[USMA:50914] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders
Even dictatorships have problems and as long as they give the ordinary people bread and circuses, they remain in power. When South Africa adopted a decimal currency in 1961, they went to great lengths to ensure that there was no profiteering. As a result, decimalisation was accepted by the population as a non-political reform, likewise with metrication a decade later. The rationale behind the adoption of metrication in Burma is an opening up of trade - I am sure that the junta has realized that all their neighbours have prospered and that if they wish to prosper, then they too need to open their borders. Like South Africa, the junta need some sort of PR to promote changes which means clamping down on profiteers. _ From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Carleton MacDonald Sent: 24 July 2011 21:38 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50909] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders I thought Burma was a dictatorship, and assumed that the military junta could just dictate what they wanted. Carleton From: Kilopascal [mailto:kilopas...@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:51 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders Burma moves to adopt the kilogram as the basic unit for commodities trade. http://www.mmtimes.com/2011/business/584/biz58401.html Ditch the viss, govt urges traders By Ko Ko Gyi July 18 - 24, 2011 THE basket, viss, tin and tical would largely disappear from Myanmar if the Ministry of Commerce gets its way. At a meeting on the development of wholesale centres held in Magwe last month, participants agreed in principle to the government's proposal to adopt the kilogram as the basic unit for commodities trade in all townships. If implemented, the kilogram would replace traditional, non-metric measurements that are used widely in domestic trade. The government is pushing the change to make foreign trade, which is conducted exclusively in metric measurements, simpler and bring the country into line with its trade partners. U Kyaw Htoo from the Ministry of Commerce told traders at the June 24 meeting they should discuss the proposal with all implementing partners in their townships and then present their views at the next meeting, to be held in Muse, Shan State, in late August or early September. Despite agreeing to consider the proposal, traders who participated in the meeting told The Myanmar Times afterwards they thought there was little chance of it being implemented in the near future. One 30-year-old commodities trader from Magwe said there would be many obstacles and anticipated strong resistance from farmers. It needs to be negotiated with farmers and will definitely take some time to implement. If there are many objections, how can it be introduced quickly? If many are willing to support it though, it could be possible, he said. A beans and pulses trader from Magwe with more than 40 years experience in the industry agreed producers were unlikely to accept the shift to the metric system. In the past we couldn't even shift from using the basket to the viss. Even today sesame is purchased [from farmers] in Magwe using the basket. When selling sesame we do so using the viss. Rural people only know the basket and don't really accept any other measure. If we try to use a measure they are not familiar with they think they are being cheated, he said. If this shift is put into practice right now we would have to use two different measures: [basket] when and [kilogram] when selling. That's the only way we could do it without disrupting trade. However, traders could also prove an obstacle to the changeover. Most use a scale called a kattar to weigh commodities and would be loathe to replace all their equipment, said U Kyaw Myint from business information provider E-Trade Myanmar. A large amount of money would have to be poured into manufacturing new weighing machines. For the country as a whole, the cost would be very high, U Kyaw Myint said. Exporters already use the metric system. But those who do business locally just use the prevailing means of measure because it is more convenient. Dr Khin Mar Zaw from the Department of Vocational Training, under the Ministry of Industry 2, said the shift to metric system had been completed in more than 100 countries after the imposition of a law. She noted that, in some cases, original measuring units continued to be used for some time - even indefinitely - after the metric system had been introduced. She said the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation had assisted Cambodia and Laos with metrication under a Mekong Region project but was not sure if Myanmar would be eligible for assistance. Experts from New Zealand had assisted Myanmar in adapting the metrication laws used in these two countries to Myanmar's conditions and a draft measuring technology law had been submitted to the Ministry of Science and
[USMA:50915] Metrication of air travel
