Domain: npl.co.uk
Stories and comments across the archive that link to npl.co.uk.
Comments · 43
-
Re:absolute BS
That isn't correct. While in a reactor Plutonium, or Uranium (fission) will produce more energy than fusion per nucleon, that is the average energy over the life of all of the decay products:
http://periodictable.com/Isoto...
The majority of the decay products takes far longer than a full second to be produced, so they aren't relevant to the detonation, or the brisance of the device.
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/...
In the environment of a reactor, you can simply wait long enough, and extract the full energy as Plutonium is converted between a dozen different elements, but in a bomb, speed is king, so the slow fission products don't add meaningful amounts of force, or power to the explosion. Fusion boosters don't have a critical mass, so you can pack in as much of them as you want. -
Re:Baby steps
Ref. It took 30 seconds. Please don't ask other people to use Google for you, you're (presumedly) an adult and should be able to manage these sort of things on your own.
But in order to avoid thermalizing your fission fragments the reaction is going to need to be in near-vacuum
The reaction is done in a near vacuum. But that doesn't mean that there's almost no fuel. Fission fragments and neutrons behave totally differently, fission fragments are positively charged and respect Lorenz force, neutrons are neutral and do not, so it's easy to separate the two (as well as from the fuel, which becomes negatively charged and is not moving at relativistic velocities).
These things have been fully simulated, there's nothing unreasonable about them.
but our best neutron mirrors can only get total reflectance at angles of incidence of less than a single degree
I have no clue where this is coming from. Neutron reflectors (more properly thought of as scatterers) can scatter back, and in fact moderators produce a relatively anisotropic thermal neutron flux. The current proposal for a dusty fission fragment reactor involves U235 fuel and a moderator in the shell of the reactor.
-
Re:Nearly the entire globe- except not really
I'm pretty sure, that outside of the US, Joe Public doesn't even know WWVB exists, which is a shame as a single standard global time signal (back in the day) would have been kinda cool.
Here in the UK we have something similar (even runs on the same frequency):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_from_NPL
It's referred to as the 'Rugby clock'.
-Jar
-
Re:@Editor
Historical definitions and modern definitions have little in common. The historical definition of the meter was 1/10,000,000th of the distance from the equator to the north pole along a certain longitude line. The modern definition of the meter is based on the distance a certain wavelength of light travels in a perfect vacuum in a measured amount of time. That's (indirectly, through the meter) the modern definition of an inch, too. It just happens to be a different measured amount of time. See http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/on-what-basis-is-one-inch-exactly-equal-to-25.4-mm-has-the-imperial-inch-been-adjusted-to-give-this-exact-fit-and-if-so-when-(faq-length)
-
Re:Inaudible to people, perhaps..
But I bet a microphone could still pick it up..
I don't know... might work better than radio waves - the attenuation of RF in air might not beat the attenuation of sound waves. The higher the frequency, the higher the attenuation of the ultrasound in air (dry air: 0.6 dB/m at 50 kHz, 1.8 dB/m at 100 kHz). Add some directional elements, use a small emitting power and what's not in direct line of emission might be drowned by noise at a distance of 0.1-1m.
And, on a side note, this is oddly reminiscent of Phreaking
Hmmm... yes, but I think in this case the danger will come from rogue bats flying around that pay terminal (hold you fire, it's just a lame joke)
-
Re:Wont somebody please think of the children!
Why would you want to give a kid a ruler with inches on it in the first place?
To be serious, all decent science programmes do use SI units including the US government and UK government.
Of course, engineering, construction trades, and commerce in some countries still see common usage of non-standard units in popular (lay) life.
-
Re:Helium 3
Helium-3 fusion would be nice, but it's even harder to do than DT fusion.
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/images/p548.jpg
Look at the curve that says DT, and compare it to the one that says 3He-3He. Note how you need twice the temperature to reach half the reaction rate.
In my view, we've got to build DT fusion reactors before we can even hope to make helium-3 ones.
-
Re:Environmental Concerns
The total mass of the oceans is about 1.4*10^21 kg. The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5*10^18 kg. That means the oceans weigh about 300 times as much as the atmosphere.
The heat capacity of water is about 4000 J * kg ^ -1 * K ^ -1. The heat capacity of air is about 1 kJ * kg ^ -1 * K ^ -1, or about 1000 J * kg ^ -1 * K ^ -1.
So since there's 300 times as much water as there is air, and the heat capacity of water is 4 times larger, heating up the atmosphere by 1200 degree Celsius would take the same amount of energy as heating up the oceans by 1 degree Celsius. This may not prove or disprove your point, I just started thinking about numbers when you said "raising the temperature of a body of water by a few degrees".
Except we don't know exactly what raising the temperature of the oceans by one degree will do.
-
Re:Environmental Concerns
The total mass of the oceans is about 1.4*10^21 kg. The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5*10^18 kg. That means the oceans weigh about 300 times as much as the atmosphere.
The heat capacity of water is about 4000 J * kg ^ -1 * K ^ -1. The heat capacity of air is about 1 kJ * kg ^ -1 * K ^ -1, or about 1000 J * kg ^ -1 * K ^ -1.
So since there's 300 times as much water as there is air, and the heat capacity of water is 4 times larger, heating up the atmosphere by 1200 degree Celsius would take the same amount of energy as heating up the oceans by 1 degree Celsius. This may not prove or disprove your point, I just started thinking about numbers when you said "raising the temperature of a body of water by a few degrees".
-
Re:Least secure, not most secure
Is there a place to check this? I found the article you're talking about - but you have to buy it to read it. The reference can be found here.
-
There is prior art
I worked on a project at the UK National Physical Laboratory http://www.npl.co.uk/ in the mid 1970's. A couple of applied physists had played around with a graphics tablet and come up with a graphical scheme for authentication. My job was to turn their code into algorithms and write a specification to be used in their patent application.
Their idea of an NDA was the Official Secrets Act, so I won't go into any details. -
Bogus story, I think
This entire story (which has appeared on a lot of general news sites, but no science news sites) is probably just a case of a reporter misunderstanding something a scientist said. According to the UK NPL site, fluctuations in the physical objects used to define fundamental metric units has always been a problem. Back when they were created, the ideal material for them seemed to be a hard, dense iridium-platinum alloy. This turned out to be a nasty mistake: the alloy is slightly radioactive, which means that some of its mass flies off into space all the time. No mystery there.
This is why most fundamental units are now based on natural constants. For example, the meter used to be the distance between two notches on a platinum-iridium stick. (Before that, it was defined as 1 ten-millionth of a line that goes from the equator to the north pole; except they miscalculated the length of the line!) Now it's based on how far light travels in some tiny amount of time. But there's no consensus as to the best way to get rid of the physical kilogram.
In other words, all we have here is a clueless reporter trying to fill up a slow news day. -
Re:This isn't anything newhttp://www.npl.co.uk/pressure/faqs/vacuum.html
And I quote There is no clear boundary between pressure and vacuum and the word vacuum simply refers to part of the pressure scale. Its definition is not precise but it is commonly taken to mean pressures below, and often considerably below, atmospheric pressure. What is particularly important, however, is to appreciate that a vacuum refers to a pressure measured with respect to zero pressure (that is an absolute pressure) and not with respect to ambient pressure or some other pressure. So get a clue.And I cleared up my sig so you'd understand it better, which you dont because your still trying to be an english teacher. Get your Masters then try and correct me. Stop trying to sound smart about that which you have no idea.
-
Re: Not workable at all."Ideal world" nothing. True industry standards are a reality in many industries including the software industry (ASCII, TCP/IP, FORTRAN(1), C, etc). "Ambiguities" should NEVER be written into a standard. As TFA says, ODF working groups couldn't finish the formulas for the standard, so that part was omitted from the standard for the time being.
Kilogram: good example.The latest NIST work [...] confirms the institute's 1998 results using the same method while reducing the measurement uncertainty by about 40 percent, thanks mainly to improvements in the hardware used in the experiments.
The spec is "hard" because it is constantly refined to real-world acheivable precision, adding a few more decimal places every few years. This sometimes requires re-defining it as some real-world item that can be exactly reproduced anywhere. Precise laboratory definition provides more than a standard measure of weight, it also provides a standard measure of the quality of the laboratories that work to the standard. The whole purpose of any standard is (should be) to remove ambiguity.
Real standards are NOT hostage to the whim of a single company, but instead are guided by the whole industry. By referencing Office, MS can change the "standard" without going thru a standards process or industry body. And MS can do it without notice, since many of MS' licenses allow unnotified software updates.
Saying that the standard will "reference MS office" is no different than saying that MS Office IS the standard.
1."Consistently separating words by spaces became a general custom about the tenth century A.D., and lasted until about 1957, when FORTRAN abandoned the practice." --Sun FORTRAN Reference Manual -
Re:"perfect" sphereThey're probably also going to get a lot of opposition to changing the 'definition'.
No, it's widely accepted as a necessary step towards being able to define the unit of mass in terms of a specific number of carbon 12 atoms. Look, it would be a lot better for this discussion if you made the effort to learn what the project was for.
Just because you personally don't understand it doesn't make it "media spin" or otherwise redundant. There's more information here http://www.npl.co.uk/mass/avogadro.html, including an FAQ which might clear up some of your misconceptions.
-
Re:#3 ?? That doesn't make sence.
This table would seem to support the #3 status.
-
Re:Highlights problem with ntp...
According to the FAQ on the NTP homepage "NTP uses UTC as reference time"
Further down there is a discussion of how leap seconds are handled. I was curious so I checked my computer clock (which is synced using NTP) against my alarm clock (which uses the radio signal from the MSF service and they are the same. So it seems that NTP must have observed leap seconds contrary to your original post. -
Re:It is interesting actuallyIt is very much a matter of perspecive because there is no firm defintion for 'hard' vaccum. I take it to mean extremely low pressure (high/very-high/ultra-high vacuum)
By a 'real vacuum wouldn't have a bow shock' I take it you mean total/complete vacuum, which I think of as included as one end of the spectrum of vacuums that I would call 'hard'
-
Re:Technology used - form = function
A "Magneto-optical trap".
http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/projects/project1-1/m ot.html [npl.co.uk]
one of my fav physics tools because it uses lasers and magnets! it's just so science-fictiony!
Ah, but you should have seen the new device they're using to mix micromolar quantities of ligands that I just saw - it's got three input dispensers on a head at angles, a top mixing chamber, and then a long thin tube which is heated by microwaves.
It actually looks like the Romulan Cloaking Device after installation ... kind of tech. -
Technology used
A "Magneto-optical trap".
http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/projects/project1-1/m ot.html
one of my fav physics tools because it uses lasers and magnets! it's just so science-fictiony!
----
Check out my music video! -
Re:TimeThe 16khz transmitter was shut down: there's a note about it here. The time transmission service though is still up and going strong (and will be for the foreseeable future afaik).
The note:
Rugby Radio Station
At the end of March 2003 Rugby Radio station sent its last commercial message when the 16kHz GBR transmitter was taken out of service.
This was the original service that the station opened with in 1926 and for which the very tall masts were built. Its high power and low frequency enabled it to contact virtually anywhere in the world. It was used initially for sending telegrams in morse and later telex messages, but was never intended to send speech, unlike the other transmitters on the site. The original transmitter was replaced in 1966.
Telephone services started on other transmitters in 1927 and as short wave services developed the site east of the A5 was opened from 1953. Short wave transmissions stopped in 2000 when communications with ships moved over to satellite.
The Rugby Radio Clock transmitter remains in service under contract with the National Physical Laboratory. -
No, a pound is a unit of massYou're mistaken. A pound avoirdupois (symbol lb), which is what is usually meant by "pound", is defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg, and is definitely a unit of mass.
The meaning of "weight" is ambiguous between "force due to gravity" and "mass". In commerce, it has always referred to mass. (If you want to measure the quantity of something, you balance it on some scales against a known reference mass. Force can't be measured nearly as accurately or conveniently with simple equipment.)
You were probably thinking of a "pound-force" (symbol lbf), but that is a deprecated unit with no precise formal definition -- since it would have to depend on some arbitrary average value of g at the earth's surface. Sometimes a conventional value of g is used that comes out to 1 lbf ~= 4.448 222 newton, but that's not a standard.
-
No, a pound is a unit of massYou're mistaken. A pound avoirdupois (symbol lb), which is what is usually meant by "pound", is defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg, and is definitely a unit of mass.
The meaning of "weight" is ambiguous between "force due to gravity" and "mass". In commerce, it has always referred to mass. (If you want to measure the quantity of something, you balance it on some scales against a known reference mass. Force can't be measured nearly as accurately or conveniently with simple equipment.)
You were probably thinking of a "pound-force" (symbol lbf), but that is a deprecated unit with no precise formal definition -- since it would have to depend on some arbitrary average value of g at the earth's surface. Sometimes a conventional value of g is used that comes out to 1 lbf ~= 4.448 222 newton, but that's not a standard.
-
Re:How about ...
Dizzle wrote: Now, I know those definitions are techincally correct, but who thinks these ideas are easily applicable? I mean, the point of having a definition is to be able to calibrate everything else, right? So how on earth is a watch manufacturer or repair person going to say "alright, the cesium atom vibrated 9,192,631,769... 9,192,631,770 times. That's a second."
Is there actually a method of directly using these definitions?
National standards laboratories, like the UK's NPL, use these definitions to calibrate standards for their own use and for that of commercial calibration laboratories. It's a lot of work, but it's reproducible and doesn't depend on any particular set of instruments. The watchmaker's equipment may be another couple steps removed from this process, but ultimately any instruments of any real accuracy can trace their calibration back to a reference standard somewhere. -
Re:A word of caution
Oh, it really was a vacuum. Once I got it off and cleaned it, and put a tiny amount of grease back on, it formed the vacuum again instantly, and required several minutes of coaxing to come off again.
I don't think it's air trapped in there per se, it was warm when I originally took it off. You don't need air bubbles to have a vacuum.
Have you ever seen a machinists gauge blocks? They are very polished and flat metal blocks. If you stick two of them together, the lack of air between them actually makes them stick together. I think it's a similar effect here. If air can't get in, then it's a vacuum. :) -
Copying Excel somewhat foolhardy
While MS Excel may have an extensive array of features it is somewhat lacking on the accuracy front. At least as far back as Sawitski (1994) various scientific analyses have been critising Excel using phases like "can be judged inadequate" and "it can be deduced that Excel uses an unstable algorithm". However as McCullough & Wilson (1999) note Microsoft has done little to address these concerns. The problems Sawitski found in Excel 4 were still present in Excel 97 and Excel 2000 for that matter. In fact critisism of the accuracy of Excel 2002 and XP in the scientific literature continues e.g. McCullough & Wilson (2002).
To quote the The Gartner Group, "Enterprises should advise their scientists and professional statisticians not to use Microsoft Excel for substantive statistical analysis". Of course if you do not need to do accurate statistical analysis then these problems will not effect you but given that Microsoft knows about and has largely ignored these problems and scientists are the people most likely to check that a given piece of software really does what if claims to do rather than using it blindly, it seems quite possible that similar problems exist in other parts of Excel but have yet to be exposed.
Rather than blindly copying Excel, the Gnumeric team might do better by trying to bring on board some of these scientists who have been testing and critising Excel in order to improve the accuracy of Gnumeric, so that not only does Gnumeric beat Excel on features but also, and far more importantly, on accuracy. See the following links for more info on the problems with Excel, 1, 2, 3, 4.
-
Why not use diamond?
