On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 15:59:45 James R. Frysinger wrote: ... The search for ever better standards continues...
Of course they would. My point though was, why change the definition of the meter to a completely different type when the benefits of such change would be highly questionable? (The benefits in accuracy were not that overwhelming!) Besides, such change represented a very troublesome departure of philosophy, something I simply cannot consciously support. > >> Also, do we REALLy need to continue evolving towards higher and higher degrees of >accuracy? > > Apparently so. Why else would these countries spend money to do the >research needed to support those goals? > ? It's obvious that academically speaking we, scientists, are always on the look out for better things. However, from a practical point-of-view I honestly don't see the urgency in improving this accuracy, especially when the gains were not that substantial really. >> Isn't near 9 decimal places already plenty/enough as it is? > > Not for everyone. Just because you are maxed out that doesn't mean that >the rest of the world is. > Then, fine, please provide me with ONE example where this meager gain in accuracy was absolutely necessary or paramount. Thank you in advance. ... > So, what useful and constructive actions have you taken to make this >happen? Have you written to your country's representative on the CCU or >the CGPM? Please share a copy of that letter with us. > I've shared quite a few of these ideas here here and there. I was not the only one, BTW, who came up with some of these ideas. Perhaps the only original one of such ideas as far as originating with me is concerned was my comment about the consistency related to creating new names for things like ratios. Many of our colleagues here, like Gene, have been lobbying these guys for ages without much success. I'm sorry to say this, but perhaps we have a battle of our own within our own ranks. There just is TOO MUCH conservatism among these guys. Darn it. Honestly, what's wrong with allowing to fix the issue of consistency in prefixes (capital for +powers and small for -powers)? What's wrong with changing the name of the kilogram to something else. Fine, conduct some consultations with people about the new name and whatnot, but, heck, get on with it, at least in principle! Let's clean up our act, that's my message. As for writing to them... if the likes of Gene, and even yourself, haven't been able to make any dent with these folks, I doubt it that humble Marcus would... The frustrating thing about this though is that these guys should be at the forefront of technological improvements and they continue to balk at changes. This is appalling IMHO. Change we must though, even if it takes hammering some stiff-necked heads at BIPM. >.... >> Comments anyone, please? (Thanks) > > You're welcome. >... Your feedback was appreciated indeed. On the other hand I would welcome the opportunity to address the highest ranks at BIPM (again). Therefore, perhaps I'll put *everything* in that future message and send it to them. I've tried in the past, BTW (but I didn't save the e-mail(s)), and haven't even received the dignity of an acknowledgement of receipt of such e-mail(s). @#$@#$% If our folks here, like you and Gene, feel it would be just as important to push for more changes to SI, please, help me on this. Send me a list of things you feel that from a conceptual point-of-view the SI would require to become THE definitive system and I'll do my best to submit these to them. (including proposals for changes in the time framework also, if you feel like it! :-) ) Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
