Bill et al.
Litre is a litre no matter what prefix you attach to it, i.e. mL, cL, dL, L,
daL, hL, kL, ML etc. Some of these are in common use today. The prefixes
have been and are standardized. So why not be consistent?
Regards, Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hooper
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:22 PM
Subject: [USMA:38987] Re: Indefinite postponement
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!
==========================
