Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by tokenadult on Thursday August 20, 2009 @08:40AM (#774873)

That was the historical basic idea, but that doesn't provide the kind of precision desired for a very exact definition of the kilogram. The article submitted here reports an attempt at a very precise, ascertainable definition of the kilogram.

From the New York Times article kindly linked by eru in another comment:

"The kilogram was conceived to be the mass of a liter of water, but accurately measuring a liter of water proved to be very difficult. Instead, an English goldsmith was hired to make a platinum-iridium cylinder that would be used to define the kilogram."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by mseebach on Thursday August 20, 2009 @08:44AM (#774884)

Yeah, but that's 140 years ago. I'd like to think that we've progress since then. Also, it's pretty important to get the definition right. If my definition is right, then sneezing on the kilogram won't make every weight wrong, if will make the kilogram not quite have the mass of one kilogram.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by tokenadult on Thursday August 20, 2009 @09:10AM (#774940)

I'd like to think that we've progress since then.

The submitted article reports the direction progress has taken since then.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by mseebach on Thursday August 20, 2009 @09:17AM (#774955)

Yes. I'm merely expressing my surprise that the definition is, in fact, a physical object, and not at this point expressed in terms of other, discreetly measurable quantities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kilogram's Future Hangs In The Balance by gloob on Thursday August 20, 2009 @10:35AM (#775107)

I'm sure you could measure the physical object either discreetly or discretely, or even both at once if the situation was dire.

[ Parent | on HN ]