Ma Be wrote:
>
> 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.
I have found that sometimes I have to trust other people to do their
jobs properly without my demanding that they get my prior approval or
prove to me that what they are doing makes sense. I trust the people at
CGPM/CIPM/BIPM and the consultative committees. There are six billion
people in the world. How many of those people deserve to have the
actions of the SI folks justified for their benefit and concurrence? OK,
so you're one, number two would be ....
Instead of ranting about this, why don't you write a polite letter of
inquiry to your representative? You're obviously unhappy and that would
be a constructive way to get your questions answered.
> >> 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.
How can you, as a scientist, say that when you have already said that
you don't have all the data?
> >> 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.
I would have to guess at one, Marcus, since -- as I've said -- I trust
these folks. How about this? By improving our accuracy in measuring
time, we improve the positional information available from GPS. That
makes it even more valuable to people who use differential GPS for
survey work. I think I don't have to impress you with the monetary
benefits of accuracy in survey work, especially for areas of the world
where real estate is priced by the square meter or the square foot (a
quaint, old-fashioned custom still used in the US). Does that sound like
a reasonable hypothesis?
> > 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.
Gene Mechtly has posted a couple of letters with us that he wrote to
the chairman of the CCU. But I don't recall any of those asking for a
cessation in developing more accurate standards or doing away with time
based on the Babylonian numbering system. Those were two of your
(implied, at least) proposals in your previous message.
> Darn it. Honestly, what's wrong with allowing to fix the issue of consistency in
>prefixes (capital for +powers and small for -powers)?
Nothing wrong at all with suggesting that. Gene Mechtly has suggested
that one in particular to Ian Mills (Chair, CCU) as I recall. Perhaps
Gene will jog my memory. So go ahead and suggest it to your
representative.
> 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.
Again, write to your representative about this.
> 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...
Oh, now, Marcus. Don't be bashful. You need to overcome this profound
humility of yours and speak up for what you want -- to the right person,
namely your representative.
> 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.
It continues to amaze me, too, when people somehow manage to disagree
with my impeccably thought-out opinions. And yet it happens. Seemingly,
they cannot see that I am always right.
> Change we must though, even if it takes hammering some stiff-necked heads at BIPM.
I would recommend a slightly more subtle approach.
> 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.
Messages focusing on one main point at a time are more effective, I
feel. Why don't you pick a change that you think stands the best chance
of being accepted and try your luck with that before tackling the next
issue.
> 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). @#$@#$%
Gee, that's funny. I've had a number of polite and detailed replies
from people on the CCU, IEC, and BIPM, just to name a few. Perhaps the
difference in the way we express our feelings has some bearing. By the
way, the last word in the paragraph above is garbled in the copy I
received; what I got looks like a group of punctuation marks.
> 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.
I would like to see the name of the kilogram changed someday so that it
does not contain a prefix. I would like to see consistency in the use of
upper and lowercase letters for prefix symbols. I would prefer to see
the lumen as a base unit and the candela as a derived unit, assuming
that we really need a base unit defined in terms of human response. My
representative already has heard my opinions on those issues and he
shares my opinion on the first two, I believe.
But, as you know, these organizations are not committees of one and
other people on those committees may have different opinions. They also
share a common aversion against rushing into changes in the SI without
significant justification and considerable thought. Changes to this
system have world-wide ramifications, obviously, so caution is
warranted. In the meantime, the SI works a heck of a lot better than the
units I had to learn as I grew up, so I'm pretty happy with it, even if
these "final tweaks" don't get made right away.
By the way, who is your representative for the SI? Or should I make
that plural since you hold both Canadian and Brazilian citizenships? You
see, you have twice as much opportunity as I do to get your voice heard,
Marcus!
Don't forget to post a copy of your letters here.
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
