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

From IEEE Milestones Wiki
Line 88: Line 88:


It was a pleasure for me to help the Application become a possible new Milestone.
It was a pleasure for me to help the Application become a possible new Milestone.
===Re: Statement submitted by Advocate -- [[User:Administrator4|Administrator4]] ([[User talk:Administrator4|talk]]) 14:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)===
: The citation needs to explain better to the non-technical member of the public what the Ohm is, and why the standardization was important. I recommend changes to the plaque citation. Perhaps along the lines of:
Standardization of the Ohm as a Unit of Electrical Resistance, 1861-1867
The International Committee on Electrical Standards, which included Fleeming Jenkin, Clerk Maxwell, William Thomson, Werner von Siemens and colleagues, advised the British Association for the Advancement of Science in providing a widely recognised standard for electrical resistance and impedance. This unit, subsequently named the Ohm after Georg Simon Ohm, is the resistance of a conductor such that a constant current of one ampere produces a current of one volt.

Revision as of 14:56, 18 December 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.

Re: Re: Re: -- PeterGrant (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A key aspect of my proposal is that it was a particular group of prominent individuals on the Electrical Standards Committee who undertook this pioneering work. Making them 'anonymous' detracts from, rather than improves upon, the citation and objective. It feels a little like trying to commemorate the Brandenburg Concertos without mentioning J.S. Bach, or having a plaque on the church in Leipzig saying that "a famous organist and composer once worked here" without including his name!

For the proposed plaque location in the Hunterian museum we have to include William Thomson, Lord Kelvin name as we expect the plaque to be located close his scientific instruments in the museum.

However, on reflection I think we can reduce the names to only the FOUR of the most important individual contributions to this standardisation activity and I thus now propose further revising the citation as follows: “Commemorating the pioneering work of Fleeming Jenkin, Clerk Maxwell, William Thomson, Werner von Siemens 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.”

Dr Ewald Blocher from the Siemens Historical Institute, Berlin, has now sent me several PDF photocopies from the translation of the “Scientific and Technical Papers of Werner von Siemens” Volume 1, as published by John Murray, London, in 1892. This starts with the testing of submarine cables followed by a discussion on Weber’s dynamical resistance unit and comments that this cannot serve as a general unit of resistance, see page 195. Siemens discussion adds to my description of his Mercury standard, and the adoption of the 107 multiplier, see page 196. The final result was that the BA Unit was equal to 1.0486 Mercury Units (or the Mercury Unit can be represented by 0.9536 BA Units). This source also confirms the “construction of 10 different BA normal standards” (made from alloys of precious metals and mercury and copies from an alloy of platinum and silver), see page 196. There is considerable discussion here where von Siemens questions the accuracy of the measurements conducted by committee member Dr Matthiessen!

I have contacted the curators at the Science Museum in London, to ascertain that they still hold the early British Association resistance standards, and further that they are willing to support the proposed Scottish location in the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow for the plaque commemorating this standardization activity. I have now received an email reply from Curator Alison Boyle confirming that they do still hold the early resistance standards.

I have sent web requests to the British Science Association (BSA), who are today's successor to the BAAS committee, and followed up with emails to Louise Ogden (Head of Communications) who supports this historical initiative, see copy of her BSA email exchange.

Additional supporting documents now supplied:

[6b] Werner von Siemens, “On the Unit of Electrical Resistance” chapter in the “Scientific and Technical Papers of Werner von Siemens” Volume 1, pp. 194-206, John Murray, London, 1892. Pdf supplied.

Email correspondence with the London Science Museum

Email correspondence with the British Science Association

Statement submitted by Advocate -- Administrator4 (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

In the past three months I have acted as the advocate of the Application mentioned above which deals with a step in the complex history of the definition of standards of electric units that lasted over a century since the middle of the 19th century.

As such, I have promoted the discussion with the proposer, reported on the web, and I have also consulted a couple of experts.

Now I believe that the application is ready to be discussed by the History Committee. The improved citation reads:

Standardization of the unit of electrical resistance, 1861-1867

“ Commemorating the pioneering work of Fleeming Jenkin, Clerk Maxwell, William Thomson, Werner von Siemens 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.”

My suggestion is to approve it. Of course, if necessary, the Committee may decide further improvements.

It was a pleasure for me to help the Application become a possible new Milestone.

Re: Statement submitted by Advocate -- Administrator4 (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The citation needs to explain better to the non-technical member of the public what the Ohm is, and why the standardization was important. I recommend changes to the plaque citation. Perhaps along the lines of:

Standardization of the Ohm as a Unit of Electrical Resistance, 1861-1867

The International Committee on Electrical Standards, which included Fleeming Jenkin, Clerk Maxwell, William Thomson, Werner von Siemens and colleagues, advised the British Association for the Advancement of Science in providing a widely recognised standard for electrical resistance and impedance. This unit, subsequently named the Ohm after Georg Simon Ohm, is the resistance of a conductor such that a constant current of one ampere produces a current of one volt.