1/10,000,000 of the distance between the equator and the pole [north I believe]
or at least what they believed this distance to be in the 1800s. No more
scientific than the king's foot size [big foot] but ya gotta choose something.

________________________________
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Sent: Fri, June 29, 2012 11:58:42 AM
Subject: Re: EPA and Vanagon Emissions

Hi .
I'd say 'it depends'.
Miles are sure handy. We've gotten used to those very nicely. 60 is
pretty fast. 100 is a very fast even number.
120 km/hr does not automatically mean much to most of us 'Murakins.'

and psi ...man are those nicer than kilopascals or whatever they are !!!

OTOH  15, 17, and 19 mm make far more sense in wrench sizes than say
31/64's  does.

So it depends.

ok ....trivia quiz...
The origin of the dimension 'one foot' comes from the length of the
king's foot I believe.
What is the origin, or definition of, the meter ?
Where did they derive that dimension from ?

On 6/29/2012 8:19 AM, mcneely4@cox.net wrote:
> Just as a comment, boy, the SE (metric system) is sure easier than our
>antiquated system.  thanks for reminding us, Scott.  mcneely
>
> ---- Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM> wrote:
>> On 6/28/2012 9:07 PM, Tom Hargrave wrote:
>>> 2.3 kg of carbon per liter burned
>> 2.3 kg is  roughly 5.06 pounds
>> Something is missing or not stated right as it does not seem that there
>> are 5 lbs of carbon in one liter of fuel.
>> if gas weighs around 6 lbs per gal .
>> that means a liter of gas weights around 1.5 lbs.
>> pretty hard to get 5 lbs of carbon out of 1.5 lbs of gasoline I'd think.
>>
>> what pollutes more ..?
>> a 7 liter engine with an idle emissions figure of 1.0 % CO,
>> or a 1 liter engine with that same emissions spec at idle ?
>>
>> Europeans measure in grams of whatever pollutant, CO2 say, per distance
>> traveled, say grams per mile. .  Not as a percentage. That makes sense
>> to me.
> --
> David McNeely
>