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.

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

1,000,000 mL^3 or 1,000,000 cm^9

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

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.

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

4oC. Not trying to argue the point, just pointing out what I found.

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.