Convert-Me.Com - online units conversion
Instant conversion pages: weight, length, volume, weight to volume, area, cooking, pressure, more...
cubic foot to linear meter conversion
Forum rules
Dear convert-me.com forum visitors,
Our forum has been available for many years. In September 2014 we decided to switch it to read-only mode. Month after month we saw less posts with questions and answers from real people and more spam posts. We were spending more and more resources cleaning the spam until there were less them 1 legitimate message per 100 spam posts. Then we decided it's time to stop.
All the posts in the forum will be available and searchable. We understand there are a lot of useful information and we aren't going to remove anything. As for the new questions, you can always ask them on convert-me.com FaceBook page
Thank you for being with us and sorry for any inconveniences this could caused.
Dear convert-me.com forum visitors,
Our forum has been available for many years. In September 2014 we decided to switch it to read-only mode. Month after month we saw less posts with questions and answers from real people and more spam posts. We were spending more and more resources cleaning the spam until there were less them 1 legitimate message per 100 spam posts. Then we decided it's time to stop.
All the posts in the forum will be available and searchable. We understand there are a lot of useful information and we aren't going to remove anything. As for the new questions, you can always ask them on convert-me.com FaceBook page
Thank you for being with us and sorry for any inconveniences this could caused.
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
cubic foot to linear meter conversion
by guest » Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:43 am
Is there any way (hopefully simple) to change something that has been measured in cubic feet into linear meters? It is for a work project. Say if I had 50 1.2 cubic foot boxes, what would it be in linear meters?
- guest
by Dirtman » Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:38 am
Sorry, no simple answer!
A cubic foot is a volume.
A linear meter is a length.
Cubic feet (volume) is calculated using at least three dimensions: length, width and depth. If you knew the dimensions from which the cubic footage was calculated, you would also need to know WHAT dimension (length? width? all?) you needed to use to obtain total length.
In your example, if you had 50 - 1.2 cubic foot boxes, you could place them end to end and come up with a viable answer only IF the boxes were made up of the same dimensions: 1.06265857' long * 1.06265857' wide * 1.06265857' high. That would total a length of 53.1329285 feet in any of the dimensions since they’re all the same (did you come up with 60 feet?). 53.1329285 feet would total 16.19 meters.
Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it? But, if the dimensions of the 1.2 cubic foot boxes weren't the same, you would have a different answer.
What if the boxes measured 1.549' long * 1.549' wide * 0.5' high? It is still 1.2 cubic feet per box! Place them lengthwise end to end. Now you have a total length of 77.45' or 23.61 meters.
Or 50 boxes measuring 2.4814' long * 0.78' wide * 0.62' high? Again, the volume is 1.2 cubic feet. Again, place them lengthwise end to end. Now you have a total length of 124.07' or 37.82 meters.
See the problem?
A cubic foot is a volume.
A linear meter is a length.
Cubic feet (volume) is calculated using at least three dimensions: length, width and depth. If you knew the dimensions from which the cubic footage was calculated, you would also need to know WHAT dimension (length? width? all?) you needed to use to obtain total length.
In your example, if you had 50 - 1.2 cubic foot boxes, you could place them end to end and come up with a viable answer only IF the boxes were made up of the same dimensions: 1.06265857' long * 1.06265857' wide * 1.06265857' high. That would total a length of 53.1329285 feet in any of the dimensions since they’re all the same (did you come up with 60 feet?). 53.1329285 feet would total 16.19 meters.
Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it? But, if the dimensions of the 1.2 cubic foot boxes weren't the same, you would have a different answer.
What if the boxes measured 1.549' long * 1.549' wide * 0.5' high? It is still 1.2 cubic feet per box! Place them lengthwise end to end. Now you have a total length of 77.45' or 23.61 meters.
Or 50 boxes measuring 2.4814' long * 0.78' wide * 0.62' high? Again, the volume is 1.2 cubic feet. Again, place them lengthwise end to end. Now you have a total length of 124.07' or 37.82 meters.
See the problem?
- Dirtman
- Expert
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:04 pm
- Location: California
by Guest » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:07 am
If you stacked the boxes in one long row of 5o, depending on which of those three dimensions was in the stacking direction, ot could be 500", 600", or 750" long. Or you could have two rows of 25 boxes, or you could have 5 row, 10 boxes long,
or 5 c 5 x 2, all different lengths. It makes no sense to assign one lonear length to a cubic capacity.
or 5 c 5 x 2, all different lengths. It makes no sense to assign one lonear length to a cubic capacity.
- Guest
More info
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1