OnlineConversion Forums Welcome to OnlineConversion.com Forums

Go Back   OnlineConversion Forums > Main Forums > General Chat

General Chat Get to know your fellow converters here. You can talk about anything you like, just keep it clean.
* Guest Posting is no longer allowed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-29-2010, 02:49 PM
Robert Fogt's Avatar
Robert Fogt Robert Fogt is offline
Administrator
The Golden Calculator Award Over 1000 Posts
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,340
Rep Power: 12
Robert Fogt is on a distinguished road
Default Has the kilogram changed over time?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...-invalid-nist/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-31-2010, 12:18 AM
Mrs X Mrs X is offline
can't count, can't spell!
Long Time Member The Golden Calculator Award The Tree House Award Over 1000 Posts
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,296
Rep Power: 11
Mrs X will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Has the kilogram changed over time?

It's been re-defined a couple of times too. Fascinating how easily doubt is cast on something you think is a fundamental. (At least for me, lol).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2010, 02:40 AM
JohnS JohnS is offline
Double Ultimate Supreme Member
Long Time Member The Golden Calculator Award Over 5000 Posts
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SE Michigan, USA
Posts: 8,710
Rep Power: 17
JohnS will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Has the kilogram changed over time?

Yes, the fundamental prototype in Paris and the various national prototypes are slowly changing relative to one another. Although it is VERY slow, metal atoms can evaporate from the surface (goes much faster at higher temperatures). The changes are of the order of micrograms in a kilogram, but that is a lot to a metrologist.

The US is not alone in the quest for a better kilogram. Several nations have worked on both the watt-balance approach, and a silicon sphere in which the number of atoms can be counted. In toto, the proposal also changes the mole, kelvin, and ampere to base all four on fundamental constants (I think Fox is wrong on the candela). I believe in the CGPM process, someone has to step forward and take the lead in making a proposal, but the real work has been a multi-national effort.

A draft or placeholder of the revisions to The SI Brochure has been released for comment. It states the proposed definitions, but the fundamental constants are only stated to limited accuracy (6 digits), followed by an X for the missing digits. A link to the draft was posted Sep. 29 on the USMA list server archive. The final values of the fundamental constants will be proposed by the committee that publishes the CODATA values (can't recall their formal name).

The draft fixes the value in roughly the same way as fixing the value of the meter by declaring the speed of light to be an exact constant. The meter is the length that "makes it so."

On a MUCH lighter note, the irony of a nation which is not officially metric taking the lead in redefining the metric system can't be dismissed. Of course the reality is that science and several industries ARE metric, the public at large is not so metric.

Edit: Links to the USMA list server, and draft SI Brochure for anyone interested:
http://www.mail-archive.com/usma@col.../msg37896.html
http://www.bipm.org/cc/CCU/Allowed/2...h2_29Sep10.pdf

Edit2: This story may be clearer than the Fox story:
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/N...x?xmlmenuid=51

Last edited by JohnS; 11-01-2010 at 03:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1997-2005, 2007, OnlineConversion.com