Milestone-Proposal talk:Standardisation of the OHM: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:36, 20 September 2018

-- Savini (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

When I was appointed the advocate of the Milestone proposal I had a first general look at the application submitted. It deals with part of the work carried out in the 19th c. for the standardization of the electrical units of measure. Basically it is a single chapter of the long and complicated story of the standardization of electric units developed for over one century and leading to the current International System.

The background is clearly described and references are solid.

Here are my first remarks aiming at improving the citation, taking our general rules into account.

According to the latter, for instance, references to persons should be limited, while the stress should be put on the achievement. Here, instead, many persons are mentioned and the artifact standard is not described.

As concerns the title, I would prefer “ Standardization of the unit of electrical resistance, 1861-1867” because only in 1872, as correctly pointed out also by the proposers in their description, did the Committee recommend a change to the name from “BA unit of resistance” to the “Ohm”.

The last sentence of the citation reads “...provided the first practical definition of the Ohm as the standard for electrical resistance”. Since as early as 1860 Werner von Siemens proposed another standard I would suggest to modify the citation as follows “... provided a widely recognized definition of the standard for electrical resistance”.

I have a final concern. The British Association for the Advancement of Science, which promoted the standardization, and the Science Museum, which I imagine preserves the standard, still exist. Therefore I wonder whether these two institutions may have objections that the plaque commemorating the standardization is placed elsewhere. Moreover, the connection of this Milestone with the birthplace of James C. Maxwell sounds rather weak because the latter place has been already recognized for the major achievement of Maxwell and Maxwell contributed to so many other scientific and technical achievements. A more direct connection, for instance, is the adoption of maxwell as the unit of magnetic flux.

I will be pleased to discuss all the matter with the proposer as well as, if necessary, to ask for the help of some other expert of the field.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 According to the latter, for instance, references to persons should be limited, while the stress should be put on the achievement. Here, instead, many persons are mentioned and the artifact standard is not described.
-As concerns the title, I would prefer “ Standardization of the unit of electrical resistance, 1861-1867” because only in 1872, as correctly pointed out also by the proposer in their description, did the Committee recommend a change to the name from “BA unit of resistance” to the “Ohm”.
+As concerns the title, I would prefer “ Standardization of the unit of electrical resistance, 1861-1867” because only in 1872, as correctly pointed out also by the proposers in their description, did the Committee recommend a change to the name from “BA unit of resistance” to the “Ohm”.
-The last sentence of the citation reads “...provided the first practical definition of the Ohm as the standard for electrical resistance”
+The last sentence of the citation reads “...provided the first practical definition of the Ohm as the standard for electrical resistance”.
 Since as early as 1860 Werner von Siemens proposed another standard I would suggest to modify the citation as follows “... provided a widely recognized definition of the standard for electrical resistance”.