From the Wall Street Journal – By JEANNE WHALEN
In a vault beneath a 17th-century pavilion on the outskirts of Paris sits a platinum cylinder known as Le Grand K. Since 1889 it has been the international prototype for the kilogram, the standard against which all other kilos are measured.
But over the years, scientists have noticed a problem: Le Grand K has been losing weight. Weigh-ins at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures show that the bar has shed approximately 50 micrograms—roughly equal to a grain of sand.
The problem has vexed scientists who monitor the kilo the way tabloids track the waistlines of Valerie Bertinelli and Kirstie Alley. The stakes, however, are weightier.
“It’s a scandal that we’ve got this kilogram hanging around changing its mass and therefore changing the mass of everything else in the universe!” Bill Phillips, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, exclaimed at a scientific summit in London this week. No one knows for sure what went wrong with Le Grand K, but some theorize it lost weight from being cleaned.
Dr. Phillips and other mandarins of metrology were gathered at Britain’s Royal Society to debate an urgent question in the science of measurement—how to re-define the basic unit of mass, as well as other measurements such as the second, ampere, kelvin and mole.
The aim is to tie each to a widely accepted property of nature, rather than to a lump of metal or some other imprecise benchmark. The meter, for instance, was once measured as the distance between two notches on a metal bar. It is now defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
The new definitions are “as big a change as the introduction of the metric system during the French Revolution,” says Terry Quinn, a dapper Briton who organized the seminar and once served as director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, which ensures world-wide uniformity of measurements. Frequent clashes about the best approach mean the temperature of debate has at times “risen quite high,” he added, without specifying by how much.
Full story at the Wall Street Journal
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The tweet really piqued by curiousity. This was an interesting aside from things and something I’ve never heard of before. More proof you’re never too old to learn. Thanks!
Let me be the first to blame this on Global Warming! (:-
Well, the thing is obviously worthless now. They need to start from scratch and build a new one. I’d be happy to properly dispose of the old one for them.
The big reason the US never went on the metric system is that Jefferson found out everything would be administered by the French and he said NO WAY JOSE!
CO2 and capitalism are surely to blame…. oh, and Sarah Palin.
To avoid repetition here is my comment on this article is below.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-to-wuwt/#comment-583645
Measuring mass at the microgram level is much more difficult than it would seem. Mass is often confused with weight, but they are not the same.
The mass of an object is a quantitative measure of its inertia; its resistance to a change in its state of motion caused by a given force. Weight is not a constant property of matter, but depends on its location. In space, an object still has mass, but its weight is zero.
Temperature, humidity, pressure, uncertainty, and drift in the weighing system all affect mass calibrations done in the microgram range. For example, the uncertainty alone in a 1 gram weight is .005 [mg, 2 sd].
In determining a small mass in the microgram range, numerous measurements are taken. It’s not simple, like putting weights in a balance.
‘the temperature of debate has at times “risen quite high,” ‘
AGW strikes again! 😉
Now which would be the preferred grammar: “Heisenberg may have farted here,” or “Heisenberg might have farted here”?
“The problem has vexed scientists”………
===
Beware the “vexed” scientist, ‘cus that is what they live for.
I wish I lost weight every time I cleaned myself!
” The meter, for instance, was once measured as the distance between two notches on a metal bar. It is now defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. ”
That should be of vast help in precision shed-building.
Where is the hockey stick to prove it is our fault?
It’s worse than we thought …
Blimey – that means the earth’s oceans are now 36 sq km bigger than they were. Hang on a minute: Dr T’s missing heat… could it be that, with the odd solar eclipse thrown in perhaps …?!
The first question should be if NOAA was given the data to adjust……
If you graph the weight since 1889, do you get a hockey stick??
that explains why all food packaging is getting smaller
Perhaps someone scraped off a bit to use as a catalyst for a cold fusion experiment.
‘u.k.(us) says:
January 28, 2011 at 5:16 pm
“The problem has vexed scientists”………
===
Beware the “vexed” scientist, ‘cus that is what they live for.’
Send more money.
So I now weigh about 3000 micrograms more than before? Drats
Not to be pedantic but if this is “the standard against which all other kilos are measured” how do they know it is losing mass?
“The meter, for instance, was once measured as the distance between two notches on a metal bar. It is now defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.”
Hmmm. No adjustment for a relationship between lightspeed and gravitational field strength eh? I wonder how long that’ll stand up.
I remember when the K, actually gained weight.
Were the laws of nature changing beneath our feet?
Some higher intelligence changing the rules?
Thankfully not. It turned out the cleaning method had changed. Air drying failed to remove metallic deposits breathed on it from a technicians filled teeth.The previous method of using a soft cloth had always removed them.
And the laws of the universe steadied.
[snip – “Electric universe” has nothing to do with this and is nothing but traffic trolling, take it elsewhere – Anthony]
Is the force of gravity changing at that location?