Scientists create roundest objects in the world

Okay, so we could pretty much figure out that JVC's breath sphere speaker wasn't exactly the roundest thing we'd ever seen, but we can't say we've really ever given much thought to how round / not round a round object really is. Thankfully, the scientists involved in the Avogadro Project do give it some thought, and they're toiling away as we speak in an attempt to create almost useless silicon balls which serve one simple purpose: to "redefine the kilogram in terms of magnetic fields and electrical forces." What does weight have to do with this? Currently, the kilogram is the "only remaining standard of measurement tied to a single physical object: a 120-year-old lump of platinum and iridium that sits in a vault outside of Paris, France." Trivial? A bit -- but don't tell that to the guys that weigh gold bars.

[EricR @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:54AM]

Yippee!

[bohsocks @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:01AM]

I recently invented the straightest object in the world.... I call it a ruler

[OneLove @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:05AM]

My silicon balls are not useless!

[Pavan @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:37AM]

bohshocks:

I thought you were talking about Richard Simmons! Thanks for clearing it up...

[Joseph @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:30PM]

you should see my mom's garden. She has a bunch of these.

[Rocketboy @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:00PM]

Wouldn't the straightest object in the world be called a straighedge?

Everyone knows that a ruler (or as the pros/old timers call it, a scale) is not known for being straight.

[Sir Issac Newton @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:24PM]

Wow. Round.

Someone should roll that ball on the perfect bowling lane which is perfectly level and pins that are made out of unicorn horns.

[Steffen Jobbs @ Jul 2nd 2008 2:48PM]

I thought that was the job of breast implant surgeons.

[Flashpoint @ Jul 2nd 2008 3:09PM]

The roundest object in the universe is my girlfriend's ass.

[straightedgge @ Jul 2nd 2008 7:58PM]

@bohsocks

If you want to learn about the straightest thing in the world, ask your girlfriend, she played with mine last night.

[marK @ Jul 2nd 2008 9:46PM]

Oh I see, after all these years of hearing how the metric system is supposedly 'better' and 'practical' they let slip on the sly that, '...By the way, we're gunna make a more perfect--arbitrary--Kilogram! That old one's turning into a rusty shite! We'll go out to the barn in France where we've g.....

We see you Yur-Up!!! We SEE Y O U!!!

;)

[Tom Robertson @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:57AM]

Exactly... completely useless!

[Fogel1497 @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:33AM]

It's actually not completely useless. The kilogram needs to be tied to a standard because you need to know how much a kilogram is to weigh other things.

Think about it, what is a kilogram? It's an arbitrary mass that we define to talk about other relative masses. So if we don't have an exact physical manifestation to calibrate high precision weights for checking scales, then some pretty bad things might happen.

Person 'A' might trade 500 ounces of gold to person 'B', but person 'B' might argue that he only has 496 ounces. Minor variations can lead to big problems. Hence the need for something that physically weighs exactly 1 kg.

It needs to be perfectly round to minimize oxidation. The problem with the platinum cylinder that was used as the old standard for the kilogram is that it has been slowly gaining mass. This was due to small levels of oxidation over time changing the mass of the cylinder. For the global standard you need something more exact. Hence the sphere. Minimize the surface area to volume ratio then you minimize the percentage error over time due to oxidation.

Epic fail for all of you.

[lawyer bird @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:38AM]

but a sphere already has an exact definition i.e. all the points a certain distance from another point. soo yeah this is useless.

[bruce lee @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:08PM]

would it become a perfect geodesic? that's the electrical forces and stuff would come from, right? complete alignment... could they do it?

a milestone for atom arrangement...

[J @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:47PM]

I think the point is to help closely define OTHER units that are somehow defined by this standard ball. right in the text.

[Poom @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:27PM]

lawyer bird, you didn't even read what he said. It is not to redefine a sphere. It is to redefine a kilogram. His comment makes complete sense and is very well written. After reading it, I agree with him that it is almost completely useless at all.

[siriusfox @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:49PM]

Not totally useless, just stupid. The standards Nazis are complaining because the old standard apparently has lost a few hundred molecules sense it's creation. So they devised a way to determine exactly how many it lost, and how they can correct for it.

The bottom line is, this doesn't change anything, it is, how you say it, mathematical masturbation.

[Josh @ Jul 2nd 2008 2:35PM]

I would have thought it needed to be round, not to prevent oxidation - since it'll be kept in a hermetic style vault - but because it makes it easier to measure magnetic/electric properties - as typically the equations for electromagnetics rely on either point charges or fixed radii (e.g the inverse square laws).

[Don @ Jul 2nd 2008 4:08PM]

The problem is, the title doesnt mention re-defining a kilogram. Its about the roundest object on earth. Kool, but stupid

[R1cebrner @ Jul 2nd 2008 5:03PM]

So if oxidation adds mass wouldn't that be ok to adjust for inflation?

[GatgetMan @ Jul 2nd 2008 8:25PM]

Fogel1497 Kicks Ass!


Now that's the kind of explaining we need at Engadget!

[Mobius_1 @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:21PM]

Well, if the kilogram is getting bigger, my mass in kilograms is falling! Yay! :)

[Crass @ Jul 3rd 2008 9:18AM]

Fogel1497 says...
| Think about it, what is a kilogram? It's an arbitrary mass
| that we define to talk about other relative masses.
| So if we don't have an exact physical manifestation to
| calibrate high precision weights for checking scales, then
| some pretty bad things might happen.

News Flash:
1 kilogram = the mass of 1 Liter of pure water

[Findeh @ Jul 3rd 2008 12:28PM]

So, Crass, how do you define a litre and if you say a cubic metre, then how do you define a metre? It's best to have produce this, as your scales for metres and litres will never be perfect, and you would need pure water, and to weigh it you would have to ensure you were perfectly zeroed without including its container.

I don't think I made any sense.. In any case, producing a 1 kilogram mass is better than messing around with other imperfect scales.

[switchbitch @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:28PM]

The roundness has nothing to do with inhibiting oxidation, or surface area to volume ratio.

The rounder the spheres are, the easier it is to measure their uniform width. By analysing the density of the crystalline silicon structure, an exact calculation can be made as to the quantity of single silicon atoms in the sphere, by using a simple formula which takes into account the width, volume and crystalline density. It is this number of silicon atoms which will be used to define the Kilogram as a physical object.

There seems to be confusion here as to what a Kilogram is. There is no such confusion in physics, the Kilogram is a perfectly well defined unit. The issue is with the physical comparison of weights which are used to define the Kilogram in the 'real world', since the objects currently used for this purpose have been changing in mass relative to each other for reasons unknown. Once the Kilogram is defined by the number of atoms in a silicon structure of known volume and crystalline density, this problem will no longer exist and an internationally comparable standard unit will be achieved.

Please remember, Engadget readers, that just because someone sounds like they know what they're talking about, it doesn't mean that they do. In fact, these people tend to spout more nonsense than anyone else.

[crispy @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:57AM]

Hey if that's trivial than I'm trivial too because I think that's freaking cool. I hadn't thought about all the implications that they mentioned the mass of a kilogram could have on other physical properties.

Wonder if its hard to hold onto or anything.

[Tony @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:51AM]

I'm picking it'll be as hard to hold on to as a 1KG ball... ;-)

[JimReaper @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:10PM]

Why would it be hard to hold on to???

[crispy @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:23PM]

If its perfectly round is it also super smooth with little surface friction, that kind of idea.

[thatrotierkid @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:28PM]

If its a perfect sphere then the surface is perfectly smooth, meaning no friction, meaning harder to hold.

it amazes me the number of ppl on here who dont understand basic science sometimes. isnt this primarily a scientific community on here?

[Master Bruce @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:05PM]

@thatrotierkid

"it amazes me the number of ppl on here who dont understand basic science sometimes."

It amazes me the number of people on here who don't understand basic life. Hrm, I have to hold something that is round and smooth, maybe I won't try to hold it by using my two fingers in a pincer-like grasp. *shock* I can actually form an almost "cup like" shape with my hand to hold it!

[chris @ Jul 2nd 2008 2:38PM]

bwahaha...you think this is going to have a static and kinetic coefficient of friction equal to 0? surely, surely you jest.

[thatrotierkid @ Jul 2nd 2008 3:29PM]

haha wow did i just make a tool out of myself. total brain fart there, wasnt even thinking about how one would grasp it lol.

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

except my cliche monty python quote as a peace offering :-P. no more pissed off at stupid ppl comments for me... unless is clak or the kid who keeps talking in 1337 sp34k :-P

[Master Bruce @ Jul 2nd 2008 7:08PM]

@thatrotierkid

Peace offering accepted ;)

Hooray, we're all getting along!

[Technophile @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:57AM]

This news is like 2 days old.. /yawn

[crispy @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:59AM]

OOO look at me, my name is Technophile and I stay up till 3:00 AM in the morning on a Friday night reading blogs instead of going out and having fun so I can make snarky comments on the internet about a news article being old. Don't you wish you could be cool like me?

[Technophile @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:02AM]

Actually I read them from my Blackberry while I'm on my way to see my friends. Good try though! A for effort!

[Yevon @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:21AM]

2 days old? This was in Wired LAST YEAR.

[Ryan Block @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:52AM]

Interesting, how we don't prioritize hitting interesting news that's not particularly important over, say, interesting news that is timely and important. Hmm...

[Yevon @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:00PM]

Ryan, you don't need a comma after "interesting". Unless, of course, interesting became an interjection overnight. Did I miss a memo?

[John @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:14PM]

Actually, Yevon, while it's not particularly formal, Ryan used the comma after "interesting" to indicate a brief pause. It would be the equivalent of saying "Interesting." The problem lies in the fact that the second clause is dependent on the adjective (interesting), so you can't use a period or a semi-colon.

[John @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:16PM]

Upon review, I guess that does mean that interesting is an interjection.

People say "Interesting!" all the time.

[Teetdogs @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:28PM]

why does anybody freaking care how or why anybody is using a coma on a blog, really is your life that pathetic that you feel the need to critisize peoples putcuation and grammer online? would you do the same thing to people in real life if they didn't speak exactly as the textbook you read in school told you to? I for one would punch you in the face if everytime i didn't speak proper textbook english you had to correct me. You people are true losers.

[thatrotierkid @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:31PM]

@Ryan

On an average day, how many people on here do you want to punch in the face? Just a general number? For me its around 4 or 5 :-P

[Yevon @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:32PM]

'Cause knowledge is power!

[mentalsticks @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:54PM]

@Teetdogs: Thankfully I can leave your putcuation and grammer alone...

[giuliop @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:58PM]

Interesting, how differentiation between interesting news that's not particularly important over, say, interesting news that is timely and important isn't clear at all. Hmm...

[LloydChiro @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:20PM]

I like grammar correction in these comments. It's great constructive criticism, and I learn the rules for my own use.

[rock99rock @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:43PM]

@giuliop

Yes, interesting,

,