User talk:Bobblewik/units of volume

A few notes on Ford cars (and old American cars in general) - you shouldn't add in&sup3 after every mention of '428', '427' etc. Yes, those are nominal engine displacements, but they're also the NAMES of those engines. When being used as names they shouldn't have units or conversions. —Morven 19:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

cm³ versus cc

I really dislike your changing the capacity units on the motorcycle pages from cc to cm3 - those pages are written in English where the common and accepted way of expressing the size of a motorcycle engine is cc. You can look in any motorcycle magazine written in English to see that that is true. Bob Palin 05:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions and decided on cc. If you would like to discuss this, please do it there. In the mean time, please do not change cc to cm³ in any automobile article. --SFoskett 20:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I did not see that article till you pointed it out. I am not particularly in favour of that guideline but I will try to respect it. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

units of volume in power generation

I adjusted the units based on my experience - I've never seen a vendor quote large flow rates in thousands of litres per minutes. In the article I left the "tons" alone, since they were obviously meant to provide orders of magnitude for the quantities involved and a 10% change in the number for metric "tonnes" would not have made these numbers any clearer for the SI-oriented reader. I have the misfortune that in my country we have the most confusing mish-mash of SI and Imperial units on Earth; I order cable by metres of length and AWG for diameter, for instance, and I've actually seen a drawing in which plan distances were given in feet and inches and elevations were given in metres. Strictly speaking engineering practice for lengths of equipment, etc. is to express them in mm, not decimal metres but I left the metres alone in the article. I should probably have converted 75 litres per minute to 0.01 m^3/s. And I tried to keep the precision in line with the inch/lb system units originally given. I screwed up on the barrel conversion - there isn't any "bbl" shown in the CRC Handbook table that is particularly close to 200 litres, which is what I'd thought. It does give 158.98 litres for a U.S. barrel of petroleum.

Somone had converted my "millions of cubic metres of natural gas" in Manitoba Hydro to "cubic kilometres" - incorrectly, and that unit is never used in the natural gas business.

And in today's paper the front page says a group camping in Bird's Hill Park were hit with 30 millitres of rain...and I wondered if they had to use one paper towel or two to get dry again. At this rate it will be 100 years before this country is really properly SI. --Wtshymanski 15:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes. That conversion in Manitoba Hydro of billion cubic metres to cubic kilometres was me. I am sure that I converted it correctly. I did see your subsequent revert saying that it is inappropriate because it is not familiar in the domain. I appear to place less emphasis than you on domain familiarity being a reason to avoid optimal SI expressions. However, it isn't a big deal in that specific case and I did not mind the revert at all.

As far as 'tons' is concerned. I take a similar view to you. I have avoided dealing with them so far because the values are fairly close and I never know which of the several non-metric tons is being used. The effort in metrication is more than the benefit. If the effort or the benefit were different, I might do something about it.

As far as '30 ml' of rain is concerned, I saw something similar recently. An article in a London magazine said that the lifts in 30 St Mary Axe could travel at 6 miles per second. The acceleration would kill the occupants. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

billion m3 versus km3 for petroleum measurements

Please DO NOT change billion m3 to km3 in any hydrocarbon related article. Billion m3 is industry convention and common practice. I have reverted your edit at List of natural gas fields for this reason. Please respect common practice and the intelligence of other users. --Csnewton 21:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you did this to several oil industry or petroleum related articles. This is a nuissance!--Csnewton 21:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You've got the most interesting talk page, Bobblewik. I'll jump in here to say that I consider "billion m³" totally unacceptable. Billion is ambiguous, no matter what some industry thinks. So some form of qualification or alternative unit is definitely in order. Rl 07:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that I this was mentioned on this talk page by user Wtshymanski. I don't want to be a nuisance, I had thought that the edits that I made improved the article. I had no idea that using a large unit for large quantities would be unwanted. I am interested in what you say and would welcome the opinion of others. Can you take this to a generic discussion page so that we get multiple views? I would appreciate that. Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't deny that billion m³ is a strange unit to use, but people are used to reading it and hearing it. Most people monitor their gas usage in m³, so it will be easier for most people to understand a billion familiar units over km³ even though they are the same units. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be accessable to the widest audience possible. The widest audience will be familiar with m³ and billion m³. I am not sure which general discussion page this should appear, feel free to CC this discussion to the appropriate page, perhaps leaving a note here for other users. --Csnewton 13:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's un-SI to cube a unit that has a prefix...is a km³ a kilometre cubed, or a thousand cubic meters? --Wtshymanski 21:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not in the least bit "un-SI".

In fact, that's the primary reason that the rest of the prefixes which are not powers of 1000 have not been relegated to the same fate as myria-, which never was an SI prefix, and thrown out of the list of SI prefixes.

There is no serious ambiguity. The correct meaning is explained many different places, and is almost never violated: 1 cm³ is a cubic centimeter or (0.01 m)³, 1 km³ is a cubic kilometer or (1000 m)³. Gene Nygaard 06:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#units_of_volume:_billion_m.B3_versus_km.B3 (Incidentally, I am curious as to why it says m.B3 when I created the heading with m³). Bobblewik  (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

B3 hexadecimal is 179 decimal; on a Windows computer, try keypad Alt-0179. The ³ is converted to acceptable characters in URL. Gene Nygaard 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Volume of water storage and consumption

Hi,

I'm sure that in general, your work on standardising units of measure and their representation is a good thing. However, is it necessary or appropriate to convert storage of lakes or consumption of water from megalitres (or kilolitres) to km³ or m³? Is Australia unique in reporting storage, consumption and flow in volume measures rather than cubic linear measures? I am scientifically literate, and had to think to determine what these units mean. I expect most readers would prefer to find the encyclopaedia descriptions use the same units as all other reports of related things. --ScottDavis 02:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about Australia but my UK water is measured in cubic metres. The term megalitre was unfamiliar to me. Volume is, of course, the same as cubic linear. The only difference is that the cubic metre is SI and the litre is not. The litre is defined such that 1000 litres = 1 cubic metre. Since you are scientifically literate, I assume that you were just using a turn of phrase when you contrasted 'cubic linear' with 'volume' and I am sure that I know what you meant. Perhaps the use of megalitres is indeed more common in Australia than elsewhere. I did a quick google search but did not come to a conclusion. Thanks for mentioning it. Feel free to revert it. Bobblewik  (talk) 07:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard water measured in km³ before seeing some of your edits. I refer to Water storage levels as an example of the way it is normally measured here. Reticulated drinking water in Australia is billed in kilolitres, not cubic metres. Irrigation water is billed in megalitres. --ScottDavis 09:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for the reference. I have learnt something. I have been investigating and I now see that megalitres is not unique to Australia, unsurprisingly. I had only noticed the use of cubic metres for water before. So both are used but I don't know the proportions. Bobblewik  (talk) 09:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I recall learning at primary school that Australia uses the "metric" system, which is based on, but not quite the same as the SI system of measures. Our national measurement regulator's website is http://www.measurement.gov.au/ but I can't find a direct reference of which units should be used. I did find the certificate for a domestic water meter that measures in kL. A bottle of wine here is 750 mL, not 750 cm³. Should measures of volume in Australia be given in mL, L, kL, ML with m³ etc. in parentheses for international comparison? --ScottDavis 12:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SI units are officially defined and listed on the web by the BIPM (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/). They say SI is the 'modern form of the metric system'. The term modern is time limited so the phrase modern form of the will eventually no longer apply (SI is already 35 years old). If that is true, then a unit is only metric if it is SI. Any other use of the term 'metric unit' would then be either merely colloquial or misinformed. I have a lot of sympathy with that interpretation.

The BIPM goes on to say:

• recognizing that users would wish to employ the SI with units which are not part of it but are important and widely used, listed three categories of non-SI units: units to be maintained; to be tolerated temporarily; and to be avoided. (http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/4-1.html)

However their list of non-SI units does not help with the definition of 'metric'. For example they put 'litre' (often called a metric unit) in the same table as 'day' (I have never heard this described as a metric unit).

When people say something like 'Australia is not SI, it is metric' that is a reasonable practical statement for the audience. We know what SI is and Australia has not converted to that. We don't really know what the 'metric system' means but it does not matter much. As Humpty Dumpty said, "words mean what I choose them to mean". I looked at www.measurement.gov.au and I see that even now, the Australian government is changing regulations about metrication. Each country applies different rules as they go along. The same applies to UK regulations and that is well behind Australia. So perhaps that is the answer, it is whatever the lawmakers say is metric.

As far as I know, UK law permits wine volume to be stated in cubic metres or litres. It is up to the manufacturer. I generally see litre based units too. It is interesting to me that vehicle engines are quoted in both: cubic centimetres for small volumes and litres for large volumes. The more I look at units, the less confident I become that there is much sense in what people do: British people sometimes operate on what has been called 'Celsiheit': Celsius up to at least room temperature and Fahrenheit for sunbathing temperatures.

As far as articles in Wikipedia are concerned it probably doesn't matter that much. Google reports that cubic metres are used there for water (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cubic-metres+water+.gov.au&hl=en&lr=&cr=countryAU&start=10&sa=N). I prefer large units for large quantities but I don't worry too much about versions of 'metric units'. There are plenty of articles that have yet to have metric units added to them and that is the more important issue. I am sure that if an Australian is comfortable with the units, then other metric readers will also understand. Feel free to edit articles that I have touched and improve them as you think is best. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, in biology we only use litre for volumes. I have never seen the 'cubic linear'. I don't know how ecologists measure lake volumes but I'd be surprised if they do not use litres. While L (or l) is not an official SI unit it is definitely an approved unit for use in the SI system. David D. 16:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You guys got me thinking about kL and ML. It appears to be most common in Australian websites. I ran a few google regional surveys. You may know that you can restrict the search to a nation, or even language, by going to www.google.co.uk, www.google.com.au, www.google.fr etc. The search in this case is made more difficult by the fact that there are unsearchable terms like m&sup3 and m². However, you may be interested in some results:

water (megalitres OR kilolitres OR kiloliters OR megaliters)

• 29,400 (Australia only)
• 45,900 (all web)

water (m3 OR "cubic metres" OR "cubic meters")

• 50,200 (Australia only)
• 1,290,000 (all web)

As I said, I don't mind if kL and ML are used. I just thought I would let you know what I found. These terms are not 'unique' to Australia. But in Google, Australia is responsible for more than half of the uses. The proportion is higher on Wikipedia. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of reservoirs in Trinidad and Tobago

List of reservoirs in Trinidad and Tobago Can you explain why you are changing "4,200 million gallons" to "4,000 million imp gal", but leaving "18,200,000 cubic metres"? Thanks. Guettarda 20:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it because the conversion is wrong. The value 18,200,000 cubic meters =

• 4,810,000,000 US gallons
• 4,000,000,000 imperial gallons

The same error is also in the Navat page of the "Water and Sewerage Authority of Trinidad and Tobago" website. It has the text 18,200,000 cubic meters (4,200 million gallons).

The reason I started editing the page was that the ambiguous term 'gallon' needs to be resolved with the prefix 'imp' or 'US'. When I investigated the values, I found the additional problem of misconversion. If you have a different suggestion for resolving the error, please feel free to try.

Thanks for bringing this up here. Regards. Bobblewik 21:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about US vs imperial gallons. The problem is that I have no way of knowing which figure WASA is working from. Gallons in Trinidad is usually imperial gallons, so I suspect that whoever wrote the web entry simply converted whichever number they had using the US gallon formula. If the estimate was based on m³ and converted to gallons, it's fine. If they estimate is based on imperial gallons and then converted to m³, then the end product is wrong. Knowing WASA, it could be either one, but if I had to guess at which figure was correct I'd go for the 4,800 million (imperial) gallons. Guettarda 23:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought that Trinidad would usually use imperial gallons. The round number (4,000 million imp gal) was consistent with that. But I could not explain how they arrived at the wrong numerical values. Your reasoning explains it. Feel free to put it the way you think it is.

WASA customer service might be interested to know that they have a misconversion and could find the correct value. I suspect not, but it might be worth a phone call.

It always helps to know which is the original and which is conversion. Putting the original first and the conversion second provides that certainty. You may wish to join in a debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) about this issue. Some people think it should vary according to complicated rules. This is a classic case of a problem caused by uncertainty over which is the original. Bobblewik 10:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Units of volume in ship displacement

Metric measurements for ships

Following your lead in using the Google converter, I recently added some metric measurements to USS Enterprise (1799). I was not sure about the ship's displacement in tons. Do you use some kind of metric conversion for tons in ship articles? ♠ DanMS 02:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I am glad that you are doing that. As far as tons are concerned, I usually leave them alone. The problems with metricating a word like 'ton' are too complicated for me. I am hoping that somebody else can work out what to do. You might try asking at User talk:Gene Nygaard if you want to get involved in the detail.

I am happy for all the help that you can provide. There is a lot to do and every little bit of help and/or support is welcome. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 17:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to do it. Actually I wasn't particularly looking for those conversions--I just ran across that page in the process of participating in Wikiproject:Punctuation. I'll keep an eye out for others though. ♠ DanMS 05:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hectolitres in brewery articles

Hi there. I've reverted all of your changes to brewery articles to change litres back to hectolitres. I guess you didn't notice that they were all consistent for a reason, but hectolitres are the conventional metric units used when talking about brewery production. The European Union beer regulations use hectolitres. It is the de-facto standard. If you disagree, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer#Units for production numbers before making any more sweeping changes. Mike Dillon 17:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)