Hectare is easier to understand if you realize it's just another name for hectometer squared. (Though historically it likely meant "hundred ares" where an are equals 100 m2.)

Jim

STANLEY DOORE wrote:
Now you're talking. The use of km^2 or m^2 would be much more understandable and useful than use hectares
    Stan Doore
    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Jeremiah MacGregor <mailto:[email protected]>
    *To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Sent:* Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:24 PM
    *Subject:* [USMA:42454] Re: An Associated Press article in today's
    Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    Norman,
Who in the US would know what 2500 hectares is? I don't even know
    what 6180 acres is.  I would prefer it if they used square miles or
kilos. Jerry

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *From:* Norman & Nancy Werling <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>
    *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>
    *Sent:* Friday, January 23, 2009 9:50:06 AM
    *Subject:* [USMA:42415] An Associated Press article in today's
    Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    USMA list members,
Spanish energy company Acciona Energia will build a wind farm in
    Mexico which will be the largest in Latin America.
The article was written by Mark Stevenson of Associated Press. It
    states that the wind farm will be 6180 acres.  When converted back
    to hectares that would have been 2500 hectares.  Don't you
    agree that Mark Stevenson was required to convert those 2500
    hectares to 6180 acres by the Associated Press, even had he wanted
    to report using the metric measure?
Norm Werling

--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030

(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108

Reply via email to