Measuring volume: Solid vs Liquid/Gas

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the rationale behind using different units for measuring volume, such as cubic centimeters (cm³) for solids and liters for liquids and gases. It highlights that milliliters (mL) and cubic centimeters are equivalent today, though historically they were not. The conversation touches on the impracticality of using a single unit, like cubic meters, for all substances, suggesting that the choice of measurement is influenced by conventions and the physical state of the material being measured. While some participants express a preference for either metric (mks) or centimeter-gram-second (cgs) units, the consensus is that the current system of measurement is largely a matter of convention and practicality rather than strict necessity.
ElijahRockers
Gold Member
Messages
260
Reaction score
10
I was just curious... what is the practical reason behind having two separate units for measuring volume? For instance, we can use cubic centimeters and mL interchangeably in practical medicine, i.e. injections. But we tend to use cubic (centi)meters for solids, and liters for liquids/gasses.

Why don't we measure all volume by the same unit? That is, why don't we measure the volume of an gold ingot in terms of liters? Or perhaps the volume of a bucket of water in cubic meters?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Not sure what your question is.

mL and cubic centimeter are the same thing (historically I believe they were not, but they are now). Yes, we use liters for liquid volumes and cm3 but these days that's just a meaningless convention.

Using cubic meter for everything would be impractical.
 
Borek said:
Not sure what your question is.

We have a single property, volume, measured in different ways depending on the phase of the substance. We measure solids with cubed distances, and fluids with liters. I am trying to get some insight as to the reason things are done this way. Are there any particular historical reasons? Practical reasons? etc. etc...

Borek said:
Using cubic meter for everything would be impractical.

What about liters? Is there anything impractical about measuring the volume of a solid in terms of liters?
 
Check wikipedia article on liter, it explains where the difference came from.

As I said, mL and cm3 are now perfectly equivalent, and we just by convention use mL (and L) for volumes of things that are not solid and can be poured.
 
  • Like
Likes ElijahRockers
What difference does it make? There are mks units and cgs units. Conversion to the units you wants is one calculation away. Personally, I like mks units, but physicists like cgs units.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top