Talk:Kibble balance

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

Same way

...same way that the speed of light is defined by the definition of the meter... I suppose, it should be "meter is defined by the definition of speed of light"...? 195.113.228.67(talk) 17:15, 25 January 2011‎

Diagram

Metrology in the balance fig 3 has a good schematic diagram of a Watt balance. Also discusses recent accuracies. Rod57 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement over Ampere Balance

The article says the watt balance is better than the ampere balance because there's no need to measure distances. But the calibration of the watt balance requires measurement of speed ('v' in the article). And I would naively think measuring speed means measuring distance.

I'm sure there's an well known explanation but I would've liked to see it in the article. LegendLength (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U vs V

U is traditionally used for potential ENERGY, not potential difference aka Voltage V. The use of the outdated term "Potential Difference" and the symbol U in this context creates a huge amount of confusion in introductory and even advanced physics. We should use Voltage and V in this article to avoid the same issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.128.65 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason U was used for potential instead of V was to avoid confusion with the velocity variable, small-v, in the same equations. I feel as long as the variables are clearly defined there should be no confusion. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of renaming?

The article mentions that "metrologists agreed to rename watt balances as Kibble balances" but the name of the article is watt balance. Why don't we rename it if it's already been agreed to be renamed? Actually somewhat interested in the reasoning... Pax vobiscum, Emosy (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article name should be "...the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)..." {WP:COMMONNAME). For now, I think the name that meets this requirement is "Watt balance". I think we should wait a few years and see if the name "Kibble balance" becomes the norm in the technical literature; if so we can rename the article then. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From 2016, not only the majority but all "...independent, reliable English-language sources..." will use "Kibble balance". Henceforth, any use of "watt balance" except for explanatory reasons can in fact be used as a divider between reliable and non-reliable sources, the review process will not let the old name through. And the proper case use is minor "w" for the spelled out SI-unit with symbol "W", capital "K" is for the inventor of the balance... 8-), cf. ^[1]. —Pietro Monteriva^TALK 16:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an extreme position. Will the Ministry of Truth be recalling all the old books and revising them to the new dictat? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/53/5/A46

It's been over a year now since the CCU made the renaming decision (in June 2016), and I see no evidence of any dissent or controversy about it. It seems all articles since then use "Kibble balance", and the relevant policy is WP:NAMECHANGES, which says "we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced". Therefore, I'm moving the page. Birdfern (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC). On second thought, I'm opening a move request rather than just moving it. Birdfern (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watt balance → Kibble balance – The Consultative Committee for Units (CCU) decided in June 2016 to rename the watt balance the "Kibble balance" in honor of its late inventor, Bryan Kibble. It's been over a year now since the CCU made the renaming decision, and I see no evidence of any dissent or controversy about it. In WP:NAMECHANGES, it says "we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced". The three post-June-2016 references in the article all agree that "Kibble balance" is the current name. Birdfern (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: In addition to the three post-June-2016 sources mentioned above, I happen to have an article from the 19 May 2017 edition of Science. It is devoted to the use of this type of balance for the redefinition of the kilogram. The only name it gives for the device is "Kibble balance", and it doesn't even bother to mention that there have been other names for it or that its renaming was recent. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kibble balance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810224138/http://www-optics.unine.ch/former/metrology/Watt_balance/Watt_balance.html to http://www-optics.unine.ch/former/metrology/Watt_balance/Watt_balance.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planck Constant value definition

I think that the Article should state explicitly that the future numerical value of the Planck Constant was defined at CGPM 26; I do not see that it yet does so. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of including angle as a dimension

Perhaps this topic should be addressed. SI considers angular measure to be dimensionless. Searching this topic on Google Scholar yields old and new papers on this topic:

A B Torrens 1986 Metrologia [1]
G R Freeman 1987 Metrologia [2]
P J Mohr & W D Phillips 2015 Metrologia [3]
P R Bunker & P Jensen 2020 JQSRT [4]

The effect of including angle as a dimension on the equations of the Kibble balance is discussed in the open source article:

P R Bunker & S Yurchenko 2023 J Mol Spectroscopy [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring procedure

There is obviously something wrong in the description of the measuring procedure. The "v" component in the formula F = UI/v must be measured in the "moving" phase. During the "weighting" phase, the speed of the coil only has to be kept constant to ensure that the net force is zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.110.211 (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It operates in 1990

"Bryan Kibble and Ian Robinson invented the Kibble Mark II balance, which uses a circular coil and operates in vacuum conditions in 1990.[14] "

The sentence ought to be rearranged to avoid a paradoxical situation where the Kibble Mark II balance operates in the present and concurrently in 1990. 2600:100C:A121:CC1F:24C8:AAF0:80F2:F8E1 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/53/5/A46

[1]