Thanks, Bill, for the clarification.  Can you point me to the BIPM 
documentation about avoiding using prefixes with liters?

On Sunday 16 May 2004 20:34, Bill Hooper wrote:
> John Ward,
>
> I don't believe anything I wrote earlier contradicted what you wrote
> below. Specifically I do not believe I said that the litre is
> deprecated for non-precision use. I said that I understood it to be
> advisable not to use the SI prefixes with litre; for example, since
> 1000 L = 1 m^3, therefore the cubic metre should be used, not the
> kilolitre.
>
> It is true that when coherent units are needed for calculations, the
> litre cannot be used and any litre values must be converted to cubic
> metres. But I did not intend that to mean the litre should not be used
> at all. It is just the litre with SI prefixes that should be avoided,
> whether coherence is a consideration or not.I said that there are good
> reasons to use the litre, in agreement with your statement below.
>
> If you thought that something I wrote was not in agreement with your
> thoughts on the matter, please tell me what it was so I may correct
> myself.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Hooper
>
> On 2004 May 16 , at 11:11 PM, J. Ward wrote:
> > Let's examine more closely the BIPM recommendation regarding liters.
> >
> > The problem in 1961 was that the new definition of the liter (a cubic
> > decimeter) differs from the 1901 definition by 28 parts per million.
> > Therefore, for high precision measurements made in the early 1960s
> > there was
> > the chance of confusion in terms of whether the measurement was based
> > on the
> > new definition or the old definition of liter.  As a result, the 12th
> > CGPM
> > "recommends that the name litre should not be employed to give the
> > results of
> > high-accuracy volume measurements."
> >
> > This statement does not imply that the use of liters be deprecated for
> > non-precision use.  Now, 44 years later, the definition of liters is
> > unambiguous and the 28 ppm confusion is purely historical.
> >
> > On the other hand, there are good reasons to use liters.  For example,
> > using
> > liters keeps prefixes simple and convenient.  We teach people that
> > milli is
> > 1/1000.  A liter is 1000 ml.  Simple!  However, a cubic meter is 1 000
> > 000
> > 000 times larger than a cubic millimeter.  Furthermore, it is
> > inconvenient to
> > use prefixes when when they are spread out a factor of 1 000 000 000
> > apart!
> > Take for example, a cubic micrometer and a cubic millimeter.  "Liter"
> > sure
> > rolls off the tongue better than "cubic decimeter."  Finally, nearly
> > the
> > whole world uses and understands liters for volume measurement, at
> > least for
> > voluments smaller than a meter cubed.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Saturday 15 May 2004 12:48, Bill Hooper wrote:
> >> On 2004 May 15 , at 2:09 AM, Pat Naughtin wrote:
> >>> Keep in mind that Australia chose the simple conversion table:
> >>>
> >>> 1000 millilitres = 1 litre
> >>> 1000 litres = 1 kilolitre
> >>> 1000 kilolitres = 1 megalitre
> >>>
> >>> for measuring volume and capacity.
> >>
> >> Interesting! But BIPM recommends not using kilolitres or megalitres
> >> (or
> >> even millilitres). The litre is just a special name for the cubic
> >> decimetre (according to BIPM) and its common multiples already have
> >> other names which conform better to SI organization.
> >>
> >> 1 kilolitre = 1 cubic metre
> >> 1 millilitre = 1 cubic centimetre
> >>
> >> (Admittedly, 1 megalitre is not just one cubic SI length unit, but it
> >> is just 1000 cubic metres. And the cubic metre is the basic and
> >> coherent SI volume unit.)
> >>
> >> But the main reason to avoid the litre and it's multiples is that the
> >> litre is not coherent with the other SI units. (I discussed the
> >> importance of coherence in another email some time ago.)
> >>
> >> I think it is unfortunate that Australia promotes non-SI units like
> >> the
> >> kilolitre and megalitre. Everything else in Australia metrication
> >> seems
> >> to have been done so admirably.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bill Hooper
> >> Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
> >> ========================
> >>   SIMPLIFICATION begins with SI
> >> ========================

Reply via email to