Just why would you write it like that? Why not just use the standard km/h? There also should be a space between the number and the unit (narrow non-breaking is best for this)
Just why would you write it like that? Why not just use the standard km/h? There also should be a space between the number and the unit (narrow non-breaking is best for this)
1. Ars is written for general readers, i.e. it ain't a refereed technical journal.
2. Though there will be only one Will Shakespeare, the English language licenses authors to coin words [and quine quines].
3. Usage is hard, even when referencing the scientific "km/h".
4. Bespoke fact checking is expensive and the internet makes all grammar errors shallow.
My take is that while accurate attention to the specification of velocities is critical to space travel it is not nearly so to the thrust of the article. Boosting research there would little lift the major point. [caveat] I admit to the belief it's almost certainly a calculated mixture of time/money investment relative to the intellectual payload and the magazine's mission.
So when I read "kph" I read "kay pea aich" which is pleasing, while "km/h" is ambiguous. Rationally, I prefer "km/h", but I am irresistably drawn towards "kph". Seriously -- for me at least, the effect is very strong.
In my experience kph is more common than km/h.
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?q=%22kph%22+site:au - 256,000 results
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?q=%22km%2Fh%22+site:au - 523,000 results
Adding constructs like kph sounds like the reintroduction of foot and elbow sizes in the system. Please keep it consistent. /end of rant
Using a / is technically correct, sure, but it's also technical language and where I'm from people are unlikely to use that. They simply wouldn't think to abbreviate the 'per' in 'kilometres per hour' to a slash, any more than they'd think to abbreviate 'miles per hour' to 'm/s'. So, kph.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/11/2002-c...