MPG vs L/100k

**strangy** · 23rd January 2008, 02:18 PM

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

**p38arover** · 23rd January 2008, 02:30 PM

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** · 23rd January 2008, 02:40 PM

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:

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: MPG vs L/100k

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions