 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2"
(m superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters
and "m^3" for cubic meters.
How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
something like that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
Yes.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
> notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2"
> (m superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters
> and "m^3" for cubic meters.
>
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
imperial units are not SI units and therefore wrong anyway, so you can
do with them whatever you like :-P
(*ducks & runs*)
(BTW, those "limitations of ASCII" work pretty neat in T'bird :-))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:46:02 -0500, Warp wrote:
> In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
> notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2" (m
> superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters and
> "m^3" for cubic meters.
>
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
Sure, you can. I find "Square feet" typically is written "sq. ft."
though (or some variation like that)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4af4d15a@news.povray.org...
> In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
> notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2"
> (m superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters
> and "m^3" for cubic meters.
>
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
>
> --
> - Warp
Of course you can
and you can try converting hPa to psi by head with a hangover by a misty
morning in a gas station of Kyle of Lochalsh.
Duh!
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
While we are at this, where does cid come from? Cubic Inch...Dimensions?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen schrieb:
> While we are at this, where does cid come from? Cubic Inch...Dimensions?
'pedia is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CID
For the impatient: It's "... Displacement".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:4af4d15a@news.povray.org...
> In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
> notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2"
> (m superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters
> and "m^3" for cubic meters.
>
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
>
I don't ever recall seeing it written that way, but yes, it's common for
metric units. I often see "sq. ft.", "sqft", and "cu. ft." But I don't
ever remember seeing ft^2 (superscript).
I actually wonder if that would confuse.
e.g.
"The area is about 100 feet square"
"100 square feet?"
"No, that would be 10,000 square feet."
I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be (mis)interpreted
that way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another question:
Is there a reason that 1 gallon is exactly 231 cubic inches? Was a gallon
first defined in terms of cubic inches? (And why such an arbitrary number
as 231?)
Why no such round number with cubic feet? 1 gallon = 0.133680556 cubic feet.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> Another question:
>
> Is there a reason that 1 gallon is exactly 231 cubic inches? Was a gallon
> first defined in terms of cubic inches? (And why such an arbitrary number
> as 231?)
>
> Why no such round number with cubic feet? 1 gallon = 0.133680556 cubic feet.
231 cubic inch, actually.
"The wine gallon, which some sources relate to the volume occupied by
eight medieval merchant pounds of wine, was at one time defined as the
volume of a cylinder six inches deep and seven inches in diameter, i.e.
6 * (3+1/2)2 * pi ~= 230.90706 cu in. It had been redefined during the
reign of Queen Anne, in 1706, as 231 in^3 exactly (3 * 7 * 11 in), which
is the result of the earlier definition with pi approximated to 22/7."
The wine gallon is the one adopted by the U.S. as "the" gallon. Note
that Brits and Canadians went for the "imperial gallon" instead.
(WIYF)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
