Miscellaneous desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 2

Why is a "cup" sometimes 5 fl.oz. and sometimes 8?

Why are 60 fl.oz. (~1800mL) coffee makers sold as "12-cup" coffee makers in the US and Canada? That implies that a "cup" is 5 ounces, but every reference site I can find says it's 8 ounces. Neon Merlin 08:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just hit on one of the reasons why the US habit of using volumes, rather than weights, is such a flawed concept. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally greatly prefer using weights for most things, including liquids I'm not convinced this is an example of that. As I said below, this problem seems to arise because a measuring cup has a certain definition of volume, but cup can also mean different things, e.g. a cup of a drink which may not use that definition. This problem will arise in any case where you have differing possible definitions, for example if a I define one serving as having a standard definition of 250 grams when it comes to cooking, someone may still resonably define one serving of a drink of coffee as being 180 grams. Even when it comes to measuring cups, the cup still has definition problems since the precise volume depends on the definition. Normally if the recipe uses US customary units you can assume it means 8 US fluid ounces and if metric 250 ml, but that isn't always the case as some do use 200 mL. But again, these problems only arise because of differing definitions and they could arise if we used weird weight measures as well, even if weird weight measures are less likely for various reasons. If you use a volume measurement with a precise definition and almost no disagreement, which applies to millilitres but not exactly unqualified fluid ounces (although in most cases the difference between imperial and US customary and US nutrition labelling is well within any margin of error anyway) you don't have this problem. This isn't to suggest that using volume doesn't have problems, as our article says with certain dry ingredients density of packing can vary quite significantly and most of the time you care more about weight. Then there is the oddity of using volume for non granulated solids like butter and the difficulties this imposes if you can't rely on packaging markings.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At the former Fretter Appliance store 'The company's founder and spokesman, Ollie Fretter, became known in the Detroit area in the 1970s and 1980s by humorous TV commercials in which he promised, "I’ll give you five pounds of coffee if I can't beat your best deal. The competition knows me. You should too!" (When occasionally he had to make good on the whimsical offer, Fretter gave away one-pound cans of coffee that had been relabeled "net weight — 5 pounds".)' When asked about this, they just said those are "Fretter pounds". Good thing they went out of business, with this deceptive practice. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that a fluid ounce in the USA is not the same as a fluid ounce in Canada or the UK, where the Imperial system is still used. Wymspen (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the same, but close enough for this discussion. The US fluid ounce is about four percent larger than the Imperial one. The big difference in the liquid measures is that the Imperial pint is 20 ounces, whereas the US pint is only 16 (and proportionally for quart and gallon). --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But 20 is not 4% less than 16, it's 25% more. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said the US ounce was 4% more than the Imperial ounce. The Imperial pint is bigger than the US pint, because it's 20 Imperial ounces as opposed to 16 US ounces. That works out to the Imperial pint being about 20% more than a US pint. --Trovatore (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An 8 fluid ounce cup is a measure used for cooking etc. It's not necessarily the same thing as a cup of a drink. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the general subject, one item that comes up is this coffeemaker instruction set,[1] where they specifically say that their idea of a cup of coffee is 5 fluid ounces. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This site[2] says that a coffee cup can vary in size. However, if a mug holds exactly 8 ounces, how likely are you to fill it to the brim anyway? If the machine dispenses 5 ounces, that would allow for cups that are rather smaller than the typical 8 ounce mug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick read of Cup (unit) will reveal that there are half a dozen legal definitions of a cup as a unit of volume (from 200 to 284 millilitres) - varying from country to country. None of them have anything to do with the size of a cup as a physical object used in drinking (unless it is specifically a measuring cup), which can be any size the manufacturer wants it to be. Wymspen (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cup" is too flexible a term. Consider the Chinese teacup, which is quite small compared to a coffee mug. Or the Stanley Cup, which is quite large compared to a coffee mug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My foot is not 30.5 centimeters long. It still doesn't mean that the unit known as a foot is inconsistent. In the context of a unit of measurement, a cup is 8 fluid ounces. In the context of a vessel, the object we call a "cup" can be any size at all. --Jayron 32 14:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that ads don't state whether they are using the legal unit or some other def. They could very well say something is 2 feet long, then show somebody measuring it out with their small feet. I suppose somebody could even say something is X meters long, then show a series of voltmeters laid out end to end to justify that length. The desire for deception on the part of retailers has no end, so unless there are laws against it, it can't be stopped. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that ads are purposely misleading? That is cray talk! 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference by the way, coffee manufacturers use the Tasse à café as the standard size coffee cup; it appears in reporting the serving size they've thrown in a bit of a fudge factor. --Jayron 32 14:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serving size is a bit different, as that's supposed to be how much a person consumes at once. So, more potent drinks will have smaller serving sizes. However, ounces would be more honest way to report them. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several posters mentioned coffee mugs. For those not accustomed to drinking coffee in the USA for half a century, the size of coffee cups has increased over the years. When I fill a coffee cup from a 60+ year old china set to a level that isn't likely to spill, it holds about 6 fl. oz. (around 160 ml). I suspect the size used by manufacturers of coffee making equipment was set back in those days. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mugs are indeed getting bigger. --Jayron 32 18:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an actual 100 ounce coffee mug sold in the US: [3]. I own one. Useful for long road trips. Or perhaps you need 2, one for input and one for output. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I would describe as a coffee "mug" is as small as 8 ounces. Pulling a couple standardish mugs from my cabinet and trying them out with a measuring cup, they seem to be around 12 to 14 ounces. I have smaller coffee cups, but I wouldn't call them "mugs". --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you google "8 ounce coffee mug" you'll see some examples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here are cafetieres (i.e. the British French press) labelled 8 cup 1 litre and 3 cup 0.35 litre, both from the same shop, John Lewis, which has built its reputation on not pulling the wool over customers' eyes. Confusing. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sessions

