--- Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/01/28, at 8:10 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deciliter in the denominator is conventional medical practice in
> > which "convenient numerical values" are considered more valuable
> > than coherence of units. The same is true for grams and mg in
> > medical practice.
> >
> > Gene.
> >
>
> Dear Gene and All,
>
> The expression you use here, 'convenient numerical values' appears
> quite often in many different contexts and, it seems to me, that this
> is at the expense of an efficient metrication upgrade.
>
> Another example is the change from millibars to hectopascals in
> meteorology where the numbers stay the same while the unit name
> changes without gaining the benefits of the coherence of the metric
> system or the convenience of the 'rule of thousands'. I am sure that
> there are many other examples.
I'd like to offer another possible example of violation of the rule of
thousands. I keep seeing
L/100 km in fuel efficiency contexts. I also occasionally see km/L but it
appears to be rarer.
km/L is clearly more "thousandy", and also has the debatable advantage of being
"distance per
volume" just like MPG. Besides, "L/100 km" seems an awkward mouthful. Is this
really the
preferred unit?
I'm thinking about getting metric mileage bumper stickers for my friends and
family (most of whom
I'm sure would enthusiastically accept and display them) and I was wondering if
anyone had any
other opinions on the km/L versus L/100 km issue. I've been unable to find
much about it online.
Thanks.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
