Phil, I agree with you on principle. However given the uphill battle to get
people to use *any* metric that is compatable with the proper SI, we should
go ahead and consider km/h a good thing given the alternative (mph).
Linda Bergeron
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:35848] Re: Speed in km/h vs m/s
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:40:11 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from bay0-mc5-f4.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.244.140]) by
bay0-imc1-s30.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 25
Jan 2006 12:44:39 -0800
Received: from eagle.colostate.edu ([129.82.100.90]) by
bay0-mc5-f4.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 25
Jan 2006 12:44:18 -0800
Received: from yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU (yuma.acns.colostate.edu
[129.82.100.64])by eagle.colostate.edu (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0) with ESMTP
id k0PKem4943700;Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:40:48 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])by yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU
(AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0) with SMTP id k0PKeAu124226;Wed, 25 Jan 2006
13:40:10 -0700
Received: from estes.acns.ColoState.EDU (estes.acns.colostate.edu
[129.82.100.46])by yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0) with
ESMTP id k0PKe9e105584for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 25 Jan 2006
13:40:09 -0700
Received: from eagle.colostate.edu (eagle.acns.colostate.edu
[129.82.100.90])by estes.acns.ColoState.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
k0PKe8MA022397for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:40:08
-0700
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de
[212.227.126.177])by eagle.colostate.edu (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0) with ESMTP
id k0PKe04321734for <[email protected]>; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:40:02 -0700
Received: from [82.25.130.7] (helo=TOWER)by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de
(node=mrelayeu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis),id 0MKxQS-1F1rQt1kzD-0000CK; Wed, 25
Jan 2006 21:39:59 +0100
X-Message-Info: KtxBqYfPyq3XnnsfTDczZ+ZOeWsYUWw6ae0klbv18hE=
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
login:f170c1c965378c04b458ed4470f9bf08
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlx=0
adultscore=0 adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=3.1.0-06011904
definitions=3.0.0-06012502
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09/991022/14:20 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2006 20:44:18.0575 (UTC)
FILETIME=[1CCDB9F0:01C621F0]
I think it would be better if weather forecasts wordlwide used m/s
I don't see how km/h or mph convey anything over and above an arbitrary
scale. Units like km/h are really for journey times or comparison with
different modes of transport. So why not get used to the proper SI unit?
Phil Hall
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pierre Abbat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: [USMA:35845] Re: Speed in km/h vs m/s
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 04:44, John Hynes wrote:
In the US, speeds are usually regulated in increments of 5 mph. (I have
seen one or two exceptions.) 1 m/s is about 2.237 mph, so here are some
rounded conversions:
MPH m/s km/h
5 2 8
10 4 16
15 7 24
20 9 32
25 11 40
30 13 48
35 16 56
40 18 64
45 20 72
50 22 80
55 25 89
60 27 97
65 29 105
70 31 113
75 34 121
It is not hard to imagine that if road speeds were to be expressed in m/s,
that a smaller number of 5 m/s increments would be used.
m/s MPH km/h
5 11 18
10 22 36
15 34 54
20 45 72
25 56 90
30 67 108
35 78 126
To keep about the same increment as the 5 mph, it might be a good idea to
use
an increment of 9 km/h, thus making speeds that can be converted exactly to
m/s (the unit to use when thinking about a car accident) without any
trailing
repeating decimals.
phma
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
