It is a pity that the definition of a kilogram has to
be some huge number of wavelengths or carbon atoms or
what have you.  Is the idea of it being the mass of a
cubic decimeter of water at the triple point too old
fashioned now?

Relating the units of length and mass by means of the
density of water was a beautiful plan, but now they
have only some arbitrary chunk of metal or a "close
enough" number of atoms of the right isotope.

While i am at it ;), since a liter is only "close to"
1000 cubic centimeters, even the supposedly identical
qualities of capacity and volume are not related. 
This is as bad as having both gallons and dry gallons!
 Ironically, the relationship between feet and US
gallons (231 cubic inches) is simpler than the
meter-liter relationship.

rocky


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Reply via email to