On Jun 14 , at 5:53 PM, Martin Vlietstra wrote:
Is the term "square hectare" really redundant? Surely a piece of
land that
is 100 m by 100 m can be descried as a "square hectare"? After all,
it is a
square.
I can't agree with that.
There are innumerable areas* with an area measurement of one hectare
that are NOT square, and they are all still hectares. Any irregular
shaped (such as a piece of land often is) cannot be measured by noting
how many 100 m by 100 m squares can fit in it. Even a square shape
cannot alway be measured that way. Consider a square 12 m by 12 m: one
can fit one hectare sized square into it so one knows it is at more
than one hectare in size, but the remaining space would not be a
square, yet it, too, can be measured in square metres and therefore in
hectares (and fractions thereof).
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
*Non-square areas of one hectare: One is circle with a radius of 56.4
m. Another is a triangle with a base of 100 m and a height of 200 m
(and an infinite number of other triangles with bases and heights such
that base times height equals 20000 m^2) Then there are pentagons,
hexagons, all those other "-gons", not to mention star shapes,
ellipses, trapezoids, etc. and I haven't even started on the irregular
shapes like the shape of the lot I built my house on, the shape of the
state of Florida, the shape of Valles Marinaris on Mars, the shape
of ... well, never mind! You get the idea!
==========================
Make It Simple; Make It Metric!
==========================
