Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Kilogram sliming down...

Kilogram sliming down...

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
30 Posts 22 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S Steve Mayfield

    Official prototype of kilogram mysteriously losing its weight [^] :omg: (50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies...so far) Steve

    D Offline
    D Offline
    Digital_Trucker
    wrote on last edited by
    #20

    You've got it all wrong. It's not about weight loss, it's about slime! Sounds vaguely (perhaps blatantly) political.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • G ghle

      or cause wary waistline-watchers to re-examine their weights: 50 micrograms is roughly equivalent to the weight of a fingerprint. New diet patent - eat sandwich with gloves on. Guaranteed minimum 500 microgram weight loss per day per sandwich (400 if you eat with pinkies raised.)

      Gary

      S Offline
      S Offline
      SGnK
      wrote on last edited by
      #21

      I'm eating w/ chopsticks from now on

      G 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Steve Mayfield

        Official prototype of kilogram mysteriously losing its weight [^] :omg: (50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies...so far) Steve

        A Offline
        A Offline
        Alan Balkany
        wrote on last edited by
        #22

        Basing the standard kilogram on a physical object seems unreliable to me. Why not base it on something objective and timeless, like the mass of a specific number of atoms of a specific isotope of an element?

        D R 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • A Alan Balkany

          Basing the standard kilogram on a physical object seems unreliable to me. Why not base it on something objective and timeless, like the mass of a specific number of atoms of a specific isotope of an element?

          D Offline
          D Offline
          Dan Neely
          wrote on last edited by
          #23

          probably the difficulty of counting the number of atoms precisely enough in a usefully large sample. 1g of atomic Hydrogen contains ~6*10^23 atoms. All the other periodic redefines have been done when problems begin to surface with the old definition, until it breaks there's no point in spending money to fix it afterall. This issue probably will result in a new definition at some point in the medium near future.

          -- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.

          A 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • D Dan Neely

            probably the difficulty of counting the number of atoms precisely enough in a usefully large sample. 1g of atomic Hydrogen contains ~6*10^23 atoms. All the other periodic redefines have been done when problems begin to surface with the old definition, until it breaks there's no point in spending money to fix it afterall. This issue probably will result in a new definition at some point in the medium near future.

            -- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.

            A Offline
            A Offline
            Alan Balkany
            wrote on last edited by
            #24

            The difficulty in counting atoms is probably not that great. As you mentioned, 6 * 10^23 (a "mole") is commonly used in the specification of a gas' mass. In any case it's highly unlikely that uncertainties in atom count would cause as large a variation as has been observed in the official kilogram. Defining mass units in terms of atoms (which don't change mass) seems more stable to me.

            G 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • A Alan Balkany

              The difficulty in counting atoms is probably not that great. As you mentioned, 6 * 10^23 (a "mole") is commonly used in the specification of a gas' mass. In any case it's highly unlikely that uncertainties in atom count would cause as large a variation as has been observed in the official kilogram. Defining mass units in terms of atoms (which don't change mass) seems more stable to me.

              G Offline
              G Offline
              ghle
              wrote on last edited by
              #25

              I have some moles in holes in my back yard. Will this affect their weight? Will they get bigger? Will they be any slimier? Should I be worried? :confused: I wonder if Schroeder has an extra cat - maybe two?

              Gary

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S SGnK

                I'm eating w/ chopsticks from now on

                G Offline
                G Offline
                ghle
                wrote on last edited by
                #26

                Great idea. Patent that method - eating a sandwich with chopsticks.

                Gary

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Steve Mayfield

                  Official prototype of kilogram mysteriously losing its weight [^] :omg: (50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies...so far) Steve

                  W Offline
                  W Offline
                  wbherdle
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #27

                  This 2003 article gives more detail than the brief piece the AP circulated yesterday.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • S Steve Mayfield

                    Official prototype of kilogram mysteriously losing its weight [^] :omg: (50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies...so far) Steve

                    M Offline
                    M Offline
                    mistercreosote
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #28

                    It's Bush's fault.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • A Alan Balkany

                      Basing the standard kilogram on a physical object seems unreliable to me. Why not base it on something objective and timeless, like the mass of a specific number of atoms of a specific isotope of an element?

                      R Offline
                      R Offline
                      Rohde Warrior
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #29

                      Actually, I think there are currently two international standards committees examining ways to define the kilogram without relying on a physical object. One committee is looking at defining the kilo by counting atoms (I think they are trying to use ultra-pure silicone) and the other is coming at the problem by defining it in terms of force and has something to do with the speed of light.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • S Steve Mayfield

                        Official prototype of kilogram mysteriously losing its weight [^] :omg: (50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies...so far) Steve

                        E Offline
                        E Offline
                        Envergure
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #30

                        How about this: Movement of magma within the Earth's mantle moved the plate under the kilo up, moving it farther from the Earth's centre of gravity. (The kilo lost weight, not mass.)

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups