At 10 November 2002, 11:45 AM, kilopascal wrote: >But, why are the hidden FFU >sizes the supposed economical ones? If one is going to downsize, then why >chose 1.89 L over say 1.9 L? Why is 454 g preferred over 450 g, etc.? How >exactly are these irrational metric sizes more economical then rational or >semi-rational metric ones?
Don't think its a question is one of package size, but rounding procedure! What possible advantage is there in stating contents as 1.89 L, as opposed to 1.9 L? Or 454 g as opposed to 450 g? Such small differences are probably beyond the accuracy of most fill macines anyway. I would think a 2 sig-fig limit would be good practice in FPLA rounding requirements. Nat
