Kawasaki Concours Forum

Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: fartymarty on November 17, 2018, 11:48:41 am

Title: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: fartymarty on November 17, 2018, 11:48:41 am
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/14/18072368/kilogram-kibble-redefine-weight-science (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/14/18072368/kilogram-kibble-redefine-weight-science)

Huh?  ???

OK, in theory, I sorta-kinda understand it. (definition of what a kilogram is)

In practicality, not so much. (How the accuracy of many machines located around the world can all be the same or at least more accurate than simple blobs of metal made as much as possible to be identical to a kilogram)
It seems that the whole premise of practicality is based on the Kibble balance.
How is the precision of my Kibble balance vs. someone else's Kibble balance different (it's certainly a lot more complicated) than the difference of my 1 Kg. weight vs the one stored and locked up  in France?

Conrad? Brian? Anybody?
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on November 17, 2018, 02:53:48 pm
 :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

been smokin' the good stuff there Marty? Puffin' the Magic Dragon?

go into McDonald's and order a Royale with Cheese... everything will be fine...

(https://media.giphy.com/media/jHMH77HAs7ES4/giphy.gif)

stay away from Burger King....
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 17, 2018, 03:05:21 pm
Technical explanation follows; I have simplified it as much as possible but it cannot be made 'second- grade simple', at least now with my abilities. If one is not really interested in the subject, just skip it- no need to post 'my brane hurts'. :-)


There are very few fundamental units of measure, most things we think of as a base unit is actually not- the simple example is length, area and volume. All <seem> to be direct units but in reality, only length is a basic measurement and the other two are length squared and length cubed. Same thing with velocity or speed, almost all volume measurements, etc., etc.

What we have been using as a 'base measurement' of mass (gram or kilogram) is actually not and worse yet, it is not even linked to any base measurement. It is just a chunk of a material that someone picked out and said 'That is one kilogram'. But how can you define it? How can you make another one? And the idea of using a balance and merely saying that you have another that is the same as the one someone picked (at random) is also really useless. Just like length: it used to be defined by a platinum bar that was exactly one meter long, simply because someone picked that out and so named it "THE meter". But how can that be duplicated anywhere else, by anyone, at any time? It cannot. So the new and much better definition of length is now a certain number of wavelengths of light from the element Krypton 86. Light wavelengths are governed by frequency, which is generated by the exact number of electron orbits that an electron moves- a fundamental thing in our universe that is not changeable: a quanta. This is a bit complex but basically electrons have specific orbits they MUST occupy and while they can change orbits, they MUST go from one very specific one to another very specific one- this is the basis of Plank's constant and 'quanta': energy cannot be created in any amount, it comes only in specific amounts which are ALWAYS increments of quanta (Plank's constant).

So to define mass, they have chosen to use a specific number of atoms of a known and pure material and call that specific amount a gram. Anyone, anywhere, anytime can duplicate EXACTLY that amount of EXACTLY that material and so therefore, it is now a unit 'standardized' by physics, rather than 'some guy' saying 'this magic block is exactly..... whatever'.

Think of it this way: when we say one quart of water, that is not a 'real' definition because it depends on the ambient pressure, the temperature and a couple of other variables. Which is why a milk (almost all water) container left outside breaks when it freezes: because the original liquid quart is smaller than the now frozen quart. So which is the correct one? Neither, and it is not a binary scale either because it varies in volume even when it is in one state (say, liquid). A much better way to define a quart of milk would be to count the number of atoms of all the elements that make up milk and state it: <this> many atoms of water, <this> many atoms of [fat #1], <this> many atoms of [fat #2], <this> many atoms of plutonium oxide dust from Chernobyl, etc., etc. until it is fully defined. But an even better way would be to choose only one element, than count out a specific number of those atoms and viola! we can call that a 'quart' if we want. And it will still be a quart on the moon, still be a quart at 1/2 the speed of light, still be a quart at 1,000,000 PSI and so on although it may or may not fit in your "quart" milk bottle 'cause your milk bottle never was an actual measurement.

Brian

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/14/18072368/kilogram-kibble-redefine-weight-science (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/14/18072368/kilogram-kibble-redefine-weight-science)

Huh?  ???

OK, in theory, I sorta-kinda understand it. (definition of what a kilogram is)

In practicality, not so much. (How the accuracy of many machines located around the world can all be the same or at least more accurate than simple blobs of metal made as much as possible to be identical to a kilogram)
It seems that the whole premise of practicality is based on the Kibble balance.
How is the precision of my Kibble balance vs. someone else's Kibble balance different (it's certainly a lot more complicated) than the difference of my 1 Kg. weight vs the one stored and locked up  in France?

Conrad? Brian? Anybody?
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on November 17, 2018, 03:13:06 pm
It’s the mass of a hunk of platinum-iridium alloy .... mmmmmm ok......

Platinum 

Atomic Weight       195.084
Density       21.45 g/cm3
Melting Point       1768.3 °C
Boiling Point       3825 °C

Iridium

Atomic Weight       192.217
Density       22.56 g/cm3
Melting Point       2466 °C
Boiling Point       4428 °C

Osmium

Atomic Weight       190.23
Density       22.59 g/cm3
Melting Point       3033 °C
Boiling Point       5012 °C

sooooo... who chose the alloy composition, and why?

why wouldn't an alloy of 2 closer atomic weights and density not have been used? like Osmium/Iridium ?

when electrons are whirling around, does mass change? how does the molecular activity of the alloy come into the equation?





(https://i.gifer.com/9p0.gif)

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3otPoA3lRfKodPk9Ne/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: fartymarty on November 17, 2018, 06:56:10 pm
Technical explanation follows; I have simplified it as much as possible but it cannot be made 'second- grade simple', ........

OUCH! Well OK, maybe I deserved that... ;D

However, and perhaps here is where I reveal my only 1st grade reasoning ability, if I understood your explanation Brian (and I'm not saying I did) isn't your explanation really about the theory part (the part I thought I understood) and not the practicality part? I understand that now it is well defined instead of being only related to a locked up master lump (Big K) of whatever, but is the actual measurement any more "system wide" accurate since it depends on these various devices (Kimble balance) around the world (or universe if preferred) with no doubt at least microscopic differences all coming to the same conclusion? How do I know that the results of my Kimble balance (compared to the master Kimble balance) are any more accurate than my copy of the sequestered and protected lump of whatever?
I guess what I'm asking is, OK we (they) have cleaned up the system from comparison to an arbitrary lump (that may be changing) to something that is measurable and constant, but from a practical standpoint have we made anything more accurate in the real world near term to today?  Let's say that I go into business making Kimble (Watt) balances, will my quality control people be checking for accuracy by weighing a lump of something that was copied from another lump that was weighed by the Master Kimble balance?

Video of interest: https://youtu.be/ewQkE8t0xgQ (https://youtu.be/ewQkE8t0xgQ)

been smokin' the good stuff there Marty? Puffin' the Magic Dragon?

 :) No not yet, but I'm thinking of starting just as soon as I can be sure I'm getting a real Kilogram of it for my money.
 (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/07/13/810713341f5207feb26e457609e7409f.jpg)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 17, 2018, 08:39:49 pm
Well first of all Marty, that 'second- grade simple' was not an insult or barb to anyone, including you. I was merely stating that I had simplified it as much as my own understanding and education allows; it may be well that someone else (or many others) could explain it in much simpler terms because they understand it on a more fundamental level in the first place. Or, as the old axiom goes 'if you need to use mathematics to explain it, then you do not really understand how it works yourself'. :-)  I believe others can / could explain it better and in simpler terms than I can. So my intent was not to belittle anyone, other than myself of course.

To be honest, I did not pay much (OK, any) attention to the Kimble balance because that is merely a mechanism; I was concentrating on the fundamental idea of calling something, anything, a 'master' and qualifier and then comparing everything else to it vs. having an honest, direct way to measure something that can be duplicated anywhere, anytime and in any condition (such as we know and understand 'conditions'). But I will go back and take a look at that part of your link and see if I can follow along (no guarantees on that one- you can only get what I can give and more than a few times, that just ain't enough.....).

As to the other part, getting your money's worth of Puffin stuff, well that too is a moving target 'cause what defines the value of a dollar, uhm? That is a can 'o worms all in and of itself. :-)

There is a thing out there called 'impedance matching' which I have always found to be pretty complicated and difficult to explain. Then one day, this really sharp fellow I knew (a professor of mine actually) gave the bets explanation I have heard since and it was dirt- simple: he said that land animals need a high impedance mechanism to travel, and our bodies are designed for this high impedance.... we push against the Earth using large muscles to move relatively large mass (our entire bodies). Water is a low impedance medium and sea creatures have evolved to use that medium to travel. But land creatures are really inefficient in water because we are treating water (low impedance) material by using our limbs (high impedance implements) to propel ourselves. And impedance matching device for this problem is..... swimming or diving fins! It allows our big muscles to push against what we now find to be a high impedance material (all the water that the fins are trying to displace, just like fish fins). So you can either get into the water and kick and paddle with your arms like crazy to move relatively slowly or you can put on fins, 'match' the impedance, and make efficient use of 1) our muscles and their abilities in the 2) "wrong" environment but it is a lot less wrong with fins on.

Brian

OUCH! Well OK, maybe I deserved that... ;D

However, and perhaps here is where I reveal my only 1st grade reasoning ability, if I understood your explanation Brian (and I'm not saying I did) isn't your explanation really about the theory part (the part I thought I understood) and not the practicality part? I understand that now it is well defined instead of being only related to a locked up master lump (Big K) of whatever, but is the actual measurement any more "system wide" accurate since it depends on these various devices (Kimble balance) around the world (or universe if preferred) with no doubt at least microscopic differences all coming to the same conclusion? How do I know that the results of my Kimble balance (compared to the master Kimble balance) are any more accurate than my copy of the sequestered and protected lump of whatever?
I guess what I'm asking is, OK we (they) have cleaned up the system from comparison to an arbitrary lump (that may be changing) to something that is measurable and constant, but from a practical standpoint have we made anything more accurate in the real world near term to today?  Let's say that I go into business making Kimble (Watt) balances, will my quality control people be checking for accuracy by weighing a lump of something that was copied from another lump that was weighed by the Master Kimble balance?

Video of interest: https://youtu.be/ewQkE8t0xgQ (https://youtu.be/ewQkE8t0xgQ)
 
 :) No not yet, but I'm thinking of starting just as soon as I can be sure I'm getting a real Kilogram of it for my money.
 (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/07/13/810713341f5207feb26e457609e7409f.jpg)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: maxtog on November 17, 2018, 09:31:05 pm
The issue isn't as much with day-to-day measurements.  For that, a lump of metal is probably "good enough" for just about anything.  The problem is when things start getting really small and exact and also theoretical science/physics.  Micrograms, nanograms, picograms, etc.... the error inherent in any "official" lump of mass will start looking larger and larger as you get smaller and smaller.  Exactness starts to really "matter" (pun intended).  :)  Basing mass on something "fixed" in nature/physics means it is universal, never changes, and will have zero error; just that simple.
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 18, 2018, 01:59:13 pm
OK, had a few moments and read up on the Kibble balance. It really IS a simple concept, just that it gets cluttered up with all the mechanics around it that cancel each other out leaving only Plank's constant and a portion of mass to compare it to (the mass).

What they are doing is comparing force with mass because the force can be and is defined by nature, again Plank's constant. The actual machine is just there to compensate and remove all the other factors, such as gravity (which is a variable even at different places on Earth), any motion (everything is moving in many directions at one time: the Earth rotates, it revolves around the Sun, the Sun revolves around the center of our galaxy- it really does get complex as to exactly how fast we (everything on the planet) is moving and in what direction.... which is also constantly changing), temperature and all the other variables that we not only do not care about but must be eliminated so that we can actually isolate force and then compare / convert it to mass.

Maybe one way to think of it is like a pendulum used to meter time (think Grandfather clock). There is a long formula to figure out the time period of any pendulum's time cycle but in the end, everything falls out and the only thing left is the length of the pendulum- that is the one single variable that governs how fast a pendulum goes through one cycle. But there are problems in the real world using them, one of which is the expansion and contraction of the material the pendulum is made out of. This defeated humans for decades, centuries until a very clever fellow named Harris came along in the 18th century and figured out a way to make the rod of a pendulum the same length regardless of temperature. When looking at this apparatus, it seems pretty complicated but really it is not. At any rate, concentrating on the temperature compensation is not the important thing to know- understanding that only the length of the pendulum is. So what a Kibble balance is doing is negating all the outside inputs that cause a change in force, and once they are eliminated, the only thing left is force, which is directly compared with mass (and as the force is known, the mass becomes known also).

I did not even try to work through the formulas given, again that is not the real point of the whole thing.

An easier comparison is something else they mentioned, light interferometry. It starts off seeming to be extremely complicated but really it is quite simple: as the frequency (color) of the light is known, the distance between peaks is also known. What the interferometer does is align the peaks as the target is moved closer or further away; it is done with mirrors and the light is split- when the observable light is brightest, you are seeing two peaks aligned so you know it is an exact number of wavelengths away. This is an extremely accurate measurement but it is incremental, meaning you do not know HOW many wavelengths away the target is. The inelegant but effective way around that is to bring the target all the way to the source (less than one wavelength of light away) them move the target away while counting the light and dark bands. Never lose count of those bands and you will always know exactly where you are. This is done all the time on very inexpensive machine tools to determine where the spindle is relative to a 'home' position as designated by the machine's manufacturer.

Brian

OUCH! Well OK, maybe I deserved that... ;D

However, and perhaps here is where I reveal my only 1st grade reasoning ability, if I understood your explanation Brian (and I'm not saying I did) isn't your explanation really about the theory part (the part I thought I understood) and not the practicality part? I understand that now it is well defined instead of being only related to a locked up master lump (Big K) of whatever, but is the actual measurement any more "system wide" accurate since it depends on these various devices (Kimble balance) around the world (or universe if preferred) with no doubt at least microscopic differences all coming to the same conclusion? How do I know that the results of my Kimble balance (compared to the master Kimble balance) are any more accurate than my copy of the sequestered and protected lump of whatever?
I guess what I'm asking is, OK we (they) have cleaned up the system from comparison to an arbitrary lump (that may be changing) to something that is measurable and constant, but from a practical standpoint have we made anything more accurate in the real world near term to today?  Let's say that I go into business making Kimble (Watt) balances, will my quality control people be checking for accuracy by weighing a lump of something that was copied from another lump that was weighed by the Master Kimble balance?

Video of interest: https://youtu.be/ewQkE8t0xgQ (https://youtu.be/ewQkE8t0xgQ)
 
 :) No not yet, but I'm thinking of starting just as soon as I can be sure I'm getting a real Kilogram of it for my money.
 (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/07/13/810713341f5207feb26e457609e7409f.jpg)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on November 18, 2018, 03:47:55 pm
 :rotflmao: :goodpost: :doh:

we have jumped from weight, to time, then to distance, when we know by theory, Zeno says it can't be absolute, and an arrow, theoretically can never "reach" it's target...

so, in fact... "there is no spoon"
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: Cholla on November 19, 2018, 11:33:04 am
I don't know much about weights, but I do know this [  ] is six inches.....
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: fartymarty on November 19, 2018, 11:36:50 am
Well first of all Marty, that 'second- grade simple' was not an insult or barb to anyone, including you.

Yeah, sometimes my humor goes un-noticed, or should I say it becomes repurposed into seriousness. Kind of like when your best stuff wasn't having any effect on your Doctor. More personally, a "My name isn't Hanz." type of reaction. The shoe did sort of fit me so I tried to wear it for humor. I tried this once before and it failed (humor) then too, but I'm too lazy to search for it...in a many years ago posting. So to be clear now, I was just kidding and took no offense. Kind of playing with how some can take things one way and they (on the internet mostly) take it one of the ways most likely to cause themselves offense.

Anyway let's move on. So I think my question about practicality is answered. A Kimble balance sounds expensive and if it's man made (same as a pendulum) then it's ability to microscopically cancel opposites out perfectly is suspect. For instance even a pendulum can have more bearing resistance when swinging on one side of straight down that isn't equal to the resistance of the other side. So, no real practical improvement, at least that's the conclusion I have come to until I read or find out otherwise

So getting back to theory. There is something that they didn't mention or perhaps I missed. The gram. The gram was defined as the weight of one cubic centimeter of water held at 4 degrees C, right? And a Kilogram was defined by a mass of something that was 1000X the weight of a gram, or as close as they could get. Now that a kilogram is defined by a constant, (or in practicality, by a master man made machine designed to measure that constant) is a gram now defined as 1/1000th of that result or is it still defined by the weight of a certain volume of water at a specific temperature?
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: maxtog on November 19, 2018, 03:26:24 pm
:)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on November 19, 2018, 04:51:08 pm
I'm still awaiting the scholarly answers to post number 3....

so, that still is a conundrum..
I could spend a half hour typing stuff on my nook screen, but  I won't,
basically now we have a "Kilogram" in the ol' K machine, and by precedence, a gram is defined by 1/1000th of that "slug"... whereby all sorts of tolerance can accumulate, as you can't make 1000 identical objects.. and divide said "slug into 1000 pieces without matter loss.. and then total them against the master "kilo" slug... if you did, and took half them away at random, there would be an induced error.. maybe not "measurable" but still it would exist...

that's what I hate about "quantum anything", as far a physics goes..
 and it's all based on some dude spittin' on a scale, centuries ago, and saying "dat's a gram" from here forward...

Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 19, 2018, 06:10:47 pm
Yep, I missed the humor. ?? Hey, it happens..... Yes, there is a relationship between volume (of water) and mass but that is just a happy (but planned) coincidence. It does not define the unit of mass, it merely 'links' it with volume in a clever, and sometimes useful way. And hey, it is certainly a better link thank, say, "furlongs per fortnight" is for measuring speed.

I <think> you are missing the point of what NIST has done here regarding mass. Mass is a fundamental unit of measurement that cannot depend on being compared with anything else that is not fundamental..... and that lump of stuff in France is NOT a fundamental unit in physics :-) The point of the balance is that it allows a way to define a basic unit, in this case mass, with another fundamental unit, in this case force. This is the key: no matter where (or perhaps even when) you are in the universe, you can always grab a handful of quantifiable force. So the objective becomes to define ALL fundamental units based on at least one of the other, defined and quantifiable units.

So how about a practical example: suppose you find yourself visiting the city of Hemorrhoid on the planet Uranus and you want to weight a rock (or at least what you truly and deeply is a 'rock' that you just found in Uranus). But you do not have that pesky piece of French 'stuff' that you know weighs a kilogram (well, it <masses> a kilogram, weighs a Newton but let's not make this problem we have in Hemorrhoid any worse than it already is). What to do, what to do? You can measure the lump of 'stuff' you have but then you would have to know its density and that is most certainly NOT a fundamental unit of any kind. In fact that is multiple <not> fundamental units. What to do. I know- what if there was a standard fundamental force that you could compare, using some kind of machine or formula or other duplicate method, which ALWAYS works because it is a CONSTANT, and then derive your unit(s) of mass? Hey, that would work. But comparing differing units is often impossible, for example, how many gallons in a foot? See? What we need is some key that we can use to 'jump categories' and directly compare fundamental units of.... well, stuff. Why just a few weeks or months ago this would have been impossible but in today's mail, we find a flyer for how to build your very own Kibble balance, which will allow YOU (read: anyone, anywhere, anytime) to compare Force to Mass directly. Now as force is a fundamental unit, you can grab yourself a "pound" of force, or better yet a 'metric pound, or Newton (the SI unit of force..... in the English system it is really 'Slugs' (really) but we cheat and use the world Pound and just put a little 'f' to indicate we mean pound, force, not pound, weight), and compare it with your 'thing' from Uranus and you will know EXACTLY how much mass it has! You may not be sure what it is but at least you know how much of it you have (kinda' like being in the chit or in deep chit- big difference!). And even better yet, you can show all of the local Hemorrhoids just how to measure their own 'stuff' regarding mass with nothing other than force, which they too will have in abundance (though I understand some Hemorrhoids are more forceful then others but again, I digress).

So like when the Ancient Greeks (who may or may not have known about Hemorrhoidians) discovered Pi, the point was not how accurately they could calculate it nor how fast, and it did not matter what units they expressed it in (degrees, radians, quadrants). The point is that they discovered a fundamental relationship between a circle's circumference and its radius: there are always, exactly, two Pi radians in the circumference of each circle, and Pi is the 'tool' we have to convert one to the other. Same thing with measuring length with light- light is the constant of the universe and so can be directly linked to length, meaning length then becomes a fundamental unit in and of itself.

As far as friction of the pendulum used to measure time, I would not worry too much about that.... time is NOT a constant anyway so it becomes a trivial measurement. Unless, of course, you happen to be waiting for a public stall to open up on Uranus.... then it could become critical. But still not a constant.

Brian (for homework, see if you can determine how many ergs of energy it took me to type all of that foolishness......)

P.S. Thermal expansion is measured in units of length (of expansion) per units of length per units of temperature change (inches per inch per degree change in temp. or Delta T). This one time, at banned camp, I gave an answer to a thermal expansion question in these units: inches, inches, degrees Centigrade. It was marked wrong but it was not wrong; it was merely me amusing myself and hopefully, those who read it. Not so much to the Professor who marked it wrong and then corrected my grade..... although begrudgingly. We agreed that 1) it was a correct answer. 2) it was in 'bad taste' to state it that way (mixing English and SI units in one expression, technically correct but NOT NORMALLY DONE or, in this case, well received). 3) One of us found it amusing......

Yeah, sometimes my humor goes un-noticed, or should I say it becomes repurposed into seriousness. Kind of like when your best stuff wasn't having any effect on your Doctor. More personally, a "My name isn't Hanz." type of reaction. The shoe did sort of fit me so I tried to wear it for humor. I tried this once before and it failed (humor) then too, but I'm too lazy to search for it...in a many years ago posting. So to be clear now, I was just kidding and took no offense. Kind of playing with how some can take things one way and they (on the internet mostly) take it one of the ways most likely to cause themselves offense.

Anyway let's move on. So I think my question about practicality is answered. A Kimble balance sounds expensive and if it's man made (same as a pendulum) then it's ability to microscopically cancel opposites out perfectly is suspect. For instance even a pendulum can have more bearing resistance when swinging on one side of straight down that isn't equal to the resistance of the other side. So, no real practical improvement, at least that's the conclusion I have come to until I read or find out otherwise

So getting back to theory. There is something that they didn't mention or perhaps I missed. The gram. The gram was defined as the weight of one cubic centimeter of water held at 4 degrees C, right? And a Kilogram was defined by a mass of something that was 1000X the weight of a gram, or as close as they could get. Now that a kilogram is defined by a constant, (or in practicality, by a master man made machine designed to measure that constant) is a gram now defined as 1/1000th of that result or is it still defined by the weight of a certain volume of water at a specific temperature?
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 19, 2018, 06:18:55 pm
I am exhausted from typing a long answer, all the way from Hemmeroid, to Marty.

But I believe you are incorrect in that a 'gram' is a variable unit. It is a made- up unit to be sure, but it is fundamental and constant anywhere in what we perceive as the universe. One o' dem- dare natural laws that govern the place. Mass. Force. Speed of light. Stuff that cannot be changed. Well, kinda', mostly and within certain parameters at least.  :rotflmao:  Remember, the faster you go, the more you mass (often incorrectly stated as 'weigh') and the shorter you are until you hit the speed limit, where you have infinite mass and no length. But force, lots and lots of force.... if only you could get there. But hey, maybe we can get there- think African- American void (I want to be politically correct here so as not to have the forces of FaceTwit align against me).

Brian

I'm still awaiting the scholarly answers to post number 3....

so, that still is a conundrum..
I could spend a half hour typing stuff on my nook screen, but  I won't,
basically now we have a "Kilogram" in the ol' K machine, and by precedence, a gram is defined by 1/1000th of that "slug"... whereby all sorts of tolerance can accumulate, as you can't make 1000 identical objects.. and divide said "slug into 1000 pieces without matter loss.. and then total them against the master "kilo" slug... if you did, and took half them away at random, there would be an induced error.. maybe not "measurable" but still it would exist...

that's what I hate about "quantum anything", as far a physics goes..
 and it's all based on some dude spittin' on a scale, centuries ago, and saying "dat's a gram" from here forward...
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: maxtog on November 19, 2018, 07:17:36 pm
But hey, maybe we can get there- think African- American void (I want to be politically correct here so as not to have the forces of FaceTwit align against me).

Or I could give you a hard time in reverse!

One could be Xth generation white (historically European at some point), South African and move here- and be African-American.  Or one could be an Xth generation black American who moves to South Africa (American-South African?) and marries a white European-South-African and their children move back to the USA who are thus both black and white South-African-African-European-African-South-African-American?

I love political correctness, because it gives me the wonderful opportunity to throw out how hypocritical it all is.  I harassed someone just a few days ago who said, in the same sentence, "African-American", "Asian-American" and then "White", by asking a return question using the terms "Black", "Yellow" and then "European-American."

Just so just say "a black void" and be done with it :)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 19, 2018, 07:53:34 pm
A swing and a miss! The politically correct 'African- American Void' would be a...... wait for it..... black hole.  Just like about 1/2 of the world's homo sapiens sapiens population are "Fe-persons", or about 1/2 of the US population are "Gyno- Americans'.  Yep, I find most things can be cleansed, politically speaking, quite nicely.

Brian (who is hoping his physician does not find a 'mass' but if he does, I really hope it is no where near a kilogram; there, now we are back ONTOPIC)

Or I could give you a hard time in reverse!

One could be Xth generation white (historically European at some point), South African and move here- and be African-American.  Or one could be an Xth generation black American who moves to South Africa (American-South African?) and marries a white European-South-African and their children move back to the USA who are thus both black and white South-African-African-European-African-South-African-American?

I love political correctness, because it gives me the wonderful opportunity to throw out how hypocritical it all is.  I harassed someone just a few days ago who said, in the same sentence, "African-American", "Asian-American" and then "White", by asking a return question using the terms "Black", "Yellow" and then "European-American."

Just so just say "a black void" and be done with it :)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on November 19, 2018, 08:57:56 pm
i see we are getting tired...



" We assume you are converting between milliliter and gram [water]. You can view more details on each measurement unit: milliliters or grams The SI derived unit for volume is the cubic meter. 1 cubic meter is equal to 1000000 milliliters, or 1000000 grams"

SO;  1cc=1mg=1ml amazing concept of volume and weight/mass of water.
 
not theory, a defined unit of measurement... a physically defined "law" which is part of the metric basis....not my fault, blame those the set the parameters of "the laws"...

night night, I'm off to bed.
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: maxtog on November 19, 2018, 09:30:55 pm
Just like about 1/2 of the world's homo sapiens sapiens population are "Fe-persons", or about 1/2 of the US population are "Gyno- Americans'.

The latter was easy, but even Urban Dictionary wasn't much help on the former... flat earth?

Quote
...hope it is no where near a kilogram; there, now we are back ONTOPIC)

Ug.... if we must.
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 25, 2018, 06:19:09 pm
Whatever happened to Marty? He seemed so interested in this subject......?

 :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Brian
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: maxtog on November 25, 2018, 08:23:26 pm
Whatever happened to Marty? He seemed so interested in this subject......?

He is off building that balance...
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: Hooligan on November 26, 2018, 12:27:13 am
Now what did us South African do wrong to get pulled into the conversation here....? But seeing you brought it up, lets carry on.....

So, my father's side of the family is a mixture of Irish (Butler) and Dutch (de Koning) origins, while my mother's side is French (du Plesis) and Dutch (le Roes) origins.

I'm 12th generation South African, as a family member went and did research on the French side of the family tree (du Plesis), all the way back to France in the year 1658.


Now, I have 2x questions for you.....

1) What does that mixture of origins make me?
2) If you are travelling at 60Km/H, how long must the rope be to tie the canoe to the jetty, before drinking a liter the water? 




Or I could give you a hard time in reverse!

One could be Xth generation white (historically European at some point), South African and move here- and be African-American.  Or one could be an Xth generation black American who moves to South Africa (American-South African?) and marries a white European-South-African and their children move back to the USA who are thus both black and white South-African-African-European-African-South-African-American?

I love political correctness, because it gives me the wonderful opportunity to throw out how hypocritical it all is.  I harassed someone just a few days ago who said, in the same sentence, "African-American", "Asian-American" and then "White", by asking a return question using the terms "Black", "Yellow" and then "European-American."

Just so just say "a black void" and be done with it :)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: fartymarty on November 26, 2018, 09:21:43 am
1) What does that mixture of origins make me?
2) If you are traveling at 60Km/H, how long must the rope be to tie the canoe to the jetty, before drinking a liter the water?

1) I'd just go with Dutch and let the rest of your genetic heritage go in most situations where the subject comes up. However, if more detail is really needed, then I'd get some genetic
testing done to determine your true origins. Many have found out that some mistakes and/or fabrication were given in the oral history of their ancestral makeup. Some have been arrested
as well, so make sure your DNA isn't somewhere it shouldn't be, before you get sampled.
2) The rope needs to be the same length as it was before drinking the liter of water (this calculation does not take into account tidal fluctuation since time and date, nor jetty coordinates were not specified in the original scenario), and if you're only going 60km/H then your C14 must be in the shop and you're riding a borrowed typical V-twin cruiser?

Whatever happened to Marty? He seemed so interested in this subject......?

 :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Brian
I was hoping for a 3rd grade explanation of whether a gram is now based on 1/1000 of a Kilogram as measured on a Kimble balance or is it still defined by the weight of one cc of water @4 degrees Celsius. If there was an answer to that posted already, it flew right over me. If it is still based on the one cc of water formula, I don't see how we've made as much progress as we could have in this new development.

He is off building that balance...

HA!  :rotflmao: No, my level of interest isn't that high.  ;D



Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 26, 2018, 01:40:18 pm
A gram is a man- made amount of a fundamental unit, which is mass. But mass has no actual units so the gram is simply assigned to it by us, as the meter was assigned to the fundamental unit length. Now that two completely 'made up' things cross, the cc and a gram of water, is by design when making these imaginary units in the first place and they are very handy for general calculations but still, none of them are linked to anything fundamental or effectively, "real".

There are seven fundamental units or basic units. All others are derived, compounded (such as MPH which is length divided by time, two fundamental units) or some completely man made 'measurement' that are not fundamental or relatable to anything fundamental. The fundamental units are these:

Length
Mass
Brightness (candela)
Current (ampere)
Temperature
Mole
Time

Then there are the four fundamental forces known and they are:

Electromagnetism
Gravity
The Strong force (atomic level only)
The Weak force (atomic level only)

A cubic centimeter of water is a derived unit, consisting of length X length X length. A volume of water measured in any way NOT based on fundamental units is simply a man made 'unit', created so either 1) we can get a handle on something easily- we buy gasoline in gallons, easy and handy but meaningless in the physics world or 2) some link such as one gram is one cubic centimeter of water at a temperature, which is merely man- made units designed to align volume to mass to length or similar.

The Kibble balance has allowed us to define a kilogram by comparing it directly with a fundamental force, which means that the man- made UNIT of a fundamental measurement can now be defined by another man- made UNIT of a different fundamental force. That plus the fact that we can readily only measure one of them (force, not mass) so we can now quantify mass in the physics world.

Or at least that is how it works in my corner of the universe..... I think. :-)

Brian


<snip>

 I was hoping for a 3rd grade explanation of whether a gram is now based on 1/1000 of a Kilogram as measured on a Kimble balance or is it still defined by the weight of one cc of water @4 degrees Celsius. If there was an answer to that posted already, it flew right over me. If it is still based on the one cc of water formula, I don't see how we've made as much progress as we could have in this new development.

HA!  :rotflmao: No, my level of interest isn't that high.  ;D
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: Conniesaki on November 26, 2018, 02:50:15 pm
If something weighs # units, or is X units long, or is X degrees temp, or is X bright, etc, but nobody is there to measure it, does it really?
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: maxtog on November 26, 2018, 03:32:11 pm
If something weighs # units, or is X units long, or is X degrees temp, or is X bright, etc, but nobody is there to measure it, does it really?

Just don't go putting cats into boxes....
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: Poseidon on November 26, 2018, 08:03:53 pm
Just don't go putting cats into boxes....

And if you do, shake it up really good!  :rotflmao:
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: fartymarty on November 27, 2018, 09:28:55 am
A gram is a man- made amount of a fundamental unit, which is mass. But mass has no actual units so the gram is simply assigned to it by us, as the meter was assigned to the fundamental unit length. Now that two completely 'made up' things cross, the cc and a gram of water, is by design when making these imaginary units in the first place and they are very handy for general calculations but still, none of them are linked to anything fundamental or effectively, "real".

There are seven fundamental units or basic units. All others are derived, compounded (such as MPH which is length divided by time, two fundamental units) or some completely man made 'measurement' that are not fundamental or relatable to anything fundamental. The fundamental units are these:

Length
Mass
Brightness (candela)
Current (ampere)
Temperature
Mole
Time

Then there are the four fundamental forces known and they are:

Electromagnetism
Gravity
The Strong force (atomic level only)
The Weak force (atomic level only)

A cubic centimeter of water is a derived unit, consisting of length X length X length. A volume of water measured in any way NOT based on fundamental units is simply a man made 'unit', created so either 1) we can get a handle on something easily- we buy gasoline in gallons, easy and handy but meaningless in the physics world or 2) some link such as one gram is one cubic centimeter of water at a temperature, which is merely man- made units designed to align volume to mass to length or similar.

The Kibble balance has allowed us to define a kilogram by comparing it directly with a fundamental force, which means that the man- made UNIT of a fundamental measurement can now be defined by another man- made UNIT of a different fundamental force. That plus the fact that we can readily only measure one of them (force, not mass) so we can now quantify mass in the physics world.

Or at least that is how it works in my corner of the universe..... I think. :-)

Brian


Thanks, I think. Well OK, that was very informative.
 However I still had to read between the lines to guess that a gram is no longer the weight of 1 cc of water at 4 degrees C, but is now 1/1000 of a kilogram as measured by a Kimble balance. Still a guess however. Since I still haven't built my Kimble balance, I think I'll go get a box of cats to shake up and see if I get better results.
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: Poseidon on November 27, 2018, 12:37:28 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hykUpgahGU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hykUpgahGU)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 27, 2018, 01:57:08 pm
The gram was never based on any volume measurement of water. At one time, it was based on 1/1000 th of that 'magic' block sitting at NIST (I still think of it as the Bureau of Weights and Measures, which is probably how you think of it also- same agency although expanded in function).

The meter is arbritrary also: it was originally one ten- millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole. Pretty random, eh?

Watch out for the 'cat stuff' though, just like the arrow example (if it takes 1/2 of the time for an arrow to travel 1/2 way to its target, and 3/4 of the time for it to get 3/4 of that distance..... then it holds that as the distance can be divided infinitely, so too can the arrow's displacement.... therefore, the arrow will never reach its target. Any arrow, under any circumstances). All horrible examples of sound science either miss- applied or simply used in an example or way that they do not work. Basically, mental masturbation. Be especially wary of anything that uses Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle'; a very real and sound piece of science.... when it is applied to the uncertainty of knowing both an object's exact position and exact velocity at the same time. Otherwise, it is generally simply misapplied such as to be not only useless but misleading in that someone is actually saying (or writing) something useful.

Brian

Thanks, I think. Well OK, that was very informative.
 However I still had to read between the lines to guess that a gram is no longer the weight of 1 cc of water at 4 degrees C, but is now 1/1000 of a kilogram as measured by a Kimble balance. Still a guess however. Since I still haven't built my Kimble balance, I think I'll go get a box of cats to shake up and see if I get better results.

Previously I had written: "A gram is a man- made amount of a fundamental unit, which is mass. But mass has no actual units so the gram is simply assigned to it by us, as the meter was assigned to the fundamental unit length. Now that two completely 'made up' things cross, the cc and a gram of water, is by design when making these imaginary units in the first place and they are very handy for general calculations but still, none of them are linked to anything fundamental or effectively, "real". "
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: Conniesaki on November 27, 2018, 02:41:18 pm
...

