I've recently come across this as keal/kg. When I googled past Keal as a proper name, I also found keal/hr.

Any suggestions as to what it might mean. My current theory is that it's a typo for kcal, but I thought I'd better check with the more scientifically aware.

Bingley

a typo for kcal - looks highly likely. No other unit of any resemblance to this is known to me.

I've recently come across this as keal/kg.

It looks like typo for "keel", Bingley. Keel weight is an important consideration in the design of a keel.

This is over my head, but it may mean something to you:
[BTW this search also turned up "squat and trim" which is interesting.]

"The distance of the the center of gravity above the keel (KG) only minimally influences the behavior of the ship (Graph 3):

Only a minimal dependence of the squat on the KG (DKG up to approx. 3 m) could be measured in the investigation with the PPM 350.

An increase in the distance of the center of gravity above the keel causes a "softer" ship behavior in waves. There is no definite influence of the size of the KG on the trim angle in calm water.

Graph 3: Influence of the distance of the center of gravity above the keel (KG) on the squat and trim of very large PPM container ships (here with a length of 350 m) (60 KB)

A prognosis for the squat and trim behavior of large PPM container ships is not possible on the basis of "classic" analytical and empirical approaches, as has been shown in a comparison of calculations and measurements in a hydraulic model (e.g., squat in Graph 4):

http://www.baw.de/vip/en/departments/department_k/projects/squat/squat_laenge-en.html

I've enjoyed this little nautical excursion, Bingley, thanks. I might just do a post on some nautical terms in ship design including "squat and trim" and "coamings" [which turned up also].

A typo for kcal sounds more likely than a typo for keel, since keel involves hitting the same letter twice, whereas kcal requires hitting a different key.

Here's a site that does use "keel/kg" as a unit of measurement, but not in any remotely nautical context.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/firewild/bib/184.htm

Here's a quote from one hit on "keal/kg" that appears to conclusively vindicate your assumption, Bingley.:
and must be expressed as "kilocalories per kilogram" ("keal/kg) of product ...
Here's the source link:
http://www.state.ma.us/dfa/legal/regs/farmprod_1300~1_petfood.pdf

I suppose kilocalories per kg is probably correct, but the nautical stuff is more interesting.

Googling pulled up an article discussing squat in relation to the Queen Mary 2 and it brought home how careful the calculations need to be for any large vessel. It is quite possible to end up with a design such that squat could limit the ports of call open to the vessel which would have a direct effect on the commercial viability of the proposed vessel.

Simply put, 'squat' is the amount by which the keel is forced down into the water when the vessel is underway and it varies with speed and channel width.

'squat' is the amount by which the keel is forced down into the water when the vessel is underway and it varies with speed and channel width.

I didn't know diddley-squat about "squat" before, dxb. Thanks.

Sorry if I threw you off keel on "keal", Bingley.

I suppose I should have mentioned that the context was quality control for coal supplies ....

But then we would never have known about Queen Mary's squat.

Bingley