Terminology - the end of British Summer time

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

In Britain and Ireland "daylight saving time" has ended.

The Sunday Times is a newspaper published in London. There is a magazine
section titled _Culture_ which contains TV and radio listings for seven
days. This is localised so that readers get a version of the magazine
relevant to their TV region.

By convention the "TV day" runs from 6 a.m. to 6 a.m., so the pages for
Saturday 27 October had to mark times after midnight as "daylight
saving" or "standard".

The version of the magazine for Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland very carefully uses UK terminology for stations broadcasting
from NI and Irish terminology for those from the Republic.

Thus:

BBC1 N. Ireland
1.05 (BST) Joins BBC News.
Ends at 6.00 (GMT).
and:

RTE1
12.55 (IST) Film: Hanover Street.
1.45 (UTC) CSI:...


BST: British Summer Time
GMT: Greenwich Mean Time
IST: Irish Summer Time
UTC: Coordinated Universal Time [What?]

[What?]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time

English speakers originally proposed CUT (for "coordinated universal
time"), while French speakers proposed TUC (for "temps universel
coordonné"). The compromise that emerged was UTC,

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:cc2q88dntvfrj9d36...@4ax.com...

> In Britain and Ireland "daylight saving time" has ended.

Except that we don't normally use the term. I know it as "summer time" -
"daylight saving time" seems to be the American version (or sometimes even
"daylight savings time", which strikes me as a little odd).

> BST: British Summer Time
> GMT: Greenwich Mean Time
> IST: Irish Summer Time

I beg to differ. IST in fact stands for "Irish Standard Time" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

For some reason, Ireland (the republic) has it the other way round from
everyone else, and has its standard time period during the summer and
"winter time" during the winter. I think it was originally done merely to
be different from Britain, because it makes no sense otherwise. Ireland is
west of the Greenwich meridian and if anything should be behind GMT, not
ahead of it.

> UTC: Coordinated Universal Time [What?]

Normal in scientific contexts, less so in normal civilian usage. I think
there's a subtle difference between UTC and GMT (to do with the insertion of
leap seconds), but they're the same for all practical purposes. I imagine
it's just the Irish trying to distance themselves from Britain again.

--
Guy Barry

[Mr Pumpov]

And? :-)

--
Mr. Pumpov

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:32:03 -0000, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>news:cc2q88dntvfrj9d36...@4ax.com...
>
>> In Britain and Ireland "daylight saving time" has ended.
>
>Except that we don't normally use the term. I know it as "summer time" -
>"daylight saving time" seems to be the American version (or sometimes even
>"daylight savings time", which strikes me as a little odd).
>
>> BST: British Summer Time
>> GMT: Greenwich Mean Time
>> IST: Irish Summer Time
>
>I beg to differ. IST in fact stands for "Irish Standard Time" :
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
>

Officially. That does not stop Irish people expanding IST as Irish
Summer Time when they feel like it.
http://insideireland.ie/2012/10/27/irish-summer-time-ends-at-2am-clocks-go-back-an-hour-80994/

Irish Summer Time ended at 2am- Clocks went back an hour
October 27, 2012
By Ciarán Hanna

Irish Summer Time, such as it was, officially ended at 2am on Sunday
morning, when the clocks went back to 1am.

The Irish Sailing Association tide tables for Galway:
http://www.sailing.ie/Racing/Tides/TidesGalway.aspx

[tables]

These tide tables have been adjusted for Irish Summer Time (IST).
This is the time during the summer months when clocks are advanced
by one hour to UTC+01.00. The Summer Time period begins on the last
Sunday of March and ends on the last Sunday of October.

Astronomy Ireland
http://astronomy.ie/jupimpact2012.php

Jupiter Hit By Space Rock
'Scars' could be visible over coming days
....
WHEN TO SEE THE IMPACT SITE
....
Date: Time (all times in Irish Summer Time)
September 11th: 19:44
....
....