Hi. This morning Jeff Sessions said he cannot remember (recall) about the meeting with the russian Amb. . Now (this evening) he says he spoke with him about terror..and....blabla ?? Or am i wrong, that nobody noticed that (yet) ?? regards. 2001:7E8:C08C:1401:3CC0:2F2D:BDE2:F8B0 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sorts of references can we help you find? I'm afraid your request for information is not well formed, you appear to be making a statement (with a question mark) rather than asking for more information. Please restate your question in a form we can find answers for, so you can help us help you. --Jayron 32 02:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first request for references is to confirm the two statements he believed he heard from Sessions. Then perhaps a source or two on press reaction to the discrepancy, if there is one. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may come as a huge shock, but sometimes politicians aren't entirely honest or straightforward. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe he really did forget about that meeting! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman.--WaltCip (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to these transcripts Sessions did say [4] [5] "I don't remember a lot of it". Note this is the same reply where he said they talked about terrorism.

Prior to that various sources [6] [7] [8] say officials said something like he 'did not remember the discussion with Kislyak in detail'. Note that I can't find any info suggesting Sessions ever said this directly to the media, and I'm not even sure what the exact comment from officials was but perhaps “There’s just not strong recollection of what was said,” [9] [10].

I can't find any info suggesting he or someone associated with him, ever said Sessions could not recall anything about the conversation. Perhaps you're getting confused by things like [11] which says 'Franken isn’t reassured by the attorney general’s claims that he does not recall the subject of their conversation' or [12] which says 'anonymous Sessions defender at the Department of Justice, he just doesn't remember what was discussed' or [13] which says 'that Sessions did not recall the meetings with the Russian ambassador'. But I think the first two are just simplifying what Sessions staffers actually said and the second one is just speculating.

I'm fairly sure Sessions has never said he could not remember or recall the meetings. He and his spokespeople have always said since the issue blew up that he did remember meeting with them including the time in September, but the meetings were only related to his position as as Senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee and had nothing to do with the Trump campaign and that's what his reply meant. [14].

Whether what Session staffers said before is consistent with what he's saying now I make no comment except that it's possible to not really remember something and remember in more detail later when you try and think about it, especially if you have something which may help you. Likewise I'd note that while there is great controversy over his assurances the he didn't discuss the campaign in light of his limited recall, I'd note it is possible to be fairly sure (although probably not certain) something did not come up even if you can't remember exactly what did come up. (Although some of the sources again quoting other people now say the election did come up but only superficially.) I also make no comment on even if this all true, the wisdom of not being clearer.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]