Dear USMA, I wrote to our civil aviation safety authority as follows: I note that the safety rules are drawn up in feet while all Australian maps are now in metres. This is obviously a safety issue because the training manual for hot air ballooning warns, Watch out – aviation charts and your altimeter are calibrated in feet, but topographical maps usually show contours and spot heights in metres! ABF Pilot Training Manual, Part 8, Navigation, Version 1 - May 2006 Could CASA push for the metrication of all the measures? I am sure that it would be safer for all if all the measures were metric. Yours sincerely, Michael Glass This is their reply: Dear Mr Glass On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your email. The common international standard for altitude measurement in aviation is feet and this is why Australian aeronautical charts use feet as the measurement of altitude. Where topographical maps are used in aviation activities that you must be careful to remember they are showing altitude in metres and to take care when converting data. There is no current plan to change the aviation measurement of altitude from feet to metres and it is likely Australia would only move in this direction if there was an international change. Regards Peter Gibson Manager Corporate Communications Civil Aviation Safety Authority 0419 296 446 Over to you, USMA. How about pushing for a change with your civil aviation authorities? Best wishes, Michael Glass
[USMA:50916] Re: Metrication of air travel
I believe the foot for aviation was pushed on the world after the World War 2. But now that everyone but the US and partially the UK has converted to metres it would be great if the Europeans pushed for meters in Europe, just the Reduced vertical separation at altitude it would in 10-20 years force everyone else along. With the introduction of glass cockpits, you can have the altitude display in metres with the push of a button. Good luck on changing the US though, they face strong opposition to even giving the altimeter setting in hPa, leading to the use of inHg on the ground and hPa for pressure levels once airborne. Regards, Mike Payne On 25/07/2011, at 08:43 , Michael GLASS wrote: Dear USMA, I wrote to our civil aviation safety authority as follows: I note that the safety rules are drawn up in feet while all Australian maps are now in metres. This is obviously a safety issue because the training manual for hot air ballooning warns, Watch out – aviation charts and your altimeter are calibrated in feet, but topographical maps usually show contours and spot heights in metres! ABF Pilot Training Manual, Part 8, Navigation, Version 1 - May 2006 Could CASA push for the metrication of all the measures? I am sure that it would be safer for all if all the measures were metric. Yours sincerely, Michael Glass This is their reply: Dear Mr Glass On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your email. The common international standard for altitude measurement in aviation is feet and this is why Australian aeronautical charts use feet as the measurement of altitude. Where topographical maps are used in aviation activities that you must be careful to remember they are showing altitude in metres and to take care when converting data. There is no current plan to change the aviation measurement of altitude from feet to metres and it is likely Australia would only move in this direction if there was an international change. Regards Peter Gibson Manager Corporate Communications Civil Aviation Safety Authority 0419 296 446 Over to you, USMA. How about pushing for a change with your civil aviation authorities? Best wishes, Michael Glass
[USMA:50917] Re: Metrication of air travel
For many years, the USA had by far the largest air travel market in the world, and so could call all the shots. That is no longer true. The rest of the world could bring together the following factors, if it so chose, to effect a change in the not too distant future: 1. The air travel market outside the US today easily eclipses that of the US, and is still expanding, whereas the USA is a relatively mature market, with little further expansion possible (and maybe even is contracting). 2. The old USSR (and maybe the CIS today?) used metres for altitude and km for horizontal separation and speeds, which must have given pilots of western aircraft something to think about when flying into Moscow, so there is some experience there in using metric units in the aviation business. 3. As Michael Payne said, modern aircraft (and outside of the US that is most of the world's aircraft, made in the last 30 years) have electronic displays which are (or easily could be) switched to metric units. 4. When I lived in Canada, I once on a transcontinental flight sat next to an air traffic controller, who said there were plans, of which Canada was a lead nation, to convert to metric units. That was 25 years ago. But it shows there was a will even back then. So why don't the metric nations of the world unite and force the change? Technically it is quite easy. The USA would find it most difficult, as many US airlines have quite elderly fleets - but that is changing, Delta have announced a fleet renewal program, and American have just ordered 350 aircraft (100 737s and 250 A320s). There is also the military to think about - I remember reading around 20 years ago after the break-up of the USSR that many Soviet military aircraft in the satellite nations were being co-opted into NATO fleets - and having to have all their instrumentation converted to imperial units, which was retrograde step if ever there was one. As the military around the world uses metric units everywhere else, surely there would be an incentive here. Perhaps there is not the will today to change around the world, even in otherwise totally metric countries? There would be a cost of course, but surely there would be a benefit. Michael Payne mentioned the possibility of reduced altitude separations. They used to be 2000 feet, and at one time I thought it would be good to be able to reduce them to 500 m. But I believe they have recently been reduced to 1000 feet, so that argument unfortunately falls away. But personnel in metric countries would surely not have to learn an alien measuring system, so there would be a benefit there. It is a big thing to change, but there is surely today enough power and influence outside of the USA to make the change happen. John F-L - Original Message - From: Michael GLASS m.gl...