2002-12-19 Our local Newspaper ran a variety of ads for some perfumes and washes. In one ad for a local department store, all kinds of brands are featured. No sizes can be seen on the containers, but the ad indicates sizes such as: 1.7 oz, 2.5 oz, 3.4 oz, 4.2 oz and 6.7 oz. They all appear to be liquid products so I'm going to assume the ads mean fluid ounces.
We all know that 1.7 oz = 50 mL, 2.5 oz = 75 mL, 3.4 oz = 100 mL, 4.2 oz = 125 mL and 6.7 oz = 200 mL. Another ad for Est�e Lauder products is similar. The bottles pictured show no amounts, but the ads show only ounce amounts. The ad for Liz Claiborne does show amounts on the bottles in the form of 4.2 FL.OZ. / 125 mL e. Bora Bora comes both as a liquid and solid, and both 1.0 Fl. OZ / 30 mL e and 1.0 OZ. / 30 g e. It is obvious that these products are in rational metric sizes, even when they put FFU in the primary position. >From your webpage: Add 1.1 lbs. (500 g) flour. Add 1.764 oz. (50 g) sugar. Add 1 cup (236.6 mL) water. Measure a distance of 3.28 ft. (1 m). Draw a line 11 in. (280 mm) long. Cook a pizza at 401 �F (205 �C). Body temperature is 98.6 �F (37 �C). 1 cup in metric is 250 mL. It is not necessary to convert a cup to 236.6 mL as the cup is an approximate unit. It may be 8 oz in FFU, but it is 250 mL in metric. The difference in recipes wouldn't be noticed. All the cups I seen people use are marked in both FFU and SI. 250 mL is barely more that 8 oz. Also, people I've watched who cook with cups, just use it to scoop up the contents and never look at the numbers. They fill it to the brim, which is more than 250 mL. No one is that exact. So, I would change the 1 cup of water to 250 mL. There is no need to be over-exact. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2002-12-18 13:36 Subject: [USMA:24091] kg, Mg, white rain, new web site > I think it is interesting to think about new names for the kilogram, but I'd > say don't get your hopes up that it will be changed. I think the system is > pretty darn good as it stands, and there is no compelling reason to change > the name of the kilogram. If it is hard getting just the U.S. to use the > system that everyone else uses, think how hard it would be to get *everyone* > to agree that we need to change the kilogram. > > One problem with using Mg is that it's use is not standardized. As far as I > have seen, pretty much everyone uses tons (or tonnes). Trying to use Mg > would create some of the problems that using colloquial units > causes--everyone else uses something else. The unit ton is already a de > facto standard. I know some of you are thinking right now that Mg is better > because its meaning can be understood from the symbol (M is mega, g is > gram), but I think that most of the public doesn't think that carefully > about SI. In the U.S., Mg would be guaranteed to be confused with mg. Many > of you are concerned about confusion from overly precise package labels, but > this would be a much more serious confusion. > > By the way, my biology class a few years ago used gigatons to talk about > global water movement patterns (evaporation, precipitation, etc.). > > A few years ago Gillette spun off White Rain into its own company. They > re-launched all of their products (with new packages, of course). They > offer a 750 mL bottle of shampoo, but more common is the 15 fl. oz. bottle. > I just saw in the store a 10 ounce bottle (I think) of body wash (I wasn't > shopping for it I promise!). The bottle did not list the contents in > milliliters at all. I wonder how we can enforce the current FPLA. (A bunch > of letters from men at the same time would probably make the company > suspicious.) > > I recently finished a new web site. The site has some articles I sent to > the list as well as some new content. The site is at: www.aros.net/~cos. > > Carl Sorenson >
