RE: Re[2]: Your expert perspective...

[John Harvey <harveyj@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>]

Litres per 100 km is not equivalent to expressing the "mileage" in square 
metres since the litre is not interchangeable with metre; one is a volume 
of length and the other relates to the volume occupied by one kilo of 
water. It's the old freshman puzzler - one cc is not one ml.

=======================================================================
John Harvey                            | McMaster University
Senior Health Physicist                | NRB-110
(905) 525-9140 ext 24226               | 1280 Main St. W.
harveyj@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca         | Hamilton, Ont Canada L8S 4K1

On Mon, 2 Oct 1995 jdelahunt@cc.colorado.edu wrote:

> >>> >Well, "mileage" based on kilometers per gallon looks a lot better than 
> >>> >"mileage" expressed as kilometers per liter.  :-)
> >>>  
> >>> Actually, in the SI world, fuel economy is most commonly expressed in litres 
> >>> per hundred kilometres.
> >>     
> >>Hmmm - I would have guessed that in the SI world, the units would be 
> >>steres per meter, not a collection of derived units. :-)
> >     
> >     So, when one cancels the units, i.e. steres (cubic meters) per meter, 
> >     the resulting measurement of gas mileage, in fundamental SI units, 
> >     would be expressed in units of square meters?!?  Now I see why the SI 
> >     system is so much better and simpler - NOT! Gee, I can't see why 
> >     anyone would resist switching to SI now.
> 
> I still think furlongs per hogshead is valid.
> 
> John
> 
> ObWonderment:  How far off-topic is Off-Topic for radsafe?
> 
>       **********************************************************
>       *John DeLaHunt, EH&S          *1125 Glen Avenue          *
>       *The Colorado College         *Colorado Springs, CO 80905*
>       *jdelahunt@cc.colorado.edu    * VOX:  (719)389-6678      *
>       *                             * FAX:  (719)635-3177      *
>       *************this message is hereby disclaimed************
>