D
Dana DeLouis
Just a stupid observation. Looks like the problem of
=CONVERT(1,"l","qt")
has not been fixed in Excel 2003. This was acknowledged as a problem as far
back as Excel 2000.
XL2000: CONVERT Function Returns Incorrect Calculation for Liters and Quarts
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;283695
Seems to me that this would have been a very simple fix.
I also noticed that:
=CONVERT(1,"lbm","ozm")
returns:
16.000002342941
I thought it was just 16. Seems to me that it should be a little more
accurate than that. I can see it being off in the 15th digit, but the 8th?
But, I admit I'm a little confused. For help on "lbm", it says
"Pound mass (avoirdupois)"
I hate to admit it, but I had to look up "avoirdupois" It appears it's a
unit of weight (I might be wrong here). Should Microsoft be using mass &
weight in the same line?
Time to dust off the old Physics books. :>0
Again, just an observation for Excel 2003
Dana DeLouis
=CONVERT(1,"l","qt")
has not been fixed in Excel 2003. This was acknowledged as a problem as far
back as Excel 2000.
XL2000: CONVERT Function Returns Incorrect Calculation for Liters and Quarts
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;283695
Seems to me that this would have been a very simple fix.
I also noticed that:
=CONVERT(1,"lbm","ozm")
returns:
16.000002342941
I thought it was just 16. Seems to me that it should be a little more
accurate than that. I can see it being off in the 15th digit, but the 8th?
But, I admit I'm a little confused. For help on "lbm", it says
"Pound mass (avoirdupois)"
I hate to admit it, but I had to look up "avoirdupois" It appears it's a
unit of weight (I might be wrong here). Should Microsoft be using mass &
weight in the same line?
Time to dust off the old Physics books. :>0
Again, just an observation for Excel 2003
Dana DeLouis