This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greg L (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 19 July 2015 (→Engvar: cite conlimited). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:43, 19 July 2015 by Greg L (talk | contribs) (→Engvar: cite conlimited)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kilogram article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Kilogram has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Equivalency to Grams
I expected to see an equivalency to grams in the heading text, and didn't. Is a kilogram exactly 1000 grams? If not, there should be a note and link to the deeper discussion. Charles Merriam (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, a kilogram is exactly 1000 grams. 2003:51:4712:F301:9072:C319:5738:7C3C (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- at least, as long as you assume that mass is additive at all. --dab (𒁳) 14:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Measurement incorrect
Kilogram is 10cm^3 and not 1cm^3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.84.175 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Do not put this nonsense into the article or you will be blocked. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Errr... Jc3s5h, i think the ip editor is correct. A kilogram is approximately the weight of one litre of water, which is 10x10x10cm or 10cm^3. Also, using bold font and threatening off the bat with blocking a user is not a very polite way to engage in a conversation and may be the reason why so far no one clarified this in the lead. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- The convention of writing measurements is that an exponent only applies to the unit, not the number. I will also use the available Misplaced Pages editing markup to write the exponent correctly. I will also insert a nonbreaking space to separate the number from the unit, as is conventional. So the markup becomes 10 cm<sup>3</sup>. It is rendered as 10 cm. It means 10 (cm). To express a cube 10 cm on a side, you would write (10 cm). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually i think the ip editor was possibly just confused because in the lead of this article about the kilogram, it says "the gram is defined as...". That, in turn, lead me to misread it. I added a "1/1000th of a kilogram" to avoid that. PS Note that the very first sentences of a WP article often contain stuff that no one really cares about as the result some tedious discussion about definitions or other details. So i caught myself skipping to the second paragraph to start reading and i expect i'm not the only one. So at that point especially, it's confusing to talk about grams in stead of kilograms. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- The pattern I've noticed, which I can't explain, is that after any kind of contentious series of edits (such as the edit warring in June 2014 where another editor using several IP addresses decided to cruise in and change to British spelling) other IP editors decide to pile on and commit various kinds of vandalism. So I have less tolerance for goofy edits right after an edit war than at other times. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't know this was following an edit war. In such a case indeed it's questionable whether you still have to assume good faith. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
1790s definition
So we have a reference that the 1795 definition referred to water at melting point. Then we say the 1799 prototype was made using water at "4 °C". But we do not say when they decided to change the reference temperature. Nor do we explain why the revolutionary French should be using the Celsius scale (rather than e.g. Réaumur). Perhaps they did use the Celsius scale? or Perhaps they just said "water at maximum density" and a Wikipedian silently glossed this as "4 °C". This would be ok, but it would be nice to know, so how about some kind of reference for all of this?
Also, the article lead claims that the 1799 prototype "had a mass equal to the mass of 1.000025 liters" -- I suggest any number given to seven significant digits is worthy of a reference. They would not have been able to get seven digit precision in 1799 (the gravet in 1793 is given as "18.841 grains". I suppose a five-digit precision is reasonable for the period, and just because they give five figures does not mean that they reliably measured to five digits; certainly not to seven) -- so who came up with the "1.000025" and when (the tense used suggests this was a measurement taken in 1799)? --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't the watt balance still use an artifact?
The goal is redefine the kilogram without using any artifacts like that mass under the bell jars. However, the watt balance doesn't eliminate this! It measures the force of gravity of an object as a specific point within earth's gravitational field. In essence, the entire earth itself is the artifact and you have to return to the exact same location everytime if you want to accurately measure the kilogram. (because the earth's gravitational field varies over the surface of the earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.157.226.255 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- When using the Watt balance, the Kilogram is defined with respect to the local gravitational field, but the local gravitational field is in turn measured using a gravitometer that does not depend on the mass of the kilogram. Thus, the definition can be generalized to any accelerated frame of reference, not just a particular point near the Earth's surface. Therefore, no artifact is used as part of the definition. As a practical matter, we use a large mass (e.g. the Earth) as part of the practical implementation of the definition, because a location within the gravity field of a large mass is the most stable accelerated frame of reference we currently have access to. -Arch dude (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Engvar
It seems strange and out of place that this article is supposedly written in American English. Considering that the subject matter is more applicable in British English contexts (US is the primary geographic where the kilogram is not an everyday unit of measure), I propose to switch this article to British English, just as is already the case with most other articles relating to SI. —Quondum 04:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes this article has deviated from the other SI unit articles for too long. An early major contributor wanted it that way. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the edit note claiming American English as being without basis in MOS:TIES, and I feel that in this case WP:RETAIN is not sufficient to motivate retention of the claimed variant. In particular, the articles relating to SI act as a set and consistency across these articles is IMO appropriate. While there are not strong national ties to British English, there are strong usage ties, which seems to me to be the way that MOS:TIES should have been worded in the first place. I will allow some time for comment before implementing this proposal. —Quondum 13:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This article has no British ties either, so I disagree that the English variant should be British, and disagree with the premature change. The article has always had US English spellings, so it should be changed back. Irn Bimba (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• User:Bimba is precisely correct. WP:RETAIN and the related rules under WP:ENGVAR are perfectly clear. There is zero consensus here to do as you unilaterally took upon yourself to do (change the style of English) with this edit, Quondum. Please take the time to read and understand Misplaced Pages’s manual of style and engage others on the talk pages there to understand what the rules are and why they exist. To flout the bedrock rule of WP:ENGVAR requires, per WP:CONLIMITED, an overwhelming and wide consensus, which does not exist here—not by any stretch. WP:RETAIN is a bedrock principle intended to avoid untold wikidrama and flamewars that occurred all over en.Misplaced Pages for a number of years. Greg L (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Categories: