2001-09-09
Yep, I'm way off.
1 acre would be 0.4 ha (200 m x 20 m), thus 2000 acres is 800 ha. 800 ha
would be 8 km�, or 8 km x 1 km as you note, which would be 10 times longer
than a football field and about 160 times wider.
I missed the 10 000 factor. Sorry!
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis JOURDAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 2001-09-09 14:57
Subject: [USMA:15162] Re: Fwd: Innumerate Journalists
> At 12:58 -0400 9/09/2001, kilopascal wrote:
> >I do agree with his assessment of using thousands of acres to describe
areas
> >of land. In his example, 2000 acres is made to sound big, but, when
> >converted to sensible metric units, it sounds very small. 2000 acres is
800
> >ha, which is 100 m x 8 m, which is about 6 times narrower then a football
> >field.
>
> Hmmm ?
>
> 800 ha = 800 x 100 x 100 m = 8 km x 1 km.
>
> I know that everything is bigger in the US, but your football players
> should be real sportsmen !
>
> May be you know that the French decree of 1 Aug. 1793 defined the are
> as a square of 100 by 100 m. We can derive derive that an hectare
> (1793) was a square of 1 km by 1 km. 800 ha would mean a field of
> some 9 by 9 km !
>
> The are = a square of 10 x 10 m was introduced by the decree of 7 April
1795.
>
> Louis
>
