Weight of Water

1 KG.

But you know if you go to a common search engine like google or yahoo and type in "What is the weight of 1 liter of water" you get hundreds of sites that will give you the answer.

thanku sir i know the answer but i need hw its 1 kg...

There are about 1000 web sites that will give you all the info you want.. Google it please.

"thanku sir i know the answer but i need hw its 1 kg..."

Because it's not ½kg or 2kg, that's why!!!! When the metric system was established it was decided that 1 liter of water at 4^oC = 1kg. If you have a problem with that then you should use a time machine to go back in time to the inventors of the metric system and punch them out, otherwise you have no choice but to accept it.

thnks sir for u r really great answer u r ryt...wer r u frm n wht u do sir

"what is the weight of 1 liter of water n plzz"

It depends on the density of plzz and the concentration of plzz in the water.

Most of us here are hardly teenagers, and find it difficult to read and understand your texting, if that is what you are doing. Please use English with complete words!

At first I attributed it to lack of language skills, but I believe you are right. Now we have to deal with unintelligible language delivered in texting shorthand. OH GOD HELP US!

oR, oghu

imho tshgts.

You really are a special type of clown lynlynch

And, now that they've found water on the moon (you did see that plume, didn't you? ), you have to use weight density there also. However, if you take a box down to Air France cargo, they'll charge you by the kg instead of by the N. I say we should go back to good units like the slug and stone!

Europeans are as ambiguous about kg as we US folks are about pounds.

I love English units, such as furlongs per fortnight, or bushels per hogshead. Just do the math; it all coimes out the same in the end.

sure, but..

The Questioner is talking science, obviously. He knows the answer but wants a scientific explanation. So Nick Name is right.

Thanks for clearing this up for us. "The Questioner is talking science".

That explains it all for me. "what is the weight of 1 liter of water n plzz can any one derive that answer also." is science. OK, I've got it.

Nickname is right, there is no doubt about that.

At the same time he could have chosen to simply clarify my answer, rather than giving me a hard time... and accuse me of being a poor engineer.

But that was his choice as well. No skin off my nose.

accuse me of being a poor engineer - i think nickname was telling the truth. Ya know what they say "the truth often hurts"

That explains Vader's answer, he's from Tatooine...

milo

Do not forget the mass and/or weight per cubic dm is also temperature dependent

This is not the correct answer, it is an answer given by someone who does not understand the topic or the question completely. Perhaps SteveS should have taken his own advice and googled the answer before trying to show how smart he is.

I say there son, lemme tell you... if you, or I, should be half as smart as Steve S, we should count ourselves lucky. If you're gonna take shots, have the cojones to sign in.

so do you agree that 1L of water = 1KG? surely you realise it is not that simple. Since I am sure you agree with me then you would need to retract your previous statement regarding being half as smart....

At any usual temperatures and pressures, 1 l of water weighs 1 kg. It is that simple. I really am not half as smart as Steve S, but I am about 5 times as pedantic as he.

please define usual temperatures and pressures, would they be your usual pressures and temperatures or would they be someone elses usual pressure and temperatures? So you do recognise that these play a role in the correct answer? This is meant to be an engineering/science forum not some make-it-up-as-we-go forum.

So if you really are 5 times as pedantic as Steve S then you would recognise that his answer was not correct unless he had stated the reference pressure and temperature.

No, not to argue this point to death, but at the temperatures and pressures found in everyday life (since the OP referenced nothing, I feel justified in excluding black holes), 1 l of water weighs 1 kg. I can include temperature and pressure effects, if I want to, but the above bolded statement is what you objected to, yet it is completely accurate. And, yes, I am being nitpicking as all get out. You might criticize my use of "l" for liter rather than "L", but....

we know --- we know --- you meant to say SOME litres of water weigh 1kg SOME of the time.

In that statement you are per fectly correckt.

everyone knows these days that water isnt used any more for the standard for to many good reasons and so with the new standard most water does NOT weigh 1kg/l

g'day all!

I agree with you a guest giving an answer is one thing, but passing criticism on a member is total bad manners. This guest is hardly a passing viewer he has followed this post all the way.

If you have enough time to stay with this site you have enough time to sign up, get a life or get lost.

Don't criticize unless you can offer something better! No engineer or scientist worth anything needs to Google to know the mass of 1 l of water; some conditions must be specified to find the weight.

so are you saying that steve s is not worth anything since he clearly indicated that google was the place to find this information. You are correct when you say that conditions must be specified to find the weight, therefore you would certainly disagree with the initial answer given by steve s?

No, that is NOT what I'm saying! Steve S gave the correct simple answer to a simple question. The way the question was phrased (or more precisely, not phrased) indicated that the OP probably did not know, or care, about the difference between mass and weight.

On the other hand, I had to read the original post three times (changing glasses after the second reading) before I figured out the the OP was NOT asking about a mixture of water and urine! I'm of the age group that has some difficulty reading correctly written text with my regular glasses; delete the punctuation and vowels, and it becomes significantly difficult. Engineers are educated people; ask them a question correctly, and you are likely to get a correct answer!

dkwarner,

Engineers are educated people; ask them a question correctly, and you are likely to get a correct answer!

The OP could have asked:

A litre of drinking water: What is it's mass, how much does it weigh, how is that figure derived and what are the criteria for arriving at that value?

And someone would say that drinking water is most dense at 4° C and a Litre of it has a mass that weighs 1 kg.

To say that a standard definition of a kilogram is that it's weight equals the mass of 1 litre of chemically clean water. So 1000 L = 1000 Kg of pure water would be wrong unless they include that the water is pure and the water is at the temperature of its maximum density (3.98 °C) and under a pressure of 1 atmosphere.

In space it would be a question of how much force it would take change its velocity.

Jon

kudukdweller9

Your proposed question I find quite correct, however your answer is not as it reads:

And someone would say that drinking water is most dense at 4° C and a Litre of it has a mass that weighs 1 kg.

It should be " ... and a litre of it has a mass of 1 kg and that mass weighs 9.8 N." (on earth one might add).

It was stated earlier that the difference between weight and mass had been pointed out before, but it seems to be ignored or not being read. That is annoying when things are set straight and then simply ignored on further posts. Probably best to let the Ignorant play out their games. But then it is not an educational forum anymore.

Floram,

It was also pointed out that the scale used is not calibrated in Newtons.

and a litre of it has a mass of 1 kg and that mass weighs 9.8 N

Kilogram force converts to 9.80665 Newtons. A force, not a weight. See torque.

Kilograms of mass do not convert to Newtons.

1kg of mass converts to 2.204623 lbs of mass. A weight.

A litre of 4°C pure water at 1 atmosphere is a kilogram when weighed on a kilogram scale at my house. A strong jet of air can make my scale read 1kg of force but that is not mass.

The litre is not a true SI standard either but it is excepted.

Non-SI units accepted for use with SI

Name Symbol Quantity Equivalent SI unit

Litre l or L Volume 0.001 m³

People keep using lower case "n" for Newtons but it is upper case "N".

Like nN is nano Newtons.

SI derived units with special names

Name Symbol Quantity expressed in base units

Newton N Force m-kg-s^-2

Hey, what else do I have to do?

Jon

I apologize to come into the discussion I consider fait and correct as it should always be.

Weight IS a force due to the effect of earth acceleration on the object mass.

The Kgf used about 30 years ago as a force unit is not any more accepted since it is related to the earth gravity and units have to be independent of reference system.

Kilograms of mass can lead to forces in N according to the accelerations they are subject to.

A balance compares MASSES so that it measures equivalence of MASSES only the spring or transducers scales measure forces via the macro or micro deformations of the used sensors but at calibration the weights used are MASSES so that via the calibration those scales make also a MASS comparison. If you direct a jet to a scale it will apply a force but the scale will compare this with the effect of mass calibration or direct with the effect of the mass in case of a balance.

It also possible to use derived length units as mm, cm or dm and in stead of l one could use dm^3 which is exactly the same.

A discussion should be so every body brings something new or what he thinks can be considered as new.

That answer is hardly educational nor informative nor contributing in any way, but instead its dirty and demeaning talk.

Is this what this forum has come to?

thanku u soo much sir for such a simple n nicely said answer ...

Friends,

A slight addition (not a correction) to the good answer: as noted, density is the conversion factor that would be used to convert volume to mass. The "specific gravity" is a dimensionless number that is a ratio of the density of the liquid or solid under question to the density of water at 4°C.

As the rather long-winded and sometimes impolite discussion has illustrated, in common discussion the mass of an object is usually called by the term "weight" although this is technically incorrect. In science and engineering it is dangerous to have two different meanings to the same term, but in ordinary language multiple meanings occur frequently. Fortunately, we usually have enough intelligence to sort out this confusion without too much difficulty.

--JMM

JMM,

It takes a kg of force to keep a kg of mass from falling.

1 Kilogram-force is the 9.80665 Newton-force that keeps the 1 kg mass from falling.

1 kilogram is mass in engineering.

1 kilopond is force in engineering.

To convert between weight (force) and mass, Newton's second law of "force = mass × acceleration" (F = ma) is used. Here, F is the force (weight) due to gravity, m is the mass of the object in question, and a is the acceleration due to gravity, on Earth approximately 9.8 m/s2 or 32.2 ft/s2. In this context the same equation is often written as W = mg, with W standing for weight, and g for the acceleration due to gravity.

For example, using SI units, a mass of 1 kg experiences a weight force of 1 kg × 9.8 m/s2 = 9.8 newtons (note that the newton is equivalent to kg m/s2).

Jon

Sorry but relative density shoiuld specify the temperature of reading it is not fixed. This is useful in industry as it avoids excessive cooling or heating as the one nearer to the average ambient temperature can be used.

Is this a trick question?? - so many daft answers !!

Depens upon the temperatrure - 1kg of water at 25° C measures 1 Litre

Haz,

More accurately 1 litre of pure water at 4° C weighs 1kg.

Table of Density of Pure & Tap* Water and Specific Gravity

Jon

Quite correct - my error confusion of density and specific gravity - used to working at 25°

Haz,

I know what you mean. Ambient/room temp is a standard for so many things.

Jon

In our industry paints, resins , glues &c we get funnelled into it

Now, now boys. Let's play nice.

This sounds like homework to me.

Steve S.'s reply#1 should have been the first/last response given.

Are you for real? The answer given by Steve S was not correct- or did you miss that point completely?

I'm for real, and you are a flaming idiot!

Do you have any engineering/scientific education or any education at all for that matter? You must realize that you backed the wrong horse here (Steve S being the preverbial horse).

According to the SI System of weights and measurements; a kilogram is defined as the weight of one litre of water.

I is a special SI system you discovered since in the system known as SI the kg is used as MASS unit and not weight which is a FORCE.

I am deeply disappointed by the wrong use of notions and misuse of references.

I already wrote once that too many comments are made not because the person brings a new information but ONLY to have its name on the list.

This thread is the best example of above mentinoed behaviour, same error was repeated several times either people do not read or they are not in knowledge to understand what other wrote, it is a PITY!!!

The volume of water is temperature dependant - it expands when heated and shrinks when cooled. Water is an odd-ball it shrinks as it reaches 4°C and then starts to expand. Hence 1 litre of water has a mass of 1 Kilo at 4°C.

Its weight is something else - see Wikipedia

An object's weight depends on its environment, while its mass does not: an object with a mass of 50 kilograms weighs 491 newtons on the surface of the Earth; on the surface of the Moon, the same object still has a mass of 50 kilograms but weighs only 81.5 newtons.An object's weight depends on its environment, while its mass does not: an object with a mass of 50 kilograms weighs 491 newtons on the surface of the Earth; on the surface of the Moon, the same object still has a mass of 50 kilograms but weighs only 81.5 newtons.

It helps to compare the spring scale and the beam balance. The first uses gravity verses a spring an an object will weigh less at sea level than it does on the top of everest. A beam balance just compares the weight of one object to another.

It depends upon what kind of water it is. For example, salt water is heavier than fresh water, etc...

Or 1lt of frothy water!!. I think pure water is a given??

One litre of water has a mass of almost exactly one kilogram when measured at its maximal density, which occurs at about 4 degrees Celsius.

However, this definition was abandoned in 1799 because the density of water changes with temperature and, very slightly, with pressure.

DZ

This is a general comment directed to all participants at this "discussion".

I am taken aback by the way people who claim to be high skilled engineers exchange insults and try to down in fire the other.

I am surely wrong but I expect from CR4 participants a higher communication level, I thought we are not a bunch of old people spitting on each other!

I thought that we are an international team of specialists trying to share our knowledge with those who are in need.

The weight of 1 l water is such a simple subject that it could have been solved in 1 correct comment or at the most in 2 if a correction was necessary. Have you looked how many have been made? How many of them were subject related?

And, since I can rarely stop beating dead horses, had the OP asked, "What is the mass of 1.0000 liter of pure water at 17.345°C and 1.6758 Bar, I should have given a different answer. He(?) asked the weight of 1 liter, and I quote NIST

"Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of."

the only person to come out of this discsuuion with any credibility is nick name. The rest (ok maybe the most) are just interested in posting for the sake of it and in some cases trying to make amends for making incorrect statements.

Off topic but couldn't help myself...

Just who are you and what rock did you come from under to refer to these posters in such a negative way???

It is not always good to over complicate issues and NEVER a good thing to insult intelligent people who quickly and clearly offered an acceptable answer to a question that was not even posted in proper English (or any other proper language for that matter).

I have never seen a bad answer posted by Steve and doubt that anyone other than persons trying to make themselves appear intelligent by going overboard on a subject could say differently.

I must say that you super smart scientist are sometimes amusing though...

Below are the comments of "Guest" None of which are anything other than rude ignorant combative rants! For guest to judge anyone's credibility is a real joke!

This is not the correct answer, it is an answer given by someone who does not understand the topic or the question completely. Perhaps SteveS should have taken his own advice and googled the answer before trying to show how smart he is.

My money is that Steve S is a salesman and not an engineer. He was quick to jump in and saw that 1litre is 1Kg without really understanding the subject matter. Well done nick name for pointing out his lack of qualifications. It was also quite pityful how he tried to justify his ignorance on this matter.

You really are a special type of clown lynlynch

Are you for real? The answer given by Steve S was not correct- or did you miss that point completely?

Do you have any engineering/scientific education or any education at all for that matter? You must realize that you backed the wrong horse here (Steve S being the preverbial horse).

so are you saying that steve s is not worth anything since he clearly indicated that google was the place to find this information. You are correct when you say that conditions must be specified to find the weight, therefore you would certainly disagree with the initial answer given by steve s?

so do you agree that 1L of water = 1KG? surely you realise it is not that simple. Since I am sure you agree with me then you would need to retract your previous statement regarding being half as smart....

Please define usual temperatures and pressures, would they be your usual pressures and temperatures or would they be someone elses usual pressure and temperatures? So you do recognise that these play a role in the correct answer? This is meant to be an engineering/science forum not some make-it-up-as-we-go forum.

So if you really are 5 times as pedantic as Steve S then you would recognise that his answer was not correct unless he had stated the reference pressure and temperature.

the only person to come out of this discsuuion with any credibility is nick name. The rest (ok maybe the most) are just interested in posting for the sake of it and in some cases trying to make amends for making incorrect statements.

There is NOT A SINGLE THREAD OF CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue in any of these statements.

Get a life, looser.

Thanks, Tim in Mexico. It's a waste of time. I fear we are playing into it's hand.

Yea I realize that we are playing into this as well, but maybe GUEST could amuse us clowns again with something even worse yet...

Just remember not to have food or drink in your mouth when viewing it, else you'll be cleaning your screen!!!

you really have to get a life. You have never added anything constructive but this is most probably due to your lack of education and understanding of engineering/scientific subjects. You are only interested in posting for the sake of it.

Thank you for your insight.

If Lynlynch is really the ignoramus that you imply he is, then why do you bother to engage him? Especially since you have contribute nothing but snide remarks under the cowardly guise of anonymity of a "Guest" at that.

By then way, if Lynlynch needs to get a life, what does that say about you, since you are clearly following everything he posts here on this thread slavishly?

Right on.

Lynlynch was quite proper to point out these meaningless, useless and destructive comments, and on top of it, when coming from a hiding "guest".

Changes due to location

The acceleration g varies by about ¹/₂ of 1 percent with position on the Earth's surface, from about 9.78 metres per second per second at the Equator to approximately 9.83 metres per second per second at the poles. In addition to this broad-scale variation, local variations of a few parts in 10⁶ or smaller are caused by variations in the density of the Earth's crust as well as height above sea level.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/242404/gravitation/61472/Variations-in-g

I don't think this point came up in the thread, the earlier posts defaulted to the same value for g (what I learned was it varies with time due to tidal effects)

To answer the "derive" part, the weight of water is not the "definition" of a kg.

The metric original philosophy was to relate all values to "natural" bases, across relationships spanning all sectors of physics.

It took a while to decide on length and mass exact 'dimensions' to make it all work/relate. Essentially all the metric values were "reversed engineered" until they fitted.

E.g.to make Nm/s = J/s = W = VA and Pa = N/m^2 and N = kg/m^2, simultaneously is tricky.

Water was an initial mass 'prototype' as was the length of a line of longitude of Earth, as the basis of a meter.

Water had the temperature problem and the longitude was measured as a sphere - and wrong - but 100mm^ 3 = 1l of water = ~1 kilo, is a nice link to the original concept of "natural" division of a "natural" constant.

See this link for what is the current kg 'definition' and note what it is 'compared' to.

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

Chart courtesy of L.F. Smith, BEM., M.I.E (Aust.),A.S.T.C.

Close to a Good Answer4, except 1000mm^3=1l.

I am not the original Guest who posted but am just wishing to correct you on this issue, 1000mm=1m, the original posts 100mm^3=1L is correct, your proposal actually works out to be 1m^3=1000L

That is totally incorrect dkwarner

I knew you can't think.

1000 x mm^3 = 1 cubic centimeter = 1 gramm = .001 kg

(1000 mm)^3 = 1 cubic meter = 1 ton = 1000 kg

Reminds me of WTC

DK,

Does this have anything to do with 1000 cubic millimeters of pure 4°C water having a mass of 0.001 Litre and weighing 0.001kg on my balance?

Jon

OOPS!

I thought I posted this last night, but it isn't here this morning, so here goes again...

Of course I only noticed half of the error in that line of post 68. I was so focused on the 100 instead of 1000 that I missed the mm instead of cm. It should have been: 1000cm³=1L.

Just because someone makes an error certainly does NOT indicate that that person can't think! I'll refrain from making any comment about you, other than to indicate that your credibility would be enhanced if you at least gave your name, or better, registered.

"1000 x mm^3 = 1 cubic centimeter = 1 gramm = .001 kg

(1000 mm)^3 = 1 cubic meter = 1 ton = 1000 kg", quoted from your post, isn't entirely correct either.

1000 x mm^3 = 1 cubic centimeter is correct, but the rest of the line must mention water @ 4°C to be correct. Same for the second line of the quote.

Dick

Oops, an Imperial ton is 2,240 lbs = 20 x 112 lbs = 20 x 1cwt

The USA has a 'short ton' 2,000 lbs = 20 x 100 lbs = 20 x 1 short cwt.

An Imperial shipping ton is a cubic yard or ton weight whichever is greater (pick your ton)

A metric shipping ton is a cubic metre or 1000 kg whichever is greater (pick your freight provider)

An 'assay' ton is about 32 grams or 26 grams (long or short).

And you don't spell ton differently in many countries but in others the theory is you should use a capital T or lower case t to distinguish metric from imperial, but some still think the lower case t is for the ancient ton (of I think about 1750 lbs)

Oh - and some would disallow the plural (thereby categorically distinguishing one ton from another tons).

How a spelling and font case solution works in practical circumstances is beyond me, and historically, the source of much trouble, so rapidly ignored.

If unclear some use "metric ton", just as one distinguishes 'short' ton or 'long' ton as appropriate. Certain industries use all. E.g in aviation, fuel may be in long tons but cargo in short or shipping tons. Naturally, now most use kg, and 'will it fit'.

But essentially, if the context is metric the Ton, or Tonne, or ton or tonne, is 1000 kg or ~ 2,204 lbs. NOT 2000 lbs, 2240 lbs, 32 g, 26 g, or a 100 score in darts, or 100 mph.

Or thank god for "kg" and 1 name for 1 mass.

Simplest? : Just state it in kg.

Ton(s) are the bit to the left of the first comma.

No sums required. Auto decimal tons. Obviously metric.

As was the post context.

So for those who wish to have pedantic wars; make sure it's not based in a 'parochial solution', never actually adopted by the rest of the world.

And do try to settle down a bit - both of you.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The counter went over 100 we won the presence in the Guinness book of records but I must recognize that the last comment was welcome and deserves lot of GA to reduce the "off-topic" 5 negative points. It is in fact not "off-topic" if one looks at the discussion and not limits the consideration to the first, original, question.

It shows how important it is to all of us to use notions the other one could UNDERSTAND.

This place is for communication and if the reader does not have the possibility to get the point then CR4 does not reach the international level it was committed to.

It is clear that the members of CR4 come from very different directions and have different degrees but it is not a reason to lower the level on the contrary I am sure that all participants which ever their degree is want to bring something, want to learn more than they know and are glad to get informations going deeper and further than their actual knowledge.

I sincerely hope that the reactions on comments or critics will not ant more lead to such a mess.

One of the best reactions to an aggression (if it is verbal) is to not react so that the aggressor willing to continue will not have any more opportunities to catch on.

Best wishes for all of you,

Nick name

N = kg/m^2

Correct definition:

1 N= 1 kg* 1 m/s² = the force which brings a mass of 1kg to an acceleration of 1m/s²

When one discusses units he has to be careful about the way his corrections do appear.

Technique is a precision stuff and even details are important. I see that we have some problems with order of magnitudes and the metric system.

About 35 years ago I read in a very serious magazine (Machine Design) that "metrication" is on its way and that in less 15 years the USA industry will be metric since it is in its interest to use same standards as the rest of the world. About 20 years ago I read in another magazine I do not remember which the statistical analysis of marketing previsions and product success it was 50-50 the same as tossing a coin in the air. The same seems to be valid for technical previsions.

Sorry to play again the "corrector" role but we have a responsibility toward those who believe we are professionals and take as granted what we say.

This thread and comments are becoming ridiculous and childish.

I would compare this to an episode of "Cheers" when they were discussing;

What is the weight of Cliff's Brain!

Now that is a challenging question!

Very True!

Let's talk about,"the weight of 1l of Guinness" now.