No matter what system of units are used, to speak of steam in terms of any unit of volume is not very meaningful, unless you also include the temperature and pressure of the steam. In power plants, we talk of steam in terms of mass, or we simply state the temperature and pressure of the steam which is directly related to the energy contained within the steam and available to do work.
Aaron Harper On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:40 AM, STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]>wrote: > > I am NOT advocating larger multiple units than the kL (m^3). Larger > multiples than the kL would be too complex, cumbersome and not > user-friendly. > Virtually all people are accustomed to the L and submultiples thereof as > they buy medicine and products in stores. > The kL would be very useful for things such as rain barrels, ponds, > stream flow and other every day things to which people can relate. People > can relate to the kL which is a clean and useful expression of everyday > large volume. In the case of river flow and water and sewage systems, the > use of gallons per minute are incomprehensible because it has no easy direct > relationship to SI volume whereas kL (cubic meters) do. The use of L and > not kL is also incomprehensible for stream flow because the numbers are so > large. > The NIST should be the leader in advocating the use of kL in the public > domain. The cubic meter and multiples and submultiples thereof should be > used in engineering and science. > To be consistent, those who do not advocate the use of the kL for > everyday use also should be against the use of the L and submultiples > thereof. > Stan Doore > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:02 PM > Subject: [USMA:44488] Re: FPLA 2010 > > > >> 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 >>> >>> >> >
