For something that doesn't run continuously, like eg. a refrigerator, then an average daily usage is more useful, no? "This product draws 1.5 kW with a duty cycle of 0.08" doesn't really help when comparing efficiencies of potential purchases, you'd need to convert it to electricity consumed in a set period anyway.
Exactly, it's a unit of convenience, not a unit of abstract precision.
Even a unit of "gallons/sqft" could be handy in the right context. If you were trying to design a storage solution for discretely packaged product for example, it could be a figure of merit despite literally factoring out to a unit of length.
I could imagine a scenario where gal/ft² is useful. Like with grocery store shelving figuring shelving and product stacking. If liquid storage containers are stackable then you have have more gallons per square footage of shelf space. Or of they're not stackable, then taller containers would hold more liquid in the same shelf space than shorter containers with the same footprint.
Yeah it seems odd to represent something as a volume/area, but that is the relevant information you're comparing and it's intuitive how that number changes based on changes to volume as projected onto an area. Bigger number points toward a more efficient use of shelving.
It's pretty common to use acre inches and acre foot as a unit of volume for measuring water in agriculture, water use, flood mitigation, etc.
So if we can use area height as a volumetric unit, by not volume/area as a height unit?
US customary has gone too far and must be destroyed
A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.