A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 8 » Windows 8 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Desktop calculator bug



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old April 4th 16, 10:01 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Desktop calculator bug

NY wrote:

I'd forgotten about the US habit of measuring dry goods by volume (US
dry gallon) rather than by mass (pound) until I read other pages on that
site, but then US recipes often specify quantities of flour, marg and
dried fruit in cups (ie volume) rather than in ounces (mass). I presume
there mist be a "standard" cup of some well-known capacity in fl oz or
cu in, in order to match items such as eggs which are specified by
number ("three standard-sized eggs") rather than by measured units.


The venerable "cooking cup" isn't what it once was.

At one time, we had a proper 8 oz measuring cup for baking.
There was a glass one for stuff like a chunk of butter.
There was an aluminum one if you wanted to measure flour
and the glass one was dirty. As examples.

Years later, when I went to the store, the cup had
been replaced by "political correctness". A monstrosity
was available, also in Pyrex, and it's two cups in size.
This is a picture of a thing to waste cupboard space.
The cooking cup amount is circled in blue.

http://s9.postimg.org/j7i99z9qn/metric.jpg

Paul
Ads
  #17  
Old April 5th 16, 12:18 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Desktop calculator bug

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:08:55 +0100, mechanic
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:33:23 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I just used convert.exe. It tool a fraction of a second to find
out that there are 231 cubic inches in a gallon.


English gallon or US? They are different. These conversions can trip
people up very easily (as Wolf, above).



US gallon. Yes, I know they are different. But I was replying to NY's
message, and I had assumed that NY was short for "New York," which is
in the USA.
  #18  
Old April 5th 16, 12:19 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Desktop calculator bug

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 20:37:27 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:45:33 +0100, "NY" wrote:


(*) I needed to work out roughly how heavy a copper water cylinder would
be
when full of water. I only had an imperial tape measure. Measure diameter
and length, and volume is pi r-squared l - but this gives volume in cubic
inches and I only know that "a pint of pure water weighs a pound and a
quarter" ie that a gallon weighs 10 lb. How many cubic inches ina gallon -
buggered if I know, even to an order of magnitude. I ended up converting
lengths to centimetres (using 2.5 cm = 1 in approximation) and working out
the volume in cc, and then the mass follows from knowing that 1000 cc
weighs
1 kg.




I just used convert.exe. It tool a fraction of a second to find out
that there are 231 cubic inches in a gallon.


This was in the days before people had computers, the internet etc, and even
calculators were just basic four-function ones, with no built-in conversion
factors.



Ah, OK. Understood.

  #19  
Old April 5th 16, 12:22 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Desktop calculator bug

On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:18:49 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:08:55 +0100, mechanic
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:33:23 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I just used convert.exe. It tool a fraction of a second to find
out that there are 231 cubic inches in a gallon.


English gallon or US? They are different. These conversions can trip
people up very easily (as Wolf, above).



US gallon. Yes, I know they are different. But I was replying to NY's
message, and I had assumed that NY was short for "New York," which is
in the USA.



Looking at his message again, I see that he said "imperial tape
measure" and "centimetres," so I guess my assumption was wrong.
  #20  
Old April 5th 16, 02:20 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul in Houston TX[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Desktop calculator bug

Paul wrote:
(snip)
Years later, when I went to the store, the cup had
been replaced by "political correctness". A monstrosity
was available, also in Pyrex, and it's two cups in size.
This is a picture of a thing to waste cupboard space.
The cooking cup amount is circled in blue.


And Pyrex has not been made of expensive borosilicate since at least 1998.
It's now garbage soda-lime that breaks when exposed to changing temperatures.

  #21  
Old April 5th 16, 04:08 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default Desktop calculator bug

On 4/4/2016 8:20 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Paul wrote:
(snip)
Years later, when I went to the store, the cup had
been replaced by "political correctness". A monstrosity
was available, also in Pyrex, and it's two cups in size.
This is a picture of a thing to waste cupboard space.
The cooking cup amount is circled in blue.


And Pyrex has not been made of expensive borosilicate since at least 1998.
It's now garbage soda-lime that breaks when exposed to changing
temperatures.

I used a lot of Real Pyrex mirror blanks for amateur telescope making
from 1964 to 1975, in the following sizes.

4 1/4 Inch x 3
6 inch x 3
7 inch x 3
8 inch x 1
12 1/2 inch x 1
a total of about 11 mirrors
thickness varied from 1 inch to 2 1/2 inches These were Corning Glass
pieces.

Rene
  #22  
Old April 5th 16, 11:06 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Desktop calculator bug

Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Paul wrote:
(snip)
Years later, when I went to the store, the cup had
been replaced by "political correctness". A monstrosity
was available, also in Pyrex, and it's two cups in size.
This is a picture of a thing to waste cupboard space.
The cooking cup amount is circled in blue.


And Pyrex has not been made of expensive borosilicate since at least 1998.
It's now garbage soda-lime that breaks when exposed to changing
temperatures.


And Pyrex has size limits, before it becomes susceptible
to stress.

Over the years, I've seen a few 4 liter ones
fail, on electric heat, and with water in them and
everything. In each case, there was no chemistry
going on, so no exceptional mess to clean up.

I would trust the "ordinary sized" ones, just
not the 4 liter ones.

Paul
  #23  
Old April 5th 16, 05:30 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Stormin' Norman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,877
Default Desktop calculator bug

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:08:23 -0500, Rene lamontagne
wrote:

On 4/4/2016 8:20 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Paul wrote:
(snip)
Years later, when I went to the store, the cup had
been replaced by "political correctness". A monstrosity
was available, also in Pyrex, and it's two cups in size.
This is a picture of a thing to waste cupboard space.
The cooking cup amount is circled in blue.


And Pyrex has not been made of expensive borosilicate since at least 1998.
It's now garbage soda-lime that breaks when exposed to changing
temperatures.

I used a lot of Real Pyrex mirror blanks for amateur telescope making
from 1964 to 1975, in the following sizes.

4 1/4 Inch x 3
6 inch x 3
7 inch x 3
8 inch x 1
12 1/2 inch x 1
a total of about 11 mirrors
thickness varied from 1 inch to 2 1/2 inches These were Corning Glass
pieces.

Rene


Here is an interesting article from Smithsonian Magazine about Pyrex:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innova...955513/?no-ist
  #24  
Old April 5th 16, 05:52 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default Desktop calculator bug

On 4/5/2016 11:30 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:08:23 -0500, Rene lamontagne
wrote:

On 4/4/2016 8:20 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Paul wrote:
(snip)
Years later, when I went to the store, the cup had
been replaced by "political correctness". A monstrosity
was available, also in Pyrex, and it's two cups in size.
This is a picture of a thing to waste cupboard space.
The cooking cup amount is circled in blue.

And Pyrex has not been made of expensive borosilicate since at least 1998.
It's now garbage soda-lime that breaks when exposed to changing
temperatures.

I used a lot of Real Pyrex mirror blanks for amateur telescope making
from 1964 to 1975, in the following sizes.

4 1/4 Inch x 3
6 inch x 3
7 inch x 3
8 inch x 1
12 1/2 inch x 1
a total of about 11 mirrors
thickness varied from 1 inch to 2 1/2 inches These were Corning Glass
pieces.

Rene


Here is an interesting article from Smithsonian Magazine about Pyrex:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innova...955513/?no-ist


Thanks Norman, Yes Pyrex has played an important part in the Kitchen,
Lab and observatory..

Rene

  #25  
Old April 10th 16, 10:34 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Blue Citizen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Desktop calculator bug

Lots of people here used to read ton instead of tonne. We say tonelada. But
maybe now I know who understands the difference between ton and tonne. Maybe
there's nothing wrong with windows calculator. Besides I don't need to know
every unit system in US and UK.

"mechanic" escreveu na mensagem ...

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 04:41:48 +0100, Blue Citizen wrote:

How is the weather in Portugal?


Someone in Portugal doesn't recognise the metric tonne? We're even
using it on official docs in the UK.

  #26  
Old April 11th 16, 04:07 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Monty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 598
Default Desktop calculator bug

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 22:44:30 +0100, "Blue Citizen"
wrote:

Just curious about the history that lead to these differences between short
and long ton. Thought American ton was greater than Great Britain's one.

"Wolf K" escreveu na mensagem ...

On 2016-04-02 23:05, Blue Citizen wrote:
Hello you, today I was trying unit conversion with Windows Calculator and
now it looks different. Can't find Newton unit, plus it shows new units
I've
never seen before, Tonne for example, do you know this unit?


1,000kg, aka as "metric ton" for them as can't spell. English "ton" is
2,000lb. "Long ton" is 2,200lb, or approximately 999kg.

I can't agree with your definitions of English ton (2,000lb) and Long
ton (2,200lb).

The description below is from Encyclopedia Britannica and reflects
what I learnt in school about 70 years ago.

" Ton, unit of weight in the avoirdupois system equal to 2,000 pounds
(907.18 kg) in the United States (the short ton) and 2,240 pounds
(1,016.05 kg) in Britain (the long ton). The metric ton used in
most other countries is 1,000 kg, equivalent to 2,204.6 pounds
avoirdupois.

Ton came to mean any large weight, until it was standardized at 20
hundredweight although the total weight could be 2,000, 2,160,
2,240, or 2,400 pounds (from 907.18 to 1088.62 kg) depending on
whether the corresponding hundredweight contained 100, 108, 112, or
120 pounds."

I am not aware of any "ton" being defined as 2,200lb.

The best conversion resource is a little book I got 60 years ago as 1st
year engineering student. Don't need no built-in stuff, just a plain
calculator and the ability to turn paper pages and read 'em.

:-)

Hope you can help me.

Thanks,


You're welcome.

--
Blue Citizen

  #27  
Old April 11th 16, 12:18 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Blue Citizen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Desktop calculator bug

So is this a Windows Calculator bug or is just ignorance about metric ton?

"Monty" escreveu na mensagem
...

The description below is from Encyclopedia Britannica and reflects
what I learnt in school about 70 years ago.

" Ton, unit of weight in the avoirdupois system equal to 2,000 pounds
(907.18 kg) in the United States (the short ton) and 2,240 pounds
(1,016.05 kg) in Britain (the long ton). The metric ton used in
most other countries is 1,000 kg, equivalent to 2,204.6 pounds
avoirdupois.

Ton came to mean any large weight, until it was standardized at 20
hundredweight although the total weight could be 2,000, 2,160,
2,240, or 2,400 pounds (from 907.18 to 1088.62 kg) depending on
whether the corresponding hundredweight contained 100, 108, 112, or
120 pounds."

I am not aware of any "ton" being defined as 2,200lb.

  #28  
Old April 12th 16, 12:30 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
mechanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,064
Default Desktop calculator bug

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 22:44:30 +0100, Blue Citizen wrote:

English "ton" is 2,000lb.


No it isn't.
  #29  
Old April 12th 16, 03:43 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Stormin' Norman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,877
Default Desktop calculator bug

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:21:04 -0600, Ken1943 wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:30:56 +0100, mechanic
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 22:44:30 +0100, Blue Citizen wrote:

English "ton" is 2,000lb.


No it isn't.


Yes it is


Has anyone posted this reference as of yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton

"ton" has numerous definitions.
  #30  
Old April 25th 16, 08:15 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8
Brian Gregory
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 648
Default Desktop calculator bug

On 12/04/2016 16:32, Ken1943 wrote:
...
Didn't know if the other person could read !!!!


You're the one who just incorrectly agreed that an English ton is 2000lb.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.