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 pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com
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 <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.
