[USMA:40317] J vs. W

[Stan Jakuba]

You mean total joules vs. average watts. Over the years, I found it easier to compare numbers using average power, rather than energy, as the latter is often expressed per day, per year, etc.

Stan J.


To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: 08 Jan 29, Tuesday 22:47
Subject: [USMA:40307] Re: L/km vs. km/L

Attached you may want to read the letter I sent to Scientific American, one of many such letters concerning renewables. The last paragraph says to use SI units, and I should have also suggest the use of average power instead of kWh, Btu, joules, etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ziser, Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I would love to agree with you. But unfortunately, I started the argument for a reason: I wanted to know whether to get km/L or L/100 km bumper stickers. I think I've made a decision after all

this, though for obvious reasons I don't want to say it. :)


electricity use in a given calendar year.  (kidding, kidding!!)

--- Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Now let's discuss the question of "total Joules" versus "average Watts" when talking about US

I find this bickering over the relative merits of measuring how a car
uses gasoline (L/km vs. km/L), is counterproductive, irrespective of
whether 100 L is used instead of 1 L.

BOTH are correct.
  Both are useful,
EACH one being more useful than the other in certain considerations
while
the other may be more useful in different situations.

All your arguments that "this one is better than that one" or vice-
versa boil down to nothing more than;
    "The one I am familiar with is the best."
That statement should be expanded by saying,
    "The one I am familiar with is the best ONLY BECAUSE I AM FAMILIAR
WITH IT."

The reason I find this kind of argument so disturbing is that it is
the same argument that metric opponents use to argue for keeping their
old non-metric units. They are "familiar" so people see them as being
"better" (even when they are not).

If we fail to see these two situation as being the same thing, then we
can never understand the rational of metric opponents. And if we can't
do that, we will never find ways to convince them that metric is better.

Let's turn our energies into finding ways to persuade people that
familiar things are NOT better just because they are familiar, and to
consider the advantages of using metric instead of the "familiar" old
non-metric units.

Let's stop getting bogged down arguing whether L/km is better than km/
L. The arguments I have seen or no better than the argument that "feet
are better than metres because feet are more familiar".


Bill Hooper
1810 mm tall
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA

==========================
    SImplification Begins With SI.
==========================

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

GE Port'l SciAm.doc
Description: MS-Word document