About Us

Is there an appreciable difference between cc and ml ?

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

They are one and the same

1 cubic centimetre = 1 millilitre

Adam

The wise words of Analogueman as spoken on 2004-04-19 11:05 PM:
> Is there an appreciable difference between cc and ml ?
>
> 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
>
>
>

Adam;
My mind is finally at ease .
Thanks...

AM (in a digital world)

"Adam Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> They are one and the same
>
> 1 cubic centimetre = 1 millilitre
>
> Adam
>
> The wise words of Analogueman as spoken on 2004-04-19 11:05 PM:
> > Is there an appreciable difference between cc and ml ?
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >

It's the simple things we stumble over -- and are so often embarrassed to
ask about.
;o)
Ray

"Analogueman" > wrote in message
news:A81hc.51939$aD.15801@edtnps89...
> Adam;
> My mind is finally at ease .
> Thanks...
>
> AM (in a digital world)
>
>
>

Thanks Ray.
Yes, the simple things.
Without thinking about it very much I was having difficulty equating
One-HUNDREDTH of a METER (cubic) with
One-THOUSANDTH of a LITRE
(a relatively large part of a big thing with a ralatively small part of a
smaller thing)
But, looking at my desk ruler, of course it does.
LOL

Roger in the RainForest

"Ray" > wrote in message
m...
> It's the simple things we stumble over -- and are so often embarrassed to
> ask about.
> ;o)
> Ray
>
> "Analogueman" > wrote in message
> news:A81hc.51939$aD.15801@edtnps89...
> > Adam;
> > My mind is finally at ease .
> > Thanks...
> >
> > AM (in a digital world)
> >
> >
> >
>
>

In article <0wvhc.61860$aD.41437@edtnps89>, "Analogueman" > wrote:
>Thanks Ray.
>Yes, the simple things.
>Without thinking about it very much I was having difficulty equating
>One-HUNDREDTH of a METER (cubic) with

Lest anyone become confused by this... one cc is not 1/100 of a cubic meter.
:-)

"Doug Miller" > wrote in message
. ..
> Lest anyone become confused by this... one cc is not 1/100 of a cubic
meter.
> :-)

Right. It's one _millionth_ of a cubic meter.

Tom S

Tom S wrote:
> "Doug Miller" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Lest anyone become confused by this... one cc is not 1/100 of a cubic
>
> meter.
>
>>:-)
>
>
> Right. It's one _millionth_ of a cubic meter.
>
> Tom S
>
>
Right. And a liter is a cubic deciliter or 1/10 meter * 1/10 meter *
1/10 meter, or 1/1,000 of a cubic meter. So it should be obvious that
1/1,000 of a liter ( milliliter), is therefore 1/1,000,000 of a cubic
meter ! ;-)

I knew high school Chemistry would be good for something.

--

Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA

LOL !!!
I was eye-balling, on my desk ruler, the volume that would be
displaced by 1cm X 1cm X 1cm. (1cc).
Looks sort of the same a 1ml...
Hey! NOT 1/100 of a cubic meter.
But, I guess, if we titrate 15/100 of a cubic meter of wine with
10/100 of a cubic meter of Sodium Hydroxide we will get the same result.
Hmmm. Hard to measure those large volumes.
Maybe that is why they use15cc/15ml and 10cc/10ml ...

Cheers,

Roger (in the RainForest)

"MikeMTM" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Tom S wrote:
> > "Doug Miller" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >>Lest anyone become confused by this... one cc is not 1/100 of a cubic
> >
> > meter.
> >
> >>:-)
> >
> >
> > Right. It's one _millionth_ of a cubic meter.
> >
> > Tom S
> >
> >
> Right. And a liter is a cubic deciliter or 1/10 meter * 1/10 meter *
> 1/10 meter, or 1/1,000 of a cubic meter. So it should be obvious that
> 1/1,000 of a liter ( milliliter), is therefore 1/1,000,000 of a cubic
> meter ! ;-)
>
> I knew high school Chemistry would be good for something.
>
> --
>
>
> Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA
>
>
>

To Convert From To
Multiply By

CC

cubic centimetres (ML) milliliters
0.999972

Stephen SG

sorry it appears mixed up on the posting

To convert CC cubic centimeters to Milliliters Multiply by 0.999972.
eg 12 cc = 11.999664 ml as near as dam it 12
Stephen

In article >, "Stephen SG" > wrote:
>To Convert From To
>Multiply By
>
>CC
>
>cubic centimetres (ML) milliliters
>0.999972
>
Wrong. You multiply by 1.000. A liter is by definition 1000 cc.

In article >, "Stephen SG" > wrote:
>sorry it appears mixed up on the posting

It's not just the appearance that's mixed up.
>
>To convert CC cubic centimeters to Milliliters Multiply by 0.999972.
>eg 12 cc = 11.999664 ml as near as dam it 12
>Stephen
>
Still wrong. 12 cc = 12 ml. A liter is 1000 cc by definition and therefore 1
ml and 1 cc are *exactly* the same.

"Doug Miller" > wrote in message
. ..

> In article >, "Stephen SG"
> wrote:
> >sorry it appears mixed up on the posting
>
> It's not just the appearance that's mixed up.
> >
> >To convert CC cubic centimeters to Milliliters Multiply by 0.999972.
> >eg 12 cc = 11.999664 ml as near as dam it 12
> >Stephen
> >
> Still wrong. 12 cc = 12 ml. A liter is 1000 cc by definition and therefore
1
> ml and 1 cc are *exactly* the same.

Here's an interesting historical reference about the number .999972.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=99...a c.il&rnum=1

I learn something new everyday.

> Right. And a liter is a cubic deciliter or 1/10 meter * 1/10 meter *
> 1/10 meter, or 1/1,000 of a cubic meter. So it should be obvious that
> 1/1,000 of a liter ( milliliter), is therefore 1/1,000,000 of a cubic
> meter ! ;-)
>
> I knew high school Chemistry would be good for something.
>
> --
>
>
> Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA
>
>
>
Well, not quite. A liter is a cubic decimeter not a cubic deciliter. You
cannot cube a deciliter as it is a volume to begin with.

If you think about this stuff too much you will just confuse yourself.

Ray

Ray wrote:

> Well, not quite. A liter is a cubic decimeter not a cubic deciliter. You
> cannot cube a deciliter as it is a volume to begin with.
>
> If you think about this stuff too much you will just confuse yourself.
>
> Ray
>
>
Ya know Ray, you're absolutely right. I should have said "cubic
decimeter". It's things like that that keep us humble. Well, me anyway.

--

Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA

Attn:- Doug Miller,
Ray,
Dave

There is no mix up I attempted to send the information direct but alas
your e-mail systems returned my response to you.
http://www.spectrumchemical.com/retail/default.asp
This is were the data can be found.
As for the difference of -0.000028 If your scientific minds can take it in,

The density hangs with the water, like also with other materials, off of the
temperature and of the pressure.

In addition solved materials play a role:

Also in entmineralisiertem water gases are normally solved, since the water
is constant under normal conditions with air in contact.

Density of pure, air-free water with normal print (101300 Pa ("Pascal"), =
1013 mbar) between 0 and 100 °C in kg/m³:

Temp.(°C) D(kg/m³) =

0 999.84

1 999.90

2 999.94

3 999.96

4 999.97

5 999.96

10 999.70

15 999.10

20 998.21

25 997.05

30 995.65

35 994.04

40 992.22

45 990.22

50 988.05

55 985.70

60 983.21

65 980.57

70 977.79

75 974.86

80 971.83

85 968.62

90 965.32

95 961.89

100 958,35

The table codes can be converted as follows into other units:

Table code/1000 = value in kg/dm³ table code * 0.001000028 = value in kg/l
or g/ml (or: Table code/999.972 = value in kg/l or g/ml)

Dependence the waterproof one on the pressure is relatively small.

1 bar each (= 100000 Pa) increase in pressure increases the density by
approx. 0.046 kg/m³ (applies up to approx. 50 bar).

Normal air pressure fluctuations have no influence on the density of the
water therefore practically.

Stephen

|
| It's not just the appearance that's mixed up.
| >
| >To convert CC cubic centimeters to Milliliters Multiply by 0.999972.
| >eg 12 cc = 11.999664 ml as near as dam it 12
| >Stephen
| >
| Still wrong. 12 cc = 12 ml. A liter is 1000 cc by definition and therefore
1
| ml and 1 cc are *exactly* the same.

In article >, "Stephen SG" > wrote:
>Attn:- Doug Miller,
> Ray,
> Dave
>
>There is no mix up I attempted to send the information direct but alas
>your e-mail systems returned my response to you.
>http://www.spectrumchemical.com/retail/default.asp
>This is were the data can be found.

This is all very interesting, I'm sure, but it's also completely irrelevant.

The _original_ definition of a liter was that volume of water at a
specific temperature having a mass of one kilogram. But the definition was
changed _over_forty_years_ago_. A liter is now _by_definition_ 1000 cc and
therefore 1 cc and 1 ml are _absolutely_ identical.

not at 4 C.
"Doug Miller" > wrote in message
. ..
| In article >, "Stephen SG"
> wrote:
| >Attn:- Doug Miller,
| > Ray,
| > Dave
| >
| >There is no mix up I attempted to send the information direct but alas
| >your e-mail systems returned my response to you.
| >http://www.spectrumchemical.com/retail/default.asp
| >This is were the data can be found.
|
| This is all very interesting, I'm sure, but it's also completely
irrelevant.
|
| The _original_ definition of a liter was that volume of water at a
| specific temperature having a mass of one kilogram. But the definition was
| changed _over_forty_years_ago_. A liter is now _by_definition_ 1000 cc and
| therefore 1 cc and 1 ml are _absolutely_ identical.

In article >, "Stephen SG" > wrote:
>not at 4 C.

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

A liter is a liter, regardless of the temperature or the substance being
measured. You don't seem to grasp this essential point: the definition of a
liter no longer references (and has not referenced for many years) the volume
of a specified mass of water at a specified temperature. It _used_ to, but not
any more, not for a long time.

A liter is _by_definition_ one thousand cubic centimeters. Period.

Therefore 1 milliliter and 1 cubic centimeter are _absolutely_ identical. At
all temperatures. At all pressures. For all substances.

>"Doug Miller" > wrote in message
...
>| In article >, "Stephen SG"
> wrote:
>| >Attn:- Doug Miller,
>| > Ray,
>| > Dave
>| >
>| >There is no mix up I attempted to send the information direct but alas
>| >your e-mail systems returned my response to you.
>| >http://www.spectrumchemical.com/retail/default.asp
>| >This is were the data can be found.
>|
>| This is all very interesting, I'm sure, but it's also completely
>irrelevant.
>|
>| The _original_ definition of a liter was that volume of water at a
>| specific temperature having a mass of one kilogram. But the definition was
>| changed _over_forty_years_ago_. A liter is now _by_definition_ 1000 cc and
>| therefore 1 cc and 1 ml are _absolutely_ identical.
>
>

> >not at 4 C.
>
> One liter at 4 C is the same volume as one liter at 99 C or at any other
> temperature.
>
> A liter is a liter, regardless of the temperature or the substance being
> measured.

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
http://www.PeacefulBend.com
http://www.vinic.com

In article >, (Clyde Gill) wrote:
>> >not at 4 C.
>>
>> One liter at 4 C is the same volume as one liter at 99 C or at any other
>> temperature.
>>
>> A liter is a liter, regardless of the temperature or the substance being
>> measured.
>
>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.

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 temperatu 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.

>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.

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that. Again, you're reading things that are
not there.
>
>However 1 ml will equal 1 cc at any temperature.

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 ×
10E23 molecules or whatever, we could probably calculate Brix quite
precisely.

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

Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA

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

--

Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:30:49 GMT, "Ray" > wrote:
>Well, not quite. A liter is a cubic decimeter not a cubic deciliter. You
>cannot cube a deciliter as it is a volume to begin with.

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!

"MikeMTM" > wrote in message
s.com...
> We could avoid this controversy altogether if we did what chemists do:
> measure everything in Moles. Since one mole _always_ equals 6.02214199 ×
> 10E23 molecules or whatever, we could probably calculate Brix quite
> precisely.
>
> Seriously guys, we seem to be getting a little exercised over a
> triviality. Let's remember the important stuff: making & enjoying good
wine.
> --
>
>
> Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA

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.

