The use of kilolitres and cubic metres should be used in context. For
example, in scientific applications cubic metres is the preferable choice
while kilolitres is the more natural choice for the general public because
it is very familiar with litres in grocery stores now - soft drinks etc.
Practicality and flexibility should be the rules.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: [USMA:36599] RE: Kiloliters
The purists will argue that the use of cubic metres is preferable to the
use
of litres. However, I regard litres and cubic meters as interchangeable
in
the same way that metres and kilomtres are interchangeable (ie for values
below 1000 litres/metres, I will usually use litres/metres, for values
above
2000 metres/litres, I will usually use kilometres/cubic metres and between
these two, I will use either, depending on which is more appropriate).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:02 AM
Subject: [USMA:36594] RE: Kiloliters
>It makes a lot sense to use in this context. I realize that many will
make
the argument for the cubic meter but I feel that when discussing
containerized quantities, liters make more sense. I can visualize a liter
easier (and more to the point, relate to direct personal experience) than
I
can a cubic meter.
I'd have thought that quite the reverse is true for large volumes. Still
each to his own I guess.
The important thing is that the metric system is *flexible*. Expressing
volumes by counting litres rather than cubic metre causes no great
difficulty, just as length in cm is no real problem for those who prefer
mm
because we can convert it so easily.
Phil Hall
