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

From IEEE Milestones Wiki
Line 42: Line 42:


[16] de Groot W, “The Origin of the Giorgi [MKS] System of Electrical Units”, Philips Technical Review, August 1948, pp. 55-60. (See foot of Column 2 on page 59) pdf supplied
[16] de Groot W, “The Origin of the Giorgi [MKS] System of Electrical Units”, Philips Technical Review, August 1948, pp. 55-60. (See foot of Column 2 on page 59) pdf supplied
====Re: Re: -- [[User:Savini|Savini]] ([[User talk:Savini|talk]]) 10:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)====
I am glad that most of my initial remarks have been considered, resulting in an improved version of the title as well as of the citation. A final remark: in general, it is recommended not to mention names of persons in the citation, if it is not essential. In this case many names are mentioned. I wonder whether is is possible, for instance, to replace "the pioneering work of ....and colleagues" by "the pioneering work of eminent Scottish, British and German scientists and engineers".
Moreover, we have to wait a bit longer in order to get the replies that the proposer invited from various institutions and colleagues.

Revision as of 10:16, 8 October 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.

Re: -- PeterGrant (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree revised title as “Standardization of the unit of electrical resistance, 1861-1867.”

Propose this revised citation, now including link to the Ohm, which is no longer included in the title: “Commemorating the pioneering work of Fleeming Jenkin, Clerk Maxwell, William Thomson, Werner von Siemens, Balfour Stewart, Charles Wheatstone and colleagues as members of the International Committee on Electrical Standards, which advised the British Association for the Advancement of Science, integrating prior studies to provide a widely recognised definition of the standard for electrical resistance, subsequently called the Ohm, and for generating a set of artefact resistance standards.”

Propose accept suggestion and revise plaque location reducing now to only the “Hunterian Museum, Gilbert Scott building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ”.

Confirm that the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which promoted the standardization, (now called the British Science Association) have not raised any objections to this proposal after establishing email contact. They have not been able to reply or add to this historical information.

For the Science Museum in London, who preserve the early British Association resistance standards, their curatorial team promised a reply in 10 days but after 2 weeks they have not raised any objections to the proposed Scottish location for the plaque commemorating this standardization activity.

I am also now in further contact with Dr. Johannes von Karczewski and Ewald Blocher both at the Siemens Historical Institute, Berlin, to further secure additional information on Werner von Siemens work on the Ohm. I believe this may simply add further information on his mercury standard which I have already described and referenced as [6].

In Subsequent developments section I wish to add this further information:

In 1946, there was the international Ohm, and the absolute Ohm [16]. These were related by 1:1.00049 (this being the outcome of 'average' of measurements at six government laboratories in six countries, Germany, UK, France, Japan, USA, and USSR).

[16] de Groot W, “The Origin of the Giorgi [MKS] System of Electrical Units”, Philips Technical Review, August 1948, pp. 55-60. (See foot of Column 2 on page 59) pdf supplied

Re: Re: -- Savini (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that most of my initial remarks have been considered, resulting in an improved version of the title as well as of the citation. A final remark: in general, it is recommended not to mention names of persons in the citation, if it is not essential. In this case many names are mentioned. I wonder whether is is possible, for instance, to replace "the pioneering work of ....and colleagues" by "the pioneering work of eminent Scottish, British and German scientists and engineers". Moreover, we have to wait a bit longer in order to get the replies that the proposer invited from various institutions and colleagues.