From: Rod Fleming (rodfleming@sol.co.uk)
Date: 06/12/00-01:33:12 AM Z
What is this- Monday morning?
We were taught at school (60's) not to use "cc" but "ml" (pronounced "emel",
BTW). Sometime in the early '60's the scientific community adopted a
standard metric terminolgy, which includes grammes and kilogrammes for mass,
Newton-Metres (Nm) for force, meters and centimetres etc for linear measure,
and litres and so on for volume.
But a cc is still the same thing as an ml, so don't let it bother you.
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 07:46
Subject: cc or ml?
>
> Dear list mind:
>
> I used to say and write "cc" for cubic centimeter, but somehow this list
> has caused me to change to "ml", which seems the term of choice. Folks
> have said the two are different, though can that be by very much?
>
> Meanwhile, re-writing some old formulas, I changed all my "ccs" to "mls",
> but it didn't feel right and I changed them back. Now I'm wondering, does
> everybody know what a "cc" is? A "ml"? I suppose I should stick to one
> or the other, because switching could *add* confusion, but I think it's
> too late, that I have already waffled in print and online.
>
> PS: Doesn't "cc" *sound* better than "ml"? That was my reason in the
> first place: "ml" sounded like it should have "on the floss" after it.
>
> thanks in advance for any & all advice...
>
> Judy
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:44 AM Z CST