Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > General > Off-Topic Babbling
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2007, 01:18 PM
Murff's Avatar
Murff Murff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 53
Wink Perfection

It's all in the title...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070615/...MmSPjrmEME1vAI
__________________
I'm a professional, please don't try this at home...
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2007, 01:29 PM
01101001's Avatar
01101001 01101001 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murff View Post
The news article is titled The grind's almost over to forge two perfect balls and it's about new standard-kilogram objects:

Quote:
They will be the earth's roundest spheres, crafted by Australian scientists as part of an international hunt to find a new global standard kilogram.

Ever since scientists discovered that the current standard -- a bar of platinum and iridium held in a French vault since 1889 -- was slowly deteriorating, the search has been on for a replacement.
Edit: Discussed in topic The kilogram, international mass unit
__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2007, 01:35 PM
Nicolas's Avatar
Nicolas Nicolas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 11,230
Default

Somehow, the title attracted me .

Quote:
"The aim is not to change the value of the kilogram, but to ensure its stability for all future times," Giardini said. "It will no longer depend on an actual physical object and this is going to allow us to relate the mass to the individual atoms."
So they are making a physical object (two actually, I assume to average out?) from which they will determine the volume, mass, and number of molecules. With that known, they'll never need a physical reference kilogram again.

My question then is, why not simply measure only the molar properties of pure, single crystal silicon, and calculate the properties of a theoretical perfect sphere from that? Is that too hard, why is there a need for a real object?

(btw Belgian scientists will also be working on it. Which is very justified indeed, since we're the country that sells chocolates per kilogram!)
__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2007, 01:42 PM
Murff's Avatar
Murff Murff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 53
Default

I was making a joke with the title, but the article was pretty interesting. I never knew about the bar in France they had kept for so long!
__________________
I'm a professional, please don't try this at home...
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2007, 01:52 PM
Captain Kidd's Avatar
Captain Kidd Captain Kidd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 2,123
Default

Why spheres? Well I can guess why, but still the first thing I thought of was the press conference where they bring out the sphere.
PR rep: And here we have the physical representation of 1 kilogram.
[ PR rep sets balls down onto table ]
[ To everyone's horror, the balls roll off the table and fall to the floor, shattering. ]
PR rep: Nevermind
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2007, 02:48 PM
Damien Evans's Avatar
Damien Evans Damien Evans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
Somehow, the title attracted me .


So they are making a physical object (two actually, I assume to average out?) from which they will determine the volume, mass, and number of molecules. With that known, they'll never need a physical reference kilogram again.

My question then is, why not simply measure only the molar properties of pure, single crystal silicon, and calculate the properties of a theoretical perfect sphere from that? Is that too hard, why is there a need for a real object?

(btw Belgian scientists will also be working on it. Which is very justified indeed, since we're the country that sells chocolates per kilogram!)
So does Australia
__________________
There is no dark side of the moon really, as a matter of fact it's all dark - Pink Floyd, The Dark Side Of The Moon
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2007, 03:11 PM
Nicolas's Avatar
Nicolas Nicolas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 11,230
Default

Ok then, because the average Belgian eats chocolates per kilogram.

(note that I say chocolatessss, not chocolate, which would be more relevant in defining the metric ton )
__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2007, 03:27 PM
Damien Evans's Avatar
Damien Evans Damien Evans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
Ok then, because the average Belgian eats chocolates per kilogram.

(note that I say chocolatessss, not chocolate, which would be more relevant in defining the metric ton )
I must be the average Belgian then
__________________
There is no dark side of the moon really, as a matter of fact it's all dark - Pink Floyd, The Dark Side Of The Moon
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2007, 12:14 AM
sarongsong's Avatar
sarongsong sarongsong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murff View Post
It's all in the title...
How is that?
Thanks, 01101001!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2007, 12:19 AM
Maksutov's Avatar
Maksutov Maksutov is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fifth corner of the Earth
Posts: 16,731
Default Re: Prefection

Quote:
"We have developed technology so that we can see what we are getting, whether they are slightly oval or flat. We are trying for an accuracy of two parts in 100 million," Giardini said.
One wonders what kind of precision they're trying for...

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2007, 05:43 AM
LurchGS's Avatar
LurchGS LurchGS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: I can see your house from here
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
Somehow, the title attracted me .


So they are making a physical object (two actually, I assume to average out?) from which they will determine the volume, mass, and number of molecules. With that known, they'll never need a physical reference kilogram again.

My question then is, why not simply measure only the molar properties of pure, single crystal silicon, and calculate the properties of a theoretical perfect sphere from that? Is that too hard, why is there a need for a real object?

(btw Belgian scientists will also be working on it. Which is very justified indeed, since we're the country that sells chocolates per kilogram!)
I would suggest that most of the scientific world would be just as happy with that kind of definition, but the average Joe likes to point at something he can see.

As for two - man, you ALWAYS make a spare.

Just curious: since that bar of platiridium is coming apart (they make it sound like rust - it's not really that bad), how are they going to know what it massed in 1889? Or, rather, how are they going to find out the difference between its 1889 mass and it's current mass?

and even further into the depths of what I call my mind.. these two spheres are just big crystals... if you whack them together, they'll make sounds.. If you do it right, they might produce a melody. You know, Music of the Spheres...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Light as dark energy/matter Michael Mozina Against the Mainstream 219 04-January-2006 04:53 PM
DNA Perfection frogesque Against the Mainstream 7 08-June-2005 12:38 AM
Teaching Astronomy Traci Questions and Answers 4 09-May-2005 11:40 PM
Was Sir Isaac a Bible coder? Charlie in Dayton Astronomy 11 25-February-2003 11:03 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today