On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 19:45:22 James R. Frysinger wrote: ... > 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.
Ideally, yes, Jim, I agree with your statement, but when ordinary citizens like me can upon closer scrutiny point to some serious conceptual flaws with their efforts it gets one thinking, doesn't it? One should expect that these "professionals" would not commit such blatant/flagrant booboos. If one cannot find something better one is not excused to use what "is available" just because accuracywise one would have arrived at an improvement. In other words, is accuracy that much critical that one should abandon some fundamental principle for a sound system framework? > 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 .... > I'm sorry, Jim, but, firstly, I doubt I'd be the ONLY one complaining about this. I'm sure that there are others here that would express a similar concern. Secondly, you bet they DO have to justify what they are doing! A system of units affects EVERYBODY! The minimum the public should expect is that such professionals do their job in the most appropriate and effective way. The only justification I can see for this change in the def of the meter is that an increase in accuracy was absolutely paramount. But until they prove that to us, how can I be lenient when such change is a clear departure from sound framework principles, Jim? Honestly! Here I'd like to pose an open question to our brothers in arms. Should we compromise the above in favor of a slight improvement in accuracy of SI units? My personal vote is for a resounding NO! It's a LOT more important to come up with a system of units framework that is as close to flawless as one can get. My 2-cents worth anyway... > 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. > I'd be happy to if I knew who to address my letter to! ;-) And don't you worry about my letter being 'polite' and that it would be 'constructive'. In addition, I don't honestly think I'm 'ranting' over this, but only expressing a very strong feeling about what one (anyone!) can clearly show to be a serious shortcoming in SI's current model. ... >> ? 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? > ? I honestly don't follow you, Jim. My point was simply that one should think hard before effecting changes like this one that would be a significant departure from sound definitional structuring. One of our fundamental/basic jobs as scientists is to come up with models/structures that can withstand rigorous scrutiny, is it not? Do you honestly think that this change served that purpose adequately? ... > 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? > Well... Good try, but I'm afraid not! I was interested in hearing something more concrete, Jim. Taking your potential justification above to more practical terms this would be akin to saying that we may have had an improvement in pinpointing geographical locations to an additional millimeter or so! Honestly, how relevant was that improvement really? Besides, what difference would that translate to when it comes to real state pricing? Hardly even a cent difference, is it not? Or am I missing something? Now, let *me* give you ammunition (and I know I'd be providing argumentation against my own position!). Perhaps I could see some benefit in regards to our nanotechnology developments, but even here we're still in its very infancy. We unfortunately (as far as I know) are not depending on this added accuracy improvement to advance this branch of science yet (but I evidently may be wrong). ... > 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. > ? Who is advocating 'cessation in developing more accurate standards', Jim??? You're certainly going way beyond my intentions. I even already stated clearly that I have NOTHING against this quest for better standards. My point though is that we should NOT do this in a way that could compromise or jeopardize the SI framework! Perhaps a more cautious way would have been for the BIPM to allow laboratories and those stakeholders that for some reason would *really* need such improvement to use this **alternative** definition for the meter. In other words, it would be done "extra-officially" until they could find a better one that would respect definitional structuring. How about that for a reasonable approach to this? ... > 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. > Good! I'm glad we're agreeing on something tangible. That's progress I'll take! :-) ... > Again, write to your representative about this. > And, again, please help me find who this individual is and I'd be glad to make a contribution. Nonetheless, I'd rather do this by including EVERYTHING I see should be dealt with to improve on SI's framework itself to make it even better than what it already is. :-) >> 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. > I wasn't being... 'bashful', but really sincere and cognizant of who I am and my limitations. But I always try to 'speak up', otherwise I wouldn't be in this cause. ;-) On the other hand, if you do agree with some of these proposals we could be a lot more effective in convincing the powers at be that changes are in order by making a concerted effort. Agreed? United we're stronger. I don't want this to be just a voice in the desert, so to speak, but that this effort lead somewhere. >> 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. > ? I've always taken your 'impeccably thought-out opinions' with a LOT of respect, admiration and consideration, Jim. I'll repeat here what I said to you in the past, that you DO command a lot of respect and admiration from me. That has NEVER changed, my friend! But I found your statement above somewhat "out of place" in the context of my previous sentence you were replying to, a sentence that I kept here on purpose to show you what I mean. My sentence was addressed to "these guys", i.e. those at BIPM, CGPM, and/or authorities that have power over how to define the SI system. They ARE 'balking at changes', very worthy ones that have been forwarded by the likes of Gene Mechtly. I was merely stating a fact that the issue of change is ALSO plaguing our own ranks! Because even when one can demonstrate that these changes would be necessary to turn the SI system into a more powerful, consistent, coherent framework these guys do NOT act or come in their defense. Worse, they come with all sorts of excuses that do not fly to justify keeping the status quo! I just thought that averseness to change was a thing to be encountered only with the likes of BWMA folks... :-S >> Change we must though, even if it takes hammering some stiff-necked heads at BIPM. > > I would recommend a slightly more subtle approach. > 'Course, Jim. But, please, don't forget that in this forum we (ok, me...) tend to be more... open with our opinions emotionally speaking! ;-) >> 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. > Thank you so much for your word of wisdom, Jim. I promise I'll think about it. Perhaps you may be right that one should focus on one change at a time. It's just that I see that so many changes would be in order... Once again, thank you kindly for your word of wisdom. I may indeed take it. >> 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. > He, he... Firstly, Jim, I can assure you that I did address BIPM folks in a respectful adequate way. If my memory doesn't betray me I used their e-mail addresses published in their original site. Secondly, the... 'punctuation marks' you saw in my message were "letting off of steam" on my part, just to show some emotional anger/dissatisfaction without being impolite or rude, evidently! Again, in this forum I feel I can do that more openly like with friends (maybe my latin-american side speaking up... :-) ). Sorry, if that didn't sit well with you. I apologize. ... > I would like to see the name of the kilogram changed someday so that it >does not contain a prefix. Excellent, agreed! > I would like to see consistency in the use of >upper and lowercase letters for prefix symbols. Ditto! > 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... I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgeable in this area to express an opinion on this. Therefore, I'll respect your opinion as the one coming from an expert in the area and will refrain from opposing it, at least for now. > 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. Absolutely! Here we both agree. On the other hand, since some of these proposed changes are so logical, rational and can be demonstrated to be such a significant enhancement to the SI framework that I find it hard to believe that they would be dragging their feet on them! > 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. > True. Just, please, don't settle for something that CAN be improved upon and accept it without questioning. Some 'final tweaks' deserve to be pushed through, especially when they can be shown to fix some flaws in definitional structuring of the SI framework. > 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! > ? I was hoping you could provide me with that answer... Oh, well... Perhaps I may have to conduct an investigation of my own on this one. > Don't forget to post a copy of your letters here. > Will do, Jim. Thanks for expressing your insightful opinions with me. It's been a pleasure talking to you, Jim. Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