@optusnet.com.au To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:43 PM Subject: [USMA:50915] Metrication of air travel Dear USMA, I wrote to our civil aviation safety authority as follows: I note that the safety rules are drawn up in feet while all Australian maps are now in metres. This is obviously a safety issue because the training manual for hot air ballooning warns, Watch out – aviation charts and your altimeter are calibrated in feet, but topographical maps usually show contours and spot heights in metres! ABF Pilot Training Manual, Part 8, Navigation, Version 1 - May 2006 Could CASA push for the metrication of all the measures? I am sure that it would be safer for all if all the measures were metric. Yours sincerely, Michael Glass This is their reply: Dear Mr Glass On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your email. The common international standard for altitude measurement in aviation is feet and this is why Australian aeronautical charts use feet as the measurement of altitude. Where topographical maps are used in aviation activities that you must be careful to remember they are showing altitude in metres and to take care when converting data. There is no current plan to change the aviation measurement of altitude from feet to metres and it is likely Australia would only move in this direction if there was an international change. Regards Peter Gibson Manager Corporate Communications Civil Aviation Safety Authority 0419 296 446 Over to you, USMA. How about pushing for a change with your civil aviation authorities? Best wishes, Michael Glass
[USMA:50918] Re: Metrication of air travel
Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and the CIS states currently have metric-airspace. All the satellite nations that wanted to lean European switched to feet. Separations are 1000' or 300 m (in opposite directions) The airliners that fly those routes have glass cockpits. Their biggest complaint is the climb or descent between imperial and metric flight levels; also between Russia and China, there are different metric flight level assignment schemes requiring another climb or descent. I think (but don't know for sure) that there are huge issues in the air traffic control system, which are bigger than the issues in planes. However, if there is going to be a conversion, in should be a ring-like expansion of the existing metric airspace, starting with surrounding Eastern European and Asian countries and gradually expanding. From: John Frewen-Lord j...@frewston.plus.com To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 12:47:55 PM Subject: [USMA:50917] Re: Metrication of air travel For many years, the USA had by far the largest air travel market in the world, and so could call all the shots. That is no longer true. The rest of the world could bring together the following factors, if it so chose, to effect a change in the not too distant future: 1. The air travel market outside the US today easily eclipses that of the US, and is still expanding, whereas the USA is a relatively mature market, with little further expansion possible (and maybe even is contracting). 2. The old USSR (and maybe the CIS today?) used metres for altitude and km for horizontal separation and speeds, which must have given pilots of western aircraft something to think about when flying into Moscow, so there is some experience there in using metric units in the aviation business. 3. As Michael Payne said, modern aircraft (and outside of the US that is most of the world's aircraft, made in the last 30 years) have electronic displays which are (or easily could be) switched to metric units. 4. When I lived in Canada, I once on a transcontinental flight sat next to an air traffic controller, who said there were plans, of which Canada was a lead nation, to convert to metric units. That was 25 years ago. But it shows there was a will even back then. So why don't the metric nations of the world unite and force the change? Technically it is quite easy. The USA would find it most difficult, as many US airlines have quite elderly fleets - but that is changing, Delta have announced a fleet renewal program, and American have just ordered 350 aircraft (100 737s and 250 A320s). There is also the military to think about - I remember reading around 20 years ago after the break-up of the USSR that many Soviet military aircraft in the satellite nations were being co-opted into NATO fleets - and having to have all their instrumentation converted to imperial units, which was retrograde step if ever there was one. As the military around the world uses metric units everywhere else, surely there would be an incentive here. Perhaps there is not the will today to change around the world, even in otherwise totally metric countries? There would be a cost of course, but surely there would be a benefit. Michael Payne mentioned the possibility of reduced altitude separations. They used to be 2000 feet, and at one time I thought it would be good to be able to reduce them to 500 m. But I believe they have recently been reduced to 1000 feet, so that argument unfortunately falls away. But personnel in metric countries would surely not have to learn an alien measuring system, so there would be a benefit there. It is a big thing to change, but there is surely today enough power and influence outside of the USA to make the change happen. John F-L - Original Message - From: Michael GLASS m.gl...@optusnet.com.au To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:43 PM Subject: [USMA:50915] Metrication of air travel Dear USMA, I wrote to our civil aviation safety authority as follows: I note that the safety rules are drawn up in feet while all Australian maps are now in metres. This is obviously a safety issue because the training manual for hot air ballooning warns, Watch out – aviation charts and your altimeter are calibrated in feet, but topographical maps usually show contours and spot heights in metres! ABF Pilot Training Manual, Part 8, Navigation, Version 1 - May 2006 Could CASA push for the metrication of all the measures? I am sure that it would be safer for all if all the measures were metric. Yours sincerely, Michael Glass This is their reply: Dear Mr Glass On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your email. The common international standard for altitude measurement in aviation is feet and this is why Australian aeronautical charts use feet as the
[USMA:50919] Re: Metrication of air travel
Whatever the merits of a change, one needs to think of the logistics of implementing the change, particularly in Western Europe where the skies are very crowded. It would have to be a big-bang change with a period of total air closure for safety reasons. -Original Message- From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of John Frewen-Lord Sent: 25 July 2011 17:48 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50917] Re: Metrication of air travel For many years, the USA had by far the largest air travel market in the world, and so could call all the shots. That is no longer true. The rest of the world could bring together the following factors, if it so chose, to effect a change in the not too distant future: 1. The air travel market outside the US today easily eclipses that of the US, and is still expanding, whereas the USA is a relatively mature market, with little further expansion possible (and maybe even is contracting). 2. The old USSR (and maybe the CIS today?) used metres for altitude and km for horizontal separation and speeds, which must have given pilots of western aircraft something to think about when flying into Moscow, so there is some experience there in using metric units in the aviation business. 3. As Michael Payne said, modern aircraft (and outside of the US that is most of the world's aircraft, made in the last 30 years) have electronic displays which are (or easily could be) switched to metric units. 4. When I lived in Canada, I once on a transcontinental flight sat next to an air traffic controller, who said there were plans, of which Canada was a lead nation, to convert to metric units. That was 25 years ago. But it shows there was a will even back then. So why don't the metric nations of the world unite and force the change? Technically it is quite easy. The USA would find it most difficult, as many US airlines have quite elderly fleets - but that is changing, Delta have announced a fleet renewal program, and American have just ordered 350 aircraft (100 737s and 250 A320s). There is also the military to think about - I remember reading around 20 years ago after the break-up of the USSR that many Soviet military aircraft in the satellite nations were being co-opted into NATO fleets - and having to have all their instrumentation converted to imperial units, which was retrograde step if ever there was one. As the military around the world uses metric units everywhere else, surely there would be an incentive here. Perhaps there is not the will today to change around the world, even in otherwise totally metric countries? There would be a cost of course, but surely there would be a benefit. Michael Payne mentioned the possibility of reduced altitude separations. They used to be 2000 feet, and at one time I thought it would be good to be able to reduce them to 500 m. But I believe they have recently been reduced to 1000 feet, so that argument unfortunately falls away. But personnel in metric countries would surely not have to learn an alien measuring system, so there would be a benefit there. It is a big thing to change, but there is surely today enough power and influence outside of the USA to make the change happen. John F-L - Original Message - From: Michael GLASS m.gl...@optusnet.com.au To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:43 PM Subject: [USMA:50915] Metrication of air travel Dear USMA, I wrote to our civil aviation safety authority as follows: I note that the safety rules are drawn up in feet while all Australian maps are now in metres. This is obviously a safety issue because the training manual for hot air ballooning warns, Watch out – aviation charts and your altimeter are calibrated in feet, but topographical maps usually show contours and spot heights in metres! ABF Pilot Training Manual, Part 8, Navigation, Version 1 - May 2006 Could CASA push for the metrication of all the measures? I am sure that it would be safer for all if all the measures were metric. Yours sincerely, Michael Glass This is their reply: Dear Mr Glass On behalf of the Director of Aviation Safety, thank you for your email. The common international standard for altitude measurement in aviation is feet and this is why Australian aeronautical charts use feet as the measurement of altitude. Where topographical maps are used in aviation activities that you must be careful to remember they are showing altitude in metres and to take care when converting data. There is no current plan to change the aviation measurement of altitude from feet to metres and it is likely Australia would only move in this direction if there was an international change. Regards Peter Gibson Manager Corporate Communications Civil Aviation Safety Authority 0419 296 446 Over to you, USMA. How about pushing for a change with your civil aviation authorities?
[USMA:50920] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders
I wonder how USMA could assist Burma in their metrication efforts? -- Ezra - Original Message - From: Martin Vlietstra vliets...@btinternet.com To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:10:57 PM Subject: [USMA:50914] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders Even dictatorships have problems and as long as they give the ordinary people “bread and circuses”, they remain in power. When South Africa adopted a decimal currency in 1961, they went to great lengths to ensure that there was no profiteering. As a result, decimalisation was accepted by the population as a “non-political” reform, likewise with metrication a decade later. The rationale behind the adoption of metrication in Burma is an opening up of trade – I am sure that the junta has realized that all their neighbours have prospered and that if they wish to prosper, then they too need to open their borders. Like South Africa, the junta need some sort of PR to promote changes which means clamping down on profiteers. From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Carleton MacDonald Sent: 24 July 2011 21:38 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50909] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders I thought Burma was a dictatorship, and assumed that the military junta could just dictate what they wanted. Carleton
[USMA:50921] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders
From the State Dept.'s Burma page, I would guess we have a pretty strained relationship with Burma (scroll down to US sanctions). http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1077.html I doubt we can help or that our help would be welcome. While the US does not forbid Americans to travel there, I can read between the lines, and I will pass. From: ezra.steinb...@comcast.net ezra.steinb...@comcast.net To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 5:57:15 PM Subject: [USMA:50920] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders I wonder how USMA could assist Burma in their metrication efforts? -- Ezra From: Martin Vlietstra vliets...@btinternet.com To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:10:57 PM Subject: [USMA:50914] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders Even dictatorships have problems and as long as they give the ordinary people “bread and circuses”, they remain in power. When South Africa adopted a decimal currency in 1961, they went to great lengths to ensure that there was no profiteering. As a result, decimalisation was accepted by the population as a “non-political” reform, likewise with metrication a decade later. The rationale behind the adoption of metrication in Burma is an opening up of trade – I am sure that the junta has realized that all their neighbours have prospered and that if they wish to prosper, then they too need to open their borders. Like South Africa, the junta need some sort of PR to promote changes which means clamping down on profiteers. From:owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Carleton MacDonald Sent: 24 July 2011 21:38 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50909] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders I thought Burma was a dictatorship, and assumed that the military junta could just dictate what they wanted. Carleton
[USMA:50922] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders
...by working to achieve U.S. metrication first! Any prevalence of pre-metric units in the world has to be related to our continued use of them. Paul Trusten Midland, Texas United States +1(432)528-7724 trus...@grandecom.net On Jul 25, 2011, at 16:57, ezra.steinb...@comcast.net wrote: I wonder how USMA could assist Burma in their metrication efforts? -- Ezra From: Martin Vlietstra vliets...@btinternet.com To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:10:57 PM Subject: [USMA:50914] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders Even dictatorships have problems and as long as they give the ordinary people “bread and circuses”, they remain in power. When South Africa adopted a decimal currency in 1961, they went to great lengths to ensure that there was no profiteering. As a result, decimalisation was accepted by the population as a “non-political” reform, likewise with metrication a decade later. The rationale behind the adoption of metrication in Burma is an opening up of trade – I am sure that the junta has realized that all their neighbours have prospered and that if they wish to prosper, then they too need to open their borders. Like South Africa, the junta need some sort of PR to promote changes which means clamping down on profiteers. From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Carleton MacDonald Sent: 24 July 2011 21:38 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50909] RE: Ditch the viss, govt urges traders I thought Burma was a dictatorship, and assumed that the military junta could just dictate what they wanted. Carleton
[USMA:50923] Re: MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent?
At the very bottom, please double-check your joule example. Taking a cup of coffee as about 150 mL or 150 g, and specific heat of water as 4.2 J/(g·K), I get around 630 J, not 1 J, from 1 K of cooling. (that's using the coffee institute's official coffee cup, mine is about 400 mL). NOTE: A 238 mL cup would make a kilojoule, but that would mess up the apple example of mechanical work. From: Stanislav Jakuba jakub...@gmail.com To: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net Cc: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 7:54:15 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:50797] Re: MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent? Perhaps it will help newcomers to read the attached article published some 20 years ago and appearing on this forum periodically. Stan J. On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:12 PM, John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Kilojoules are the appropriate unit for individual food items. A total human dietary requirement per day is around 10 000 kJ, which may be better expressed as 10 MJ. More relevant to a car is comparison to a horse pulling a carriage. A working horse can only work part of day, and may have a daily requirement of 138 MJ (33000 kcal, per Google) and travel 30 km, thus requiring 4.6 MJ/km or 4600 kJ/km. A larger carriage might require a team of 2 or 4 horses having such a requirement. --- On Tue, 6/28/11, Pat Naughtin pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com wrote: From: Pat Naughtin pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com Subject: [USMA:50775] Re: MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent? To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Cc: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 9:11 PM On 2011/06/26, at 22:36 , John M. Steele wrote: However, the numbers are getting small, and the 100 factor departs from the usual steps of 1000-fold in units. I believe it would be better to multiply by 10 and use megajoules per 1000 kilometers (which could be expressed as a megameter). Alternatively the megas could divide out leaving joules per meter, certainly better in computation, but another representation might be more relatable to the public, and easier to tie to meaningful driving distances and volumes or masses of fuel. I would note that 1000 km is a reasonable monthly driving distance for many people, and the cost per 1000 km would be a reasonable budgetary visualization. Dear John, I think that I would prefer kilojoules per kilometre as cars already have the odometer in kilometres. In addition, the kilojoules is gradually becoming used as the correct energy unit for food energy values. Perhaps kilojoule is more common here but it is finally replacing calories. As the joule is the single unit for energy in the International System of Units (SI) it means that the energy used in a car can be compared with all other sources of energy that are reported in joules. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/for more metrication information, contact Pat at pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
[USMA:50924] Re: MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent?
Yes, but 1 Nm (and your small apple example) represent 1 J. Your 240 mL cup of coffee cooling 1 K represents 1 kJ, not 1 J as described. The issue is not really the 150 mL vs 240 mL but the factor of 1000. I am perhaps a little worried that thousands have not noticed the factor of 1000. From: Stanislav Jakuba jakub...@gmail.com To: John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net Cc: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 9:30:46 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:50797] Re: MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent? I am at a loss, John. I do not consider New Englanders, where I live, particlurly thirsty, but local cups are ~1/4 dm3. It may come from our spelling centre, shoppe, theatre, litre, etc. Being deficient, we use a real cup, not that paper contraption. Besides, this article has been read by thousands in the two decades and not one reader considered the cup the way you did. Perhaps the term cup has a new meaning. Thank you, Starbuck. Stan J. On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:18 PM, John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net wrote: At the very bottom, please double-check your joule example. Taking a cup of coffee as about 150 mL or 150 g, and specific heat of water as 4.2 J/(g·K), I get around 630 J, not 1 J, from 1 K of cooling. (that's using the coffee institute's official coffee cup, mine is about 400 mL). NOTE: A 238 mL cup would make a kilojoule, but that would mess up the apple example of mechanical work. From: Stanislav Jakuba jakub...@gmail.com To: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net Cc: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 7:54:15 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:50797] Re: MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent? Perhaps it will help newcomers to read the attached article published some 20 years ago and appearing on this forum periodically. Stan J. On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:12 PM, John M. Steele jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Kilojoules are the appropriate unit for individual food items. A total human dietary requirement per day is around 10 000 kJ, which may be better expressed as 10 MJ. More relevant to a car is comparison to a horse pulling a carriage. A working horse can only work part of day, and may have a daily requirement of 138 MJ (33000 kcal, per Google) and travel 30 km, thus requiring 4.6 MJ/km or 4600 kJ/km. A larger carriage might require a team of 2 or 4 horses having such a requirement. --- On Tue, 6/28/11, Pat Naughtin pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com wrote: From: Pat Naughtin pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com Subject: [USMA:50775] Re: MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent? To: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Cc: U.S. Metric Association usma@colostate.edu Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 9:11 PM On 2011/06/26, at 22:36 , John M. Steele wrote: However, the numbers are getting small, and the 100 factor departs from the usual steps of 1000-fold in units. I believe it would be better to multiply by 10 and use megajoules per 1000 kilometers (which could be expressed as a megameter). Alternatively the megas could divide out leaving joules per meter, certainly better in computation, but another representation might be more relatable to the public, and easier to tie to meaningful driving distances and volumes or masses of fuel. I would note that 1000 km is a reasonable monthly driving distance for many people, and the cost per 1000 km would be a reasonable budgetary visualization. Dear John, I think that I would prefer kilojoules per kilometre as cars already have the odometer in kilometres. In addition, the kilojoules is gradually becoming used as the correct energy unit for food energy values. Perhaps kilojoule is more common here but it is finally replacing calories. As the joule is the single unit for energy in the International System of Units (SI) it means that the energy used in a car can be compared with all other sources of energy that are reported in joules. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/for more metrication
