Hi, It would seem to me that since the second is(was) defined relative to a specific number of resonances of a C-beam at a specific gravity, and inertial frame of reference, that any deviation from the defined value is an indication of not the error in your C-beam, but rather the error due to your location.
Perhaps the corrections are inappropriate? -Chuck Harris Bob Camp wrote:
Hi I think a better analogy would be: There don't have to be exactly X atoms in the Avogadro ball for it to be a standard. You simply have to know how many relative to X in order to correct for your gizmo. The gotcha obviously is you need the count of each isotope. The same sort of issue applies to a cesium. You actually measure gravity (and several other things) and correct for them. If there was no way to measure your local gravity (or magnetic field), you would have a lot of trouble using Cs as a primary standard. That said, the currently accepted primary mass standard is simply an arbitrary lump of metal. It does not connect to anything other than it's self. That's not a good thing at all. Bob
_______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
