Just a tiny little note, John. cc is not a valid prefixed SI unit (as it contains neither a prefix symbol nor a unit symbol). The correct form is either cm^3 or mL.
As your initial reference was to the liter, you could, of course, have said 1.000 028 L. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of John David Galt >Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 14:52 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:27443] Re: Pint/lb vs Liter/kg > > >"Harry Wyeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The "beauty" I spoke of is not only that a liter of water weighs >one kg, but >> that (duh) a milliliter of water weighs one gram. It is a way >of getting a >> feel of how small a ml is and how little it weighs. >[snip] >> But I find it a pretty nifty thing that SI has capacity and >weight units that >> interlock the way the L and kg do (also think of one cubic meter >weighing one >> tonne). The old system doesn't do this, as we all know. > >When I first learned the metric system I thought this match-up was a great >thing, too. Then I learned it wasn't really true. > >Pre-1963, the liter was defined as one kg of water (at max density or >4 degrees C), but that was actually 1000.028 cc. > >In 1963 the French committee in charge of the metric system voted, >not to fix >this discrepancy by adjusting either the meter or the kilogram, >but to sweep >it under the rug by redefining the liter as 1000 cc (and no longer >related to >1 kg of water). > >In my opinion, this continuing discrepancy means that the metric >system is no >more "elegant" or "integrated" than the imperial system. Indeed >less so, if >an imperial gallon weighs 10 pounds. > >Now that they are thinking of getting rid of the standard kilogram block of >platinum/iridium, I urge the authorities to correct their original mistake >by reducing the size of the kilogram so that 1000 cc = 1 kg of water, thus >defining the kilogram in terms of the meter and integrating the whole >system of measurements better. > >John David Galt >
