Dear Bill and All, I have added some comments.
on 2003-03-22 13.04, Bill Potts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Pat Naughtin wrote: > "Have you reinvented dry and liquid measures? > Volume (dry) � cubic centimetres > Volume (liquid) � millilitres" > > I knew someone would say that. However, I bore in mind that milliliter is a > convenient and popular substitute for cubic centimeter, based on a non-SI > unit approved for use in SI. It is associated in most people's minds with > liquids, particularly wine, liquor and medicine. We are not likely to change > common practice in this area. I understand your point here, but I have nagging idea that it is easier for people to comprehend size parity if measures are made in the same units. For example, if I refer to a 200�litre cubic decimetre drum it is not necessarily and immediately obvious that it holds 200�litres. > My suggested use for cubic centimeters was not for "dry" measure, but for > the less commonplace specification of the volume of small enclosures (which > are empty, of course -- if we ignore the fact that they incidentally contain > air). As such specifications are typically for the benefit of the > technically adept, there's some inclination to be more SI-pure in the choice > of unit. I am wary of using one SI unit for the 'technically adept' and another for the 'common folk'. To paraphrase the statements on very old oceanic maps � 'Here be jargon'. > For intermediate volumes (for the unwashed masses), such as that of > a car trunk or car interior, I don't object to liters. My two refrigerators are clearly labelled 410 litres and 411 litres. I believe that all Australian and New Zealand made refrigerators are designed and specified using litres. > For room volumes, I > prefer cubic meters, of course. So do I. I checked the AIRAH (Australian Institute of Refrigeration Air-conditioning and Heating) handbook and it seems that the calculations that they use as examples for air volumes and air flows are done using cubic metres. But the volumes of water are all referred to in litres! > In a pure SI world, we wouldn't, of course, use liter, with or without > prefix. However, we'd be using an awful lot of syllables to say the same > thing. True, it is always an interesting collision when the forces of linguistics (where definitions are based on past usage) meet the forces of metrology (where definitions are based on standards). Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia
