In either event, one does not need some obscure conversion factor to get to the other representation. BTW, 600 kg/m^2 sounds like an awful lot of whatever. Duncan -----Original Message----- From: kilopascal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: September 9, 2001 15:08 Subject: [USMA:15164] Re: Barley Yields >2001-09-09 > >I see your point and I agree. The tonne per hectare thing must be an >attempt to use units that make things sound bigger. 6000 t/ha sounds like >more compared to 600 kg/m�. Not much more, but to some maybe enough more. > >John > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Gene Mechtly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, 2001-09-09 14:42 >Subject: Barley Yields > > >> On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, kilopascal wrote: >> > ... >> > What is so hard about replacing the term "metric ton" with "tonne"? >> >> John, >> >> A better solution is to replace t with kg as in kg/m^2 rather than t/ha >> for barley yields. >> >> Which is easier for you to visualize kg/m^2 or t/ha? >> >> I prefer to avoid both the tonne and the hectare. >> >> Gene. >> >
