 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
