J.W Younger
ass kissing impaired
most of you probably know this but for those that don't..length x height x width in inches devided by 220=cords or fractions of cords let the flaming begin
220, 221, whatever it takes. :greenchainsaw:
But seriously, I think you are off by a factor of 1000 when calculating cubic inches. That is, divide by 220000 cu.in., instead of 220 cu.in.
220, 221, whatever it takes. :greenchainsaw:
But seriously, I think you are off by a factor of 1000 when calculating cubic inches. That is, divide by 220000 cu.in., instead of 220 cu.in.
you are correct, the more zeros the more accurate, just lazy here
The more zeros don't have anything to do with accuracy but more to do with right answer and wrong answer.
220, 221, whatever it takes. :greenchainsaw:
.
you say tomatoes
if i drop all the zeros and devide by 22 can i move the dot 4 digits left and come up with the same answer, really dumb here so bear with me.1 cord, 1000 cords, no real difference.
Harry, It is supposed to all be in inches not a mixture of feet and inches 96" x 48" x 16" = 73728 cubic inches. Divide that by 220,000 and you get 0.3351273 cords . ??? ??? That cant be right ! It shopuld have been 0.3333_ cords. Oh well I guess I give'em a stick or 2 anyway.
To be more accurate 1728 (cubic inches in a cubic foot) x 128 (cubic feet in a cord) is 221,184 cubic inches in a cord. but 220 is easier to figure in your head so 220 works for me.
Thanks
Enter your email address to join: