Usually "one order of magnitude more" is about 10 times more. So, increasing from a range around 8 to around 80 is an increase in an order of magnitude.
It is more debatable, but not uncommon, for each digit to be its own order of magnitude: 1-9 / 10-99 / 100-999. Unfortunately, my "whatis" definition reference, http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci527311,00.html doesn't answer the implied range question either. [It does mention: multipliers from septillionths (10)^-24 to septillions (10)^24, a span of 48 orders of magnitude.] I'd say 8 going to 110 is only a single order of magnitude increase; my own rough range is based on 50% of the next higher, so I wouldn't call it a second order of magnitude until it was over 400, half of 800. Now I am also interested in knowing what is "the smallest number that is two orders of magnitude larger than the original 8 billion estimate" ? Tom Grey > Relying on the adage---the only stupid question is the one > not asked---I ask > for an explanation of "an order of magnitude". I had > understood it to mean > an approximation of an amount associated with whatever > subject was under > discussion. However, in reading David Levenstam's comment > (see related > excerpt below) it appears that an "order of magnitude" is > generally viewed > as 10's, 100's, 1000's etc. Responses welcome. > > "All my books remain packed in boxes, so I can't look up the > figures, but I > seem to recall that the Congressional proponents of Medicare > projected an > ten-year federal outlay of some $8 billion, as opposed to the > annual outlay > of $110+ billion now. I can't conceive of the vast majority > of Americans > supporting a program that would have cost two orders of > magnitude greater > than projected." >
