You have the relationships right; I had been thinking of typing them too, but
was out for a while. Thanks.
I suppose it is a matter of preference, either personal, or the recommendation
of a professional society you are associated with.
As far as I can tell, either is a legal construct in the SI Brochure. However
NIST SP 811 mildly discourages prefixes greater than 1 for the liter and less
than 1 for the metric ton. SAE metric practice doesn't permit either; although
I would only be bound by that when publishing in the SAE.
I find the cubic forms a LOT easier to visualize, but I admit that
{prefix}liters are easier to type. The third choice of course is the base
unit, cubic meters with scientific notation. That would probably be my second
choice with megaliters, and the like, dead last.
________________________________
From: Phil Hall <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, June 11, 2010 11:14:47 AM
Subject: [USMA:47707] Volume in metric
These remarks are prompted by the "Oil spill" thread which lead to a discussion
on units of volume.
The litre (or liter of you prefer) has, IMHO, a lot going for it as a general
purpose unit for most ranges. Its main advantage is the avoidance of the
superscripted 3 for plain text messaging. It is also easily converted to cubic
metres when that is required (just divide by 1000). I have to say I don't like
the dam³ that has been suggested. I don't see why the megalitre or ML won't do
just as well.
We then have:
1 m³ = 1 kL
1 dam³ = 1 ML
1 hm³ = 1 GL
1 km³ = 1 TL
Simple yes?
