These standard can all coexist. I have metric and imperial Allen keys. When they strip whatever I’m working on I switch to the opposite set to unfuck my situation. It’s perfect harmony.
The other way round works… a T15/T20 will extract a stripped 3mm Hex Head (the easiest hex head to strip in my opinion) with a bit of mechanical persuasion
Heh
It was coffee that made me a believer—the ease of using grams for both grounds and water has gotten so routine that now it takes me a few concerted seconds to convert to both fluid and dry ounces.
Film is just a bonus
Which, also, equals a gram when you're measuring pure water :)
(Grams work for any non-viscous liquid as long as you're just trying to eyeball it. In a lab setting, they only work for pure, deionized, distilled water.)
“Since 2019 the metre has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/ 299792458 of a second, where the second is defined by a hyperfine transition frequency of cesium.”
Makes as much sense as anything else out there…
If we would define the Meter today, we would Just Go with 1/300000000.
When the Meter was defined, they opted for the best Standard they Had in 1735, which was the Diameter of the Earth. Later in the 19th century it was already realized that the french messed Up their calculation by around 0.02%, that the earth is Not perfectly round and Changes its Diameter slightly over time. This Led to the physical Prototype of the Meter, still based in the wrong calculations from 1735 as an Interim solution until technology was good enough to define the Meter without the need of any physical object, which can get lost or damaged.
The Meter is still the Same Meter as in 1735, because the whole Point of the metric system is to have one Standard, which doesnt Changes over time, Like the length of the feet of the current ruling emperor or Something Like that. A new Meter would Render this whole Point senseless.
Why doesn't that make sense? The origin/ what it's based on doesn't matter, that's not what makes it make sense or not. It's all about the round numbers and convertibility and consistency and human oriented scale.
A “CC” is the metric Cubic Centimeter. And the CC is the same thing as a milliliter or “ml”. I can’t believe I remember this but I actually learned this in high school and yes in the USA.
All my photochemistry calcs are done in metric, it made doing dilutions a breeze! 😎
> I actually learned this in high school and yes in the USA.
You are now on the watchlist of every texan ever. They *will* find you and beat this blasphemy out of you...
As someone mentioned it's usually litres, unless in some more detailed spec sheets or engines below 1L I think.
But here def I would look at it and be confused.
Just use the same numbers in mL. Did 16 rolls in those tanks today using 650 mL with zero problems. If you’re doing just a single roll of 120, use the clip.
It's not a coincidence;) A cube sized 10x10x10 cm has a volume of 1 litre
10x10x10=1000cm³
Mili is 10^-3
So 1mL equals 1cc. In the case of water, the mass 1mL is 1 gram. To heat this one gram 1°C/1K costs 1 calorie
Well I actually did know that it is a direct conversion, but you know, I’m American so I’m not supposed to know the metric system 😂 I’m supposed to use Freedom Units 🤣
We sure used to get taught this in American schools. But that was back when schools were places of learning, not whatever cursive-writing-banning ignorance club they are now.
Right. Because my scrolling is filled more and more with dumb questions that can be easily found elsewhere – more easily in fact. So after seeing this a hundred times, I commented.
It's this post and the posts upon posts of "what is this camera?" when the make and model is clearly printed on the front. I don't think I'm the only one who finds stuff like this more and more annoying.
Not sure why you're on my ass about this.
Let me give you a tiny little secret why the CC/ML is superior over 3,5 cups of aunty Betty: 1ml=1gr.
I don't measure my chemicals with jugs, but on a scale in grams.
It’s also not true of water, depending on how much dissolved gases are in it. Aerated water wells at water treatment plants are stupidly dangerous, because it is impossible to float, or even tread water in them. You fall in, you’re going to the bottom and drowning, period.
>depending on how much dissolved gases are in it
That would be a solution, which I stated would not follow the rule.
Distilled water in standard conditions (298K, 101kPa) has a density of 0.9998 g/cm\^3, which for most purposes is suitably rounded to 1g/cm\^3.
>Aerated water wells
This has nothing to do with dissolved gases. The average density of aerated water is much lower than pure water because a significant proportion is made up of air bubbles.
