2002-08-31 Jim,
Is there some way you can reprint the article here, for those of who aren't subscribers to the magazine, or send it to me in private? john ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-08-31 14:59 Subject: [USMA:21987] Re: Mechain and the metre > I agree with Robert's comments on Adler's derogatory asides, though > "duplicity" may have been deserved. One must be careful when judging > ancestors by modern standards of practice. But in whole, I think that the > article has done our cause well. I would add two comments as noted below in > these comments I have sent off to some other folks. > > "I thought that the author did a pretty good job, especially for a > non-scientist. One area begs a few more sentences, namely, that the methods > worked out by Legendre and Gauss are what allow us to replace an earlier > standard prototype (i.e., "primary reference") with a new one while assuring > ourselves that we have not changed (within the limits of our ability to > measure it) the size of the unit being represented. And I would disagree with > his last paragraph's comment on the time scale needed for us to metricate. > Great Britain essentially completed the task in just a few years--most of it > in two years. Likewise, Australia did it in short order. I think we're > capable of that, too." > > I may send off a letter to the editors incorporating the above. Robert, I > hope that you won't consider any comments I make in that letter, about the > spurious comments, as being plagiarism. I attest that I came to similar > conclusions independently. > > Jim > > On Thursday, 2002 August 29 2150, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 2002 Aug 29 > > The Fall 2002 issue of American Heritage of Invention & Technology has an > > article about the survey from Dunkirk to Barcelona to size the metre. The > > article, by one Ken Adler, reports that Mechain made a mistake in finding > > the latitude at the south end of his survey. He could not repeat the value > > of a year before. He kept this secret. After the death of Mechain, > > Delambre turned in only the results of the survey, not the details. > > > > Adler makes unneeded remarks. In large type the article says "The meter, > > it turns out, is a mistake." Adler speaks of Mechain's "duplicity". The > > "mistake" is about 2 parts in 10 000, not enough to call for bad words. > .... > -- > James R. Frysinger > Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist > Senior Member, IEEE > > http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Office: > Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer > Dept. of Physics and Astronomy > University/College of Charleston > 66 George Street > Charleston, SC 29424 > 843.953.7644 (phone) > 843.953.4824 (FAX) > > Home: > 10 Captiva Row > Charleston, SC 29407 > 843.225.0805 >
