when she disappeared in 1980–they all thought she went to care for her ailing aunt, but noooooo!
(I know nothing of the history of the previous owner’s ex, so this was just a random story concocted in my mind)
I never did - but I did know that when the chemicals said add so much per 10,000 gallons I should use at most a quarter that much. But whether the pool actually held 1500 or 2000 or 2500 gallons wasn’t likely to matter. They were above-ground pools and draining and filling was not uncommon at all - had to happen anytime we replaced either the pool or the liner which for a long time was every 2 or 3 years. ( the pool replacements were for larger/deeper pools). And no pool guys involved.
Fair 'nuff–in the world of pools mine wasn’t that big and I had always assumed all pool owners went through the same stuff, but I hadn’t even considered smaller above-ground pools in my thought process.
Do you have a 25 g measure? Actually, I have several 1/8 cup (1 oz) measures. There used to be one in every can of Chock Full of Nuts coffee and they last forever and many sets of measuring spoons contain 1 oz spoons. Actually, given the way the imperial measures work, I find them much easier than metric to use in cooking, just because they halve so readily.
I know what you are talking about, but people do have scales (spring-based or those little digital ones they sell everywhere now). The question seems to be whether specifying volume or weight is better for recipes, not exactly related to the Metric System or lack thereof.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but… Really, in a broad sense, neither is better or worse. They both work. The problem is that the US uses a different set of measurements from the rest of the world.
As for cooking with weight or volume, I’ve done a lot of both. Weight is far easier for flour. Volume is much more accurate for packed brown sugar. (The amount of sugar is more important than the moisture it packs, but the moisture drives the weight.) For pretty much everything else either works fine. In practice, if I’m using flour I’ll weigh the other stuff that’s going into it, except spices, where i use (volume) measuring spoons. If I’m not, i most use volume. So white sugar will be weight or volume, depending on the rest of the recipe. I’ve jotted weights into the recipes i commonly use that include flour.
I’m bilingual in temperature. I know what each feels like, and rarely actually convert. So, it’s too hot if it gets to the 90s F or the 30s C, and yes, i know those aren’t precisely the same cutoff, but it also matters if I’m in the sun or shade, if there’s a breeze, if I’m exerting myself… Close enough.
Again, they both work fine.
Also, i agree that freezing isn’t terribly cold outside. I’ll wear my light jacket, and maybe not bother to zip it up unless I’ll be standing for a while. And that’s true regardless of whether it’s expressed “32” or “zero”.
The correct metric unit of measurement is, of course, not the hectare but the soccer pitch. At least if you believe journalists in countries that have been using metric for two centuries. “Forest fires have destroyed an area equivalent to so-and-so-many thousand soccer pitches.” We hear it all the time.
There are some things where the “proper” size/ length measurement is inches/ feet. What I mean is, the standard was set in those units, and can be expressed metrically if you want, but the imperial system was what was used when the thing was invented and is still in place now.
Movie film, interestingly, uses metric for the different gauges (35mm, 16mm, 8mm etc.) but the length of a reel of film is better expressed in feet, because it’s easy to calculate timings if you know that 35mm has 16 frames/ foot; 16mm 40/foot; 8mm 80/foot; Super 8 72/foot.
Audio tape has inches-per-second: 15,
7½, 3¾ and such. Sorry, rest-of-the-world. I’m sure there are lots of similar legacy standards that are holding back the deluge.
Here the non-metric minute divides at least evenly to 21600 minutes per turn, whereas the SI derived equivalent milliradian is an awkward 6,283.185. Or for navigation, the more common metre bludgeons the nautical mile into an even number of 1852 simply because it looks nicer.
The millirad itself of course probably most used in the US because it’s one of the two ways of measuring how to make a bullet go where you want it to.
I always wondered what everyone else thinks about this odd base-2 aspect of imperial measurements–this feature rarely comes in any discussion of metric/imperial units.
It’s quite convenient when measuring in cups or inches: one can go up and down in precision easily by halving or doubling.
Unfortunately, this loses its shine when combined with decimal-based measurements. Machinists work in thousandths of an inch, but parts are frequently designed in fractional sizes that masquerade as decimal measurements. Hence, every American machinist is quite familiar with the decimal equivalents of quarters, eights, sixteenths, and thirty-seconds. Here’s a micrometer with a cheat sheet engraved in the side.
