Stan and Pierre, I think you have some good arguments for allowing larger multiples of the liter in *common parlance*.
If you are able to persuade the CCU, CIPM, and NIST to accept multiples greater than one, I'll be among the last to object, but in Science and Technology, I'm with John. The coherence of SI is more important, without the liter and its multiples, except, perhaps, in medical practice. Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:39:48 -0400 >From: Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:44483] Re: FPLA 2010 >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > >On Wednesday 08 April 2009 08:32:21 STANLEY DOORE wrote: >> I disagree with the NIST in the case of kL because L is used widely and >> well known in the public sector. Are you suggesting that mm^3 be used >> instead of L? Stan Doore > >I too disagree with the NIST. A liter is a cubic decimeter, a kiloliter is a >cubic meter, a megaliter is a cubic decameter, a gigaliter is a cubic >hectometer, a teraliter is a cubic kilometer, a petaliter is a cubic - what? >You can't express the petaliter as the cube of a named unit. Likewise the >exaliter. Contrariwise, you can't express the cubic yottameter or cubic >zeptometer as a prefixed liter. > >As to the tonne, I wouldn't use it with any prefix. There are so many kinds of >tons and tuns that just saying "tonne" instead of "megagram" is not worth the >loss of clarity. > >The stere has been deprecated, but I think it's still useful as a jargon unit, >since it has only one syllable compared to four for both alternatives. I >still sometimes think in steres, since my father grew up with the unit. > >Pierre >
