OT: Amusing Google conversion of the week
Spehro Pefhany
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Michael
OK. I give up. It that supposed to make sense?
Spehro Pefhany
<NoS...@att.net> wrote:
>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>
>> Google: 0.08 mm^2 in miles per US gallon
>>
>OK. I give up. It that supposed to make sense?
Sure, fuel consumption has units of area, right?
mpg is proportional to the reciprocal.
D from BC
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>Google: 0.08 mm^2 in miles per US gallon
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>Spehro Pefhany
Neato..Gee don't stop there... I tried these..
0.08 (square millimeters) = 29.4018229 miles per US gallon
0.08 (mm^2) = 7.7671399 miles per liter
0.08 (mm^2) = 0.0382836236 miles per US teaspoon
0.08 (millimeters^2) = 12.5 kilometers per liter
0.08 (mm^2) = 12 500 millimeters per milliliter
0.08 (mm^2) = 61 611 519.9 microns per US teaspoon
D from BC
myrealaddress(at)comic(dot)com
British Columbia
Canada
John O'Flaherty
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>Google: 0.08 mm^2 in miles per US gallon
It seems to be reading mm^2 for L/km, which give the same result. In
that correct result, it automatically accounts for L/km mapping to
mpg, despite the inversion.
--
John
John O'Flaherty
Oh! Of course, it's right - L/km is identical to mm^3/mm, and that is
mm^2. Sort of. So fuel consumption does in fact have units of
volume/length, which is area.
--
John
who where
>On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:54:49 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
><spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
>>Google: 0.08 mm^2 in miles per US gallon
>>
>>
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Spehro Pefhany
>
>Neato..Gee don't stop there... I tried these..
>
>0.08 (square millimeters) = 29.4018229 miles per US gallon
>0.08 (mm^2) = 7.7671399 miles per liter
>0.08 (mm^2) = 0.0382836236 miles per US teaspoon
>0.08 (millimeters^2) = 12.5 kilometers per liter
>
>0.08 (mm^2) = 12 500 millimeters per milliliter
>
>0.08 (mm^2) = 61 611 519.9 microns per US teaspoon
I always suspected you have far too much time on your hands ;-)
rebel
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>Google: 0.08 mm^2 in miles per US gallon
Dimensionally sound. Presumably four cylinders?
Eeyore
D from BC wrote:
> 0.08 (mm^2) = 61 611 519.9 microns per US teaspoon
Is a US teaspoon bigger or smaller than a UK one ?
Graham
Eeyore
John O'Flaherty wrote:
A quick dimensional analysis would sort that out. I'm not in the mood
myself right now though. My fingers are too cold.
Graham
Michael A. Terrell
No, if that were try you would be busy doing something to warm them
up instead of telling more lies. Something like doing a real search.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
D from BC
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=US+teaspoons+to+UK+teaspoons&meta=
1 US teaspoon = 0.83267384 Imperial teaspoons
Ohhh ..while I'm posting here's more..
0.08 (mm^2) = 0.00132127926 light years per gigaliter
0.08 (mm^2) = 1.99669165 в 10-15 Parsecs per US teaspoon
0.08 (mm^2) = 125 angstroms per picoliter <<That's easy to remember!
Jasen Betts
GNU units says usteaspoon 4.92cc
ukteaspoon 5cc,
some other cooking measures like cup, and pint, vary to much
greater degrees.
google's unit conversion doesn't seem to handle non-us traditional
measures well.
Michael
That is *so* counter-intuitive. But correct. My heard hurts. Thanks... I think. :-)
---
Michael
Andrew Holme
"Spehro Pefhany" <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote
> Google: 0.08 mm^2 in miles per US gallon
mm^2 = area
miles/gallon = distance/volume = 1/area
gallons/mile = volume/distance = area
Google gives:
0.08 (mm^2) = 29.4018229 miles per US gallon
and
0.08 (mm^2) = 0.0340114966 US gallons per mile
Surely only the latter is valid? What am I missing?
Rich Grise
Do the math. What's 29.4018229 * 0.0340114966?
Good Luck!
Rich
mrda...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:26:11 -0600, John O'Flaherty
>
Surely you mean fuel consumption has units of length/volume?
Example:
30 miles/gal x 1609 m/mile x 264 gal/m^3 = 12.7E6 m^(-2)
Michael
Spehro Pefhany
That's the reciprocal-- what they call "fuel economy". A bigger number
implies higher efficiency.
mrda...@gmail.com
wrote:
Gotcha. Fuel consumption = gallons per mile = 1/mpg... the smaller
the better... mpg: the larger the better... I'm feeling silly
now... ;)
M
Spehro Pefhany
Glad to be of service. ;-)
mrda...@gmail.com
wrote:
For more laughs: since 1 US gallon of gasoline = 1.3E8 Joules, and W
= E = (F)(d), then [volume of gasoline] / [distance] = force. So
[fuel economy] = [Newtons]
Oh joy!
Michael
Jasen Betts
> For more laughs: since 1 US gallon of gasoline = 1.3E8 Joules,
dependant on the efficiency of the engine.
> and W = E = (F)(d), then [volume of gasoline] / [distance] = force.
> So [fuel economy] = [Newtons]
this same unit as friction, which makes sense.
JosephKK
That is odd, i have the idea that friction is force over force (or
unitless).
Richard Henry
> On 8 Jan 2009 21:45:04 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >> For more laughs: since 1 US gallon of gasoline = 1.3E8 Joules,
>
> >dependant on the efficiency of the engine.
>
> >> and W = E = (F)(d), then [volume of gasoline] / [distance] = force.
> >> So [fuel economy] = [Newtons]
>
> >this same unit as friction, which makes sense.
>
> That is odd, i have the idea that friction is force over force (or
> unitless).
Friction is a force.
Nobody
>>this same unit as friction, which makes sense.
>
> That is odd, i have the idea that friction is force over force (or
> unitless).
The coefficient of friction is unitless, as it's the ratio of the
friction force to the normal force.
Jasen Betts
[1913 Webster]:
The resistance which a body meets with from the
surface on which it moves. It may be resistance to sliding
motion, or to rolling motion.
I was using (perhaps misusing) it to mean all the forces that resist
the motion of the vehichle (drivetrain losses, atmospheric drag, etc..)
you are thinking of "coefficient of friction" which measures is a
property of many pairs of surfaces that friction is linearly
dependant on the contact force.
JosephKK
Then why is it expressed as a fraction of the free body normal
(mathematical sense) force?
JosephKK
Could be. But i don't care enough to get out my physics books again.
Jasen Betts
>>> unitless).
>>Friction is a force.
>
> Then why is it expressed as a fraction of the free body normal
> (mathematical sense) force?
a fraction of a force is still a force,
(also it's not always expressed like that)
Nobody
>>> That is odd, i have the idea that friction is force over force (or
>>> unitless).
>>
>>Friction is a force.
>
> Then why is it expressed as a fraction of the free body normal
> (mathematical sense) force?
It isn't. That's the COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION, which indicates the
ratio of the limit of friction to the normal force.
If you have two surfaces in contact, their coefficient of friction
is 0.5, and you apply a normal force of 10N, the limit of friction is
5N. In the absence of any tangential force, the actual friction is
zero.
If you apply a tangential force of e.g. 3N (less than the limit), the
friction will be -3N (i.e. 3N in the opposite direction), the net
tangential force will be zero, and the object will remain stationary.
If you apply e.g. 7N (more than the limit), the actual friction will be -5N,
the net tangential force will be 2N, and the object will accelerate.
Rich Grise
"Friction" is a force, yes, but not the Coeffecient of Friction, which
is "The force of friction over the normal force", and so is unitless.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> Google: 0.08 mm^2 in miles per US gallon
>
What's 2.435 light-years per mile^3 of gas?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail. -- Gore Vidal
Nobody
> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>
>> Google: 0.08 mm^2 in miles per US gallon
>>
>>
> What's 2.435 light-years per mile^3 of gas?
2.435 light-years per cubic mile
(2.43500 light-years) per (cubic mile) = 5.52672307 kilometers per liter
2.435 light-years per cubic mile in kilometres per litre
(2.43500 light-years) per (cubic mile) = 5.52672307 kilometers per litre
2.435 light-years per cubic mile in metres per cubic metre
(2.43500 light-years) per (cubic mile) = 5 526 723.07 meters per (cubic meter)
2.435 light-years per cubic mile in miles per gallon
(2.43500 light-years) per (cubic mile) = 12.9996586 miles per gallon
2.435 light-years per cubic mile in miles per US gallon
(2.43500 light-years) per (cubic mile) = 12.9996586 miles per US gallon
2.435 light-years per cubic mile in miles per imperial gallon
(2.43500 light-years) per (cubic mile) = 15.6119455 miles per Imperial gallon
2.435 light-years per cubic mile in leagues per cubic furlong
(2.43500 light-years) per (cubic mile) = 8.09808184 в 10^9 leagues per
(cubic furlong)
It could do with an "... in SI" option to save having to type out specific
units.
It wouldn't hurt to qualify "gallon". Although most of the people who ask
for "gallons" will want the US version, much of the remainder don't know
(or won't remember) that there *is* a US version and thus that it doesn't
mean what they think it means.
And is defaulting to "liter" for volume supposed to be an equal-annoyance
policy? Americans will probably want either US gallons/quarts/pints or
cubic feet/inches, while the rest of the world would prefer it spelled
correctly.