Is there a standard SI unit for volume?

 

Would it be [math]m^3[/math]?

 

I was reading a book, and it said people like to use [math]cm^3[/math], but that doesn't define what's considered standard.

Is there a standard SI unit for volume?

 

Would it be [math]m^3[/math]?

 

I was reading a book, and it said people like to use [math]cm^3[/math], but that doesn't define what's considered standard.

 

Yes it would be that.

called "stere" or simply "cubic meter"

 

a possible source about SI is Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI

 

but Wikipedia does not mention the official SI unit area (a square meter, called are)

and the unit volume (cubic meter, called stere)

 

consistency is the hobgoblin of metric minds, and they are relentlessly consistent, also in general metric systems of units (SI included as prime example) have an indecent number of NAMED units, like units named after somebody, or just named unnecessarily-----you really could just say "cubic meter" you don't really have to have a name "stere"-----except that it is easier to apply prefixes unambiguously if you have a name, like you can say

"millistere" and "nanostere" but it would be awkward to say "millicubicmeter"

 

despite the good intentions of the SI authors, I almost never hear anybody say stere. If I had to say "millistere" I would probabably choke----I'd rather say "liter", buf that is not official SI.

there aren`t too many chemists that work with Cubic Metres of stuff, Cm^3 is just fine for most purposes, or Mols.

there aren`t too many chemists that work with Cubic Metres of stuff, Cm^3 is just fine for most purposes, or Mols.

 

heh, in chemical engineering cubic metres is the most appropriate unit for most cases (in a couple of centuries i wouldn't be surprised to see cubic kilometers up there as well.)

there aren`t too many chemists that work with Cubic Metres of stuff, Cm^3 is just fine for most purposes, or Mols.

 

but watch out, a cubic centimeter is exactly a NANOSTERE

 

and the SI standardization drive is very stubborn, they may eventually get people to say nanostere instead of cc.

 

the poster was asking about Standard SI, rather than what people actually use in work. In their work SI can be awkward and scientists often diverge from it.

 

If I remember right, the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has a long chapter about some speech habits of scientists that don't conform to standard SI and which the International Bureau of Weights and Measures deplores and condemns and tries to get people to stop saying.

 

Like, you should not say "degrees Centigrade" and you should not even say "degrees Celsius"----they say this usage is "deprecated" by them----instead you should simply say "Celsius". It is funny.

 

and in many ways it is a dumb system anyway.

In a freshman physics course, I came across the unit of microkilogram.

I thought that was ridiculous.

 

It seems like in chemistry, we always used non-SI units. I don't think I ever saw a cubic meter or a pascal in either one of my two semesters of general chem. It was always liters and atmospheres. Many SI units are just too inconvenient. I doubt this will change. Chemists will use liters or cc's, physicists will use eVs astronomers will use light years.

Ask a biochemist how many microliters are in a "stere"

but watch out, a cubic centimeter is exactly a NANOSTERE

 

And not MICROstere?

 

0.01*0.01*0.01 = 10^-6

 

Perhaps you meant a cubic milimeter?

 

Borek

--

Stoichiometry calculator

www.pH-meter.info/pH-electrode

And not MICROstere?

 

0.01*0.01*0.01 = 10^-6

 

Perhaps you meant a cubic milimeter?

 

Borek

--

Stoichiometry calculator

www.pH-meter.info/pH-electrode

 

You are absolutely right, Borek!

 

I was in too much of a hurry and fumbled the prefixes.

 

I meant microstere.

 

(eventually the SI people may well get their way and we will all be saying microstere instead of cubic centimeter)

 

thanks for catching my error.