Dear Jim and All,

Re: Matthew Zotter's original question

This is a reverse chronology and refers only to pressure. Could you check if
I've got this right, please?

2002 The 'standard conditions for gases' now implies a pressure of
100�000�pascal. This is the IUPAC standard but not necessarily the IUPAP
standard.

1993 IUPAC defined 'standard conditions for gases' with a pressure of
'10^5�pascals'.

1990 IUPAC reported that the pressure 10^5 Pa was usually employed in
reporting gas volumes for 'STP', the abbreviation for standard temperature
and pressure.

1986 CODATA defined a 'standard atmosphere' as having a pressure of
101�325�Pa.

1982 IUPAC recommended the value 10^5 Pa for atmospheric pressure.

1954 The 10th CGPM declared 101 325 Pa to be the pressure of a 'standard
atmosphere' for general use.

1948 The 9th Conf�rence G�n�rale des Poids et Mesures defined 101 325
newtons per square metre as the standard atmosphere for accurate work in
thermometry (the old 760 mm of mercury).

***

It looks a lot like the CGPM simply converted 760 mm of mercury (mmHg) to
101�325�newtons per square metre (with a somewhat dubious precision of six
significant figures).

In turn, it looks a lot like 760 millimetres of mercury was a casual
rounding of 30 inches of mercury to a metric measure
(30 inches x 25.4 mm/inch = 762 millimetres)

Which leaves us with Matthew Zotter's original question, 'What society
defined standard atmospheric pressure ... '

I suppose that the original meteorologists simply looked at the range of
pressures on their charts (at sea level) and guessed that 30 inches of
mercury was somewhere near the middle. If we did the same experiments today
� with a manometer* calibrated in pascals we would guess that the value
100�000 pascals was somewhere near the middle of the range.

Doesn't it take a long while to make a simple change.

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin CAMS
Geelong, Australia

* I avoided the use of the word barometer because I did not want to get
embroiled in a discussion about machines that measure bars!

Reply via email to