Somebody on this board keeps on maintaining that imperial units are marginally less difficult to work with than their metric counterparts.

This is of course wishful thinking. The grim reality looks more like this example, and there are plenty more where that one came from.


I work for a paint store where our formulas are based on an ounce being 48 parts. Example: 33Y42, which is 33 ounces plus 42/48 of an ounce. All formulas are given for a gallon mix. When we want to do a
quart, we have to convert everything to the 48 base and then divide by 4 to get a quart formula. Would you know how we can make this an easier solution or even a computer program that would help? I've
searched all over the internet and feel lucky to find someone I could
ask.

Thank you,
Linda

Anyone preferring to use imperial must be a masochist.

It would be very easy to write a spreadsheet program in Excel that could handle this without any problem.

Linda wrote

<<
When we want to do a quart,
>>

I assume that the store where you work is in the US, otherwise why would you want to make a quart of paint? If you were in the UK, you would be making a litre. (It would be illegal to sell paint by the quart).

Linda wrote

<<
I work for a paint store where our formulas are based on an ounce being 48 parts. Example: 33Y42, which is 33 ounces plus 42/48 of an ounce. All formulas are given for a gallon mix.
>>

SInce it is unlikely that you would have a spreadsheet available in your paint store, you could try the following:

Use a spreadsheet to create two lists, one that lists the numbers
1, 1/160
2, 2/160
3, 3/160
4, 4/160
...
159, 159/160

and the other that lists the numbers
Y01, 1/(48*160),
Y02, 2/(48*160),
Y03, 3/(48*160),
Y04, 4/(48*160)
...
Y47, 47/(48*160)

You would then pin this list up in your store.


If you wish to use the value 33Y42, then you would read the value correspondign to the "33" in the first column to the value corresponding to 42 in the second. The actual results (to 5 decimal places) would be:

33: 0.20625
Y42: 0.00547

The total is 0.21172

If you were making up a quart of paint, you would then use 0.21172 quarts of the colour in question.

REAL Grim reality:

When someone who supports a measuring system that he does not understand hears all his peers and those around him use a measurement system that he knows very well.

Very "grim", don't you think eric?

Re: Grim Reality March 3 2004, 6:33 AM

It would be very easy to write a spreadsheet program in Excel that could handle this without any problem.


Yous till don't get it? You don't need a a computer and spreadsheet in metric to work that out.

Re: Grim Reality March 3 2004, 8:04 AM

Linda wrote

<<
When we want to do a quart,
>>

I assume that the store where you work is in the US, otherwise why would you want to make a quart of paint? If you were in the UK, you would be making a litre. (It would be illegal to sell paint by the quart).

Yes, she lives and works in the States.

Use a spreadsheet to create two lists, one that lists the numbers
1, 1/160
2, 2/160
3, 3/160
4, 4/160
...
159, 159/160

and the other that lists the numbers
Y01, 1/(48*160),
Y02, 2/(48*160),
Y03, 3/(48*160),
Y04, 4/(48*160)
...
Y47, 47/(48*160)

You would then pin this list up in your store.


If you wish to use the value 33Y42, then you would read the value correspondign to the "33" in the first column to the value corresponding to 42 in the second. The actual results (to 5 decimal places) would be:

33: 0.20625
Y42: 0.00547

The total is 0.21172

If you were making up a quart of paint, you would then use 0.21172 quarts of the colour in question.

metre:
I took the liberty and used Martin's (sorry) example to show what a pain in the a..s that system is.

Along comes some USC lover and says that's easy to work out an excel spreadsheet.
Is he living on the moon? Or does he expect every shop attendant to come with a Nobel Price in mathematics and computer literacy?

Looking at that equation, yes it is grim reality. How on earth can shop attendants be expected to work in units like these? Linda's plea for help says it all. Unfortunately many others haven't got the guts to plead for help.

<<
Yous till don't get it? You don't need a a computer and spreadsheet in metric to work that out.
>>

You really don't in imperial either. Unless you were trained entirely in metric and refuse to use your head a little.

By the way, "Linda's" plea for help says nothing, since even workers like her in metric countries are probably facing similar situations.

Bud wrote

<<
By the way, "Linda's" plea for help says nothing, since even workers like her in metric countries are probably facing similar situations.
>>


Suppose that the paint store said that the portion of the colour required was 21.3% instead of 33Y42 and that they dispensed paint by the litre instead of by the quart or gallon, one would need a simple calculator to identify the amount of paint needed for any particular hue.


The real problem is that the paint store is geared to selling one gallon pots of paint and that the moment anybody deviates from that assumption, all the short-cuts become problems. There is a similar progblem in the oil industry. In the US, oilfield reserves are stated as so many barrels per foot-acre. If this were to be reduced to metric units, one would end up with a dimensionless fraction! The US method is fine if your land is measured in acres and your depths in feet. In the North Sea the oilfields are measured in hectares and the depths in metres, so using barrles per acre-foot is an absolute pain up the ****.

So the problem is generally that the fractions stated do not have the same denominator as the subdivisions of the units. For example, in "Linda's" case, the fractions stated are in 48ths and quarts are divided into 32nds (US) or 40ths (UK). This has nothing to do with the system used, it is just poor choice of convention.

Re: Grim Reality March 4 2004, 7:22 AM

<<
Yous till don't get it? You don't need a a computer and spreadsheet in metric to work that out.
>>

You really don't in imperial either. Unless you were trained entirely in metric and refuse to use your head a little.

Boy it must be hard to acknowledge grim reality. Linda's desperate plea for help is only one in an ocean of measurement misery.

By the way, "Linda's" plea for help says nothing, since even workers like her in metric countries are probably facing similar situations.


Turning the question around won't make cumbersome units go away.
Let's stick to the subject at hand.
Sure you have some people in metric countries unable to perform that operation, but courtesy metric simplicity shop attendants are not among them, nor are tradesman. As I said, I provide you with as many examples as you care to read. The fact is that a large percentage of all populations dislikes mathematics. So what are you gaining by making their life even more difficult with a cumbersome system?

Here is another one encountered daily by many people and pupils. You have a boat with an outboard motor that requires fuel of one part oil to 50 parts of petrol. The fuel tank holds 6 gallons, choose the one you like. How do ordinary people arrive at the right answer? I am sure of 100 randomly asked Anmericans at a shopping centre 80 wouldn't have a clue. Happy boating.

Of course there's the other really grim reality of posts being completely ignored for just reposting exactly what a previous poster has posted.

Looks like you support imperial, eric - but then you always did, didn't you?

Plus!

This post reminds me of a pastime involving the material discussed here within when combined with the act of evaporation.

Think about it?

"Here is another one encountered daily by many people and pupils. You have a boat with an outboard motor that requires fuel of one part oil to 50 parts of petrol. The fuel tank holds 6 gallons, choose the one you like. How do ordinary people arrive at the right answer? I am sure of 100 randomly asked Anmericans at a shopping centre 80 wouldn't have a clue. Happy boating."


Finally a post from this guy that's somewhat intelligable. Now at first glance, this one seems a stump to imperial/customary users, but here's the deal:

6 gallon fuel tank, assuming an American user (I'm an American)
50:1, gas:oil

(6 gal.)(1/50)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt.

Simple answer is to add about 1/2 US quart of oil to your tank. And since oil is sold by the quart, no big deal to do.

Now as for the reality. The instructions for these types of engines will give you the exact ratio of US gallons to US quarts so that the above computation is really not necessary. Be that as it may most people are very well aware that there are 4 quarts in a gallon. It's understanding a ratio that might throw them. And that might throw the average metric user too.

Say your tank holds 24 liters and your ratio is 1/50.

(24 L)(1/50)(1000 mL/1L)=480 mL

Same computation. Just a different conversion factor. How is one easier than the other?

Who adds oil to their engines?

I know old fashion 2-strokers needed to have oil added before they were fitted with oil injectors but not today's engine? Surely?

Lots of smaller engines need oil mixed inside. My weedeater does, and I believe my dad's chainsaw. It's a pretty normal procedure for a lot of lawn equipment.

Oops! I was just talking about vehicles!

Apologies!

Matt,

UK properties are probably smaller than the average US property. (I am working on the assumption that US proerties and [white] South African properties are about the same size). My house, for example, is on a plot which is about 10m by 20m. This means that electrical tools are much more common than petrol tools. For example, I have an electric lawnmower, hedge trimmer and gtarden edge strimmer - all electrically powered. I have an earth-leakage unit in my garage for safety and a 20m extension cord, s never need to use petrol. I am probably typical of most UK households in this respect.

In the US there is electric yard equipment available, but it's usually not practical as, like you said, our yards are larger. I have about 1/2 an acre. Most rural lots are at least an acre and most suburban ones are about 1/2. That makes it too long to stretch cords around the yard for my weedeater.

That being said, the example given does not show that one measurement system is better than the other for the everyday task of mixing gas and oil for my small engine. It just shows that there are different conversion factors required.

<<
This is of course wishful thinking. The grim reality looks more like this example, and there are plenty more where that one came from.
>>

Where exactly did that one come from?

<<
Here is another one encountered daily by many people and pupils. You have a boat with an outboard motor that requires fuel of one part oil to 50 parts of petrol. The fuel tank holds 6 gallons, choose the one you like. How do ordinary people arrive at the right answer? I am sure of 100 randomly asked Anmericans at a shopping centre 80 wouldn't have a clue.
>>

The problem here is that you have picked the numbers to suit the metric system. What if it was 1:30 instead of 1:50? Then it would be easier in gallons. If it was 1:70 it would be equally easy in either system.

Re: Grim Reality March 5 2004, 8:46 PM

<<
Here is another one encountered daily by many people and pupils. You have a boat with an outboard motor that requires fuel of one part oil to 50 parts of petrol. The fuel tank holds 6 gallons, choose the one you like. How do ordinary people arrive at the right answer? I am sure of 100 randomly asked Anmericans at a shopping centre 80 wouldn't have a clue.
>>

The problem here is that you have picked the numbers to suit the metric system. What if it was 1:30 instead of 1:50? Then it would be easier in gallons. If it was 1:70 it would be equally easy in either system.

I did not choose the quantity, it came like this. I am a musician not a mathematician.

Finally a post from this guy that's somewhat intelligable. Now at first glance, this one seems a stump to imperial/customary users, but here's the deal:

I am glad you finally understood something.

The ratio still stands, metric comprehension 80% imperial 20%.

<<
I did not choose the quantity, it came like this. I
>>

1. If it hadn't come like this, you wouldn't have chosen this example.
2. It came like this because you live in a metric country.

<<2. It came like this because you live in a metric country>>

He wishes!!!

The thing I find quite interesting is that he hasn't responded to the fact that there was NOTHING difficult about his problem. It's a simple mathematical computation that requires a conversion factor for BOTH systems making one no better than the other.

It's just as easy to compute it for a metric user as an imperial user.

This example is NOT a good one to show one system better than the other.

TELL Me why this is sooo hard?

6 gallon fuel tank, assuming an American user (I'm an American)
50:1, gas:oil

(6 gal.)(1/50)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt.

Re: Grim Reality March 8 2004, 5:29 AM

<<
I did not choose the quantity, it came like this. I
>>

1. If it hadn't come like this, you wouldn't have chosen this example.
2. It came like this because you live in a metric country.

What?
Your power of induction is about on par with your defence of USC. I give you hint, it came from an English source.

Not Stumped March 8 2004, 2:09 PM

TELL Me why this is sooo hard?

6 gallon fuel tank, assuming an American user (I'm an American)
50:1, gas:oil

(6 gal.)(1/50)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt.

Another question, how do I actually measure out 0.48 qt.?
Don't ask me, I am a musician. Plant yourself outside a supermarket and ask men only. The failure rate would be more 80%.

<<
Your power of induction is about on par with your defence of USC. I give you hint, it came from an English source.
>>

It has obviously not come from anyone who intends imperial to be used to measure the contents of the tank. Even so, doing it in imperial would not be difficult at all. But if whoever wrote it intended for it to be measured in imperial, he could have written it in fl.oz/gal, which would be the standard notation for things like this.

Interesting March 8 2004, 2:07 PM

The thing I find quite interesting is that he hasn't responded to the fact that there was NOTHING difficult about his problem. It's a simple mathematical computation that requires a conversion factor for BOTH systems making one no better than the other.

It's just as easy to compute it for a metric user as an imperial user.

This example is NOT a good one to show one system better than the other

I am stumped. One poster accuses me of making it difficult because I converted it from metres into USC and you say it's too easy? Are both of you working with the same units?
For the average person it is NOT easy. As I answered you in another post give it a try and find out for yourself.

Interesting March 8 2004, 2:07 PM

The thing I find quite interesting is that he hasn't responded to the fact that there was NOTHING difficult about his problem. It's a simple mathematical computation that requires a conversion factor for BOTH systems making one no better than the other.

It's just as easy to compute it for a metric user as an imperial user.

This example is NOT a good one to show one system better than the other

I am stumped. One poster accuses me of making it difficult because I converted it from metres into USC and you say it's too easy? Are both of you working with the same units?
For the average person it is NOT easy. As I answered you in another post give it a try and find out for yourself.

<<
I am stumped. One poster accuses me of making it difficult because I converted it from metres into USC and you say it's too easy? Are both of you working with the same units?
For the average person it is NOT easy. As I answered you in another post give it a try and find out for yourself.
>>

It is easy as it is. If it is not, the problem is with you and not the system. Of course, it would be easier if the information provided had been given in an imperial-friendly rather than metric-friendly manner.

"As I answered you in another post give it a try and find out for yourself."

I did try it out you goon:

6 gallon fuel tank, assuming an American user (I'm an American)
50:1, gas:oil

(6 gal.)(1/50)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt.

Say your tank holds 24 liters and your ratio is 1/50.

(24 L)(1/50)(1000 mL/1L)=480 mL

Same computation. Just a different conversion factor. How is one easier than the other?

Now, you tell me why this proves one system better than the other.

Metre',

Regarding your question of March 9th @ 2.44 a.m.

''((6 fl.gal.) (1/50) (4 fl.qt./1 fl.gal.) = 0.48 fl.qt.) Another question, how do I actually measure out 0.48 fl.qt.?''

Metre', you actually measure out 0.48 fluid quart by you actually measuring out using fluid measure.

1 fl.qt. = 32 fl.oz. = 15360 fM = 307200 fl.my.
0.48 fl.qt. = 147456 fl.my.

Need help real bad? See site:

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

Adverbalise, man!!

Can anyone tell me the point in xcole? Has he EVER contributed anything to these boards with his wooden style posts he puts on here? His site bags a good domain name www.weight-and-measures.com and then it is all a load of nonsense!

xcole, I am not trying to offend you but if you keep posting here, please offer some opinions rather than monotonous information.

Xcole does post some interesting stuff (if you poke about a bit), and his site is certainy very interesting, though a little unclear. I think XCole would benefit by showing everyone that he is not some senile old man or lunatic, but actually knows of what he speaks.

X-cole.

I don't think there is a readily available conversion chart to read his mind.

Re: Grim Reality March 9 2004, 10:03 AM

<<
I am stumped. One poster accuses me of making it difficult because I converted it from metres into USC and you say it's too easy? Are both of you working with the same units?
For the average person it is NOT easy. As I answered you in another post give it a try and find out for yourself.
>>

It is easy as it is. If it is not, the problem is with you and not the system. Of course, it would be easier if the information provided had been given in an imperial-friendly rather than metric-friendly manner.


It comes from a Evinrude outboard motor instruction manual. Of course the problem is with me an millions of other less numerically blessed souls.

Are you an idiot? March 9 2004, 1:33 PM

"As I answered you in another post give it a try and find out for yourself."

I did try it out you goon:

6 gallon fuel tank, assuming an American user (I'm an American)
50:1, gas:oil

(6 gal.)(1/50)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt.

Say your tank holds 24 liters and your ratio is 1/50.

(24 L)(1/50)(1000 mL/1L)=480 mL

Same computation. Just a different conversion factor. How is one easier than the other?

Now, you tell me why this proves one system better than the other.

Let me return the compliment and while I am at it some advise. Gutter language never won an argument.

Do it with 1:16 instead of 1:50.

I've invented a new mnemonic - SWL!!

Because that's ecactly what I did when I read this:

"Gutter language never won an argument"

Can you see why you are consistant in losing, eric?

I used "gutter language" because as of yet you have not adressed my question. How does your posed problem illustrate the superiority of the metric system based upon the computation I have done which in comparison to the metric one is the EXACT same scenario?

(1/50)(6 gal.)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt. versus
(1/50)(24 L)(1 L/1000 mL)=480 mL

As for the measurement of 0.48 qt. I'm positive that your Evenrude engine will run fine if 1/2 qt. of oil is added which is very easy to measure since oil is sold by the US quart with gradations on the side of the container.

If this problem is so easy, how come you managed to get it wrong ?

If the tank holds six gallons (as stated in the orginal posting of the problem) and you put in six gallons of fuel then it's already full.

This means that there isn't any space for the 0.48qt of oil!

The correct solution (in metric) is as follows:

24 L/(50+1)= 0.471 L (or 471 mL)
Required Oil = 0.471*1 = 0.471 L
Required Fuel = 0.471*50 = 23.529 L

This means that you can fill the tank with 23.5 L of fuel and drop 0.5 L of oil into the top for a full tank of go-juice. Easy!

You can do the same in imperial (or "english" if you insist) and end up with 0.118 gal of oil and 5.882 gal of fuel.

This isn't any more difficult that in metric BUT you do have the extra steps of converting 0.118 gal into pints or quarts AND working out how to measure the last 0.88 gal of fuel.

These extra steps mean that the imperial/"english" version IS more complicated, although the degree of extra complication will depend on your upbringing and familiarity with the so-called-system.

You tend to assume that everybody is very familiar with imperial/"english" but this is not necessarily the case.

P.S.

6 gal. isn't 24L (either UK or US) but I used your figure for the sake of consistancy.

P.P.S.

Your solution stated (1/50)(6 gal.)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt.

Well, 4 quarts divided by 1 gallon equals 1 (no units).

It should read (1/50)(6 gal.)*1 =0.12gal.

Always watch your units !

Re: Grim Reality March 10 2004, 10:00 PM

If this problem is so easy, how come you managed to get it wrong ?

If the tank holds six gallons (as stated in the orginal posting of the problem) and you put in six gallons of fuel then it's already full.

This means that there isn't any space for the 0.48qt of oil!

The correct solution (in metric) is as follows:

24 L/(50+1)= 0.471 L (or 471 mL)
Required Oil = 0.471*1 = 0.471 L
Required Fuel = 0.471*50 = 23.529 L

This means that you can fill the tank with 23.5 L of fuel and drop 0.5 L of oil into the top for a full tank of go-juice. Easy!

You can do the same in imperial (or "english" if you insist) and end up with 0.118 gal of oil and 5.882 gal of fuel.

This isn't any more difficult that in metric BUT you do have the extra steps of converting 0.118 gal into pints or quarts AND working out how to measure the last 0.88 gal of fuel.

These extra steps mean that the imperial/"english" version IS more complicated, although the degree of extra complication will depend on your upbringing and familiarity with the so-called-system.

You tend to assume that everybody is very familiar with imperial/"english" but this is not necessarily the case.

P.S.

6 gal. isn't 24L (either UK or US) but I used your figure for the sake of consistancy.

P.P.S.

Your solution stated (1/50)(6 gal.)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt.

Well, 4 quarts divided by 1 gallon equals 1 (no units).

It should read (1/50)(6 gal.)*1 =0.12gal.

Always watch your units !






Current Topic - Grim Reality Respond to this message

Advertisement


CAUTION

Re: Grim Reality March 10 2004, 10:00 PM

If this problem is so easy, how come you managed to get it wrong ?

If the tank holds six gallons (as stated in the orginal posting of the problem) and you put in six gallons of fuel then it's already full.

This means that there isn't any space for the 0.48qt of oil!

The correct solution (in metric) is as follows:

24 L/(50+1)= 0.471 L (or 471 mL)
Required Oil = 0.471*1 = 0.471 L
Required Fuel = 0.471*50 = 23.529 L

This means that you can fill the tank with 23.5 L of fuel and drop 0.5 L of oil into the top for a full tank of go-juice. Easy!

You can do the same in imperial (or "english" if you insist) and end up with 0.118 gal of oil and 5.882 gal of fuel.

This isn't any more difficult that in metric BUT you do have the extra steps of converting 0.118 gal into pints or quarts AND working out how to measure the last 0.88 gal of fuel.

These extra steps mean that the imperial/"english" version IS more complicated, although the degree of extra complication will depend on your upbringing and familiarity with the so-called-system.

You tend to assume that everybody is very familiar with imperial/"english" but this is not necessarily the case.

P.S.

6 gal. isn't 24L (either UK or US) but I used your figure for the sake of consistancy.

P.P.S.

Your solution stated (1/50)(6 gal.)(4 qt./1 gal.)=0.48 qt.

Well, 4 quarts divided by 1 gallon equals 1 (no units).

It should read (1/50)(6 gal.)*1 =0.12gal.

Always watch your units !






Current Topic - Grim Reality Respond to this message

Advertisement


CAUTION

Heartfelt thanks from a musician.

<<
You tend to assume that everybody is very familiar with imperial/"english" but this is not necessarily the case.
>>
It would be if the government didn't manipulate the educational curriculum in order to try to force metric conversion.

Bud wrote

<<
It would be if the government didn't manipulate the educational curriculum in order to try to force metric conversion.
>>

In 1965, when the metrication program was started, it was assumed that it would be complete by 1975. Any Government that did not adjust the curriculum to take that into account would have been grossly irresponsible. As it was, when the Metrication BOard was wound up in 1980, their job was over 80% complete. It was just that Mrs Thatcher took more pride in scoring cheap points off Brussels than in completing the job that caused the present mess.

Cheap points? I see... what planet are you from!!??! Maybe it was "cheap points" that was her motivation, but that doesn't change the fact that the Government had no right no make us start using metric.

Bryan,

SInce time immemorial it has been the perogative of Governments to define the weights and measures that should be used in the domains over which they had sway.

I can safely assume that eric's cut'n'paste double was ignored by all.

So you would have missed his little lie

The bizarre thing about Eric's solution is that he (like other metric supporters) does not look at anything practical in what he does.

If I had an outboard engine I would not do the gas oil mixture in the tank, but in my gas can that I fill up at the gas station. Furthermore, I wouldn't be trying to be absolutely exact to two decimal places with my mixture. The engine would run fine if I were off on my computation.

I concede one point in that the tank only holds 6 gallons. However if I did the mixture in my gas can which NORMAL people would do, and since they come usually in 5, 10, and 15 gallon sizes, I would take my 10 gallon gas can and fill it with 6 gallons of gasoline (beause I know I need to fill a 6 gallon tank). Most folks would do it this way. Then I would pour in 1/2 quart of oil and then fill my outboard motor, leaving a little left over in the gas can.

Since Eric is so focused on the minutia of the problem and has not come to the practical common sense he cannot see this. NO ONE I know would do the mix right in the tank. In fact I would probably double it and fill my 15 gallon gas can with 12 gallons of gasoline and 1 quart of oil so I would have extra for later. In real life I can't measure 5.88 gallons and .12 gallons anyway. So I ROUND them. ERIC THIS ISN'T CHEMISTRY CLASS it's FISHING.

My name isn't Eric. It's Evil !

You can get a bit tetchy when you're wrong, can't you?

The fact is that the way I solved the problem was perfectly practical using the information given.

We were told that we needed 6gallons/24litres and that's what I provided the solution for. It also happens to be the exact quantity that you tried and failed to provide with your solution.

You work it out acurately and then round off your answers at the end. Didn't you notice that the final 23.5L fuel/0.5L oil figures were rounded off to make the actual measuring easier ?

I don't know what the standard sizes are for American petrol cans but being a NORMAL person I would fill your 15 gallon can with 50 litres of fuel and add 1 litre of oil.

Yep, that's 50 to 1 !

I don't see how you could make it any easier than that.

It requires zero calculation, there are no unit conversions AND it's all in metric !

Tell me what was wrong with my solution? My outboard engine would run fine. Fill my 15 gallon gas tank with 12 gallons of gasoline and add 1 quart of oil. Oil is sold by US quarts. It's really no big deal. You were looking at the problem from a cock-eyed point of view. Normal people would fill their gasoline can to a certain amount and then add the oil. In this case, I would add 12 gallons gas, 1 qt. oil. Of course you would do the computation and then round. Not the other way around!

BTW I checked the instructions for my weedeater which uses mixed gas and oil. The instructions tell you to mix the gas to oil using a ratio of gallons to quarts of oil.

