Until Randall pointed this out , it didn’t even cr…

The times they are a-changin’.

This post seems to be older than 8 years—a long time on the internet. It might be outdated.

Until Randall pointed this out , it didn’t even cross my mind: the inverse1 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.

0
  1. gallons per mile 

9 thoughts on “Until Randall pointed this out , it didn’t even cr…”

  1. 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.

    1. 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.

Comments are closed.