On 2007 Jun 29 , at 5:29 AM, G Stanley Doore wrote (commenting on my previous message):
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
I DON'T want to use a mixture or two terms for the same unit (which is what Doore is claiming above). I am arguing AGAINST the use of the "kilolitre", since it is identical to the cubic metre and the name "cubic metre" is the only name that is needed. The cubic metre can and should be used instead of the kilolitre.
The litre is an exception/ It is an exception that has been made by BIPM (not by me) and they had sound reasons for doing it, although one can legitimately argue that they could have favored using the name "cucic decimetre" instead of introducing the name litre. There is some history behind the reasons why some things have been done. The litre is a rare exception to the usually pure and simple rules of SI. There aren't many exceptions and BIPM (and I) hope to keep them to an absolute minimum.
Thus, let's not use kilolitre, which is not condoned by BIPM for use with SI (even though the litre IS approved for use with SI).
Regards, Bill Hooper Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA ========================== Make It Simple; Make It Metric! ==========================
