Until Randall pointed this out , it didn’t even cross my mind: the inverse[1] of miles (length) per a gallon (volume) is a unit of area. Ergo, my car’s efficiency is 0.1023mm2, or roughly twice the area of a pixel on a screen.
- gallons per mile [↩]
Until Randall pointed this out , it didn’t even cross my mind: the inverse[1] of miles (length) per a gallon (volume) is a unit of area. Ergo, my car’s efficiency is 0.1023mm2, or roughly twice the area of a pixel on a screen.
Wouldn’t the units be mm^-2?
Sorry, I typed that up wrong. Problem fixed now.
Randall is wrong…
The unit is actually 1/mm^2, or *inverse* area. If it were area, and the stationary thin tube of fuel that your car pulled itself along on was your fuel efficiency, then it would be good for your efficiency to go down (fewer miles, or more gallons), because that would mean a thinner tube.
I still haven’t wrapped my brain around the physical representation of inverse area for fuel efficiency, but that is not it.
Oh, no, Randall is not wrong. I read his post, and he’s talking about the inverse figure: gallons/mile, which *is* represented by the thin line of fuel you car pulls itself along.
Shut up with your gibberish
Different standards of units. I protest. But I’m drunk.
I just got a lot of scotch from an american dude. I hung out with Australia’s #2 diplomat, and an Egyptian dude told me the american dude has been an a-hole since 1986, aka when the challenger exploded. We played pool and I think I did well. They want me to join a team, and I think that is okay.