![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I don't like trashing decent articles with an template, so for minor fiddles like this, the clean template above makes more sense.
Kill the clean w/o asking. Fra nkB 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It is infuriating the number of recipes that, due to the laziness of the writer or copier, fail to include the word "fluid" and yet it is implied with the item to be measured. Since when would you measure out 6 ounces of water? Or pizza sauce? Sometimes, it could be either weight or volume, but the frequent omission of the word "fluid" leaves it ambiguous.
This is one reason why I disdain the customary/imperial measures and prefer metric. At least there's no such thing as a "fluid gram" or a "mass/weight millilitre"!
Fl oz is no harder to print than ounce(s). GBC 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Since when would you measure out 6 ounces of water? ": since I was a child. I frequently measure out a particular number of ounces of water. And, what's more, I'll tell you how I do it: I pour water into a measuring cylinder marked in fluid ounces up to the "6" mark. Of course this would theoretically be accurate only if I checked the temperature and looked up the density at that temperature, but the difference is far too tiny to matter for domestic purposes. As for pizza sauce, if I were to use ready-made pizza sauce, and if I were to think that a measurement in a recipe for a pizza were critical enough to be worth the trouble, rather than just being a rough guide, I would weigh it, if the recipe gave a number of ounces. Why wouldn't one? I don't see the problem. 79.123.73.249 ( talk) 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
He's got a point. For example, I have here a recipe that calls for three ounces of sugar. So which do I use? Granulated sugar is both dry and fluid, so it could be either dry or fluid ounces. Rees11 ( talk) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I know this is a rather old discussion, but the reason there is rarely ambiguity is that we americans seldom use scales in the kitchen, and nearly all ingredients are measured by volume, usually cups.
174.252.50.213 (
talk)
12:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
1 US fluid ounce is exactly 29.5735295625 ml. You can derive this from the following exact measures:
Source: [1] — Rees11 ( talk) 23:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What would it be like if, we here in the United States used the British Imperial fluid ounce (28.4 ml), the British Imperial cup (284 ml), the British Imperial pint (568 ml), the British Imperial quart (1.136 litres), and the British Imperial gallon (4.544 liters)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvey994 ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The article's explanation of origins of gallons says ".... Thus, the mass of an imperial fluid ounce of water is one avoirdupois ounce (28.4 g) The US ounce is based on the earlier definition of one gallon equalling 231 cubic inches. This measurement at first glance does not seem to have any tie to mass, however it is believed[by whom?] to have come from a previous measure of a gallon as being 224 cubic inches (just 7 cubic inches less, both numbers being multiples of 7) which was used because it was the exact volume of 8 pounds of wine.[1] Thus one pint of a wine gallon is equal to the volume of one pound of wine, and there are 16 fluid ounces in a pint, just as there are 16 ounces in a pound." Some problems: (1) explaining a difference by describing an origin that differs from the present case in _two_ respects (224 vs. 231, _and_ water vs. wine) does not let the reader sort out what's due to what. And the concluding "thus" about being different by about four percent does not follow from the information presented. (2) The 224-cubic-inch wine gallon description that this passage attributes to Reference 1 is not to be found in Reference 1. What is to be found there is different: says that it's the _231_-_cubic_-_inch gallon (not the 224) that is the Old English Wine Gallon, and reports the idea that it was chosen to be the volume of 8 pounds of wine in _troy_weight_, not avoirdupois. (3) This passage would be a lot more helpful if it got around to saying how many pounds a US gallon does weigh. Archaeopterix ( talk) 17:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I am in my 30's. I was raised always using Floral Ounces. Now everyone uses Fluid Ounces. When did this change happen? Presidentbalut ( talk) 20:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing how-to manual-ish about defining fluid ounces in terms of metric measure. It is how the articles on the international yard and pound, pint and gallon defines those units. The current definition is circular and fails to give the reader a quick reference point to the similarity and difference between the units by reference to a independent yard stick (so to speak). Moreover both US and Imperial fluid ounces are legally defined in terms of metric measure. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ounces are most commonly mass. The ounce-force exists but is rarely used.
When some one steps on a bathroom scale, they are measuring weight, in pounds and ounces. When a newborn baby is weighed it is weighed not "massed" and the weight is measured in pounds and ounces. When someone puts a letter on a postal scale it's weight is measured in ounces. These scales and all commonly used scales are incapable of measuring mass, they can only measure weight. Even a balance type scale cannot measure mass directly, it can only infer it from the relative weight of two objects.
I don't know what planet you're from, but on earth ounce is a measurement of weight, not mass! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the only time the ounce it a measure of mass is when someone does a metric conversion which is technically wrong, since the ounce is a measure of weight and a kilogram is actually a measurement of mass. The ounce is and always has been a measure of weight. The conversion of kilograms to pounds and ounces is only correct under normal gravity.
