FARK.com: (1376218) Scientists present their argument for doing away with the kilogram

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Scientists present their argument for doing away with the kilogram (wired.com)		239
		More: Asinine

• • •

24411 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Feb 2005 at 11:23 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/1376218

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

239 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

forditude		2005-02-27 11:43:20 AM

whatshisname:

But would they each have 12 fingers?

I would assume that they were smart enough to not have to count on their fingers.

Its_a_diesel		2005-02-27 11:43:25 AM

maxheck

It's the weight of 1 liter of water

At what temp? See, that is the exact problem with "physical constants"; they don't stay constant.

Major Thomb		2005-02-27 11:43:32 AM

Have to disagree on Fahrenheit. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The purpose was in everyday temperature measurements to not have to deal with negatives or fractions.

bakarocket		2005-02-27 11:43:50 AM

MrNeutron: I use megagram. It's easier. And way cooler than "tonne" which is how you spell "metric ton".

matrix29: Are you cueing up the next penis joke or are you just too late for the one that Kilmour_Trout made?

EmbodiedHate		2005-02-27 11:44:18 AM

This is going to send shockwaves through Colombia.

darthgarlic		2005-02-27 11:44:22 AM

I have a masters degree in Fahrenheit. This discussion dosent affect me.

SuperCMC		2005-02-27 11:45:52 AM

2005-02-27 11:31:08 AM Yodas Ugly Brother
I thought that chemists already did it by saying
1g = 1/12 of the mass of 1 mole of Carbon 12
or am I wrong?

The gram-kilogram scale is based on the masses of water. 1L=1 kg. Metrics isn't based on the formula weight of carbon.

Snarfangel		2005-02-27 11:46:37 AM

daychilde
Of course, it begs the question on when the US will go metric... We're so completely overdue it's no longer funny...

If we are going to go to the effort of changing our system anyway, why not use scaled Planck units? It's a better system than metric anyway.

lone_marauder		2005-02-27 11:48:15 AM

Uh, no one is talking about not using the kilogram anymore for measurement. The plan is to redefine the reference to something more stable than the previous one.

Theseus		2005-02-27 11:49:21 AM

MrNeutron: There is only one benefit of using the metric system:

I should have stopped reading your post right there, but unfortunately I didn't. There is only one benefit of the metric system? Clearly you're not a scientist or engineer.

At this very moment in colleges and universities across the United States, science and engineering majors are learning how to do calculations in metric, and it is SO much easier than the unwieldy U.S. system. Ask any chemist or molecular biology which system they prefer, almost all of them will say metric.

Just one example out of hundreds:
In metric, small amounts of liquid are measured in microliters, ie 10^-6 liters. It's common to use these amounts in chemistry experients to minimize cost and hazardous material. What is the equivalent in the U.S. standard measurement system? I don't even know what it is, seriously. The smallest measurement I can think of is fractions of teaspoons. Would it be 1/256th of a teaspoon or something? WTF, it's ludicrous.

Mr.Kleen		2005-02-27 11:49:32 AM

Snarfangel

Explain the Planck unit please. I've never heard of it.

orrinbloquy		2005-02-27 11:49:51 AM

A paper to be released Monday proposes redefining the unit via fixing the values of one of two well-known universal constants. The choices offered up are Avogadro's constant or Planck's constant

Seems pretty constant to me.

Befuddled		2005-02-27 11:50:10 AM

Making the temperature scale metric was sort of dumb in that while the whole base-ten thing is good for linear and mass measurement, it's useless for temperature. You have a use for saying kilogram or milligram, but you woudl never say kilocelcius or millicelcius.

I was told that imperial measure will never really go away, simply because too much has been done in imperial units. The example that I was told (I don't know if this is true though) is that aircraft were built with imperial units so they keep making them with imperial units (like threads and fasteners) so that there is no confusion when it comes to maintainence.

g026r		2005-02-27 11:50:40 AM

Major Thomb

The purpose was in everyday temperature measurements to not have to deal with negatives or fractions.

But only if you're living in Denmark...

lindseyp		2005-02-27 11:51:09 AM

daychilde

Of course, it begs the question on when the US will go metric... We're so completely overdue it's no longer funny...

What's not even funnier is the question of when the UK will go metric. It is for the most part, but we still drive in miles per hour, weigh stones and pounds, and measure height in feet and inches.

It annoys the hell out of me since, as a 32 year old, I learned nothing but metric in school, along with anyone else my age or younger.

serialkittenkiller		2005-02-27 11:51:33 AM

huh???

Its_a_diesel		2005-02-27 11:52:13 AM

Befuddled

The example that I was told (I don't know if this is true though) is that aircraft were built with imperial units so they keep making them with imperial units (like threads and fasteners) so that there is no confusion when it comes to maintainence.

Sorry, not true.

Yahtzee		2005-02-27 11:53:16 AM

Scientists think way too much. Lol

elpepe55		2005-02-27 11:55:37 AM

We need a "appeared yesterday on Slashdot" tag

Northern		2005-02-27 11:55:42 AM

Super CMC (golf clap.)

The US system is assinine. We are behind in weights and meaurements by decades for most of Africa for crying out loud. If you really need the ultra weight accuracy, then you are probably some physics geek who represents a fraction of scientists as a whole. So no, switching over from the easy calibration with water/high quality metal standards will barely effect science and medicine. Anything above that is a waste of time and money.

shipud		2005-02-27 11:55:57 AM

Theseus:

Ask any chemist or molecular biology which system they prefer, almost all of them will say metric.

It's not even a question of preference. All measurement appliances in science are meteric. Also, no journal will accept a publication which measures velocity in furloughs per fortnight.

Snarfangel		2005-02-27 11:57:02 AM

Mr.Kleen
Snarfangel
Explain the Planck unit please. I've never heard of it.

Planck units on Wikipedia

(not very good with clicky/poppy stuff, so it might change the page)

Ryven		2005-02-27 11:58:50 AM

I use the Imperial system becuase fractions are cool, but decimals look too... impersonal. Espescially non-terminating decimals. *shiver* I can FUNCTION in both systems, but Imperial rocks my socks off. ^^

corvair2k1		2005-02-27 11:59:21 AM

Someone made the mistake earlier... The F scale is more PRECISE, not accurate.

FredGarvin		2005-02-27 12:00:16 PM

Befuddled, I've always understood that American automakers put the kibosh on the metric change in the 70s, because they would have to completely retool their industry.

Ironically enough, economics and globalization may change that.

This is really about the idea of measurement than it's practice, except for rocket scientists and such. The philosophical definition of what IS a liter, and not whether you're going to have to buy gas in liters.

JBalkwill		2005-02-27 12:01:07 PM

The Planck Unit is some physics deally, I'm most likely wrong upon that

en.wikipedia/wiki/planck_unit may have it, actually they have it and a metric assload of things derived from Max Planck.

chumpchange		2005-02-27 12:02:06 PM

elpepe55
And a Firefox extension to cross-reference repeat comments!

No Such Agency		2005-02-27 12:03:55 PM

Sir, several planets refuse to use the Imperial system. I recommend we bombard from orbit.

PC LOAD LETTER		2005-02-27 12:03:59 PM

We should use these weights:

Fother (also called fodder, foder, fodur, cart-load, load, wain, waine, wey, etc.):
Weight. A cart-load. About 19 hundredweight, dependent upon material. Also, six sacks where each sack is five fotmal.

Volume. 40 bushels or 320 gallons.

Also, "lots of," "a large quantity," "a huge amount," etc.

Fotmal (also called fotml, fotmel, votmel, etc.):
Length. One foot (foot-length, foot-print or foot-space).

Weight. About 70 pounds of lead. (Definitions varied between 70 and 72. Weight also depended upon material.) A thirtieth of a fother. A fifth of a sack. 5 stone.

Comment: A fotmal of lead would occupy about one tenth of a cubic foot. This could form an ingot about 12 x 5 x 3 inches. A man could lift and carry this weight a short distance. A pack animal could carry two fotmal as a balanced load one on each side of its back.

In 1391, each votmel of old lead roof sheets taken from the roof of Marlborough Castle was valued at 4 shillings.

Lead sheeting a tenth of an inch thick weighs 6 pounds per square foot. At this thickness, a fotmal of lead would produce about 12 square feet of lead sheets.

Comment: This unit does not seem to match the Roman practice: Lindsey Davis's entertaining novel "The Silver Pigs" is set during the Roman occupation of Britain. These Silver Pigs are actually lead ingots made from British lead ore which also contained about 130 ounces per ton of valuable silver. The ingots are said to be 20 x 5 x 4 inches with the Emperor's name and date stamped on one long edge, to weigh 200 Roman pounds, and to contain 24 ladles of molten ore.

Furlong:
(Anglo-Saxon field.) The length of a plough furrow - ie. Furrow-long. In the strip field farming system, the length of the field strip ploughed before turning the ox team to plough the next furrow.

Geld or Gelt:
Tax. As in Danegeld, the money raised and paid by Anglo-Saxon Britain to persuade the Danes to not invade the South and West.

Hide:
A unit of measurement for assessment of tax, theoretically 120 acres, although it could vary between 60 and 240 acres. By custom it was the land that could be cultivated by an ox plough team in one year. In the Devonshire Domesday Book, it seemed to average about 64 acres.

Hundred:
Anglo Saxon institution. Subdivision of a Shire. Theoretically, but hardly ever, equalled one hundred hides. Generally had its own court which met monthly to handle civil and criminal law. Equivalent to the ancient Norse Wapentake. There was a Hemyock Hundred.

Hundredweight:
Weight. 4 quarters ie. 8 stones or 112 pounds.

Jar:
Electrical unit. Admiralty practical unit of electrical capacitance until mid 1930s. Based upon the Leyden Jar. A standard Admiralty glass pint tankard covered with tin-foil as the outside electrode and filled with 1 pint of brine as the inside electrode had a capacitance of about 1 Jar. Now replaced by the Farad. 900 Jars = 1 micro Farad.

Knight's Fee:
In theory, a Fief which provided sufficient revenue to equip and support one knight. This was approximately twelve hides or 1500 acres, although the terms applied more to revenue a fief could generate than its size; it required about thirty marks per year to support a knight.

Last:
2 wey. Definitions varied, usually about 2 tons, or 60 fotmal, or 80 bushels, or 640 gallons.

League:
In the Devonshire Domesday Book, usually 1 miles.

Mr.Kleen		2005-02-27 12:04:57 PM

Snarfangel

Link worked fine. Olny have one thing to say about the Planck unit: My cats breath smells like cat food!

FacelessMaster		2005-02-27 12:05:25 PM

"Asinine?"

The article says that they want to move from a kilogram being the mass of the prototypical kilogram to a universal constant. That only makes perfect sense. The submitter should be smacked.

Theseus		2005-02-27 12:05:43 PM

shipud:

It's not even a question of preference. All measurement appliances in science are meteric. Also, no journal will accept a publication which measures velocity in furloughs per fortnight.

Well true, I'm not going to argue with you. But my original point is that scientific measurements are metric because they are easier to work with, and that there are a lot more applications using metric than what MrNeutron and others might think of, going about their normal day.

I mean I'm sitting here trying to think of what the imperial equivalent of nanometers and nanotechnology would be, and I'm drawing a blank. Is there even one? Seriously, anyone out there know how to express a nanometer in imperial other than 0.0000000535 inches ?(that was an arbitrary decimal by the way)

gordopolis		2005-02-27 12:05:48 PM

Oh, Daychilde (post at top of thread), please use the $5 for next month's TF membership and pay someone to explain to you the actual meaning of the phrase "begs the question". Until then, please don't use it again. Thank you.

Tupuli		2005-02-27 12:06:22 PM

corvair2k1

Someone made the mistake earlier... The F scale is more PRECISE, not accurate.

It's neither. They are perfectly equivalent.

Decimals are your friends.

elpepe55		2005-02-27 12:06:49 PM

And to repeat the idea: converting the kilogram to an equation instead of a hunk of metal is an extremely important idea. Information can survive erosion, natural disaster, and tampering. A hunk of metal can't.

MrNeutron		2005-02-27 12:06:55 PM

The English system was good enough to put a man on the Moon.

And always remember, that if the Sun exploded tomorrow, the ONLY traces that humans had ever existed in this universe would be the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft now travelling in interstellar space, which were designed using inches and pounds.

Hevach		2005-02-27 12:07:05 PM

Also, who cares that the weight of a kilogram is based on a non-absolute value? I don't care if it's based on 2109 hamster anuses, it's not like I'm ever going to calibrate my scales in a desperate attempt to find out how much I really weigh.

In high school I did projects that called for 10^-10 g resolution. Any applications at the atomic level require at elast a resolution on the order of 6x10^-23, and some particle appplications require resolutions as low as 10^-500. Even with 10^-10, the current method of defining a kilogram can make a difference of two orders of magnitude, which effectively rendered the results nothing except a demonstration of the fact that the kilogram is broken.

It's not just theoretical crap that requires this sort of precision either. You want scary? How's this for scary: If two drug companies get their equipment from different suppliers, odds are their equipment has a different calibration for the gram. When they share information that calls for precision on the order of 2x10^-25 with a large number of chemicals at once, they can end up having errors out to six orders of magnitude. Proportionally, that's a much bigger error than NASA using feet instead of meters.

Space347		2005-02-27 12:07:18 PM

phfft, we don't use kilograms anymore we use eV/c² , si units kind of get in the way in quantum and relativity.

mefelan		2005-02-27 12:08:18 PM

I don't think the submitter understood the atricle.

arkansas		2005-02-27 12:08:38 PM

This article is only asinine to those who don't understand what it's saying.

freznel		2005-02-27 12:08:52 PM

E = m * c^2

as the temperature increases or decrease the mass does so too. Weight = m * gravity

this means that wieght is not a constant but a variable due to the change in gravity from location to location.

SingerWang		2005-02-27 12:08:56 PM

man people are stupid: they are not doing away with the kilogram. they are merely redefining it so that it makes sense.

The meter used to be a length of a metal bar in France, now its more accurately defined as some number of wavelengths of a certain frequency of light. Its a more accurate defination as the bar can change over time

right now the KG is just some lump of stuff, they want to redefine it (it will be the same) in terms of some universal invarant so that its the same no matter what happends to the stupid lump..

Hot Panda Milk		2005-02-27 12:10:28 PM

could we use these for new measurement standards?

phife		2005-02-27 12:11:32 PM

Mr. Kleen:
Planck's constant was discovered around the turn of the century by (you guessed it) german physicist Max Planck. It originally related a photon's energy to its frequency (the foundation of quantum mechanics), and has since found countless applications in modern physics. It's super-duper tiny, on the order 10^-34 in SI (metric) units

Just to go on a bit of a tangent, I thought I'd note that most physicists use Gaussian Units (setting the speed of light equal to 1, among other things) when dealing with high speed and high energy situations. The moral? All unit systems are equivalent, use whatever you're most comfortable with.

/Finally, a thread that validates my physics education

BigJoeJo		2005-02-27 12:11:54 PM

If you've ever had to take even a single engineering class you would see the benefit of using metric right away. Trying to figure out pound-masses, pound-forces, slugs, horsepower and any other of these US definitions can have you pulling your hair out. By sticking with kilograms, meters and Newton's the math is 100X easier.

As far as the temperature thing goes, it doesn't really matter, it should be your own preference really...

seffner		2005-02-27 12:12:15 PM

Hot Panda Milk

No, they are not constant.

moeburn		2005-02-27 12:14:39 PM

Farenheit: The system where 100 degrees is actually 1.4 degrees more than what it is, and 0 degrees is defined as "colder than it will ever get in Denmark".

spqr_ca		2005-02-27 12:15:19 PM

MrNeutron:

The English system was good enough to put a man on the Moon.

So, you're saying that this is the end of progress and that no attempt should be made to improve scientific accuracy over time? Hell, the cubit was good enough to build the pyramids of Egypt with...