[time-nuts] One Kg Quartz Resonator

Chuck Harris cfharris at erols.com
Thu Jan 24 12:55:41 EST 2013


Hi,

It would seem to me that since the second is(was) defined
relative to a specific number of resonances of a C-beam at a
specific gravity, and inertial frame of reference, that any
deviation from the defined value is an indication of not
the error in your C-beam, but rather the error due to your
location.

Perhaps the corrections are inappropriate?

-Chuck Harris

Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think a better analogy would be:
>
> There don't have to be exactly X atoms in the Avogadro ball for it to be a
> standard. You simply have to know how many relative to X in order to correct
> for your gizmo. The gotcha obviously is you need the count of each isotope.
>
> The same sort of issue applies to a cesium. You actually measure gravity
> (and several other things) and correct for them. If there was no way to
> measure your local gravity (or magnetic field), you would have a lot of
> trouble using Cs as a primary standard.
>
> That said, the currently accepted primary mass standard is simply an
> arbitrary lump of metal. It does not connect to anything other than it's
> self. That's not a good thing at all.
>
> Bob


More information about the time-nuts mailing list