> 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.


doesn't water take up the most space at 4C (rather than 99C)?


note that your metal ruler and glass flasks will also expand with
temperature increases ;-)

In article <ILgkc.296086$Pk3.237206@pd7tw1no>, "Shannon Wheeler" > wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>doesn't water take up the most space at 4C (rather than 99C)?

No. Its density is the greatest at just slightly less than 4C, which means
that a given mass of water occupies the *least* volume at that temperature.

In the *liquid* phase, a given mass of water occupies the *greatest* volume at
100C (just before it boils).

As pointed out by the originator
Sodium Hydroxide not water !! @ 4° C

Stephen SG



"Doug Miller" > wrote in message
. com...
| In article <ILgkc.296086$Pk3.237206@pd7tw1no>, "Shannon Wheeler"
> wrote:
| >> 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.
| >
| >
| >doesn't water take up the most space at 4C (rather than 99C)?
|
| No. Its density is the greatest at just slightly less than 4C, which means
| that a given mass of water occupies the *least* volume at that
temperature.
|
| In the *liquid* phase, a given mass of water occupies the *greatest*
volume at
| 100C (just before it boils).

In article >,
Adam Johnson > wrote:
>They are one and the same

>1 cubic centimetre = 1 millilitre

Doesn't it depend upon your merchant? After all, I encountered a couple
of signs indicating "1 lb per lb" in a grocery store
yesterday--presumably to distinguish themsleves from merchants with "3/4
lb per lb"

hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \

Yes it is. A litre of wine becomes less in volume around about dinner time.


"Analogueman" > wrote in message
news:dpTic.10834$i61.2629@clgrps13...
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>

Yes it is. A litre of wine becomes less in volume around about dinner time.


"Analogueman" > wrote in message
news:dpTic.10834$i61.2629@clgrps13...
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>

> "Analogueman" > wrote in message
<SNIP>
>>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 ???
>>

Of course. A cc is obviously the space outlined by three mutually
perpendicular rays of light in 1/300,000,000 of a second. But only in a
vacuum, so maybe you can't use it to measure the wine. ;-)


--


Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA

"Mike McGeough" > wrote in message
news:1104454155.244eb0738dc7d9882705c44c54822e34@t eranews...
> Of course. A cc is obviously the space outlined by three mutually
> perpendicular rays of light in 1/300,000,000 of a second. But only in a
> vacuum, so maybe you can't use it to measure the wine. ;-)

You guys better stick to either wine making or wine drinking. The time
light takes to traverse a _centi_meter is 1/29979245800 seconds, or
approximately 3.3x10e-11 seconds.

Those decimal errors can cause you big problems in winemaking. I've read
about that sort of thing here more than once - usually when someone adds 10x
as much sulfite as he should have. :^(

Tom S

Tom,


LOL! You're absolutely right: one should stick to one activity or the
other. This being said as I sit here with a glass of my 2001 Vignoles
Traminette.

Your point is well taken, though. Measure twice, cut once. And that's
only in woodworking, not important stuff like winemaking.


Happy New Year!
--


Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA

Is that one for rec.crafts.distilling?

Measures twice. Measures twice more. Another two measures...

"Mike McGeough" > wrote in message
news:1104531638.3cac7db1322897994537c04991252a42@t eranews...
> Tom,
>
>
> LOL! You're absolutely right: one should stick to one activity or the
> other. This being said as I sit here with a glass of my 2001 Vignoles
> Traminette.
>
> Your point is well taken, though. Measure twice, cut once. And that's
> only in woodworking, not important stuff like winemaking.
>
>
> Happy New Year!
> --
>
>
> Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA
>
>
>