Re: [OT] Imperial measures
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:27:29 -0400
Doug <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 04:18 PM, Weaver wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:56:27 +0100
> > Lisi<email@example.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 05 October 2011 01:02:36 Weaver wrote:
> >>> I think it's a pity that the gill has fallen into misuse.
> >> Its usefulness is limited by the fact that it is not a fixed
> >> measure, but covers various different amounts according to the
> >> region in which it is used, anyhow in the UK. Hence, I imagine
> >> its decline, with the ubiquity of television cooks.
> > In a professional food career that spans over forty years, from base
> > level commis pastry chef to successful consultancy practice, I have
> > never known a gill to be any other than 150ml.
> > The vast majority of 'TV cooks' are a social sub-group that I'm
> > afraid I have grown to despise in the interim, especially in regard
> > to pastry work, where many professional chefs could not be rated as
> > any more than woeful.
> > Regards,
> > Weaver.
> The units program says a gill is 118.3 ml. If you look at the data
> script for units, there is a very impressive list of sources. I
> believe that the units program was first mentioned in this thread, so
> it is definitely available in Debian.
I beleive that the U.S. gill has some variance, which is what this may
As far as the U.K goes, london City and Guild training is 142.& so
many particles, but try measuring that by eye. So the world, sensibly,
defaults to 150 ml, which you can readily find on the side of any
measuring glass and a variance that any recipe can absorb.
"In a world without walls and fences,
what need have we for Windows or Gates?"