k is an SI prefix and is widely used outside of the SI. This doesn't preclude
engineers and scientists from using cubic metres.
The L (litre) is widely used in grocery stores and therefore kL is just a
natural extension for every day use.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Payne
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:05 PM
Subject: [USMA:45287] Re: Precipitation and water needs
Agreed. But anyone familiar with the metric system can easily see they are
the same volume/quantity.
Michael Payne
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hooper
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, 27 June 2009 15:43
Subject: [USMA:45278] Re: Precipitation and water needs
On Jun 27 , at 2:56 AM, STANLEY DOORE wrote:
kL is simpler to use and write.
Kilolitre violates one of the simplifying rules of SI. It causes there to
be two different names (kilolitre and cubic metre) and two different symbols (k
and m^3) for the same thing.
Furthermore, the litre is not an SI unit (it is not coherent with other SI
units), the kilolitre creates still another non-SI, non-coherent unit.
The litre is already an exception to basic SI use, an exception which is
sanctioned by CGPM to address the problem of not having a convenient unit with
a size between the cubic centimeter (or cubic millimetre) and the cubic metre.
There is no such need to introduce the kilolitre because there is already a
named unit of the appropriate size, namely the cubic metre.
The dubious advantage that "kL" is simpler to write than is "m^3", because
it avoids the need for an exponent, is small compared to the problems of
multiple names and symbols for the same unit and allowing additional exceptions
to pure SI.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==========================
SImplification Begins With SI.
==========================
