Km.--Miles converter
Apr 26th, 2004 | 01:49 PM
#22
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 35,162
Likes: 0
that's right but St Cirq has it correct, I think you'd aren't reading or understanding what she wrote.
I don't do this complicated two step stuff, either, dropping decimal pts, multiplying first by one no. then another, etc. This is simple math since 1 km is approx .6 mile. If one knows basic algebra, you can go from miles to km and back. I just divide the km by .6 to get miles, as that's what I want to do in Europe. (It is actually .62 mile, which is why the 5/8 thing works).
There is a real neat online web site that converts anything, though, called www.onlineconversion.com
I don't do this complicated two step stuff, either, dropping decimal pts, multiplying first by one no. then another, etc. This is simple math since 1 km is approx .6 mile. If one knows basic algebra, you can go from miles to km and back. I just divide the km by .6 to get miles, as that's what I want to do in Europe. (It is actually .62 mile, which is why the 5/8 thing works).
There is a real neat online web site that converts anything, though, called www.onlineconversion.com
Apr 26th, 2004 | 02:03 PM
#23
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Hm... Now, Christina, he/she wrote:
"The way I learned it was to multiply miles by 5 and divide by 8 to get kilometers. Still works for me."
Ok. Take an example. 1 mile. Multiply that by 5. Divide by 8. You get 5/8 or 0.625.
That's not right. It should be 1.6.
He/She inverted miles and kilometers.
Did I read this wrong?
"The way I learned it was to multiply miles by 5 and divide by 8 to get kilometers. Still works for me."
Ok. Take an example. 1 mile. Multiply that by 5. Divide by 8. You get 5/8 or 0.625.
That's not right. It should be 1.6.
He/She inverted miles and kilometers.
Did I read this wrong?
Apr 26th, 2004 | 02:11 PM
#26
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
I stand by what I wrote. StCirq, can you follow your instructions and give us a calculated example?
As I wrote, 1 km = 0.625 = 5/8 mile.
1 mile = 1.6 km.
Your recipe, if I follow it, when converting 1 mile to 1 km, will give a number smaller than 1.
As I wrote, 1 km = 0.625 = 5/8 mile.
1 mile = 1.6 km.
Your recipe, if I follow it, when converting 1 mile to 1 km, will give a number smaller than 1.
Apr 26th, 2004 | 02:28 PM
#27
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
RufusTFirefly, you might just have me there - I have to admit that your approach ("metrics are boring"
has a certain offbeat appeal. So why not go the whole hog and return to pounds, shillings and pence? Being old enough to remember that system (as well as Imperial measurements) I can tell you that learning to subtract £4.18s.7-1/2d (spoken as "four pounds eighteen and sevenpence-ha'p'ny" from £8.6s.4d ("eight pounds six and fourpence" gives a whole new meaning to excitement in primary school.
Actually I wrote my post straight after trying to help an American visitor deal with Australian petrol (gas) pricing, a multi-step process leading from AU$ per litre to US$ per US gallon (3.785 litres). I decided that life was complicated enough without that, so I'm happy to get my kicks in other ways. But as you guys say, diff'rent strokes.....
Pat, one thing I noticed while driving in the US is that even though I knew very well that 100 miles to the next town was 160 km, at another level what lodged in my brain was "one hour" when I saw the "100" sign, with the result that those 100 miles tended to drag. So, look on the bright side - you might be pleasantly surprised at how fast you get around Ireland. As long as you get the right sign, of course.
has a certain offbeat appeal. So why not go the whole hog and return to pounds, shillings and pence? Being old enough to remember that system (as well as Imperial measurements) I can tell you that learning to subtract £4.18s.7-1/2d (spoken as "four pounds eighteen and sevenpence-ha'p'ny" from £8.6s.4d ("eight pounds six and fourpence" gives a whole new meaning to excitement in primary school. Actually I wrote my post straight after trying to help an American visitor deal with Australian petrol (gas) pricing, a multi-step process leading from AU$ per litre to US$ per US gallon (3.785 litres). I decided that life was complicated enough without that, so I'm happy to get my kicks in other ways. But as you guys say, diff'rent strokes.....
Pat, one thing I noticed while driving in the US is that even though I knew very well that 100 miles to the next town was 160 km, at another level what lodged in my brain was "one hour" when I saw the "100" sign, with the result that those 100 miles tended to drag. So, look on the bright side - you might be pleasantly surprised at how fast you get around Ireland. As long as you get the right sign, of course.
Apr 26th, 2004 | 02:31 PM
#28
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Sorry, St. Cirq, you haven't lost your mind, but you are misstating this. Let's break this down a bit more. (I have to go through a process like this every time I first learn to a convert to any currency, or else it doesn't penetrate my skull.)
Multiplying times 5 and then dividing by 8 is really just multiplying times 5/8. (Remember when you first learned to multiply times a fraction?) Multiplying miles times 5/8 would be correct if 1 mile were about 5/8 kms. But it's not. One mile is about 8/5 kilometers. Miles are longer than kms, which is why any given distance has fewer miles than kms.
