Apptech wrote:

> There are no English units of note any more. Imperial is the closest you
> get :-). 
> 
>> I have no problem with metric for dynamics... m/s make as much sense as
>> knots (for flight... I think miles/hr for cars, sigh, and for those
>> it's either miles/hr or km/hr, not m/s). 
>> 
>> But ask me to do materials stress analysis in pascals and I break out
>> the conversion tables. 
>> 
>> I was born a PSI guy...

The thing with pretty much all pre-SI units is that they are cubicle units.
They work in one cubicle, but not in the next. Like when you look at an
electrical motor. Electrical power input in W, mechanical power output in
hp, and thermal losses in BTU? You've got to be born as a guy of many
systems if you want to work with that :)

> Fuel economy:    mpg still the most intuitive (although the pump reads in
> litres and the odo in km.) litres/100km is the std measure here and I'm
> OK with that but an inverse compressing measure with increasing economy
> seems intuitively be the way to better portray such things. Some system
> do use km/l.

That's what's common in Brazil. 

Germany uses l/100 km. The rationale for this unit is probably that it's
somewhat easier to calculate the fuel necessary for a given distance.
Expressing the distance as a multiple of 100 km is usually easy and for
distances where you need fuel calculations can often be approximated as a
small integer, and then the fuel consumption calculation becomes easy.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist