"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
raden wrote:


What IS the point of point of so many decimal places
... other than making you look a bit silly

Especially in view of the fact that BG truncate the conversion factor to
2 decimal places (100 ft^3 = 2.83 m^3) and the meter's only accurate to
about ±2% in the first place.

--
Andy


Jumping in again; I've studied my bills and their counterpart on the web.
BG state that cons* = consumption in cubic feet. They cite my average
cons* as approx 2 per day- the only figure quoted is four digits - not
the two 'smaller red' digits
So; somewhere BG are inconsistent - they don't quote cubic feet but
_hundreds of cubic feet_.


All imperial meters measure in 100's of cubic feet and often have a couple
of dummy "00" figures after the ones you read on the meter to indicate
this.

"My" meter - A Schlumberger R5 - is marked ft^3: it displays four white
digits and two smaller red digits with a analogue pointer marked with 0 at
the top and 0.5 at the bottom.

Sloppy practice and the fact that the meters are or were labelled "Cubic
Feet" (as they included the dummy "00" figures) but the dummy figures are
ignored on readings has lead to the confusion (a bit like "Calories"
actually being kCals). 100 cubic feet = 2.83 cubic metres so the
calculation is correct.


It's really sloppy practise to declare that the cnsumption is in cubic feet
when it's actually Hundred Cubic foot !

There is another thread here where the customer was bing charged as if
they had an imperial meter when it was, in fact, metric and was refunded
£750 (as I recall) so it's worth checking that if your meter is metric!

No, the meter installed, yonks ago, is definitely registering cubic feet.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)


--

Brian