Watch out for the 'cat stuff' though, just like the arrow example (if it takes 1/2 of the time for an arrow to travel 1/2 way to its target, and 3/4 of the time for it to get 3/4 of that distance..... then it holds that as the distance can be divided infinitely, so too can the arrow's displacement.... therefore, the arrow will never reach its target. Any arrow, under any circumstances).

...

Now you've gone all calculus on us. I think  ???

"If Achilles is to run from point A to B, he must first travel half the distance, then half again, and so on. Taking the distance from A to B as one, the distance Achilles must travel is the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8...... Because there is an infinity of terms in this series, Achilles can never reach his goal."
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 27, 2018, 03:39:12 pm
The ancient Greeks never <quite> got to calculus though they did get 'close enough' IMO. And yes, the arrow will never reach its target because there are infinite 'sections' of distance it must travel is the basis of the concept of limits and asymptotic lines: places one cannot get to but they would be the correct answer if one could go there. But again, when applied to things like moving objects and trying to use these mathematical concepts where they do not belong or apply is, again, mental masturbation IMO.

y = 1/x   As x tends toward infinity (works the other way too, as x tends toward zero), what happens to y. The classic example of limits and asymptopes. You cannot divide by infinity but the closer you get, as x gets bigger, the closer y gets to zero. Hence the limit of the function is zero- a place you cannot get to but you are 'tending toward' that value. And so y 'tends' toward zero. The concept simply does not apply to a moving object and the travel over distance.

But the world is full of miss- applications like that. I always thought Schrödinger's cat was ridiculous, as I think modern quantum physics having electrons disappear and reappear randomly is too.

Brian


Now you've gone all calculus on us. I think  ???

"If Achilles is to run from point A to B, he must first travel half the distance, then half again, and so on. Taking the distance from A to B as one, the distance Achilles must travel is the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8...... Because there is an infinity of terms in this series, Achilles can never reach his goal."
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: fartymarty on November 28, 2018, 10:58:13 am
The gram was never based on any volume measurement of water.

OK, I think that is where I made my major mistake. I went back and reread, and they use weathermanperson speak. (I.e. "chance of"; "likelihood of"; "trending towards"; "models show" )
Quote
The gram takes inspiration from the density of water: It’s roughly equal to the mass of 1 cubic centimeter of water held at 4°C.

Quote from: Wilkipedia
Originally defined as "the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of the hundredth part of a metre [1 cm3], and at the temperature of melting ice"[2] (later at 4 °C, the temperature of maximum density of water). However, in a reversal of reference and defined units, a gram is now defined as one thousandth of the SI base unit, the kilogram, or 1×10−3 kg, which itself is now defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, not in terms of grams, but by "the amount of electricity needed to counteract its force"[3]

I'm not sure why I started this thread, but at least it got to page three...
....is, again, mental masturbation IMO.
Agreed. ;D (even though that quote was about something else and not this thread as a whole, it still applies IMO)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: B.D.F. on November 28, 2018, 03:09:11 pm
Well, it seemed to me that you started this thread because you were curious about both the Kibble balance but especially about how, why and how accurately mass (the gram, the kilogram) was defined / determined / compared in the first place. I took a look, admittedly a skim at first, of the article at the link you posted and conversed about it.

Of course any serious discussion of science needs an injection of amusement so I did my best there...... but it seems to have bounced off. Oh well, off to the next discussion.

:-)

Brian



OK, I think that is where I made my major mistake. I went back and reread, and they use weathermanperson speak. (I.e. "chance of"; "likelihood of"; "trending towards"; "models show" )
I'm not sure why I started this thread, but at least it got to page three... Agreed. ;D (even though that quote was about something else and not this thread as a whole, it still applies IMO)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on November 28, 2018, 03:20:22 pm
OK, I think that is where I made my major mistake. I went back and reread, and they use weathermanperson speak. (I.e. "chance of"; "likelihood of"; "trending towards"; "models show" )
I'm not sure why I started this thread, but at least it got to page three... Agreed. ;D (even though that quote was about something else and not this thread as a whole, it still applies IMO)

see what you started....

and it's just the beginning of the snow season......

(https://media.giphy.com/media/EwpPQdwglzh8k/giphy.gif)




by spring, everyone will have gone off the deep end....

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/2f8db4568854d0cd2157980307573a6e/tumblr_ot2exkvovL1uzg6sbo1_400.gif)

(https://media.giphy.com/media/l2YOCxjEJyX9uR8Jy/giphy.gif)

(https://media.giphy.com/media/Zcfd3eHpz815S/giphy.gif)

see I told you to go buy a Royale with Cheese... and stay away from Burger King

(https://media.giphy.com/media/wNq7aZD0ri86c/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The Kilogram....Huh?
Post by: fartymarty on November 29, 2018, 08:01:20 am

Of course any serious discussion of science needs an injection of amusement so I did my best there...... but it seems to have bounced off. Oh well, off to the next discussion.

:-)

Brian

Hey, I chuckled! You just couldn't hear it over the internet because of all the background noise left over from the big bang....or is that someone's baby blue Indian idling?