I knew the 1st part L/100 km. The cross-section part is an interesting concept. Thank you.
John Altounji One size does not fit all. Social promotion ruined Education. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Vlietstra Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:18 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: 'Greg Whatley'; 'Mike Giron' Subject: [USMA:54339] RE: [USMA:54298] Re: FW: [USMA:54286] Re: [USMA:54283] RE: He won’t touch issue with 3.048-meter pole It should be remembered that fuel consumption in customary/imperial units is inversely proportional to fuel consumption in metric units. Thus mpg * L/100 km = 235 (US gallons) or 282 (Imperial gallons). Yesterday tomatoes in a UK shop were £2/kg (ie cost per unit benefit). If we express fuel cost in litres of fuel (rather than in terms of money) and unit benefit in terms of a standard unit of distance travelled, then using L/100 km makes sense. If we convert L/100 km into base units we will end up with an area (1 L/100 km = 0.01 mm^2). If you visualise the fuel that you are consuming as being stored in a pipe along the road and as your car travels along the road it draws fuel from that pipe, the area described above represents the internal area of cross-section of the pipe that will be feeding your vehicle. From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 12 August 2014 04:02 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: Greg Whatley; Mike Giron Subject: [USMA:54298] Re: FW: [USMA:54286] Re: [USMA:54283] RE: He won’t touch issue with 3.048-meter pole I just thought of a word we could stop using: mileage. I catch myself saying that sometimes, then I realize I could be saying fuel effeciency instead of mileage. Our little 2003 Hyndai uses about 7 liters per 100 km for little trips around Salem, but today when I fill up the petrol tank, I notice it is only 5 L/100 km probably because my son Sam is commuting to Woodburn for his new job and freeway travel typically results in better fuel effeciency. How many L/100 km does your vehicle burn? Some of you may not need a conversion formula, but here it is just in case: 235.2/mpg = L/100 km. ----- Message from John Altounji <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > --------- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:11:23 -0700 From: John Altounji <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:54294] FW: [USMA:54286] Re: [USMA:54283] RE: He won’t touch issue with 3.048-meter pole To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Bottom line I agree with John F-L John Altounji One size does not fit all. Social promotion ruined Education. From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 11:18 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:54286] Re: [USMA:54283] RE: He won’t touch issue with 3.048-meter pole I would suggest do not replace these colloquialisms – both of these (and others, like yardstick) now have meanings that bear little relationship to their original measurement purpose, but instead have much wider connotations that are used around the English speaking world (and other countries where English is understood to some degree). John F-L From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 12:21 AM To: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:54283] RE: He won’t touch issue with 3.048-meter pole Al Lawrence. In my opinion, your evaluation is accurate (and also unfortunate). I wonder about common expressions like footage and milestone. What words could we use in lieu of such words? Any ideas? ----- Message from Al Lawrence <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > --------- Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:44:43 -0700 From: Al Lawrence <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:54282] RE: He won’t touch issue with 3.048-meter pole To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> I think this sums up the attitude of most Americans perfectly. They know a lot of things in the US are already metric, they think going to metric seems like a good idea and that maybe someone should finally make a decision, but in the end, they just don't want to bother. Al Lawrence > Subject: [USMA:54281] He won’t touch issue with 3.048-meter pole > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:23:45 -0500 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/lifestyle/20140809/he-wont-touch-issue-with-3048-meter-pole > > > Sent from my iPhone > ----- End message from Al Lawrence <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2014.0.4744 / Virus Database: 4007/8012 - Release Date: 08/10/14 ----- End message from John Altounji <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > -----