<<
In 1965, when the metrication program was started, it was assumed that it would be complete by 1975. Any Government that did not adjust the curriculum to take that into account would have been grossly irresponsible.
>>
I have no problem with them including metric in the curriculum, but it was also very irresponsible of them to omit imperial. Even if they had to keep it for security, so to speak. I think they were afraid that teaching both might cause students to be able to use imperial, which would make them reluctant to use metric since the older folk used imperial.

Grim Reality March 11 2004, 8:56 PM

My name isn't Eric. It's Evil !

You can get a bit tetchy when you're wrong, can't you?

The fact is that the way I solved the problem was perfectly practical using the information given.

We were told that we needed 6gallons/24litres and that's what I provided the solution for. It also happens to be the exact quantity that you tried and failed to provide with your solution.

You work it out acurately and then round off your answers at the end. Didn't you notice that the final 23.5L fuel/0.5L oil figures were rounded off to make the actual measuring easier ?

I don't know what the standard sizes are for American petrol cans but being a NORMAL person I would fill your 15 gallon can with 50 litres of fuel and add 1 litre of oil.

Yep, that's 50 to 1 !

I don't see how you could make it any easier than that.

It requires zero calculation, there are no unit conversions AND it's all in metric !

Nice work Engineer and as always succinct!

Grim Reality March 11 2004, 1:57 PM

The bizarre thing about Eric's solution is that he (like other metric supporters) does not look at anything practical in what he does.

If I had an outboard engine I would not do the gas oil mixture in the tank, but in my gas can that I fill up at the gas station. Furthermore, I wouldn't be trying to be absolutely exact to two decimal places with my mixture. The engine would run fine if I were off on my computation.

I concede one point in that the tank only holds 6 gallons. However if I did the mixture in my gas can which NORMAL people would do, and since they come usually in 5, 10, and 15 gallon sizes, I would take my 10 gallon gas can and fill it with 6 gallons of gasoline (beause I know I need to fill a 6 gallon tank). Most folks would do it this way. Then I would pour in 1/2 quart of oil and then fill my outboard motor, leaving a little left over in the gas can.

Since Eric is so focused on the minutia of the problem and has not come to the practical common sense he cannot see this. NO ONE I know would do the mix right in the tank. In fact I would probably double it and fill my 15 gallon gas can with 12 gallons of gasoline and 1 quart of oil so I would have extra for later. In real life I can't measure 5.88 gallons and .12 gallons anyway. So I ROUND them. ERIC THIS ISN'T CHEMISTRY CLASS it's FISHING.


You just keep on proving my original point over and over again, thank you. This should show you that most mere mortals would be stumped mixing so many parts petrol with so many parts of oil in imperial units, including me.

Grim Reality March 11 2004, 1:57 PM

The bizarre thing about Eric's solution is that he (like other metric supporters) does not look at anything practical in what he does.

If I had an outboard engine I would not do the gas oil mixture in the tank, but in my gas can that I fill up at the gas station. Furthermore, I wouldn't be trying to be absolutely exact to two decimal places with my mixture. The engine would run fine if I were off on my computation.

I concede one point in that the tank only holds 6 gallons. However if I did the mixture in my gas can which NORMAL people would do, and since they come usually in 5, 10, and 15 gallon sizes, I would take my 10 gallon gas can and fill it with 6 gallons of gasoline (beause I know I need to fill a 6 gallon tank). Most folks would do it this way. Then I would pour in 1/2 quart of oil and then fill my outboard motor, leaving a little left over in the gas can.

Since Eric is so focused on the minutia of the problem and has not come to the practical common sense he cannot see this. NO ONE I know would do the mix right in the tank. In fact I would probably double it and fill my 15 gallon gas can with 12 gallons of gasoline and 1 quart of oil so I would have extra for later. In real life I can't measure 5.88 gallons and .12 gallons anyway. So I ROUND them. ERIC THIS ISN'T CHEMISTRY CLASS it's FISHING.


You just keep on proving my original point over and over again, thank you. This should show you that most mere mortals would be stumped mixing so many parts petrol with so many parts of oil in imperial units, including me.





OOPS!

SORRY!

Wrong bandwagon!