If a fat man stepped on a bathroom scale on earth it would say he weighed 300 pounds. On the moon it would say he weighed 50 pounds. In both cases it would be correct because though his mass would be the same his weight would be different, and pounds, like ounces are a measure of weight, not mass! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 05:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
US measurements = Utter Nonsense
I don't think this is true. Here is a counter-example: [6]. Note the label, "4 FL OZ (118 ml)". Kendall-K1 ( talk) 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The article is missing information about the very close equivalence between the weight of a fluid ounce of water and an ounce of water and also between the weight of a pint of water and a pound of water.
16 fluid ounces = 16.6908 ounces i.e. about 4% more
so 1 pint = 1.043175 pounds i.e. about 4% more (needs to be said again)
https://metric-calculator.com/convert-fl-oz-to-oz.htm -- Espoo ( talk) 08:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The regulation cited (iirc 21 CFR section 101.9) is explicitly only about serving sizes in the context of nutrition facts, and also discourages using "fluid ounces" unless it is a beverage and more natural units like "one can" are not suitable. It alludes to package sizes having different rules. Package sizes use US customary fluid ounces, although I cannot find the law or regulation dictating this.
Reading the 21 CFR regulation cited in this article turns up something interesting: Because measures in fluid ounces should be rounded to the nearest 0.5 fl oz, and because servings are unlikely to be over 35 fl oz, the difference between 30 mL/oz and 29.58 mL/oz will never matter. Once you hit 35.0 fl oz (30 mL each), you have a problem because that is equal to 35.5 fl oz (US customary fl oz). But in practice, I doubt such a large serving would exist. Using numbers that large for teaspoons or tablespoons is forbidden, you have to switch to cups. As a result, ALL of these "household units" of volume will in practice be equal to the US customary units, because of the required precision (which is limited to a half-unit, except for the cup).
In other words, the fact that serving sizes use different units will never cause an observable difference in a label, due to the mandated lack of precision and the practical limits on a serving size. And the fact that the appropriate unit goes from teaspoon to tablespoon to ounce to cup as the volume increases, skipping ounce unless the item is a beverage. A sauce, or ice cream, are examples of foods that would skip from tablespoon to cup. 209.6.225.254 ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I don't like trashing decent articles with an template, so for minor fiddles like this, the clean template above makes more sense.
Kill the clean w/o asking. Fra nkB 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It is infuriating the number of recipes that, due to the laziness of the writer or copier, fail to include the word "fluid" and yet it is implied with the item to be measured. Since when would you measure out 6 ounces of water? Or pizza sauce? Sometimes, it could be either weight or volume, but the frequent omission of the word "fluid" leaves it ambiguous.
This is one reason why I disdain the customary/imperial measures and prefer metric. At least there's no such thing as a "fluid gram" or a "mass/weight millilitre"!
Fl oz is no harder to print than ounce(s). GBC 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Since when would you measure out 6 ounces of water? ": since I was a child. I frequently measure out a particular number of ounces of water. And, what's more, I'll tell you how I do it: I pour water into a measuring cylinder marked in fluid ounces up to the "6" mark. Of course this would theoretically be accurate only if I checked the temperature and looked up the density at that temperature, but the difference is far too tiny to matter for domestic purposes. As for pizza sauce, if I were to use ready-made pizza sauce, and if I were to think that a measurement in a recipe for a pizza were critical enough to be worth the trouble, rather than just being a rough guide, I would weigh it, if the recipe gave a number of ounces. Why wouldn't one? I don't see the problem. 79.123.73.249 ( talk) 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
He's got a point. For example, I have here a recipe that calls for three ounces of sugar. So which do I use? Granulated sugar is both dry and fluid, so it could be either dry or fluid ounces. Rees11 ( talk) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I know this is a rather old discussion, but the reason there is rarely ambiguity is that we americans seldom use scales in the kitchen, and nearly all ingredients are measured by volume, usually cups.
174.252.50.213 (
talk)
12:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
1 US fluid ounce is exactly 29.5735295625 ml. You can derive this from the following exact measures:
Source: [1] — Rees11 ( talk) 23:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What would it be like if, we here in the United States used the British Imperial fluid ounce (28.4 ml), the British Imperial cup (284 ml), the British Imperial pint (568 ml), the British Imperial quart (1.136 litres), and the British Imperial gallon (4.544 liters)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvey994 ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The article's explanation of origins of gallons says ".... Thus, the mass of an imperial fluid ounce of water is one avoirdupois ounce (28.4 g) The US ounce is based on the earlier definition of one gallon equalling 231 cubic inches. This measurement at first glance does not seem to have any tie to mass, however it is believed[by whom?] to have come from a previous measure of a gallon as being 224 cubic inches (just 7 cubic inches less, both numbers being multiples of 7) which was used because it was the exact volume of 8 pounds of wine.[1] Thus one pint of a wine gallon is equal to the volume of one pound of wine, and there are 16 fluid ounces in a pint, just as there are 16 ounces in a pound." Some problems: (1) explaining a difference by describing an origin that differs from the present case in _two_ respects (224 vs. 231, _and_ water vs. wine) does not let the reader sort out what's due to what. And the concluding "thus" about being different by about four percent does not follow from the information presented. (2) The 224-cubic-inch wine gallon description that this passage attributes to Reference 1 is not to be found in Reference 1. What is to be found there is different: says that it's the _231_-_cubic_-_inch gallon (not the 224) that is the Old English Wine Gallon, and reports the idea that it was chosen to be the volume of 8 pounds of wine in _troy_weight_, not avoirdupois. (3) This passage would be a lot more helpful if it got around to saying how many pounds a US gallon does weigh. Archaeopterix ( talk) 17:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I am in my 30's. I was raised always using Floral Ounces. Now everyone uses Fluid Ounces. When did this change happen? Presidentbalut ( talk) 20:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing how-to manual-ish about defining fluid ounces in terms of metric measure. It is how the articles on the international yard and pound, pint and gallon defines those units. The current definition is circular and fails to give the reader a quick reference point to the similarity and difference between the units by reference to a independent yard stick (so to speak). Moreover both US and Imperial fluid ounces are legally defined in terms of metric measure. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ounces are most commonly mass. The ounce-force exists but is rarely used.
When some one steps on a bathroom scale, they are measuring weight, in pounds and ounces. When a newborn baby is weighed it is weighed not "massed" and the weight is measured in pounds and ounces. When someone puts a letter on a postal scale it's weight is measured in ounces. These scales and all commonly used scales are incapable of measuring mass, they can only measure weight. Even a balance type scale cannot measure mass directly, it can only infer it from the relative weight of two objects.
I don't know what planet you're from, but on earth ounce is a measurement of weight, not mass! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the only time the ounce it a measure of mass is when someone does a metric conversion which is technically wrong, since the ounce is a measure of weight and a kilogram is actually a measurement of mass. The ounce is and always has been a measure of weight. The conversion of kilograms to pounds and ounces is only correct under normal gravity.
If a fat man stepped on a bathroom scale on earth it would say he weighed 300 pounds. On the moon it would say he weighed 50 pounds. In both cases it would be correct because though his mass would be the same his weight would be different, and pounds, like ounces are a measure of weight, not mass! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 05:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
US measurements = Utter Nonsense
I don't think this is true. Here is a counter-example: [6]. Note the label, "4 FL OZ (118 ml)". Kendall-K1 ( talk) 15:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The article is missing information about the very close equivalence between the weight of a fluid ounce of water and an ounce of water and also between the weight of a pint of water and a pound of water.
16 fluid ounces = 16.6908 ounces i.e. about 4% more
so 1 pint = 1.043175 pounds i.e. about 4% more (needs to be said again)
https://metric-calculator.com/convert-fl-oz-to-oz.htm -- Espoo ( talk) 08:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The regulation cited (iirc 21 CFR section 101.9) is explicitly only about serving sizes in the context of nutrition facts, and also discourages using "fluid ounces" unless it is a beverage and more natural units like "one can" are not suitable. It alludes to package sizes having different rules. Package sizes use US customary fluid ounces, although I cannot find the law or regulation dictating this.
Reading the 21 CFR regulation cited in this article turns up something interesting: Because measures in fluid ounces should be rounded to the nearest 0.5 fl oz, and because servings are unlikely to be over 35 fl oz, the difference between 30 mL/oz and 29.58 mL/oz will never matter. Once you hit 35.0 fl oz (30 mL each), you have a problem because that is equal to 35.5 fl oz (US customary fl oz). But in practice, I doubt such a large serving would exist. Using numbers that large for teaspoons or tablespoons is forbidden, you have to switch to cups. As a result, ALL of these "household units" of volume will in practice be equal to the US customary units, because of the required precision (which is limited to a half-unit, except for the cup).
In other words, the fact that serving sizes use different units will never cause an observable difference in a label, due to the mandated lack of precision and the practical limits on a serving size. And the fact that the appropriate unit goes from teaspoon to tablespoon to ounce to cup as the volume increases, skipping ounce unless the item is a beverage. A sauce, or ice cream, are examples of foods that would skip from tablespoon to cup. 209.6.225.254 ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)