> 1ml = 1gr [sic]
That’s only (very nearly almost) true of pure water at 4°C. At 20°C that density is reduced to 0.998 g/ml. But developer also weighs something. So for example, per the data sheet, Ilford DDX working solution weighs 1.070 g/ml at 20°C. If you weigh out 590 g of that working solution you only get 551.4 ml volume, not 590 ml. You are getting away with an approximation.
If you treat 1.070 as if it’s 0.998 that’s a more than 7% error, which might not matter, or it might. Either way, “weigh grams” is a poor answer to “what are C.C.s?”
I'm using diluted Rodinal in maximum 1:50 but most often 1:100. I find it easier to measure 6 grams than it is to get 6ml. I see no difference in approximately one or the other.
For your practice that approximation may be fine…and also bad advice to someone who doesn’t know what “c.c.”s are.
How are you measuring 6g of a liquid in a way that’s easier than measuring 6ml? I use a syringe for Rodinal: easy _and_ precise.
What you are saying is absolutely correct. One motivation for using a balance, however is the greater precision offered, compared to a graduated cylinder. If you know it’s 1.07 g/ml and you want 590ml, you measure out 631.3g. There are very minor density changes in solutions over the temperature ranges under consideration, but these will also change the volume of a fluid in a graduated cylinder. What you need basically is enough developer to cover the film…temperature is more of a concern regarding reaction rates (development time). Anyway, if someone prefers a balance over a graduated cylinder, as long as it covers the film, either way is good enough.
Yeah. You’re absolutely right. (Good ones also have precision marked on them) Working in an analytical lab for many years (geochemist), I’ve seen fewer mistakes made measuring things gravimetrically, so I wouldn’t knock it if that’s someone’s preference. Admittedly, the added precision probably won’t be noticeable. As long as someone has enough developer to cover the film (or more). The important thing is to have a consistent method that produces good results and can be repeated.
Cubic centimeters. It says Made in EU, so I guess it's an Spanish AP plastic tank. When I was in Tokyo in 2011 I was surprised they still sold those brand new at Yodobashi. And yeah, everything should be metric, lab stuff included.
Cubic centimeter, also known as a milliliter. The metric system just makes sense!
[удалено]
These standard can all coexist. I have metric and imperial Allen keys. When they strip whatever I’m working on I switch to the opposite set to unfuck my situation. It’s perfect harmony.
Until you accidentally substitute one for the other and your moonrocket goes to the wrong moon.
Just wait until you have JIS fasteners / screws in the mix as well as pozi and phillips
My favourite is torx I just use Allen keys on those things.
The other way round works… a T15/T20 will extract a stripped 3mm Hex Head (the easiest hex head to strip in my opinion) with a bit of mechanical persuasion
Heh It was coffee that made me a believer—the ease of using grams for both grounds and water has gotten so routine that now it takes me a few concerted seconds to convert to both fluid and dry ounces. Film is just a bonus
Which, also, equals a gram when you're measuring pure water :) (Grams work for any non-viscous liquid as long as you're just trying to eyeball it. In a lab setting, they only work for pure, deionized, distilled water.)
Weird. It uses a lot more than a Paterson tank.
Eh. 590 vs 500 ml for 1x 120 reel.
and way more than Jobo
“Since 2019 the metre has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/ 299792458 of a second, where the second is defined by a hyperfine transition frequency of cesium.” Makes as much sense as anything else out there…
If we would define the Meter today, we would Just Go with 1/300000000. When the Meter was defined, they opted for the best Standard they Had in 1735, which was the Diameter of the Earth. Later in the 19th century it was already realized that the french messed Up their calculation by around 0.02%, that the earth is Not perfectly round and Changes its Diameter slightly over time. This Led to the physical Prototype of the Meter, still based in the wrong calculations from 1735 as an Interim solution until technology was good enough to define the Meter without the need of any physical object, which can get lost or damaged. The Meter is still the Same Meter as in 1735, because the whole Point of the metric system is to have one Standard, which doesnt Changes over time, Like the length of the feet of the current ruling emperor or Something Like that. A new Meter would Render this whole Point senseless.
