4 ms·
"Volume that can flood a defined area A to depth B" isn't a totally unreasonable way to measure large volumes of liquids that are replenished by falling from th
by amalcon 3y ago
"Volume that can flood a defined area A to depth B" isn't a totally unreasonable way to measure large volumes of liquids that are replenished by falling from the sky over an area.
Of course it's a bit odd because it uses acres and feet for the area and depth, instead of reasonable units like meters, but those are just the usual strange units.
- epistasis 3y agoThe point is that because our unit of area, the acre, has a very difficult conversion from our units for length, and there are even extremely difficult conversions for different scales of length, we invest yet another unit. Whereas in a more rational system, the unit for volume would be based on the unit for length in such a way that one could easily convert square-kilometer-inches into cubic meters without a calculator, for example.
- amalcon 3y agoI would contend that in the context of reporting specifically on a water shortage, a unit like km^2*cm is actually superior to m^3. First of all, that conversion is actually nontrivial to do in your head. Yes, it's easy enough if you're focused on it it (factor of 10,000). Someone who doesn't frequently convert volumes could easily have an off-by-1000 error while casually reading an article. This is a kind of error that science teachers see all the time. Second, the direct "depth of flooding" value is useful both on the production side (rainfall) and for two of the largest consumers (agriculture and lawn care). The conversion therefore needs to happen twice, which is one of the usual thresholds for delaying the conversion into M-K-S.