3 ms·

Google is (still) a great tool for this sort of conversion. It comes up with just under 58 barrels: https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fc

by addaon 2y ago

Google is (still) a great tool for this sort of conversion. It comes up with just under 58 barrels: https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+in+oil+barrels https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%...

Terr_ 2y ago
> Google is (still) a great tool for this sort of conversion Alas, not in this case, since Google is interpreting that as a 42-gallon "petrochemical-industry traditional abstract measuring unit of crude oil" as opposed to a 55-gallon "physical container readers may have seen and everybody actually uses." (Including to hold crude oil, in the rare cases that it's not in an enormous tank or pipeline.) Perhaps this is an example of where "intelligent assistant" software lands in a dangerous middle-zone of "wrong, but not wrong enough that it's obvious." Anywho, if we reword it a bit and put in a less-rounded density, it comes out the same: https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.095+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+%2F+55+gallons https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.095+g%2Fc... __________ P.S.: The way it parses this small change is also amusing, where "in water barrels" isn't a change in the type of barrel, but instead introduces a non-SI unit of pressure, making everything murky indeed. https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+in+water+barrels https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%...
- Hnrobert42 2y ago
  It is remarkable that you spotted the inaccuracy. You make a good point about it being wrong but not wrong enough. OTOH, the correct answer by your reasoning is 44 barrels. For my purposes, 58 is right enough. I can't even visualize the difference between 44 and 58 barrels. 44 barrels is about 323 cubic feet (9.1 cubic meters). That's about the size of my bathroom. 57 tons in my tiny bathroom. Gallium is shockingly dense. Which makes sense.
  - FabHK 2y ago
    Yes, it's a cube with sides of just a touch more than 2m (7ft). Remarkable.
easygenes 2y ago
My preference for this on the web is Wolfram Alpha: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+in+oil+drums https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%... (note I've slightly changed the prompt to match the "drums" OP used instead of barrels. This avoids the issue other child mentions of ambiguous units, as it clearly states the volume of drum it's using and gives options for others (e.g. the international 200L instead of the US 208L/55 GAL). Another option which I wouldn't inherently trust to get the calculation just right, but is good for explaining the process if you can fact-check it is ChatGPT-4o: https://chatgpt.com/share/ead07fff-8d55-4147-a742-6e19b26f1ee6 https://chatgpt.com/share/ead07fff-8d55-4147-a742-6e19b26f1e...

by addaon 2y ago

Terr_ 2y ago

> Google is (still) a great tool for this sort of conversion Alas, not in this case, since Google is interpreting that as a 42-gallon "petrochemical-industry traditional abstract measuring unit of crude oil" as opposed to a 55-gallon "physical container readers may have seen and everybody actually uses." (Including to hold crude oil, in the rare cases that it's not in an enormous tank or pipeline.) Perhaps this is an example of where "intelligent assistant" software lands in a dangerous middle-zone of "wrong, but not wrong enough that it's obvious." Anywho, if we reword it a bit and put in a less-rounded density, it comes out the same: https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.095+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+%2F+55+gallons https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.095+g%2Fc... __________ P.S.: The way it parses this small change is also amusing, where "in water barrels" isn't a change in the type of barrel, but instead introduces a non-SI unit of pressure, making everything murky indeed. https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+in+water+barrels https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%...

Hnrobert42 2y ago
It is remarkable that you spotted the inaccuracy. You make a good point about it being wrong but not wrong enough. OTOH, the correct answer by your reasoning is 44 barrels. For my purposes, 58 is right enough. I can't even visualize the difference between 44 and 58 barrels. 44 barrels is about 323 cubic feet (9.1 cubic meters). That's about the size of my bathroom. 57 tons in my tiny bathroom. Gallium is shockingly dense. Which makes sense.
- FabHK 2y ago
  Yes, it's a cube with sides of just a touch more than 2m (7ft). Remarkable.

easygenes 2y ago

My preference for this on the web is Wolfram Alpha: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%5E3%29+in+oil+drums https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%... (note I've slightly changed the prompt to match the "drums" OP used instead of barrels. This avoids the issue other child mentions of ambiguous units, as it clearly states the volume of drum it's using and gives options for others (e.g. the international 200L instead of the US 208L/55 GAL). Another option which I wouldn't inherently trust to get the calculation just right, but is good for explaining the process if you can fact-check it is ChatGPT-4o: https://chatgpt.com/share/ead07fff-8d55-4147-a742-6e19b26f1ee6 https://chatgpt.com/share/ead07fff-8d55-4147-a742-6e19b26f1e...