Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Experts Suggest Replacing Definition of Kilogram

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the still-won't-be-used-in-the-states dept.

Math 844

fenimor writes "The kilogram is the only one of the seven basic units of the international measurement system defined by a physical artifact rather than a natural phenomenon. International team of scientists suggest replacing the kilogram artifact -- a cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy about the size of a plum --with a definition based on one of two unchanging natural phenomena, either a quantity of light or the mass of a fixed number of atoms. They propose to adopt either one of two definitions for the kilogram by selecting a specific value for either the Planck constant or the Avogadro number."

cancel ×

844 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I suggest (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790192)

They set it to 1000 grams.

I am not happy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790199)

when does this all end...

I wonder... (3, Funny)

elid (672471) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790202)

...if the change it, what would happen if they would auction off the cylinder on eBay?

Re:I wonder... (4, Funny)

grazzy (56382) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790227)

Educated guess: It'd be the most expensive thing the size of a "plum" made of platinum-iridium ever sold on eBay.

Re:I wonder... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790233)

more importantly, what would they list it's shipping weight as?

Re:I wonder... (1)

wmspringer (569211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790254)

I wonder if they'd call it "The unit formerly known as the kilogram"

Re:I wonder... (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790280)

I'd be sure to buy it for £ 10,000

Thank you! I'll be here all week.

Re:I wonder... (1)

mickyflynn (842205) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790329)

Don't you mean GBP 2.20462262?

Nice but... (0, Offtopic)

winterdrake (823887) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790203)

This kind of idea pops up every so often, usually doesn't pan out since it's too hard to get everyone to change.

Re:Nice but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790262)

well they dont plan to change the use of kilogram, only the definetion of it, so everything should remain the same.

Re:Nice but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790335)

Generally when they do this sort of thing they set it up so the new value of a kilogram is identical to the old one (or close enough that no one can measure the difference with current technology), so the only things that have to be changed are the textbooks.

does this mean (5, Funny)

zerkon (838861) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790205)

I'm going to finally lose some weight?

Re:does this mean (1)

zxnos (813588) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790285)

that or put on... :P

Nope, sorry (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790349)

You'd lose mass instead.

Base it on J-lo's butt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790208)

base it on J-lo's butt.

How about ... (4, Interesting)

canwaf (240401) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790212)

1 litre of H2O at ATP?

Re:How about ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790253)

is that H2O from the tap, or distilled?

Pressure (5, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790290)

That would work fine, and I believe was the original definition. Unfortunately, pressure has a mass component, so your definition is circular.

mnb Re:Pressure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790324)

Ahh - good point.
Make's me feel stupid, but good point.

(I'm not the grandparent poster - but I thought the same thing.)

Re:Pressure (1)

thedustbustr (848311) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790383)

Could you please explain why that matters?

Re:How about ... (1)

csrjjsmp (819838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790350)

I believe you mean 1 litre of H2O at STP.

Rather 1kg of C2H5OH ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790372)

Yeah, I would rather use C2H5OH ...

Re:How about ... (1)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790377)

But isn't a litre of water 1 kilo of water at ATP?

Circular weight system?

first post? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790213)

OMG?!

News Why? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790214)

And this is news why? It obvivously makes sense to have the kilogram based on some universal constant as opposed to a block of metal sitting in some museum.

Re:News Why? (2, Insightful)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790331)

So anytime anyone does anything that "makes sense" is no longer newsworthy? For instance, if congress were to repeal the Patriot act or the DMCA that would not be newsworthy to you?

Re:News Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790336)

Because it is information about a recent event or happening.

because.... (1)

spdt (828671) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790338)

..it has been a "block of metal" for some time, and now we're realising that we need for it to be a universal constant. It's actually being changed, which is the news.

Just wait. (5, Funny)

jwcorder (776512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790215)

The next thing you know they will be trying to get the US to switch from imperial units to the metric system....

Re:Just wait. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790367)

Oh wait..

They've already switched.. at least officially.

artifact (0)

whathappenedtomonday (581634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790219)

is the only one of the seven basic units of the international measurement system defined by a physical artifact

hm, don't think so:
what about the meter? [surveyhistory.org]

Re:artifact (2, Informative)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790244)

the 'meter' isn't a unit. perhaps you're thinking of 'metre'?

Re:artifact (1)

whathappenedtomonday (581634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790284)

no I'm not, I'm thinking of the standard meter which was the original "master" for all measuring back then. just click the link, I know you can do it.

Re:artifact (2, Informative)

thebes (663586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790256)

Wrong: On October 20, the meter was redefined again. The definition states that the meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. The speed of light is

c = 299,792,458 m/s

This [nist.gov]

It's true that it was once defined that way, however, it has been redefined.

Re:artifact (1)

damian cosmas (853143) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790260)

how, exactly, is the speed of light in a vacuum a physical artifact?

If you're referring to the 133Cs, it obviously decays with time, making it a rather poor physical artifact.

Re:artifact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790266)

In 1960 the meter was redefined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of orange-red light, in a vacuum, produced by burning the element krypton (Kr-86). More recently (1984), the Geneva Conference on Weights and Measures has defined the meter as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds with time measured by a cesium-133 atomic clock which emits pulses of radiation at very rapid, regular intervals.


Maybe you should read the pages you link to?

Re:artifact (1)

FooWho (839977) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790274)

From the article you linked...
More recently (1984), the Geneva Conference on Weights and Measures has defined the meter as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds with time measured by a cesium-133 atomic clock which emits pulses of radiation at very rapid, regular intervals

Re:artifact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790277)

In 1960 the meter was redefined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of orange-red light, in a vacuum, produced by burning the element krypton (Kr-86). More recently (1984), the Geneva Conference on Weights and Measures has defined the meter as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds with time measured by a cesium-133 atomic clock which emits pulses of radiation at very rapid, regular intervals.

They mean there isn't a stick of wood in a case somewhere labeled "meter" like the kilogram. A meter can be determined exactly over and over with the experiment.

Re:artifact (2, Informative)

lobotomy (26260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790278)

Did you actually read all of the article that you link to? The meter is currently defined (according to your link) as:
More recently (1984), the Geneva Conference on Weights and Measures has defined the meter as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds with time measured by a cesium-133 atomic clock which emits pulses of radiation at very rapid, regular intervals.

Thus, the meter is not defined by a physical artifact.

Re:artifact (4, Informative)

JaxWeb (715417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790308)

Just in case people care, here are the 7 base units:

Metre for Length
Kilogram (what this article is about) for Mass
Second for time
Ampere for current
Kelvin for temperature
Mole for amount
Candela for "Luminous intensity" ... or something.

All the others are built up and defined from these, so these must be well defined. Change what exactly a Kg is changed more than just mass - it changes everything dependant upon it. Hence, these things must be got right.

The definition of second changes every now and then though, and I think the metre has changed a few times, too. I wrote a bit about the second here [f2s.com] , in my AS-Level Physics coursework, if anyone want s a simplifed read.

(Wiki [wikipedia.org] )

I don't see how this topics is maths, by the way.

Re:artifact (1)

bunnyman (121652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790345)

You forgot the CmdrTaco, the basic unit of redundancy.

Re:artifact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790363)

The definition of meter, as well that of second
have been changed quite some time ago and they do not involve any human artifact:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/curre nt.html
This has been done because the speed of light is constant. So, instead of measuring a constant in terms of units that were somewhat fuzzy (m and s), it is convenient to set the value of the speed of light and define the meter in terms of the second and the second in terms of a timescale associated to some nuclear decays (another constant).
Today the same problem arises with the Plank constant: why should we define it in terms of a fuzzy quantity like the kg? We know the Plank constant is constant, so let's set its value ad define the kg from it.
Notice that is very different than setting pi=3.
Constants like pi are the results of a computation and we do not have any freedom in changing their value. The speed of light, the plank scale and the gravitational constant are constants but their value is a human convention that is equivalent to choosing units of measure.

Re:artifact (1)

bunnyman (121652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790366)

Did you actually read that web page? It says the meter is defined as the distance light travels in a certain amount of time.

Too Late (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790221)

the Bush administration has declared that everyone must use the Imperial system. You're with us or against us.

that does it (5, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790222)

I'm going back to pounds and stones.

