Re: Shouldn't the kilogram be defined in terms of its field ?
- From: Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_Relf@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:39:51 +0000 (UTC)
Thanks for the information on “ frequency combs ”. As I understand it,
harmonics ( resonance ) increases the signal-to-noise ratio.
P.S.
The standard for mass is the IPK ( International Prototype Kilogram ),
it's not one gram.
The NIST hopes to establish a new standard for the kilogram
by combing an ultra-precise weighing ( a Watt-balance in a vacuum )
with an ultra-precise gravimeter ( an accelerometer, in a vacuum ).
Noise is a serious problem, I'm sure.
.
- References:
- Re: Does Newton's third law hold in Special Relativity?
- From: Timo A. Nieminen
- Re: Does Newton's third law hold in Special Relativity?
- From: Darwin123
- Every object has an invisible / unblockable gravitational field.
- From: Jeff▲Relf =?UTF-8?Q?
- Re: Every object has an invisible / unblockable gravitational field.
- From: Darwin123
- Shouldn't the kilogram be defined in terms of its field ?
- From: Jeff▲Relf =?UTF-8?Q?
- Re: Shouldn't the kilogram be defined in terms of its field ?
- From: Darwin123
- Re: Does Newton's third law hold in Special Relativity?
- Prev by Date: Re: Speed of light as a rule, is consistent with SR within a few megaparsecs
- Next by Date: Re: Speed of light as a rule, is consistent with SR within a few megaparsecs
- Previous by thread: Re: Shouldn't the kilogram be defined in terms of its field ?
- Next by thread: Re: Does Newton's third law hold in Special Relativity?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