"MikeMTM" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> 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
>
> --
>
>
> Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA
>
>
>

"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message >...
> "MikeMTM" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > We could avoid this controversy altogether if we did what chemists do:
> > measure everything in Moles. Since one mole _always_ equals 6.02214199 ×
> > 10E23 molecules or whatever, we could probably calculate Brix quite
> > precisely.
> >
> > Seriously guys, we seem to be getting a little exercised over a
> > triviality. Let's remember the important stuff: making & enjoying good
> wine.
> > --
> >
> >
> > Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA
>
> 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".

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

> 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.

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

"Gene Nygaard" > wrote in message
om...
> "frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
>...
> > "MikeMTM" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > > We could avoid this controversy altogether if we did what chemists do:
> > > measure everything in Moles. Since one mole _always_ equals 6.02214199
×
> > > 10E23 molecules or whatever, we could probably calculate Brix quite
> > > precisely.
> > >
> > > Seriously guys, we seem to be getting a little exercised over a
> > > triviality. Let's remember the important stuff: making & enjoying good
> > wine.
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA
> >
> > 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".
>
> You'd have to go back before Noah Webster ever wrote a dictionary for
> that to be true, if it ever was true.
>
> > 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.

>
> 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:

<copy>...................
gram1 7gram8
n.
5Fr gramme < LL gramma, weight of two oboli < Gr, small weight, lit., what
is written < graphein, to write: see GRAPHIC6 the basic unit of mass in the
metric system, equal to about n ounce (.0022046 pound or 15.43 grains):
officially equal to the weight of one cubic centimeter of distilled water at
4C: abbrev. g or gm

gram2 7gram8
n.
5Port grao < L granum: see GRAIN6 any of certain leguminous plants, used as
fodder; esp., the chickpea

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

gram
abbrev.
1 grammar
2 grammatical
<end copy>...................

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 —

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

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

"Analogueman" > wrote in message
news:Nz%gc.51867$aD.27287@edtnps89...
| Is there an appreciable difference between cc and ml ?
|
| 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
|
|
|

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 -

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

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

"MikeMTM" > wrote in message
s.com...
| We could avoid this controversy altogether if we did what chemists do:
| measure everything in Moles. Since one mole _always_ equals 6.02214199 ×
| 10E23 molecules or whatever, we could probably calculate Brix quite
| precisely.
|
| Seriously guys, we seem to be getting a little exercised over a
| triviality. Let's remember the important stuff: making & enjoying good
wine.
| --
|
|
| Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA
|
|
|

In article >, "Stephen sg" > wrote:
>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 -
>
>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.

Ok I will hold my hand up
the problem was that in two area's of science and technical information
the factor was given but did not give an explanation.
Sorry if I have wasted any bodies time
Best regards
Stephen SG
"Doug Miller" > wrote in message
. ..
| In article >, "Stephen sg"
> wrote:
| >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 -
| >
| >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.

"Stephen sg" > wrote in message
...
> Ok I will hold my hand up
> the problem was that in two area's of science and technical information
> the factor was given but did not give an explanation.
> Sorry if I have wasted any bodies time
> Best regards
> Stephen SG
> "Doug Miller" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | In article >, "Stephen sg"
> > wrote:
> | >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 -
> | >
> | >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.
>
>

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

"Analogueman" > wrote in message
news:Nz%gc.51867$aD.27287@edtnps89...
> Is there an appreciable difference between cc and ml ?
>
> 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
>
>
>

>
> 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.
>

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:

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-...e=1&word=liter

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
http://www.PeacefulBend.com
http://www.vinic.com

In article >, (Clyde Gill) wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>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.

No problem...
>
>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.
>
My college general chemistry text says that the liter was redefined as 1,000
cubic centimeters in 1960.

"Clyde Gill" > wrote in message
om...
> they were teaching that it was based on 4oC [snip]

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

Try this freebie program:
http://allchars.zwolnet.com/download.html
I find it very useful for symbols, accent marks etc.

Tom S

Tom S it may have escaped your notice but if you were operating under
windows
C:\WINDOWS\system32\charmap.exe
Assuming you have ample fonts which cover this aspect.
Stephen SG

"Tom S" > wrote in message
. com...
|
| "Clyde Gill" > wrote in message
| om...
| > they were teaching that it was based on 4oC [snip]
|
| Hi, Clyde -
| Looks like you could use a little help to find the ° character. :^)
|
| Try this freebie program:
| http://allchars.zwolnet.com/download.html
| I find it very useful for symbols, accent marks etc.
|
| Tom S
|
|

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us