4 ms·
Hmm, OK. Doesn't explain how the "3,500 kJ per pound" got in there - perhaps I still have optimistically high expectations, but I would have hoped that somewher
by PeterWhittaker 11y ago
Hmm, OK. Doesn't explain how the "3,500 kJ per pound" got in there - perhaps I still have optimistically high expectations, but I would have hoped that somewhere along the line the author or their editor would have noted that a pound cannot be equivalent to both 3.5 Mcal and 3.5 MJ. But mayhaps I wax pedantic.
- aylons 11y agoYou're right, I was also very surprised by this error and have commented on it as soon as this was posted. I just wanted to elucidate the correct value.