### 4 Answers

- Dr WLv 77 years agoBest Answer
49.1 m³ x (1000L / 1m³) = 4.91x10^4 L

*********

if you don't like that conversion factor.. you could do this...

49.1 m³ x (100cm / 1m)³ x (1mL / 1cm³) x (1L / 1000mL) = 4.91x10^4 L

*********

*********

update

*********

*********

interesting ChemTEAM.. (aka John Park... you're not really a "team" are you?)

Yes it's true I do use and do encourage "dimensional analysis" and it's "power rule". Please point that out to every student in chemistry. The more the merrier.

The real question is, why don't YOU?

********

isn't this...

49.1 m³ x (10dm / 1m)³ x (1L / dm³) = 4.91x10^4 L

faster to write, easier to double check, and easier to understand than this...

dm^3 = 1 L

So, I will convert m^3 to dm^3:

think of 49.1 m^3 like this:

49.1 m by 1 m by 1 m

To convert m to dm, we use this:

1 m = 10 dm

Now, we replace m with dm:

(49.1 x 10 dm) by 10 dm by 10 dm = 49100 dm^3 = 49100 L

Here's Google converter:

https://www.google.com/search?q=convert+…

?????

********

in my first gen chem class at the university when I obtained my undergrad in chemical engineering, on the very first day, the instructor made three points very clear. (1) no credit would be awarded unless we used dimensional analysis. (2) points would be docked unless we used sig figs. (3) high school chem instructors had a tendency to propagate poor methods (such as proportions, such as not using DA, etc), and we were to forget all of those poor techniques from that point forward.

You were a high school chemistry instructor once. You must have heard the same lecture if you went to college. So... please explain to the world why you continue to propogate poor methods? Do you like preparing your students poorly for their eventual college chemistry courses? Didn't the textbooks you used in class cover dimensional analysis? Isn't that what your "friend" Steven Zumdahl preached in his lectures and wrote in his textbooks that you seem to rate so highly?

Speaking of ratings have you looked at your "rating" as a high school chemistry teacher chemTEAM?

http://www.ratemyteachers.com/john-park/68618-t

29 ratings... 2/5 stars for all 4 categories (clarity, content, ease and helpfulness)

but you did get a couple of high marks for being "weirdly cool".

Guess how I was rated by the university students I TA'd long ago.

******

any other comments you feel the need to make?

******

My apologies for the chatter Jessica. I was one of the TA's given the task of straightening out the mess that some high school instructors made. And it annoys me when people like chemteam continue to "teach" substandard methods.

If you spend the time and learn and practice dimensional analysis now, which for some bizarre reason Mr. Park refuses to do, I guarantee you will have an easier time at chemistry and you will undoubtedly get better grades. It's not hard. It just takes (1) a competent instructor to spend 15 minutes explaining the method, and (2) practice.

ask questions if you have any.

.

Source(s): 10,400,000 websites demonstrating DA and it's benefits countless hours spent teaching and working with college (and high school students) any chemistry textbook on the market. years spent writing and grading countless chemistry exams - 3 years ago
A liter is a cubic decimeter. A decimeter is one 10th of a meter or 10 cm. So a cubic decimeter, or a liter, is 1000 cm cubed. So basically divide your totals via 1000, and you get the kind of liters.

- ChemTeamLv 77 years ago
1 dm^3 = 1 L

So, I will convert m^3 to dm^3:

think of 49.1 m^3 like this:

49.1 m by 1 m by 1 m

To convert m to dm, we use this:

1 m = 10 dm

Now, we replace m with dm:

(49.1 x 10 dm) by 10 dm by 10 dm = 49100 dm^3 = 49100 L

Here's Google converter:

https://www.google.com/search?q=convert+49.1+cubic...

Edit: m w giving me a thumbs down? Heh. Any hoo, on m w's answer:

49.1 m³ x (100cm / 1m)³ x (1mL / 1cm³) x (1L / 1000mL) = 4.91x10^4 L

Make sure you catch that cube just outside the parentheses. Here:

(100cm / 1m)³

That's his way and my way this this

"49.1 m by 1 m by 1 m"

So, I say analyze both answers because both have teaching merit. m w tends not to agree with me because he thinks his method is the best way. It isn't. It's a condensed method that evolved to fit the compact formatting needs of writing a textbook.

Source(s): ChemTeam