"David Biddulph" <groups [at] biddulph.org.uk wrote in message

As one example, with the 10 to 14 correction, 69.8 kg gives 4 Stones
14 lbs, which doesn't seem quite right? :-)
I guess that you are just converting from pounds to stones, rather
than from kg?
You did, however fall into the same 14lb trap that my earlier formula
did, which I've subsequently corrected by doing the rounding *before*
the INT and MOD [or INT and (x-INT(x))].

I think what Sandy was trying to suggest was that a division by 14 is
exact (subject to the precision of Excel's calculation, whereas your
mulitplication by 0.071429 is an approximation for the recurring
number 0.07142857142857142857...).

"Gord Dibben" <gorddibbATshawDOTca wrote in message
...
Thanks Sandy

Typo on the 10

Not sure what you mean by the second part.

Gord

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:55:12 -0000, "Sandy Mann"

wrote:

Gord,

=INT(A3*0.071429)&" Stones
"&ROUND((A3*0.071429-INT(A3*0.071429))*10,0)&"
lbs"

Should you not have multiplied by 14 instead of 10? (Unless of
course Canada has metric stones <g)

and would it not be better to divide by 14 then multiply by
0.071429?

An interesting discussion but I wonder where in the world the
calculation is now needed? In any case, I remember that weights were
verbalized as, say, "10 stone 12" for a personal weight of 152 lb.

--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland