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

Wouldn't that be one kilogram per cubic decimeter?

Don

> Subject: What is the standard mass-density of a cubic decimeter of pure

What is standard mass-density? I mass-density is mass per volume. But what
standard are you talking about?
But yes, one liter of water would be one kilogram... what is your point?

odin wrote:

One liter of water has a _mass-density_ of one kilogram/cubic
decimeter: A "standard" upon which the mass-density of many other
substances is based: See "specific gravity".

The "standard" mass-density of water is 62.42#/cubic foot; divided by
the acceleration (g) at which it will free fall, and is 1.94 slugs per
cubic foot. It is standard in that the mass-density of many other
substances is based on it.

The "standard" mass-density of water is 9.81 N/cubic decimeter; divided
by the acceleration (g) at which it will free fall, and is 1 kg per
cubic decimeter. It is standard in that the mass-density of many other
substances is based on it.

Don

"Don1" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1121201742.422927.254470@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Why ask a question and answer it yourself if you aren't trying to either
trick people or go down your faulty logic routes again?

There is no such thing as "standard mass-density"

Density
[Only registered users see links. ]

Water
[Only registered users see links. ]

Water is the liquid form of the molecule H2O, which is liquid at
room temperature. At a pressure of 1 atm, the maximum density of
the liquid phase is

rho = 1.00000 g/cm^3

which occurs at a temperature of 3.98° C.

>> But yes, one liter of water would be one kilogram... what is your point?

[crap snipped]

<SARCASM>Mighty sagacious of you Don... </SARCASM> ...

But you still have not answered my question Don.... What is your point in
always making statements that are wrong, meaningless, or obvious? If your
intellect was the peak potential of our species, we would all surly still be
with the bonobos jerking off in the treetops, and you would be that special
mentally challenged troglodyte we all stare at in amazement as you
obsessively push bananas up your rectum all day as your favorite alternative
to posting crap on Usenet.

"odin" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Dear "odin" please stop adding sci.physics onto your responces to Off
Topic items.

Thank you.

"Dr.LouisSlotin" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:42d43a7e$0$82375$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfr eenews.net...

Dear "Dr.LouisSlotin"

Please stop adding sci.physics to your off topic complaints about peoples
off topic items.

Thank you.

"T Wake" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Please keep your spew in the alt.sci.physics bucket,
NOBODY wants your lunacy here.

"Dr.LouisSlotin" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:42d43e10$0$72870$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfr eenews.net...

Interesting statement. I am sure you can back it up with empirical data that
supports your claim.

Please feel free to show how you have determined your statement to be
anything other than your own simplistic frustration at having to re-enter
the newsgroups. At the same time please explain why you felt the need to
include the newsgroups you felt were inappropriate.

Failing that, rant and rage some more.

Either way I don't care.