Is there any physical reason (other than that small matter of cost ) that crafting a new kilogram (or more likely, gram) out of diamond would not be an ideal solution?
BTW, theNational Physical Institute has a FAQ on its Pl-Ir standard kilo. -
Please RTFA
Their reasons are right there in the article.
-
More info about compositionMore info here mentioning composition, of which I'll quote just a part (see the article for a graph and mention of applications):
Stalagmites and craters
And.. they've been working on it for a while, here is text from their 2000 lab review pdf.By examining the surface of hundreds of alloy plates under an electron microscope, NPL has discovered where previous researchers went wrong. It has developed a two-stage technique that produces the blacker black New Scientist saw emerge from the acid tank last week.
In the first stage, an object to be blackened is immersed for five hours in a solution of nickel sulphate and sodium hypophosphite. This produces a nickel and phosphorus coating containing between five and seven per cent phosphorus. Then the surface is etched with nitric acid to produce the super-black surface structure.
One of the crucial discoveries, says Brown, was how the percentage of phosphorus in the nickel coating affected the surface after etching. An electron micrograph of the surface of an alloy containing more than eight per cent phosphorus (see graphic) looks like a collection of stalagmites.
But if the phosphorus content is around six per cent the surface becomes pitted with craters. The curved craters reflect less light that the straighter-sided stalagmites, so super-black reflects about half as much light as the high-phosphorus surfaces.
Right angle
Super-black is especially effective at absorbing light that hits it at an angle. With the light source at right angles the super-black coating reflects less than 0.35 per cent. Black paint, by comparison, reflects about 2.5 per cent, or seven times as much. With the light source at an angle of 45, black paint reflects 25 times as much light as the super-black.
NPL Super Black In order to make accurate measurements in the UV, IR and visible regions, optical instruments and sensors need surfaces with very low reflectance. These black surfaces are used as efficient radiation detectors or may reduce stray light in an instrument. Highly efficient black surfaces allow smaller, lighter instruments to be made, which is an important advantage in aerospace applications. NPL has successfully developed a very high quality optical black ] known as NPL Super Black. The process uses an adapted nickel phosphorus electroless plating technique followed by finely controlled etching and gives probably the blackest surface known in the visible region. NPL has successfully and repeatedly produced the Super Black coating on a small-scale ecottage industryf basis for a number of years. It is now for upgrading and validating the process for plating much larger substrates with this high quality optical black. The upgrade has led to an opportunity to collaborate with CNES, Astrium and Sodern, the major space contractors for the European Space Agency, on the space evaluation of the black. If successful this will open up many new opportunities for supplying coated optics to the aerospace industry.
-
NPL link
-
Re:A Tad more detail
-
Re:HOW THIS WORKS-Links.
Microwave Phase Conjugation using Discrete Superconducting Elements for Retrodirective Antenna Applications
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, VOL. 46, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 1998 Microwave Phase Conjugation Using Antenna Arrays
Microwave Phase Conjugation Using Artificial Nonlinear Microwave Surfaces
A Retrodirective Array Using Balanced Quasi-optical FET Mixers with Conversion Gain
-
Re:moderating
What you think Alan Greenspan doesn't use Excel??????
I hope not! Excel demonstrably cannot calculate a
standard deviation see here. -
Re:186,000 miles per second
Now find a way to define temperature and you're done.
Simple.
"The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water." (http://www.npl.co.uk/npl/reference/temperature.ht ml) -
UK NPL view on scientific software
The NPL (UK version of NIST) tested a variety of software used for scientific purposes, some of the results are in Metromania 13.
-
UK NPL view on scientific software
The NPL (UK version of NIST) tested a variety of software used for scientific purposes, some of the results are in Metromania 13.
-
Re:How about....I don't know what you might be doing with Excel which requires ``... all the sliders and spinners and fancy stuff
...'', but if your work is valued for its content rather than its form, you might want to reconsider using Excel. Look here and here for some potential problems which you might encounter, and here for some guidance on when it is safe to use this intrinsically flawed product.I have no idea whether OpenOffice suffers similar flaws. Perhaps I'll get ambitious enough to run some of these tests on it myself, someday. In the mean time, I do my number crunching in R. I find that LaTeX provides far more professional-looking reports than any combination of MS products.
-
Re:Cheap clocks that set themselves
There's a radio signal that's broadcasts the exact time that some alarm clocks use: the UK one is at Rugby, but there are equivalents worldwide.
-
Re:Atomic clock in 1948 Invented by William Libby
Lol... funny you should say that
:-
According to the US Navy :-
"In 1958 the Naval Observatory and Britain's National Physical Laboratory published the results of joint experiments that defined the relation between Atomic time and Ephemeris time. (An interesting scientific and philosophical question is whether the relationship between Atomic time and gravitational time remains constant.) Since 1967 the international definition of the second has been based on these joint experiments. Atomic time is kept synchronized with universal time by the addition or subtraction of a leap second whenever necessary."
According to the NPL :-
"It was Louis Essen's research into the physics of frequency generation and measurement that changed the way the world measures time. In the 1930s he worked on the first quartz oscillator-based clocks and by the 1950's he had devised a caesium atomic-beam tube which could be used as a clock. This led to a better definition of the second using the world's first atomic clock, built at NPL in 1955."
And the Canadians
"A method to replace astronomical observations was urgently sought. The atomic clock, first developed in Britain, was the solution. Scientists at the NRC made a Cesium atomic clock (Cs I) (660528), which went into operation in 1958." -
All just a bit of history repeating
When it comes to British inventors/inventions this is all too common occurrence, there is some great innovation in the UK but traditionally they concepts aren't followed through to commercialisation.
It happened to Sir Frank Whittle and the jet engine and consequently the first supersonic fighter, the Bell 1 which was based on the British design after the British Government withdrew funding for the project.
There was also the debacle over public key crypto research at GCHQ.
Donald Davies worked a the National Physical Laboratory in Middlesex, unfortunately the British Govt/Grants agency didn't see the potential of the invention at the time and no funded was given, so he went over to APRA who were throwing money at anything.
Donald died June last year at in Australia, where he went to retire, he didn't get a lot of recognition outside of a few small circles, but he did get quite a few awards from the various computing institutions in the UK, I think he's still relatively unknown in the US, probably because he was too modest, which is why some many scientists can claim to have invented Packet Switching. -
Re:pointless mudlingingYou need to do some research into the numerical accuracy of Excel (any search engine will do).
I admit I did not know that. Here's a good link, for those who are interested. Personally, at the point where I need lots of significant digits for my regression fits I'd use real statistical software but your point is well taken.
I've battled with the VBA environment in Excel before, and it flat-out sucks... it's crash happy, slow and frankly dreadful.
I don't have the slightest idea about that. Still, for what I use Excel for -- and that's far more than making tables -- it performs really well. If the free office suites could touch it in quality, usability and polish, Linux would be on desktops everywhere.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
-
Re:The four-quarter planThere is also some talk about what to do with the leap seconds that keep showing up. It looks like it has gotten to the point were 3 or 4 will be added this year or next and that starts to cause problems. One proposed solution is just to make a second a small bit longer.
According to the NPL leap second web page, there has never been a need to add more than one leap second per year, although the current scheme would permit two seconds to be added or subtracted per year.
In an old National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) publication, they mentioned the use of a rubber second to keep atomic time synchronized with GMT. This required a periodic redefinition of the duration of a second. It seems that this caused more problems than it solved, leading to the current system of a fixed TAI time scale, and a UTC time scale that is offset from TAI by an integral number of seconds, via leap seconds, to compensate for variations in the Earth's rotation.
-
Atomic clock is haywire
Currently (7:49 Pacific time, New Years' eve) the National Physical Laboratory in Middlesex shows the current time as the 26th hour of December 31. This is the readout from the atomic clock at Greenwich. We're all doomed!
:-)