Template talk:Convert/Archive July 2012

Volume per hour
For concrete pump, 140 m3/h and/or 140 m3/h instead of 140 m3/h. Peter Horn User talk 02:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * DONE. I added the new unit code as "cuyd/h" for cubic yards. Examples:
 * &middot; {convert|140|m3/h|cuyd/h|sp=us} &rarr; 140 m3/h
 * &middot; {convert|55|cuyd/h}    &rarr; 55 cuyd/h
 * &middot; {convert|55|cuyd/h|11} &rarr; 55 cuyd/h
 * The precision can be over 14 digits. See the Template:Convert/cuyd/h for the details of the conversion factor. -Wikid77 12:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Convert/spell range
For Battle of Schellenberg 5 or Peter Horn User talk 01:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ranges too difficult for Convert/spell: Currently, Template:Convert/spell cannot process ranges of numbers, and I have not seen an easy fix to allow such ranges yet. At this point, reword the text to show the range as numerals, rather than words. -Wikid77 12:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kapiche. Peter Horn User talk 19:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Error in LT conversion?
I've looked casually at some ship articles and seen some odd conversions (I've edited them in the articles to end "|0}}" and they display correctly, versions before my edits were as below).

The values displayed using the current convert template are: BL 18 inch Mk I naval gun 149 LT ==> 149 LT 149 LT ==> 149 LT  100 LT ==> 100 LT (!!!)

Japanese battleship Yamato 3000 LT ==> 3000 LT (!!!)

The values displayed at the time I entered this (in case the template gets altered) were:

BL 18 inch Mk I naval gun 149 long tons (151 t) (OK) 149 long tons (151 t) (OK) 100 long tons (100 t) (!!!) Japanese battleship Yamato 3,000 long tons (3,000 t) (!!!)

I don't know if I'm missing something, or if people have been misusing the template, or if there's an error in the template, but 100 LT is about 101.6 tonnes (t), rounding to 102. If it's user error, there were errors in the only two articles I happened to look at, so maybe there's something that encourages error. The results for the same-format 149 LT and 100 LT seem inconsistent.

I have the impression that when I looked at the article 149 LT gave 149t, though it shows correctly as 151 above.

I report this without further comment. Maybe it's just late and I should have gone to bed hours ago? Pol098 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's to do with the number of significant figures. 149 has three significant figures, but 100 and 3000 each have only one sig fig. By default, outputs the same number of significant figures as it is given. As you have observed, using   forces the conversion as rounding to the nearest integer; but there is another technique, to use the sigfig parameter.
 * → 149 LT
 * → 100 LT
 * → 3000 LT
 * Use this parameter with caution: do not imply a greater accuracy than can be verified. That is, is the 3,000 LT mentioned known to be accurate to the exact ton, or has it already been rounded to the nearest 10, 100 or even 1000 tons?
 * → 3000 LT
 * → 3000 LT
 * → 3000 LT
 * → 3000 LT
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I know about significant figures but assumed the effect only kicked in with decimal places, hadn't realised that a round number would be deemed to have fewer sigfigs than its length. I suspected I'd missed something, fairly obvious when "|0}}" corrected the "problem". Not sure if I like the default behaviour. Thinking about it, it may make sense in most cases, but where the conversion factor is so close to 1 (1.016) it leads to weirdness, where someone making a point of converting a round number of long tons shows exactly the same figure for tonnes. Pol098 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Energy consumption
For High-density solids pump an elegant conversion instead of the following: Energy consumption = approx. 0.05 kWh (170 BTU) per 1 tonne (0.98 long ton; 1.10 short tons) of conveyed material and per 1 kilometer (0.62 mi). Peter Horn User talk 19:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've change it to "50 Wh per tonne of conveyed material and per kilometer (280 Btu per long ton or 250 Btu per short ton per mile)". J IM ptalk·cont 15:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Error in N(ewton) to lb
I noticed in Ingo Simon that the conversion from Newton into pounds (for the draw weight of a bow) is off by a factor of 10. At the moment, the article claims (very plausible) 440 N, but (very much impossible unless Dr. Bruce Banner is involved) 970 lb. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * this is a common problem. the correct unit for force is lbf, not lb.  so 440 N is correct and 440 N is nonsense. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * someone should go through this list and make sure they are all correct. most will be false positives, since it is a search for conversions to/from N and to/from lb, but not necessary together. I checked a couple animal articles and found some mistakes (e.g., Sperm whale and Tasmanian devil).  a random sample of aviation/space articles were all fine. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Created Convert/newtons for novice users: I think the rejection of "lb" as an invalid output unit can be done by Template:Convert/newtons, which new users might be tempted to use. Using "lb" or garbled "lfb" gives an error message:
 * {&#123;convert|9|newtons|lbf}} &rarr; 9 newtons
 * {&#123;convert|9|newtons|lb}} &rarr; 9 newtons
 * {&#123;convert|27.4|newtons|lfb}} &rarr; 27.4 newtons
 * That tactic could be applied in Template:Convert/N. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

torque
some problems? 22.4 kgm 22.4 kgm and  why the torque converters all gives different outputs for example

190 lbft

190 Nm, this gives lots of different lbft outputs in automobile articles. Or is this preferred style in some other articles? -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 03:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You used kgm and Nm with no dot, so likewise lbft should have no dot 22.4 kgm → 22.4 kgm  Stepho  talk  04:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This has worked okay earlier, but stopped working around some months ago. These templates should take care of dots or no dots? I dont know but in many countries is not used any dots in newtonmetres. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 11:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We had a discussion a few months back that decided we would only support the short form of most units to convert (eg support km but not necessarily kilometres or kilometers). I guess 'lb.ft' was a casualty of that decision. Also beware that there are a lot of combinations of output units (ie 'Nm' and 'lb.ft', without dot, both with dot, first only with dot and second with dot) that it gets impractical to support all forms. There are 8 combinations if you want to combined no dot, lower dot (period) and mid dot. All of which would have to be maintained. Best to keep to the short form without dots.  Stepho  talk  07:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you explain the second half of the problem again - I don't quite get your point.  Stepho  talk 04:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the lbft problem? so if you use 190 lbft you will get lbft as output 190 lbft, but if you use 190 Nm you will get 190 Nm, so the output can be whatever depending what template you are using lb·ft,lbf·ft etc, shouldnt they all use the same lb·ft? we are having now lots of automobile articles with different torque units-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I see it. Sometimes the template displays lb·ft and sometimes it displays lbf·ft.
 * 22.4 Nm → 22.4 Nm


 * 22.4 Nm → 22.4 Nm
 * 22.4 Nm → 22.4 Nm
 * In the first the output param was implicitly given as lbft (no f). In the second the output param was given as lbfft (with f). In the third the template was allowed to choose its own and it choose the more formal lbf·ft (with f).  Stepho  talk 07:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is convert/spell borking with defualt output unit?
Should   work? ⇒ 3 mi

  ⇒ 3 mi does.

I see that instances of /spell generating these errors are being removed from article text. Some regression testing somewhere? Bleakcomb (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)