What does the BIPM have to say on the subject?  Don't they over rule any NIST 
variance?

Jerry




________________________________
From: STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:32:21 AM
Subject: [USMA:44477] Re: FPLA 2010


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
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: John M. Steele 
To: U.S.. Metric Association 
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:09 AM
Subject: [USMA:44476] Re: FPLA 2010

*It is harder to visual than 1 m³
*It uses a prefixed, incoherent "special name" unit when a coherent unit fits 
better.
*NIST SP811 says you shouldn't use prefixes greater than 1 with the liter.

Would you buy 1 mt of meat instead of 1 kg?  The tonne only makes sense for 
amounts larger than 1000 kg, and the liter only for amounts less than 1 m³.  
Among the other "special names", I notice the are is now deprecated when 
standing alone and is only accepted as the hectare.  It probably only makes 
sense between 1 ha and 100 ha, then you think about square kilometers.  (Some 
relaxation of rules OK in tables to retain same units through a column)

--- On Wed, 4/8/09, STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]> wrote:

From: STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44474] Re: FPLA 2010
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 7:35 AM


The kL is the same size as a cubic metre.  So what's the problem?  The litre is 
a very commonly used volume by virtually all people.
    Stan Doore
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bill Hooper 
To: U.S. Metric Association 
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:58 PM
Subject: [USMA:44468] Re: FPLA 2010



On  Apr 6 , at 8:18 AM, John M. Steele wrote:
I know you love the kiloliter, but I personally find the cubic meter a lot 
easier to visual.  You know, it's about 1 m x 1 m x 1 m. :)

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]> wrote:

   To go along with putting L (liter) first, (but) I suggest using the kL 
(kiloliter)  in place of a cubic meter in non-engineering (public) usage.  kL 
is much easier  to use and is more understandable by the public.I go along with 
John on this. Stanley may think of a kilotitre to be easier to visualize, but I 
don't. I keep trying to visualize a thousand one-litre bottles of a beverage 
(or five hundred 2 L bottles, etc.). None of that works for me. 

But a cube 1 m long and 1 m wide and 1 m high is easy to visualize. Before I 
retired, I concluded that my nice big desk in my lab occupied a space very 
close to a cubic metre. It was a bit longer than 1 m but a bit shorter than 1 
m, and had a width of just about 1 m, so it came out quite close to 1 m^3.

I used that as my example of a cubic metre for students in my metric and in my 
physics classes.


Bill Hooper
1810 mm tall
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA

==========================
   SImplification Begins With SI.
==========================


      

Reply via email to