What is the standard mass-density of a cubic decimeter of pure water?

> If you *must* respond (and I don't see why) then

Yes... I will do that from now on.

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

In order to be ONE kilogram it must have a weight numerically equal to
the acceleration g, at which it will free fall; so that w/g = One!

What else would result in ONE?

The powers that be have decreed that the kilogram artfact is _one_ even
though the figures can't quite justify it.

Don

"Don1" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1121197131.024496.127050@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
or maybe 1000kg per m^3.

ever notice how, length is calibrated in meters, weight is in g, and volume
in l aka dm^3. with these measures, one has to do scaling depending on their
basic choice of units (and at the same time, doing such shows that the units
are not that well corellated).

why all this?
if we define density as mass/volume, then there is a problem if the units
don't match up. we don't get a nice 1, but some other number.


so, with kg/m^3, the density of water is 1000.
at the same time, one could also measure mass in terms of Mg, where the
density of water, in Mg/m^3, is once again 1.

however, it could be argued, the Mg is an "unusual" unit vs the kg and g.
yes, it is just a matter of scale, but then again, so is most unit
conversion...

then again, the g matches with the cm^3, this would make sense, if one
decided to measure length in cm. this may or may not be a big deal, after
all, many everyday items are measured in cm. once again, density is 1.

however, one then has to deal with a world callibrated in cm and g, vs one
calibrated in m and kg.

one may just have to live with a definition of density of water being 1000
in the case where kg and m are chosen...


if one really wanted, they could probably build a whole system of units
based off the inch or foot, but this would be both pointless and oddball.


such profound effects of all this? nothing really. many would likely regard
unit scaling as a rather trivial matter.

or whatever...

Sam Wormley wrote:

No, it isn't. To that precision, the maximum density of water at that
temperature and pressure is only

rho = 0.999 97 g/cm^3

It doesn't surprise me that Eric Weisstein got that wrong, but you
should know better, Sam.

Geme Nygaard

Gene Nygaard wrote:


Gene, are you going to contact Eric and suggest a correcton?

In article <%mCBe.152461$x96.43304@attbi_s72>, Sam Wormley <[Only registered users see links. ]> writes:

Sam, are you going to admit to being stupid enough to quote from
an obviously incorrect source?

John Briggs

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

Show me your data John. Thanks!

Gene Nygaard wrote:

According to the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 76th Edition
water has a density of 0.99997 g/cm^3 at 3° C... at 4° C... at 5° C

Why don't you provide us with data and error bars to show us how
wrong Eric Weisstein is!

In article <l3QBe.154346$x96.129877@attbi_s72>, Sam Wormley <[Only registered users see links. ]> writes:

Why don't you? You're the one touting him as an authority after having
yourself found works that contradict him.

John Briggs

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

You guys are the ones complaining... I'm not.