MPG vs L/100k - Page 6

strangy · #51 (**permalink**) 23rd January 2008, 02:18 PM

A quick look at Shorty943's profile. I think I get what burns 96 t a day.

p38arover · #52 (**permalink**) 23rd January 2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by numpty

Funnily enough, decimal currency (metric) was introduced (1966) when I was still at school, whereas measurement ie mm's, klm's etc, didn't change until 1976, and I had finished my trade 6 years previously, and had to get used to a new form of measure. Not easy to do when you're indoctrinated with something else.

I did my trade 1965-1967. We initially used the cgs system for everything, not Imperial (a bit of a nuisance as I'd learned the MKS system in high school in Qld). However, we soon changed to MKS - about halfway through the first year.

But as my trade is electronics, MKS is appropriate.

In my job in Telstra I used km, nautical miles, nautical miles (Admiralty), and telegraph miles.

p38arover · #53 (**permalink**) 23rd January 2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bushie

The real problem lies with the 'imperial' system.

Mile - Nautical or Statute
Furlong/Chain/Yard/Foot

But then of course there was the imperial 'metric' measurements in land surveying where a chain was 100 links.

Not to mention acres, rods, roods and perches never did get the hang of them.

Apropos your comments, I came across these relationships which are remarkable, really:

See Earth,Pi,Miles and Barleycorns

I particularly like:

Quote:

Taking the satellite figure means that our current mile is too long by 2.155 inches - the thickness of two thumbs. Which works out at less than the radius of the earth over a distance from here to the Sun. This minute discrepancy of a couple of inches can hardly be measured on a one to one map ( if we had one!), and means that our mile has been an accurate geodesic measure since goodness knows when.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode