cc / ml ???

I've agreed with you up to this point Doug. It might be negligible for your purposes, but volume of a liquid *is* dependent of temperature. Most pipettes and volumetric flasks are rated at 20 C. Higher temps will create more volume as the liquid expands and visa versa. This is one reason why it's important to bottle at room temperature.

However 1 ml will equal 1 cc at any temperature.

clyde Steelville, Missouri, USofA

I didn't say that it wasn't. What I wrote is the exact literal truth, no more, no less. Don't read things into it that aren't there.

One liter at 4 C is the same volume as one liter at 99 C or any other temperature. Exact literal truth.

What you read into it, that isn't there, is the supposition that I said that a liter of water at one temperature is no different from a liter of water at some other temperature. But I didn't say that. I said the volume is the same. And it is: the size of a liter is independent of temperature.

We could even be more specific, and say that the size of a liter of water is independent of its temperature: one liter of water at 4 C is the same *volume* as one liter of water at 99 C -- however, the two *identical* volumes will have different *masses*.

Clearly when one liter of water is heated from 4 C to 99 C, its volume expands. But that in no way means that a liter is larger at 99 C than at 4 C, despite what Stephen seems to think -- it means that a liter of water at 4 C expands to *more* than a liter of water at 99 C.

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that. Again, you're reading things that are not there.

Which is exactly what I said, just using different units: One liter at 4 C is the same volume as one liter at 99 C, or at any other temperature.

We could avoid this controversy altogether if we did what chemists do: measure everything in Moles. Since one mole _always_ equals 6.02214199 ×

Seriously guys, we seem to be getting a little exercised over a triviality. Let's remember the important stuff: making & enjoying good wine.

Hey,

I once had a Klein bottle that held a cubic deciliter. I had to get rid of it though, 'cause when I tried to cork it, the corks kept disappearing

Sure you can. You can cube anything, you just can't display it in three dementional space. a cubic Deciliter would be .1 Liters ^3.

If my calculations are correct, a Cubic deciliter would take the same three dimentional space as a deciliter, but would actually hold:

(100 mL)^3 : .1L or one deciliter or

email: dallyn_spam at yahoo dot com please respond in this NG so others can share your wisdom as well!

Hi Mike

I agree, and I am quite sure I will be sorry that I added my 2 cents worth in here, but here goes anyway.

My current Oxford dictionary defines "Kilogram" as: "...the SI unit of mass, equivalent to the international standard kept at Sevres near Paris...". Note that it no longer makes any reference or link to water in any way, shape or form. It is simply a lump of ....(stuff) sitting over there in France.

If any of the folks here still have dictionaries that define "Gram" as: "... officially equal to the weight of one cubic centimeter of distilled water at 4C: abbrev. g or gm...", it is time to recycle them and get yourself something more "modern".

As for myself, I _like_ the "old" way of thinking about this. It is certainly accurate enough for any_practical_application that I may have. So - I will probably go on making reference to it for as long as I am still around, even though the whole world may know that it isn't "scientific" any more.

HTMS Frederick, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, USA

Thanks everyone. Now I feel completely informed. But, If a ml = cc and a cc is a sub unit of a cubic meter and a meter is 1/300,000,000 of the distance travelled by light in one second (time) does a cc somehow relate to time ???

Just wondering ...

Roger - still in the dark in the RainForest.

You'd have to go back before Noah Webster ever wrote a dictionary for that to be true, if it ever was true.

The thing is, that hasn't been accurate as a definition of a gram or kilogram for at least 205 years, since the French government established the platinum Kilogramme of the Archives as the standard back in 1799.

After the Meter Convention (Treaty of the Meter) of 1875, the international organizations established under that treaty had a new set of standards constructed, which were placed into service in 1889. The target in their construction wasn't anything to do with water--the new platinum-iridium International Prototype kilogram, and about 40 others constructed at the same time, were based on the old French standard, not on water.

But as you can see, in the lifetime of all living people, the International Prototype Kilogram has been the standard.

Of course, in one of the sillier moves in the annals of metrology, this was flipped around in 1901 so that a liter was defined as the volume occupied by a kilogram of pure water at its maximum density. As a result, when I first learned this, a cubic centimeter was different from a milliliter. Therefore, when the International System of Units was introduced in 1960, liters were not only not a part of that system but also not acceptable for use with it. Fortunately, the CGPM finally came to their senses in 1964, and abolished that 1901 redefinition of the liter.

Gene Nygaard

Hi Gene

Thanks. But - the quote I used for gram did in fact come from an old copy of Websters New World Dictionary & Thesaurus. FWIW here it is in it's entirety:

................... gram1 7gram8 n.

gram2 7gram8 n.

gram3 7gram8 n. [Colloq.] short for GRANDMOTHER

gram abbrev.

As you can see, things can get very confusing for folks who may still be using such references. HTH

MILLILITER VERSUS CUBIC CENTIMETER

The Twelfth General (International) Conference on Weights and Measures redefined the liter as, “a special name for the cubic decimeter”. Thus, the relationships previously used —

The Conference did agree that use of the terms “liter”, “milliliter”, and “mL”, might be continued, except in association with measurements of the highest precision. Incidentally, the preferred abbreviation for cubic centimeters is “cm3” — the use of “cc”, is not permitted.

The difference in volume between the old and the current meanings of liter is so small as to be negligible for volumetric glassware. This being so, we continue to use “liter” and “milliliter” in catalog descriptions and for inscriptions on glass apparatus. In the worst case, that of a 2000 “milliliter” flask, the difference is only 10% of the Class A tolerance. Stephen SG

MILLILITER VERSUS CUBIC CENTIMETER

The Twelfth General (International) Conference on Weights and Measures redefined the liter as, "a special name for the cubic decimeter". Thus, the relationships previously used -

The Conference did agree that use of the terms "liter", "milliliter", and "mL", might be continued, except in association with measurements of the highest precision. Incidentally, the preferred abbreviation for cubic centimeters is "cm3" - the use of "cc", is not permitted.

The difference in volume between the old and the current meanings of liter is so small as to be negligible for volumetric glassware. This being so, we continue to use "liter" and "milliliter" in catalog descriptions and for inscriptions on glass apparatus. In the worst case, that of a 2000 "milliliter" flask, the difference is only 10% of the Class A tolerance.

Stephen sg

That's what I've been trying to tell you for several days. Glad you finally decided to listen.

| >The Twelfth General (International) Conference on Weights and Measures | >redefined the liter as, "a special name for the cubic decimeter". Thus, the | >relationships previously used - | >

| >1 liter = 1.000028 cubic decimeters, and 1 milliliter = 1.000028 cubic | >centimeters, became void. | >

| That's what I've been trying to tell you for several days. Glad you finally | decided to listen.

Thanks everyone. Now I feel completely informed. But, If a ml = cc and a cc is a sub unit of a cubic meter and a meter is 1/300,000,000 of the distance travelled by light in one second (time) does a cc somehow relate to time ???

Just wondering ...

Roger - still in the dark in the RainForest.

Who would have thought that this would become one of the big issues of the year. ;o) Ray

One might say one has to move with the times has one does not know what is around the corner. Stephen SG

| > My acid test kit contains a 12cc and 20cc syringe. | > Instructions call for titration of 15cc wine with 10cc .2 Sodium Hydroxide | > Books I have use ml in their tests. | > I presume the result is the same whichever measure is used. | > I can't find a reference that compares cc / ml. | > Just wondering. | >

| > Roger | >

| >

| >

| |

Yes, you're right. I did read your statement incorrectly.

Hope you'll accept my apologies and thanx for taking the time to clarify the statement.

I also need to apologize for taking so long to respond. I should know better than to try to correspond during a major cellar operation.

This idea that the definition of a liter is not being based on a specific temp. is new to me. I could swear that 25 years ago when I was in school they were teaching that it was based on 4oC, but that much time and the major abuse my memory has taken could easily alter reality.

FWIW Princeton U. is still defining it the old way... at least on the following web page:

They even went so far as to include the barometric pressure in their definition.

In looking around the web, I find about half of the references use

I'm quite sure that the gov. uses a specific temperature for what they require on bottle filling. I believe that it's 20oC but not positive on that off hand. It somewhat makes sense not to define the volume relative to any temperature, and instead rate whichever volume being considered at a specific, applicable temp.

clyde Steelville, Missouri, USofA

No problem...

My college general chemistry text says that the liter was redefined as 1,000 cubic centimeters in 1960.

Hi, Clyde - Looks like you could use a little help to find the ° character. :^)

Try this freebie program:

Tom S