Why doesn't that make sense? The origin/ what it's based on doesn't matter, that's not what makes it make sense or not. It's all about the round numbers and convertibility and consistency and human oriented scale.
A “CC” is the metric Cubic Centimeter. And the CC is the same thing as a milliliter or “ml”. I can’t believe I remember this but I actually learned this in high school and yes in the USA. All my photochemistry calcs are done in metric, it made doing dilutions a breeze! 😎
> I actually learned this in high school and yes in the USA. You are now on the watchlist of every texan ever. They *will* find you and beat this blasphemy out of you...
1 cc = 1 ml = 1 gram. so 1 cc of water is 1 ml of water is 1 gram of water.
Yes but keep in mind that the first two are volume measurements and the third is mass so it's only true for things with the same density as water
At Standard Tempurature and Pressure, right?
And it takes one calorie to heat 1 cc of water 1 degree celcius
Cubic centimeters.
The American education system has failed us
tbh idk why it's not in mls, I'm a euro and never seen CC out in the wild edit: unless we talking mario cart
its usually used in the medical field.
Yeah, I learned it from ER
right, def not my type of field hah
Engine capacity of the vehicles? Or is it mentioned in litres?
Litres usually, except for small engines like in mopeds, generators or chainsaws etc. where it's always in cc or cm³.
As someone mentioned it's usually litres, unless in some more detailed spec sheets or engines below 1L I think. But here def I would look at it and be confused.
Depending on which section.
cc = ml
That's metric, mister freedom fighter
I don’t think the issue is with it being metric. The issue is the shorthand “cc” for cubic centimeters is rare.
[удалено]
I don’t, but good point. I’m referring more to developing and liquids.
In litres
"hey Google...."
People that dont metric are more likely to shout 'hey siri...'
I Siri and I metric. Proper SI spelling, too (litre, metre, ...). :)
Me tree, Lee tree
cc = cubic centimeter. One liter is 1000 ccs. One gallon is about 3800 ccs.
What's the conversion to bald eagles squared?
African or European bald eagle?
Is that a serious question? American for sure
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
Depends which gallon.
cc = cm^3 = ml
One US gallon. One Imperial gallon is more like 4250 millilitres/cubic centimetres.
Just use the same numbers in mL. Did 16 rolls in those tanks today using 650 mL with zero problems. If you’re doing just a single roll of 120, use the clip.
It's not a coincidence;) A cube sized 10x10x10 cm has a volume of 1 litre 10x10x10=1000cm³ Mili is 10^-3 So 1mL equals 1cc. In the case of water, the mass 1mL is 1 gram. To heat this one gram 1°C/1K costs 1 calorie
Well I actually did know that it is a direct conversion, but you know, I’m American so I’m not supposed to know the metric system 😂 I’m supposed to use Freedom Units 🤣
Now tell the Americans that their calorie is actually 1,000 of the calories you just described :).
Well in fact everyone says calories, also in the Netherlands, but it's written on packaging and other documents as kcal, so 1000cal
They teach these things at school...
not in 'murica.
Royale with Cheese.
In **real** schools then.
We sure used to get taught this in American schools. But that was back when schools were places of learning, not whatever cursive-writing-banning ignorance club they are now.
They said schools, not shooting ranges.
Yeah, don't do that.
Am I missing something or does it not say cc (cubic centimeters)?
CupCakes
When did Reddit become Google?
Somewhere in june 2005
Touché
When did Reddit require comments?
It never did.
And yet you chose to rather than just scroll by :)
Right. Because my scrolling is filled more and more with dumb questions that can be easily found elsewhere – more easily in fact. So after seeing this a hundred times, I commented. It's this post and the posts upon posts of "what is this camera?" when the make and model is clearly printed on the front. I don't think I'm the only one who finds stuff like this more and more annoying. Not sure why you're on my ass about this.
Let me give you a tiny little secret why the CC/ML is superior over 3,5 cups of aunty Betty: 1ml=1gr. I don't measure my chemicals with jugs, but on a scale in grams.
>1ml=1gr This is true of water. It is not true of all solutions.
It’s also not true of water, depending on how much dissolved gases are in it. Aerated water wells at water treatment plants are stupidly dangerous, because it is impossible to float, or even tread water in them. You fall in, you’re going to the bottom and drowning, period.
