 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> 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.
Isn't that what I said? Or are you saying that "cubic inches" is incorrect
and should instead be "cubic inch"?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
>>> 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.
>
> Isn't that what I said? Or are you saying that "cubic inches" is incorrect
> and should instead be "cubic inch"?
No, I just shot first and read later :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Yes, that was what I was taught all those years ago 100 ft^2 = 10000 sq ft.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
>
Remembering that I use imperial measures. One gallon of water was
defined as weighing 10 lb of water at STP (Standard Temperature and
Pressure).
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen schrieb:
>> I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be
>> (mis)interpreted that way.
>>
> Yes, that was what I was taught all those years ago 100 ft^2 = 10000 sq ft.
Makes no sense to me; look:
u = 1 ft
100 u^2 = ?
With the power operation defined as binding stronger by convention,
that's obviously = 100 sq ft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Stephen schrieb:
>
>>> I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be
>>> (mis)interpreted that way.
>>>
>> Yes, that was what I was taught all those years ago 100 ft^2 = 10000
>> sq ft.
>
> Makes no sense to me; look:
>
> u = 1 ft
> 100 u^2 = ?
>
> With the power operation defined as binding stronger by convention,
> that's obviously = 100 sq ft.
very common term the convention was to write 100 sq ft = 10 ft squared
or 10 ft ^2.
Just think that 16 oz = 1 lb but 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces. Unless you
are American then 1 pint = 16 fluid ounces.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
>
> I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be (mis)interpreted
> that way.
In verbal conversation with non-engineers, who knows. In engineering notation,
no. I'm old enough to have had my co-op (intern) experience with a firm that
worked and thought exclusively in Imperial Units (I think back then they were so
arrogant as to call them Engineering Units). I was schooled exclusively in SI in
college. I think once I was asked to perform an engineering calculation, and
made a mistake when I insisted on converting to SI first and then back to
British. That one group didn't ask me again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
In a similar question, where you are, is "ten square meters" the same as
"ten meters square"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> > something like that?
> In a similar question, where you are, is "ten square meters" the same as
> "ten meters square"?
Never heard of anyone using "ten meters square". Doesn't even make much
sense.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
>>> something like that?
>
>> In a similar question, where you are, is "ten square meters" the same as
>> "ten meters square"?
>
> Never heard of anyone using "ten meters square". Doesn't even make much
> sense.
>
Sure it does. Ten square metres is an area of two metres by five metres,
an area ten metres square is ten by ten = 100 m^2
John
--
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum, || || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito || || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