Re:that does it (1, Redundant)

zxnos (813588) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790327)

yeah, My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!" -Abe Simpson

(504 gallons per mile)

International = 60% US scientists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790223)


outnumbering the other members 2 to 1
good to see things "fair and balanced(TM)"

Re:International = 60% US scientists (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790265)

Hrmm interesting... Maybe this will be one of those situations where the US started off ahead with the imperial system, then the Europeans got their more advanced and scientific metric system but the US was slow to adopt the standard. And then the US switches over to a new even more scientific system but the EU stays with its backwards "metric" system.

Re:International = 60% US scientists (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790301)

Of course I hadn't RTFA article yet, so what I just said above is idiotic...

Re:International = 60% US scientists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790361)

what you said was idiot regardless of whether you'd read the article or not.

Over-seas confusion (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790339)

Oh, I know it's easily done but please try not to confuse my home Europe with the EU! Not every european would very gladly confess themselves to the european union even if they would embrace Europe. Furthermore, not every country in Europe are into this EU thing.

BRING BACK MICHAEL! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790232)

Michael Sims was the best thing ever to happen to Slashdot. I say, we bring him back!

Whose with me!?!

And in other news... (5, Funny)

rollingrock (653505) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790235)

Pi is exactly equal to 3!

The last time this was mentioned (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790237)

You might find some additional background information about this effort in an earlier Slashdot article about this topic [slashdot.org] , posted in May 2003.

How about (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790239)

Replacing the second while your at it, and the meter! Units based off of the earth.

Re:How about (4, Informative)

be-fan (61476) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790330)

The second and the meter have long since been based off of more fundemental measures. The second is defined as how long it takes for 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light to be emitted by the hyperfne transition of cesium-133 atoms. The meter is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

Anyone Else? (-1, Troll)

Wes Janson (606363) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790241)

..wondering how it is that they're planning to base the metric mass system by giving kilograms a defined value? At risk of sounding stupid..shouldn't they be defining the gram? If the gram has already been defined, than this is just a waste of time; defining the kilogram would just be taking the gram and multiplying by one thousand. Or is this just typical /. editor stupidity?

Re:Anyone Else? (5, Informative)

TheEternalVortex (644758) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790255)

The SI unit of mass is the kilogram, not the gram.

Re:Anyone Else? (1)

wmspringer (569211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790282)

Which surprised me, too, when I first learned it.. Is that just because the kilogram finds more use?

Re:Anyone Else? (1)

rollingrock (653505) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790270)

The SI unit of mass is the kg, not the gram. So in fact a gram is defined in terms of a kg not vice versa.

Re:Anyone Else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790279)

No, it's just you (that's the stupid one).

Re:Anyone Else? (1)

Tomfrh (719891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790294)

Defining the kilogram DOES define the gram.

Re:Anyone Else? (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790310)

Explanation... [unc.edu]

In summary, the kilogram is the basic metric unit of weight, not the gram. The gram will be defined by the kg standard.

Re:Anyone Else? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790373)

Or is this just typical /. editor stupidity?

I was going to be nice to you up until this sentence - if you want to suggest that someone is stupid, can you at least be sure that you're not wrong? Many posts have replied with the appropriate info (not to mention that you *did* pass grade school, did you not - if so, how can you *not* know that the gram is defined in terms of the kilogram?)

In any case, is this just typical Wes Janson stupidity?

oh well... (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790242)

So I guess this means that my suggestion to have the kilogram redefined as (my body mass/90) has been rejected?

Redundant definition? (3, Insightful)

Resound (673207) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790243)

I thought one cc of water weighs one gram. Thus one litre of water weighs one kg. Am I wrong? This would certainly satisfy the criteria of natural phenomena vs. artifact, although I suppose that definition gets a trifle fuzzy when we start talking about measurements like picograms.

Re:Redundant definition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790291)

That what I was taught in grade school and university. This is the first time that I've heard a kilogram being linked to iridium plates

Re:Redundant definition? (1, Redundant)

be-fan (61476) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790302)

There are a couple of issues here. First, one liter of water at what temperature? Water does expand slightly as temperature increases. Second, how accurately can you measure one liter? Lastly, one litre of water doesn't weight exactly a kilo, it's like 0.99998 kilos.

Re:Redundant definition? (1, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790311)

although I suppose that definition gets a trifle fuzzy when we start talking about measurements like picograms

Picograms are important when you mesure LSD doses.

Re:Redundant definition? (2, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790313)

Sure, a gram is defined by a volume of water at a certain pressure and temperature. However, this is impracticable in many settings. Water changes density very readily. It is much simpler to define a gram in other terms that is close enough to the 1.0 g/1.0 ml H20 yet still is stable enough to use in experiments. From the article:

For instance, it would improve the precision of certain electrical measurements 50-fold and would enable physicists to make more precise calculations in studying the fundamental quantum properties of atoms and other basic particles. The paper outlines how this could be accomplished without impairing the current international system of mass measurements.

Density (2, Informative)

XanC (644172) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790315)

Originally, yes. But the density of water varies based on temperature and pressure, so that really doesn't work for any kind of precision.

The pressure part really kills using water as a definition, because it has a mass component. Circular definitions are a no-no.

Re:Redundant definition? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790326)

I thought one cc of water weighs one gram.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

- A gram is a unit of mass, not weight.
- One cc of water can contain any number of water molecules depending on temperature and pressure, so who can say what its mass is without this information.
- How much something weighs depends on the local gravitational constant which is different from one place to another.

So I think I can say that it is very unlikely that one cc of water weighs one gram.

Re:Redundant definition? (1)

Elgreco1 (714955) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790381)

Amm ... 1cc of water depends on temperature
The the weight depends on atmospheric pressure
given water can evaporate. Not a very accurate base.
In fact you are saying nothing diferent to x number of water molecules. Water waould be a bad choice

Oh No... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790245)

Please, don't tell us that it'll become 1024 grams!

Kilogram Scmilogram (1)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790257)

I'm a little embarrassed that I still measure things in pounds, ounces, feet, inches, yards, etc.

I'd take the gram, kilogram, meter, centimeter, etc. over that any day, regardless of how it's calibrated!

It really is fascinating though how much thought [aticourses.com] 18th and 19th century scientists put in to accurate weights and measures.

Hmm... (3, Interesting)

ProudClod (752352) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790258)

Planck's constant would be a very elegant solution - it being the smallest possible quantity of energy, and of course, energy == mass * c^2

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790347)

As my physics teacher would say "Units, units, units!". (Much better than "Developers, developers, developers,...")

Planck's constant has units of Js , so cannot possibly be "the smallest possible quantity of energy"...

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790369)

Planck's constant would be a very elegant solution - it being the smallest possible quantity of energy, and of course, energy == mass * c^2

Replacing the metric system with scaled Planck units would be even better. The rest of the world might not want to go to the effort of changing to a new system, but if Americans have to change from the current system anyway, might as well have units related to the speed of light, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, and (for electrical units) the charge of the electron.

People have wanted to do this for awhile (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790268)

What they can't do yet (AFAIK) is measure mass accurately enough.

Woo-Hoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790272)

Time to redo all the science texts.

Not really... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790273)

A kilogram is the mass of one liter of pure water. One litter of water is the volume of one cubic decimeter. So one cubic metter of water has a mass of a thousand kilograms. How is is the only unrelated measure?

Re:Not really... (1)

Tomfrh (719891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790380)

There is no precise definition for a litre of water.

Obligatory Simpsons Metric Quote (5, Funny)

shiafu (220820) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790298)


Lisa: Principal Skinner, how's your transportation project coming?

Skinner: Not only are the trains now running on time, they're running on metric time! Remember this time people, 80 past 2 on April 47th. It's the dawn of a new enlightenment!

hmm not really math is this? (2, Insightful)

qleak (844865) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790299)

I'm not sure how this slipped by in slashdot but this has nothing to do with the academic area of mathematics :-P Sounds a lot more like science or physics to be specific. C'mon people lets try to give things a realistic category. Anyway why the hell is math a subcategory of science?? Just my 2 kilos, flame me if you like.

"or the mass of a fixed number of atoms" (2, Insightful)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790300)

Well, count the number of atoms in the platinum-iridium alloy, and voila! You have your new definition! (without having to fuss with the traditionalists)

Why the motivation for the change? The mass of subatomic particles have been given in kg for over a century. What exactly needs a more precisely reference of measurement? Physicists use their own units when it's convenient anyway. . . .

May I be the first to ask... (1)

Murphy Murph (833008) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790309)

Could someone please explain to me "a quantity of light" having mass?
I am honestly confused. (and ignorant)

Re:May I be the first to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790341)

How do you think solar arrays work then? The particles have a small enough mass to make electrons move when they strike the shells of other atoms.

Quite elementary really. We learned this in third grade.

Re:May I be the first to ask... (1)

ProudClod (752352) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790365)

The elementary particle of light, or photon, has energy of hf - that is, planck's constant multiplied by the frequency of the light. As we can use Einstein's equation E=mc^2 to link energy and mass, thus a quantity of light has mass.

I'll attempt to derive an equation for m now, it's probably wrong - I'm not a grand physicist, and I'm very tired:

E=hf
v=f(lambda)
E=mc^2

thus mc^2=h(v/(lambda))
the v and c cancel (as the velocity of light is c)
mc= h/(lambda)
m=h/(lambda)c

How is the US pound measured? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11790314)

If the Kilogram is measured by a cylindrical object, how is the Pound accuratly measured? Is it a mesurement of force, or a natural scale, object?

Re:How is the US pound measured? (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790333)

The pound (mass) is defined as a certain number of kilograms. Just like the inch is defined as a certain number of centimeters.

Bah (2, Funny)

jlechem (613317) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790317)

"My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"

A little offtopic but still revelant ;-)

Re:Bah (1)

Tomfrh (719891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790354)

I was waiting for that one!

That'll really help... (0)

teutonic_leech (596265) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790319)

... adoption of the metric system over here in the U.S. - LOL. For the unitiated: the metric system was supposed to become the 'standard' in the U.S., but as usual, everyone's been dragging their feet. I think it's a good idea theoretically, but in the rest of the world it would require to replace all scales in circulation. Actually, come to think of it, since the metric system is rarely used over here in the U.S., it might actually make sense to make that change (whichever standard will be adopted) and start pushing it on the American continent. Since there's not much of a pre-existing 'metric' infrastructure, it should be easy to introduce a modded kilogram.

Re:That'll really help... (2, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790385)

The "standard" in the US really is the metric system. All the units that people actually used are defined in terms of their metric counterparts.

So a change in the kilogram automatically affects the pound.

However, when they do make this change, it will not be a "modded" kilogram. It will be the same mass as before; it's just that it will be possible (ultimately) to measure it much more precisly and time-invariantly (as the standard is losing mass over time).

Re:That'll really help... (1)

jsoderba (105512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790386)

Whatever measure might be selected to replace the standard weight, it will certainly be chosen to be as close to the mass of the current kg as humanly possible.

Finally... (2, Funny)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790334)

I can rest at night, not thinking about plum-sized cylinders of platinum-iridium alloy.

Good idea. (1)

jnkt (715168) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790346)

The idea is sound I think. If we ever hope to get the back waters of society ( US, UK? ;-) to tag along with a common set of units, then we should try to fix the last outstanding defects of our own system first. Sure, it will be expensive as hell, but what is the current yearly cost of having two competing measurement systems today? Would be interesting if some one had some figures to do a quick ROI. The result might show if this is just another insane idea, or actually economically feasable.

I'm in favour, the kg doesn't work for me (1, Offtopic)

confused philosopher (666299) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790357)

Being Canadian, I still use pounds to describe my weight as a human being, and a kilogram just doesn't do it for me. I'd be happier if they made it a number that more closely represents the American pound.

But I think what they should do is simply find some natural occurance, that defines the current weight, and so even though the basis of the system would change, the product packagings, and my kg weight on earth wouldn't be changed.

Note to self......... (1)

CSMastermind (847625) | more than 9 years ago | (#11790378)

Steal the artifact they use to measure the kilogram right now. That way they'll have to change!!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?