So, a cup is then 0.22 liters (or 2.2 deciliters, 22 centiliters, or even 220 milliliters). Heck, I have tea-cups twice that size :D
cup (c) a traditional unit of volume used in recipes in the United States. One cup equals 1/2 (liquid) pint, or 8 fluid ounces. Technically, one cup equals exactly 14.4375 cubic inches or approximately 236.6 milliliters, not that anyone measures quite so precisely in the kitchen. American cooks use the same size cup for measuring both liquid and dry substances. In Canada, a cup is equal to 8 Imperial fluid ounces (13.8710 cubic inches or 227.3 milliliters). In Britain, cooks sometimes used a similar but larger unit called the breakfast cup, equal to 10 Imperial fluid ounces. The British cup equals 1/2 Imperial pint, but the Canadian cup is only 0.4 Imperial pint. cup (c) an informal metric unit of volume equal to 250 milliliters, commonly used in recipes in Australia.
Wait, what? :(
(But you were pretty spot on with the gallon thing) ;)
Just kidding with you guys off course ^^ didn't mean to pull the thread OT, I'll shut up now :)
Maybe too much photoflo. It will dry and form spots. Try one drop per 300ml of distilled water, that's about what I use and never get spots.
Definitely not a matter of too much. It's not that I get spots out of nowhere, I can see where they're coming from. They're coming from the beads of water sitting on the film after it comes out of the Photo-Flo!
Originally Posted by Bob-D659
I've pretty much eliminated Delta 3200 from the running anyway, so I'm not going to worry about it too much, but thanks to everyone for your suggestions.
As for America putting a man on the moon in spite of this crazy system of measurement we have...
and that's all I have to say about that! :)
On the measurement front ....
First, don't convert back and forth - it will drive toy to distraction.
Secondly, the non-metric measurement systems do have some internal logic, it is just that the internal logic doesn't apply system wide. As an example, the 1 ounce - 8 ounces to the cup - 4 cups to the quart - 4 quarts to the gallon progression is useful and practical, just not as rigorous and logical as the equivalent metric progression.
And there is no apparent relationship between units of mass, length and volume.
The non-metric units themselves are in most cases way older than the metric equivalents - they became "standard" over centuries of use, and tend to have originated (haphazardly!) as a result of practical, everyday requirements. For that reason, they tend to have a real-life sense of scale - a liquid ounce is way easier to visualize than a milliliter.
I am blessed/cursed with being of the generation (in Canada) that was educated in both metric and non-metric measurements. And here in Canada we are cursed with having both systems in use side-by-side - meat is sold by the pound in one store (with metric equivalents shown in tiny characters) and by the 100 grams in the next store.
I blame all the US TV we see :).
NO, NO.Furlongs are nowhere near accurate enough. You need to sub divide into Rods, Poles and Perches. Chains are handy when measuring out the distance between wickets on a cricket pitch and never go to sea without being able to work out distance in cables :D
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
As the late Nelson's cabin boy I have to study all such things. Such accuracy and simplicity in measurement gave us victory at Trafalgar a couple of years ago. :D