So for miles to kilometers, multiply by 8/5; for kilometers to miles (which was the original question), multiply by 5/8.
And that's why I find .6 easier to work with and close enough for me!
Multiplying times 5 and then dividing by 8 is really just multiplying times 5/8. (Remember when you first learned to multiply times a fraction?) Multiplying miles times 5/8 would be correct if 1 mile were about 5/8 kms. But it's not. One mile is about 8/5 kilometers. Miles are longer than kms, which is why any given distance has fewer miles than kms.
So for miles to kilometers, multiply by 8/5; for kilometers to miles (which was the original question), multiply by 5/8.
And that's why I find .6 easier to work with and close enough for me!
Apr 26th, 2004 | 03:23 PM
#29
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
RufusTFirefly, you might just have me there - I have to admit that your approach ("metrics are boring" has a certain offbeat appeal. So why not go the whole hog and return to pounds, shillings and pence? Being old enough to remember that system (as well as Imperial measurements) I can tell you that learning to subtract £4.18s.7-1/2d (spoken as "four pounds eighteen and sevenpence-ha'p'ny" from £8.6s.4d ("eight pounds six and fourpence" gives a whole new meaning to excitement in primary school.
Actually I wrote my post straight after trying to help an American visitor deal with Australian petrol (gas) pricing, a multi-step process leading from AU$ per litre to US$ per US gallon (3.785 litres). I decided that life was complicated enough without that, so I'm happy to get my kicks in other ways. But as you guys say, diff'rent strokes.....
Pat, one thing I noticed while driving in the US is that even though I knew very well that 100 miles to the next town was 160 km, at another level what lodged in my brain was "one hour" when I saw the "100" sign, with the result that those 100 miles tended to drag. So, look on the bright side - you might be pleasantly surprised at how fast you get around Ireland. As long as you get the right sign, of course.
has a certain offbeat appeal. So why not go the whole hog and return to pounds, shillings and pence? Being old enough to remember that system (as well as Imperial measurements) I can tell you that learning to subtract £4.18s.7-1/2d (spoken as "four pounds eighteen and sevenpence-ha'p'ny" from £8.6s.4d ("eight pounds six and fourpence" gives a whole new meaning to excitement in primary school. Actually I wrote my post straight after trying to help an American visitor deal with Australian petrol (gas) pricing, a multi-step process leading from AU$ per litre to US$ per US gallon (3.785 litres). I decided that life was complicated enough without that, so I'm happy to get my kicks in other ways. But as you guys say, diff'rent strokes.....
Pat, one thing I noticed while driving in the US is that even though I knew very well that 100 miles to the next town was 160 km, at another level what lodged in my brain was "one hour" when I saw the "100" sign, with the result that those 100 miles tended to drag. So, look on the bright side - you might be pleasantly surprised at how fast you get around Ireland. As long as you get the right sign, of course.
Apr 27th, 2004 | 04:44 AM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was absent the day they taught fractions and algebra. I simply deduct 1/3 off the Km and get pretty close to the Mi. Can't be bothered to add, then divide and with decimal points thrown in somewhere - oh, pleeeese! I don't really worry if I'm off a mile or two - it's close enough. Simplify things.
Apr 27th, 2004 | 05:34 AM
#32
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
StCirq is wrong. 111op is correct.
This is a trivial conversion. Think about it. If London is 50 miles away from Cambridge, it's 80 kilometres away (roughly). Therefore to convert FROM miles TO kilometres, your conversion factor must make the answer BIGGER.
Therefore when StCirq states "multiply miles by 5 and divide by 8 to get kilometers.", you are multiplying miles (the smaller value) by 5 then dividing by 8. In my example that would mean take your original 50 miles, multiply by 5 to get 250 and then "...divide by 8 to get kilometers." which comes to just over 31km.
Thus StCirq believes 50 miles is equivalent to 31 kilometers/kilometres. The world is getting smaller, for sure, but the math(s) isn't getting any better...
This is a trivial conversion. Think about it. If London is 50 miles away from Cambridge, it's 80 kilometres away (roughly). Therefore to convert FROM miles TO kilometres, your conversion factor must make the answer BIGGER.
Therefore when StCirq states "multiply miles by 5 and divide by 8 to get kilometers.", you are multiplying miles (the smaller value) by 5 then dividing by 8. In my example that would mean take your original 50 miles, multiply by 5 to get 250 and then "...divide by 8 to get kilometers." which comes to just over 31km.
Thus StCirq believes 50 miles is equivalent to 31 kilometers/kilometres. The world is getting smaller, for sure, but the math(s) isn't getting any better...
Apr 27th, 2004 | 05:43 AM
#33
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Thanks Jimbo. The first thing I did when I came to work today was to check what had happened to this thread (which seemed to have temporarily disappeared. I thought that some overnight flame wars had caused Fodor's to pull the thread. 
Jul 8th, 2005 | 11:22 AM
#39
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,605
Likes: 0
After skimming the above posts, I agree that it would be nice to use an online converter:
www.onlineconversion.com
www.onlineconversion.com
