Thanks Pat for your comments.
However, I think the cubic metre is an exception to the terminology rule
rather than retain purity of SI terminology.
The beauty of the SI is that the cubic metre (1000 L) manages large
well-understood volume quanitities very well, and it doesn't imply liquid only.
It is very difficult to visualize large displacement volumes in litre
quantities compared with solid volumes. I haven't heard of solids -coal,
Earth, etc.- dimensioned in litres.
Cubic metres removes the implication barrier between solid and liquid
quantities.
Today, reports of oil spill quantities are in both barrels (42 gallons) and
gallons; very confusing. I think reporters use the gallon to make the oil
spill seem much larger than it really is since the gallon is a much larger
number. The oil spill is still bad; however, reports are confusing and can't
the be understood easily.
The cubic metre is an ideal unit of measurement to overcome this problem.
Regards, Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Naughtin
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:55 PM
Subject: [USMA:47829] RE: The Oil Leak (Estimate) Increases Again
On 2010/06/16, at 18:52 , Stan Doore wrote:
The use to cubic meters for volume is easily visualized. Also, cubic
meters are easily converted to larger and smaller volumes in the SI system of
measurement.
Stan Doore
Dear Stan,
I agree with you that cubic metres are easy to visualise. Generally, I prefer
to visualise cubic metres rather than kilolitres.
However, I think that to use litres, kilolitres, megalitres, and gigalitres
for buying, selling, and storing irrigation water makes sense in that it means
there is only one metric system unit, litre, to deal with. As I have found over
many years of studying the metrication process two features that consistently
work for fast metrication are:
1 the use of only one unit (in this case litres), and
2 the ability to report amounts in whole numbers without decimal or vulgar
fractions.
For a rapid and smooth metrication process I would never recommend making
available (for individuals to choose from) a combination of units such as
kilolitres and cubic metres and litres and decimetres and cubic hectometres and
100s of litres. There are places where 'freedom of choice ' is a great thing
but a quick metrication process is not one of them.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see
http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped
thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric
system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each
year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides
services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for
commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and
in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA,
NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See
http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat
at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters'
newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
.
----- Original Message -----
From: John M. Steele
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:27 PM
Subject: [USMA:47810] RE: The Oil Leak (Estimate) Increases Again
Yes, although Pat and some others prefer to visualize it as 10 ML.
Whatever works best for you, I guess. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carleton MacDonald <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, June 15, 2010 7:06:03 PM
Subject: [USMA:47809] RE: The Oil Leak (Estimate) Increases Again
Which can be easily visualized as a box 10 x 10 x 100 m.
Carleton
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of John M. Steele
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 18:53
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:47808] The Oil Leak (Estimate) Increases Again
The article uses gallons, but the leak estimate has been increased to a
range of 35000 - 60000 barrels per day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_flow
(In my view, the way they express it in gallons implies rediculously more
precision than exists.)
Part of that is a 20% increase when BP cut the pipe to fit the cap but
the increase in estimate is more than that.
Consistent with the zero to one significant figure, as previously
discussed, that is 6 - 10 dam³/d. Sorry, Gene, I have no clue what the density
is. You'll have to convert to mass on your own.
