Pat, I would probably agree that liters are a sensible unit for household water, even if the aggregate use over a billing period requires kiloliters. I get billed quarterly in gallons, but to remain on point, my usage is about 66 m³ (or kL) per quarter.
However, I suspect irrigation users are using much larger quantities. Megaliters are perhaps debatable but gigaliters and teraliters are unimaginable without reference to cubic measure, as a sanity check on amounts. As household water is potable (treated) and irrigation water is raw and therefore has a different pricing structure, there is not a pressing need to have the same unit. When they need to be expressed in the same unit, conversion is relatively easy, for anyone who understands the SI. I guess I would recommend liters and kiloliters for individual household water supplies, and cubic measure for irrigation water and for aggregating all households in a community (what the Water Dept. pumps.) ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 8:55:57 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: 1the use of only one unit (in this case litres), and 2the 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/ 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 <carlet...@comcast.net> >>To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> >>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: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] 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.
