BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more

Subject: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:24 PM

PARIS (AP) -- A kilogram just isn't what it used to be. The 118-year-old cylinder that is the international prototype for the metric mass, kept tightly under lock and key outside Paris, is mysteriously losing weight - if ever so slightly.

Physicist Richard Davis of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres, southwest of Paris, says the reference kilo appears to have lost 50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies.

"The mystery is that they were all made of the same material, and many were made at the same time and kept under the same conditions, and yet the masses among them are slowly drifting apart," he said. "We don't really have a good hypothesis for it."

The kilogram's uncertainty could affect even countries that don't use the metric system - it is the ultimate weight standard for the U.S. customary system, where it equals 2.2 pounds. For scientists, the inconstant metric constant is a nuisance, threatening calculation of things like electricity generation.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:53 PM

It must have something to do with the continuing decline of the US dollar against the Euro.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: GUEST,Number 6
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:09 PM

No kidding .... that's why I haven't smoked any of the stuff since 1969.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: bobad
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:06 PM

♫ Coming into Los Angeles, bringing in a couple of .995 keys.♫

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bert
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:25 PM

That's what comes of entrusting the safekeeping of the standard to the country responsible for inventing something as stupid as the metric system.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:36 PM

hmmmm...the half-life of Iridium.....

(and the theory now is that even Black Holes can gradually lose mass over time...so....)

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:40 PM

http://www.physorg.com/news108836759.html

and how do you MAKE an accurate copy of something when the weight of a fingerprint will throw it off? Maybe someone touched various of the clones.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: redsnapper
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:09 PM

You cannot unless you can measure mass to subatomic particle level.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Art Thieme
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:14 PM

so why can't I lose weight then?

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:25 PM

As a Weights & Measures Inspector in my non-folkie life, I deal with calibrated weights every day. Every certified weight in the world is referenced to that single kilo weight kept in Paris. It has never been touched by humans and is kept in a vault underground. I wouldn't worry too much about 50 micrograms though. That comes to just a bit over 1/10,000th of a pound. Most working standards are not even close to that accurate.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bonecruncher
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:27 PM

Nothing wrong with the Metric System, which is why every country has change to it as a form of measurement, particularly when inputting measurements into a computer.
Presumably Bert (above) measures in Leagues, cubits and spans!

Colyn.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:59 PM

In the pub where I used to bend my elbow and wet my nose with some regularity, a "schooner" had always meant a pint--16 fluid ounces. Then, one dark night, I discovered that they had replaced all the schooner glasses. They seemed a tad smaller. A friend spirited one of the new schooner glasses out of the place and subjected it to tests with a calibrated measuring cup. He reported back that the new schooner glasses held 15 ounces, not 16. Same price, of course. And things just continued to deteriorate from there.

I gave a mighty snort when I first heard the McDonald's commercials bragging about the massive amount of "meat" in their "quarter-pounder" (actually, a blend of some beef and miscellaneous animal by-products, and a quantity of wet cardboard). When I was still in knee-pants and toting school books, the standard hamburger patty consisted of seven to eight ounces of ground beef.

And I won't even mention the swift escalation in prices.

When I think of the perfidious and grasping nature of some members of my species, I am given to glare, snarl, and gnash my teeth!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:28 PM

Fortunately, Ireland and the UK are being permitted to keep their non-metric system... click

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:49 PM

Anybody know the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:58 PM

Not offhand, but I could probably figure it out.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:17 PM

"...a quantity of wet cardboard..." Don Firth, I hope you are being facetious.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bert
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:54 PM

Nothing wrong with the Metric System --- You've got to be kidding. The metric system completely destroys the concept of units. In measurement for example you only get one unit - the metre. If you like you can move the decimal point but it doesn't change the number in any way, so you are stuck with the one dimension whether it is convenient or not.

Systems of units have been derived over centuries and were kept for their usefulness.

For example: one wouldn't choose to use yards (the nearest Imperial unit to a metre)if one were designing a keyboard, a reasonable designer would use inches.

When measuring a railway line miles and furlongs are used, because they are more convenient than yards.

In the metric system it is marginally easier to divide by ten (don't forget that anyone can use decimal fractions of any unit they like.) It gains that small advantage by making it impossible to divide by three.

As well as throwing away useful units it also throws away the whole thought process of using fractions with denominators different from ten.

I have seen designs produced using the metric system where it was plainly obvious that the designer couldn't divide by three.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:18 PM

An entertaining piece in the Wall Street Journal today:

"Brussels has learned what many an exasperated woman has known for some time:Don't get between a Brit or Irishman and his pint. We refer to yesterday's decision by the European Commission to allow the U.K. and Ireland to continue using imperial weights and measures.

"The EU had intended to force the Isles by 2010 to stop using miles on road signs, troy ounces for gold and other precious metals, and pints for milk, cider and, yes, beer."

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:57 PM

Maybe smaller is better. Think quality, not quantity.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Deckman
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 12:40 AM

I know what happened ... President bush spent it in Iraq! (believe me ... I know these things). Bob

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: mrdux
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 01:20 AM

c = 1,802,617,528,320 furlongs/fortnight. approximately.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:23 AM

Definitely not radioactive decay, BillD. Longest half life of an unstable isotope of Iridium is 75 days. That means that any noticeable mass loss from this source (to a resolution 50ug in 1kg) would have happened within 5 years of the kilogram's manufacture. There would have had to have been a lot of it, too, as it doesn't just disappear, but converts to another element, which I don't know off hand, but the products are likely to be similar in mass.

In any case, loss of 50ug in 118 years, e=mc^2, that's about 1.2W, which would certainly have been noticed.

I assume those wedded to traditional systems have memorised all the various fothers, and know the difference between a statute mile and a Swedish mile, not to mention pounds avoirdupoids and pounds troy?

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:11 AM

I somehow can't see the ever intoducing a metric year.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: bobad
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:43 AM

Metric time

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:47 AM

There are advantages and disadvantages to both the metric system and the English system. The metric system is a logical outgrowth of our counting system. But, as Bert pointed out above, a decimal based measuring system has problems dealing with some commonly used fractions.

That we humans count using the decimal system is a natural result of having ten fingers. If we had twelve fingers, we'd doubtlessly use the duodecimal system for counting. The resulting measuring system would have the logical simplicity of the metric system, but be able to deal with most commonly used fractions as whole numbers.

Therefore, I propose that we begin a program of selective breeding and genetic modification, the goal of which will be to create humans with twelve fingers. Then, in a few hundred years, the problem will simply resolve itself.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:50 AM

BWL, aren't there places there in South Alabama where nonselective inbreeding have taken care of that already?

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 09:01 AM

I might be mistaken (although I doubt it), but didn't the Maya use a system based in 16? And the Babylonians or one of those cultures use base 12?

Neither one would be hard to achieve. For base 16 just chop off the thumbs and big toes. For base 12, chop off the thumb and index finger and the big toes and the one next to it (index toe?). Want to do binary? Count in base 17? And for base 36 we just take all of those now-unused digits and stick 'em back on.

To all you Luddites who object, I say, "Phooey! You're standing in the Way Of Science!"

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Mr Happy
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:59 AM

' I somehow can't see the ever intoducing a metric year. '

Didn't the Romans have a 10 month year?

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 12:22 PM

so thats why I keep weighing more kilos - they're smaller than before. More cake please, Geoffrey!

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bert
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

I love it mrdux, you give an answer to twelve significant figures and say approximately.

Actually what happened to the standard is that some of its messages got deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:54 PM

didn't the Maya use a system based in 16

That's a hexadecimal system, and it's also used in some aspects of computer science.

Counting in twelves is duodecimal - much handier than decimals. I miss the shilling. Too bad when they adjusted the coinage they didn't keep it, and make it 12 shillings to the pound.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bonecruncher
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:31 PM

If Don Firth was drinking in a UK pub and being sold a pint measuring 16 fluid ounces then he was being severely short-changed, since a pint is 20 fluid ounces.
The old school rhyme is that "A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter".
BTW a "schooner" is just a tall glass, with no particular quantity. Typically, today, schooner glasses are used for that disgusting beverage they call lager and a smaller version for sherry.

Colyn.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:08 PM

In the US, "A pint's a pound, the world around"

We have 16oz. pints...so 15 oz. is no 'quite' so bad...

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: mrdux
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:39 AM

bert --

the "approximately" was meant sort of ironically (12 significant figures and all).

but really it is only approximate. c = 299,792,458 meters/second. which is 186,282.4 miles/sec. or, to be more precise, 186,282.397... miles/sec, depending on how precisely we convert meters to miles. i figured doing it to one decimal place was close enough, given all those numbers, but it's still an approximation.

michael

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:13 AM

Don Firth,

I may have found some of your missing ounces... (at a brewpub near me)


"Come and Join the Party!
Oktoberfest 2007 at Franklins
Friday Saturday and Sunday
September 14th, 15th, and 16th

We are kicking things off
by offering you a
5 cent Nickel Brew!

You: Bring a Beer Stein of
any kind (20 oz. or less)

We: Will fill it once with
Oktoberfest Beer for only
a Nickel!"

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:22 AM

I just got back from DC. I don't wanna go again until I have to. You drink mine.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:09 AM

Heck if I know why but I believe that time, gravity and mass are all in flux like a pond with ripples. Under certain unique conditions even the speed of light varies.

The ripples are huge and slow from our perspective in time and space.

I wonder if this will help explain why the universe is accelerating in its expansion or even why our Voyager satillite is also speeding up as it travels away from our sun?


Rapaire, it seems the small basic questions and observations have the most profound effect on our knowledge. This mass discrepancy could be of enormous importence...
or not.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: MMario
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:42 AM

Don't weight out your goods; Don't calibrate your gauge
If you use the standard weight it may mean your wage
The sevres weights and measures aren't standard any more
a kilo ain't a kilo ain't a kilo anymore

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:48 AM

Rapaire,

The seasonal specials are Oktoberfest, Maple Porter, and Oatmeal Stout: Which one did you want me to have for you?

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bert
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:47 PM

I said 'I love it' mrdux. I thought you were being funny. I found it especially amusing 'cos I'm a slide rule fan and that rarely gives you more than two significant figures.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:48 PM

One of each.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: treewind
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:41 PM

Speed of light in furlongs per fortnight ?
Ask Google

(they probably saw that one coming, but the calculator will convert any known units)

A.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: MMario
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:44 PM

I've got to calculate that in fathoms per quarter!    Or the speed of sound.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:09 PM

I miss the days of arbitrage
When shares were measured in 1/8ths.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

A fraction more or a fraction less - you could use it all for gain.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: bubblyrat
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 12:34 PM

I shall continue to do my Tidal Calculations ( regarding the ebb and flow thereof ) using the Twelfths Rule --( Do they use that system in the USA ?? ).If the Frogs, Dagos,Wops ,Krauts, et al, want to use The Tenths Rule ( assuming that there is such a thing ! ) ,then it's their affair !---As is anything else decimal, including Dick-size.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: redsnapper
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 01:20 PM

Frogs, Dagos, Wops, Krauts...

Oh dear...

RS

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Bert
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:10 PM

bubblyrat, that's why Napoleon introduced the metric system. 'Cos 10 centimetres sounds a lot better than 4 inches.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:33 PM

But 100 centimetres sounds embarrassing for a waist measurement.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: bubblyrat
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 06:16 PM

Redsnapper------I am sure that the French,Spanish,Italians and Germans all have their own "pet" names for us English, and will have done for centuries, if not millenia, not to mention the doubtless unspeakable things we are called by Muslim extremists. But I couldn"t care less !!! You, on the other hand, seem to have a problem with that kind of thing----how sad !!

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: redsnapper
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 07:02 PM

Bubblyrat... I do indeed have a problem with it. It's pure unadulterated ignorance. I've lived in Europe amongst the people you refer to so respectfully for a long time as well. I'm not not sad... you are.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 08:53 PM

Long - long ago

Pinch an Inch

Was the seller's commision - but not enough ago to make it folk.

Sincerely,

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:43 AM

I heard tell of a group of Frenchmen trying to decide the nationality of a rowdy foreign football fan. One said "Pas de probleme. C'est un Fuckoff." When they are feeling kinder, the Frogs call us Rosbif.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: redsnapper
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:58 AM

Ignorance is ignorance... whatever the nationality and intolerant epithet applied.

... and another eye for another eye 'till everyone is blind...

RS

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: PMB
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:06 AM

un Fuckoff, that's foillowing an old tradition. In 19th century China, Englishmen were referred to as 'Goddams'.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Schantieman
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:34 AM

Bubblyrat,

The whole point of the rule of twelfths is that feet (and indeed fathoms) are easily divisible by 12. Try and find a chart or tide table these days that gives heights in fathoms & feet! Try it with metres, and unless the range happens to be 6m or something of that nature you're stymied!

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:43 AM

The Earth grows heavier every year by attracting space debris to the tune of thousands of tons.
I know that mass is not weight but...
Shouldn't things weigh heavier as gravity grows larger from a larger Earth mass?

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 05:10 AM

Let's see: mass of Earth 6e27kg. Assume change in kilogram standard is due to change in mass of Earth (which it isn't). 50ug in 1kg = 50e-9 times. So Earth must have increased by 3e20kg. Surface area of Earth is 5e14 square metres, so each square metre of Earth has gained 600000kg in 118 years, or about 5 tonnes/ square metre/ year, or a bit over a pound per hour for you anti-SI brigade.

I haven't noticed anywhere near an ounce of meteorite falling on me in the last 5 minutes.

A few grams in several years is more like it.

Subject: RE: BS: A kilo ain't a kilo any more
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:57 AM

If the earth attracts junk, so does the rest of the solar system. And as the mass increases the planets and asteroids and things slow down. As things in orbit slow down, their orbital diameter decreases.

Forget about global warming...or rather, don't. It's gonna get LOTS hotter 'cause we're all falling into the Sun!

"Life's a fish, and then you fry." -- Ray Troll