"Joseph B. Reid" wrote:
> I beg to differ, I agree with Madan although he exagerated to make his
> point. 237.l6 K for the triple point of water was experimentally
> determined, and just possibly in the future another digit might be added to
> the above constant.
That would be rather circular, Joe. The triple point of water defines
the kelvin, namely 1/273.16 of the temperature of water at the triple
point. How could we later discover that its temperature in kelvins comes
out to a different number of units? That would be like discovering that
a meter actually consists of 102 centimeters, thus requiring us to
change our definition of "centi". Try it as many times as you will, but
I think you will find that if
1 K = T_tp/273.16
then
T_tp = 273.16 K
will always be the result.
Or, perhaps I have entirely missed your point, Joe. I am willing to
believe that at some date in the future, a new reference that is
measureable to a greater precision than triple-point determinations may
result. But, as with the meter, they will probably center the new
definition so as to keep the kelvin the same size. If that results in a
new value for the triple point of water, then they erred. The central
value should not change, though the distribution of results about it may
be wider than this new, hypothetical standard.
I'm hoping that we metricate the US long before that date, though.
Jim
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
