Clearly, km/L is the more rational. 

Bill Potts
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ziser, Jesse
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 17:38
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:40252] Re: convenient numerical values


--- 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 

Reply via email to