Bill et al:
The litre is identically the same as cubic decimeter, mL is identically the
same as cubic millimetre, etc. and the kL is identically the same as cubic
metre. So why switch terminally? I took your explanation as
implying/advocating two different terms - litre and cubic decimetre etc. - for
identical quantities.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your explanation. I still don't understand why you
want to use a mixture/two terms for the same quantity/quantities/notation in
common general/public practice in contrast to scientific practice/notation when
the litre is ACCEPTABLE for use under the SI while NOT being strictly SI.
You said: "(2) there is no reason to have two names (and two symbols) for the
same unit." So why use litre (L) at all? Can't there be consistency in pubic
practice and in scientific practice in this special case for volume?
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hooper
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:54 PM
Subject: [USMA:38956] Re: Indefinite postponement
On 2007 Jun 28 , at 5:09 PM, STANLEY DOORE wrote:
Bill Hooper asks why not keep the cubic decimeter, cubic metre, cubic
millimetre etc. which are strictly SI.
No, I did not. I merely asked to keep the cubic metre and not replace it with
the kilolitre.
I said nothing about the others you mention. I do have some thoughts on
those, but those thoughts have no bearing on my argument for NOT using the
kilolitre.
That argument is:
because
(1) the kilolitre is identically the same as a cubic metre
(which most decidedly IS a proper SI unit),
and
(2) there is no reason to have two names (and two symbols) for the same unit.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==========================
Make It Simple; Make It Metric!
==========================
