I agree that the non-Newtonian issue is unclear. 
My objection to them is that they measure something different that
resistance to flow which is basically the definition of viscosity. They have
a paddle that stirs into a can of paint. The machine measures something and
I believe is the work per unit of time or the power required to stir. This
may be a good way to qualify the paint as this is what the customer is
seeing when he opens the can. It might have a relation to the viscosity of
the paint but this relation is non-linear. 

I also worked in the grease industry and grease is definitely non-Newtonian.
There, they were measuring something called "penetration" which was the
penetration depth of a standard cone into a pot of grease. This is as well,
an empirical way to characterize a product. The only difference is that they
did not call it "viscosity" although it had also something to do with how
the grease flows.

Viscosity is something well defined in my view, as well as its unit of
measure. Like I told Mr. DiCorpo in my other letter, it's like measuring
length in volts.

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Bath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday 22 December 2000 17:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [USMA:9987] Krebs units/ My reply to Brookfield


There may be problems here with non-Newtonian fluids.
Duncan

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Jadic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: December 22, 2000 16:51
Subject: [USMA:9987] Krebs units/ My reply to Brookfield


>Mr. DiCorpo:
>
>Thanks again for your letter.
>
>I understand from your message that there is no known relationship between
>KU and any known units of viscosity. If this is correct, the equipment has
>no use for us. We were looking to characterize the paint made in our
company
>in order to define the correct equipment to handle it. If there is no
>relationship than we cannot use it as our equipment manufacturers have no
>idea of what KU means and how it relates to their equipment.
>
>Sincerely, yours,
>
>Adrian Jadic
>

Reply via email to