On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:20:14 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:57:49 GMT, "Stephen B."
wrote:


"Harry K" wrote in message
ups.com...

Stephen B. wrote:
"Dave Smith" wrote
Default User wrote:

Stupid example, though. If you're going 100 MPH, a 500 mile
trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of
units, it doesn't make any difference what they are.

More practically, 60MPH is a mile a minute, and very easy to work
with.

Yes, but then you have to divide by 60 to know how many hours
that work out to. 375 km at 100 kph is 3.75 hours. or 3 hours 45
minutes, while 375 mile requires division rather than just
sticking in a decimal point. 6 with a remainder of 15.

I am used to the metric system. When I am en route to a city and
see the destination signs and it says for example 122 km.....
that is 1.2 hours. ..... and I instantly know I am just over an
hour a way.

If you are 23 km away how long will it take to get there at 100 kph?

23 minutes unless there is something wrong with my math. Now had you
said 23 miles away at 100 kph...

Only if you have 100 minutes in your hours.


"KPH" is not really a metric unit. It's a hybrid of metric (kilometer)
and something else (hour).

Certainly it is. It my not be MKS, nor purely SI, but it is
metric. K==kilometers (1E3 meters) H==Hours(3.6E3 seconds), both
of which are SI units. KPH is then a "derived unit" and perfectly
acceptable.

The metric unit of time is the second.


Converting some (non-metric) time units to metric:

Who cares? snip

Where'd you get your omniscience? Others could use some too.
--
44 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."