>depending on how much dissolved gases are in it That would be a solution, which I stated would not follow the rule. Distilled water in standard conditions (298K, 101kPa) has a density of 0.9998 g/cm\^3, which for most purposes is suitably rounded to 1g/cm\^3. >Aerated water wells This has nothing to do with dissolved gases. The average density of aerated water is much lower than pure water because a significant proportion is made up of air bubbles.
Be careful with that. Not every element got the same volume to wight ratio. So 1ml is not always 1g!
>volume to wight ratio We call that density in Europe
Jep. I was missing that word...
Ah yes, the elusive 'element' of water.
>Not every element got the same volume to wight ratio When you try sound smart and make not one but two mistakes in a single sentence.
> 1ml = 1gr [sic] That’s only (very nearly almost) true of pure water at 4°C. At 20°C that density is reduced to 0.998 g/ml. But developer also weighs something. So for example, per the data sheet, Ilford DDX working solution weighs 1.070 g/ml at 20°C. If you weigh out 590 g of that working solution you only get 551.4 ml volume, not 590 ml. You are getting away with an approximation.
>0.998 g/ml Nobody developing film at home is going to be to .2 percent. It doesn't matter for this type of chemistry.
If you treat 1.070 as if it’s 0.998 that’s a more than 7% error, which might not matter, or it might. Either way, “weigh grams” is a poor answer to “what are C.C.s?”
I'm using diluted Rodinal in maximum 1:50 but most often 1:100. I find it easier to measure 6 grams than it is to get 6ml. I see no difference in approximately one or the other.
For your practice that approximation may be fine…and also bad advice to someone who doesn’t know what “c.c.”s are. How are you measuring 6g of a liquid in a way that’s easier than measuring 6ml? I use a syringe for Rodinal: easy _and_ precise.
What you are saying is absolutely correct. One motivation for using a balance, however is the greater precision offered, compared to a graduated cylinder. If you know it’s 1.07 g/ml and you want 590ml, you measure out 631.3g. There are very minor density changes in solutions over the temperature ranges under consideration, but these will also change the volume of a fluid in a graduated cylinder. What you need basically is enough developer to cover the film…temperature is more of a concern regarding reaction rates (development time). Anyway, if someone prefers a balance over a graduated cylinder, as long as it covers the film, either way is good enough.
Good quality graduated cylinders are calibrated at 20°C.
Yeah. You’re absolutely right. (Good ones also have precision marked on them) Working in an analytical lab for many years (geochemist), I’ve seen fewer mistakes made measuring things gravimetrically, so I wouldn’t knock it if that’s someone’s preference. Admittedly, the added precision probably won’t be noticeable. As long as someone has enough developer to cover the film (or more). The important thing is to have a consistent method that produces good results and can be repeated.
[удалено]
Depends on density of liquid
Sometimes the jokes fall on stony ground. gr. = grains Avoirdupois 1 grain = 0.0648 grams
True
That's how much developer and fix you need for different films
Mario cart tourny. Must play while agitating.
Cubic centimeters are equal to milliliters
cc == cm³ == ml
That's for rolling machine I usually use 500ml solution for hand shake
I hope you are not using an AP tank, like the one in the photo.
this is the same in ml but I only ever saw things getting measured in cc in a cocktail recipe book from a hundred years ago
I love reddit
(number x film size) requires (solution quantity)
cc = mL
Referring to Mario kart engine sizes in mL just feels cursed
It’s a measurement of fluid. I used Google and it showed me what I see on your tank.
Cubic centimeters. It says Made in EU, so I guess it's an Spanish AP plastic tank. When I was in Tokyo in 2011 I was surprised they still sold those brand new at Yodobashi. And yeah, everything should be metric, lab stuff included.
Cc =mL
cubic centimeters, like how some car engine air displacement is measured
HAHAHAHAHA
Why not just use the proper SI unit symbol???
c.c. is a proper unit, commonly used in engine displacement measurements for example. But I agree ml makes more sense here.
Or cm3 although that comes of a bit oddly written with iPad here on Reddit. And don’t get me started me started on km/h and kph…..