[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: digital camera Q

On Thursday 26 October 2006 18:50, Nigel Henry wrote:
> Ok. That works the same way for the UK imperial gallon which equates with
> 160 fl oz's. The quart is 40 fl oz, the pint is 20 fl oz, and there is
> little difference between the US fl oz, and the UK imperial one.
See below
> This site gave some insite on the origins of the US gallon, and the UK
> imperial gallon, which is the basis for this totally OT thread, which
> incidentally you started Gene, with that dal garned Canon A10 camera
> problem, and how it ever turned into a discussion on weights and measures I
> don't know, but perhaps I'm suffering from the affects of alu-alzheimer
> from drinking beer from alu cans.
A little trivia lightens the day, after reading the endless complaints from 
people who ignore good advice then wonder what went wrong :-)

> http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/upload/appenb.pdf
What a fascinating document!  I've only scanned it so far, but I'll certainly 
read it more thoroughly.

> Page 6 is interesting, and shows the origin of the US, and the UK imperial
> gallon.
> According to this, the American colonists adopted the English wine gallon
> (231 cubic inches). Back in England the English used this gallon, and also
> the ale gallon (282 cubic inches) , but in 1824 dropped both of them, and
> set the the ne British Imperial gallon as the volume of 10 pounds of water
> at 62.4° F which equates with 277.42 cubic inches.
The very small difference in fl.oz. that I saw there would indicate something 
like 19.22 US fl. oz. to the pint, greatly at odds with the experience of 
others here.  I'll read on.

> Anyway whichever way you look at it, and I know I'm in France, but if
> you're in the UK you get more beer in your pint, than you do in the US.

Attachment: pgpBAelMzv6EG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]