I agree. The average person knows what L/100km means and can visualize it. L/Mm, and especially µL/m are strange looking and incomprehensible to most people. One of the main reasons the US has not converted to metric is because so many people think it will be hard and confusing. Things must be kept as simple and as intuitive as possible.
Al Lawrence From: phy...@msn.com To: usma@colostate.edu Subject: [USMA:54662] Re: Adoption of the metric system in medicine Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:10:21 -0700 Absolutely L/km makes sense. Also, it is already in use this way. John Altounji One size does not fit all. Social promotion ruined Education.http://bit.do/tounj From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Payne Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 8:27 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:54661] Re: Adoption of the metric system in medicine The benefit of having litres per hundred kilometres is that people use litres and kilometres. You can also multiply the L/100km by the price of fuel and figure out how much it cost per 100 km or per km. Another benefit with my electric car is that it give me kWh/100km, this allows me to compare the cost of running the electric vehicle compared to the cost of an internal combustion engine. My cost of electricity is about 15 c/kWh including all taxes, etc., therefore at 15,2 kWh per 100 km it cost me about €2,28 per 100 km in electricity, whereas my other vehicle gets about 7 L/100 km at €1,395 per litre, it costs 7 x 1,359 or €9,765 for the same distance! A remarkable difference. Mike Payne On 23 Mar 2015, at 14:14, Pierre Abbat <p...@bezitopo.org> wrote: On Monday, March 16, 2015 07:19:58 Martin Vlietstra wrote: Another strange use of prefixes is motor car fuel consumption, usually written in L/100 km. If this is reduced to base units, one ends up with a value of the order of 0.1 mm^2! I think it should be expressed in L/Mm, or equivalently µL/m. Pierre -- gau do li'i co'e kei do
