That would depend on when and how you got your weight calibrated last time.Now, are we lighter or heavier than past times?
It seems that difference is very poor.Will the new definition really make a 'massive' difference?!
Isn't the metre also due a new definition?
I guess these things, even when made from dimensionally stable materials, aren't as constant as they may need to be for centuries to come.
What intrigues me slightly is how scientists can be sure there relative measures and the equipment that measures them is orders of magnitude more precise.
Its like calibration. How do you accurately make a master standard (or a grand master standard?)
The few experiences I've had of calibration of instruments, the master standard for the standard was in many cases, a century old. It's still used, because it was just so accurate, there is nothing that can replace it.
I guess these things, even when made from dimensionally stable materials, aren't as constant as they may need to be for centuries to come.
What intrigues me slightly is how scientists can be sure there relative measures and the equipment that measures them is orders of magnitude more precise.
Its like calibration. How do you accurately make a master standard (or a grand master standard?)
The few experiences I've had of calibration of instruments, the master standard for the standard was in many cases, a century old. It's still used, because it was just so accurate, there is nothing that can replace it.
Vive la différence!
Since the International Prototype of the kilogram was introduced in 1889, measurements have shown that masses of the various National Prototypes are diverging.
The last comparisons showed that the spread had grown to 50 μg – about the same mass as a fly’s wing.
Although this may seem very little to the layperson, it's a huge amount for science. In the field of medicine, for example, 50 μg is a daily dose of vitamin D for a newborn baby.
Unit of the month – the kilogram - NPL
Since the International Prototype of the kilogram was introduced in 1889, measurements have shown that masses of the various National Prototypes are diverging.
The last comparisons showed that the spread had grown to 50 μg – about the same mass as a fly’s wing.
Although this may seem very little to the layperson, it's a huge amount for science. In the field of medicine, for example, 50 μg is a daily dose of vitamin D for a newborn baby.
Unit of the month – the kilogram - NPL
The National Prototype kilograms gradually put on 'weight' due to carbon-based and mercury contamination. Although the cylinders were stored in filtered laboratory air, small quantities of car exhaust fumes and mercury vapour from broken laboratory thermometers remained present.
To clean them, the cylinders were rubbed with chamois leather dipped in alcohol. But because every country cleans their kilograms differently and at different times, each prototype kilogram in the world is off by a different amount.
There can be little doubt that the new definition of the kilogram is absolutely essential to ensure a consistent and standard way of measuring mass with high precision.
The Kilogram Has Gained Weight
To clean them, the cylinders were rubbed with chamois leather dipped in alcohol. But because every country cleans their kilograms differently and at different times, each prototype kilogram in the world is off by a different amount.
There can be little doubt that the new definition of the kilogram is absolutely essential to ensure a consistent and standard way of measuring mass with high precision.
The Kilogram Has Gained Weight
At least you got the joke! My puns don't always translate well - at home or abroad!
And not only exam answers, but the various Sciences would be better off if they resorted to several sets of algorithms for condition variables. Since you cannot guarantee to an infinitesimal that the value of a specific point in space (or vacuum container) is the same right now as it was a couple minutes ago. It would depend on a huge amount of data from monitoring sensors not practically applicable in each and every scenario. Vacuum is not Vacuum, the same as: a Watt is not a Watt.
Using a combination of algorithms would allow you to input a lot of different governing values for a large variation in conditions for each and every simulated experiment, because: Since the most common practice now seems to be fixed values as basis for computing, it can be hard to know exactly under which conditions a given experiment is more likely to succeed or fail.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.