5 ms·
What is it with those weird metrics? 147,000 square feet across, this is what science communication picks up from the paper? The major axis of the TJBH at ~10
by mxfh 3y ago
What is it with those weird metrics?
147,000 square feet across, this is what science communication picks up from the paper?
The major axis of the TJBH at ~10 mbsl was estimated to be ~151.8 m and was oriented ~10.76° clockwise from the north, similar to the main direction of geological faults in the region. The minor axis, perpendicular to the major axis, was ~124.4 m across. The surface area covered by the blue hole is ~13,690 m2 (1.4 ha) with an external perimeter of ~492.7 m. The structure of the blue hole can be described as a conic shape that is north-skewed with a volume of ~1 million m3.
Why not about 140m (450 ft) diameter?
The full open access article is here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1141160/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1141...
- Izkata 3y agoThe conversion from square meters to square feet is 13690 * 3.28 * 3.28 = 147282.496, so at least it's the correct number for area. But yeah, adding "across" sounds weird there. Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago> a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields. One that means absolutely nothing to the majority of the people on the planet.
- speedgoose 3y agoI think it was a joke. But I’m not sure.
- Izkata 3y agoNot a joke, the article converted from meters to feet so the demographic limitation is ~the same. Don't know why the title on HN uses metres, the original title doesn't have any size. I only included "American" because I knew someone would jump on it with soccer/non-American football fields.
- speedgoose 3y agoAlright. The American obsession to use random things instead of the international system of units is weird and funny so I thought you were joking about it.
- rbanffy 3y ago> I knew someone would jump on it with soccer/non-American football fields. There is no such thing as "soccer". The correct name is "football", because you use your feet to move the ball inside the field during the game. There is also American football, which is an entirely different game, that's neither played with feet, or a ball. ;-P
- CydeWeys 3y agoYou might do well to read up on the history of asSOCiation football.
- rbanffy 3y agoI was joking.
- JdeBP 3y agoI've made the same joke that "Rules" is so named because it doesn't have any. (-: Having had the "soccer is what Americans call it" mantra drummed in from an early age, I was very interested to learn, only very recently, that "soccer" for Association Football has the same English upper-class slang roots as "rugger" for Rugby Football, and it's not actually an Americanism at all, as checking some old dictionaries from the 19th and early 20th centuries as well as Notes and Queries has since confirmed. Partridge actually has a name for it, the "Oxford -er"; hence "topper" for "top hat", "header" for "heading a ball", "diner" for "dining car", "camper" for "camping car", and so forth. So one should dislike it for the right reasons: not because it's an Americanism, which it isn't in the first place, but because it's an invention of 19th century Oxbridge toffs who stuck "-er" after the first syllable of everything as a social-class shibboleth. (-:
- 0xfaded 3y agoIt's about one Australian Rules Football ground
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoAnd to a lot of Americans also.
- rpeden 3y agoTo clear things up, then, it's about 1.64 Canadian football fields.
- mxfh 3y agoLarge MLB fields are in that size range too: 400+ feet across dead center. https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/03/24/mlb-outfield-walls-ranked-fenway-park-yankee-stadium https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/03/24/mlb-outfield-walls-ranked-...
- OJFord 3y agoI think the main point was the measurement of area 'across', not the non-SI unit.
- Izkata 3y agoThe article converted all the measurements for a US audience, but the "square feet across" line halfway down is the only one they jumped on. Plus questioning why not just use diameter at the bottom of their comment.
- OJFord 3y agoWe agree then? Edit: Oh wait, sorry, I must have misread/not read that you agreed adding 'across' was weird initially. Thought you were just saying 'sqm/sqft no big deal move on' sort of thing.
- bandyaboot 3y agoI can’t possibly visualize its overall Size without knowing how many Olympic sized swimming pools it could fill.
- rikroots 3y agoI need more granularity to get a sense of the volume we're talking about here. Has anyone measured it in double-decker buses yet?
- davemp 3y agoOr ~147 avg house footprints
- rbanffy 3y ago> Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields. OK, but how many elephants would that be?
- foobarbecue 3y agoIt's not just "weird" -- it's completely nonsensical. It's like saying "the color of a stop sign is triangle"
- JdeBP 3y agoAbsolutely. Everyone knows that the colour is octagon, by international standard. (-:
- havefunbesafe 3y ago"Tim Newcomb is a journalist based in the Pacific Northwest. He covers stadiums, sneakers, gear, infrastructure, and more for a variety of publications, including Popular Mechanics." Could be why.