>For some reason, Ireland (the republic) has it the other way round from
>everyone else, and has its standard time period during the summer and
>"winter time" during the winter. I think it was originally done merely to
>be different from Britain, because it makes no sense otherwise. Ireland is
>west of the Greenwich meridian and if anything should be behind GMT, not
>ahead of it.
>
>> UTC: Coordinated Universal Time [What?]
>
>Normal in scientific contexts, less so in normal civilian usage. I think
>there's a subtle difference between UTC and GMT (to do with the insertion of
>leap seconds), but they're the same for all practical purposes. I imagine
>it's just the Irish trying to distance themselves from Britain again.

--

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message

news:c4aq885rtdhdaqngk...@4ax.com...

[IST = Irish Standard Time]

> Officially. That does not stop Irish people expanding IST as Irish
> Summer Time when they feel like it.

Very sensible. There was a period from 1968 to 1971 when BST stood for
"British Standard Time", because the UK was on GMT + 1 all year round. I
believe that Ireland followed suit and adopted "Irish Standard Time", then
for some reason didn't revert to the usual terminology when the year-round
experiment ended.

> http://insideireland.ie/2012/10/27/irish-summer-time-ends-at-2am-clocks-go-back-an-hour-80994/

That article is slightly misleading, isn't it?

"Then at 2am, Ireland and the UK went back to GMT, and summer also came to
an end in Portugal, Spain, Mexico, the Isle of Man, and the Faroe Islands.
Most of Europe put their clocks back at 3am. "

That makes it sound as though most of Europe put its clocks back an hour
later than those countries listed. All of Europe (except those countries
that don't observe Summer Time) put their clocks back at the same time,
namely 01:00 GMT/UTC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Summer_Time

That would have been 2am local time in the UK, Portugal and Ireland, 3am
local time in countries observing Central European Time (e.g. Germany), and
4am local time in countries observing Eastern European Time (e.g. Greece).
Spain is on Central European Time as far as I know.

--
Guy Barry

[Mike Barnes]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net>:

>On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:32:03 -0000, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>>news:cc2q88dntvfrj9d36...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> In Britain and Ireland "daylight saving time" has ended.
>>
>>Except that we don't normally use the term. I know it as "summer time" -
>>"daylight saving time" seems to be the American version (or sometimes even
>>"daylight savings time", which strikes me as a little odd).
>>
>>> BST: British Summer Time
>>> GMT: Greenwich Mean Time
>>> IST: Irish Summer Time
>>
>>I beg to differ. IST in fact stands for "Irish Standard Time" :
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
>
>Officially. That does not stop Irish people expanding IST as Irish
>Summer Time when they feel like it.

How very Irish.

[NSOED: *Irish* 3. Having a nature or quality (regarded as)
characteristic of Ireland or its people; (of an expression or statement)
paradoxical, (apparently) illogical, self-contradictory.]

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Gary Eickmeier]

The easiest way to figure out times anywhere on the globe is to use Z + or
Z - terminology. "Z" stands for GMT, UTC, or whatever they are currently
calling the standard time at the Greenwich meridian. If Britain is on summer
time (daylight saving time) then the "time" is Z + 1. I live in the Eastern
time zone EST) of the U.S. where the time is normally Z - 5, but in the
summer it is Z - 4 (EDT). Thus, if you know what the GMT is, then you can
compute any time anywhere. The time zones run Z - as you proceed west from
Greenwich, and Z + as you go east, 15 degrees per hour.

When you reach the 180° meridian, or international dateline, that zone
hovers 7 1/2° either side of the 180 and is split into Z - 12 and Z + 12 for
the east side or the west side respectively. In that unique zone, it is the
same TIME but a different DAY on either side. As you fly to the west across
the dateline the date increases, and vice versa.

Example #2: If it is 10 AM in Rome, where the time is Z + 2, and California
has Z - 8, what time is it in California? Solution, Z - 8 is 10 hours less
than Z + 2, so it is 10 hours earlier, or midnight.

My mathematical solution for understanding time anywhere on the globe. Let
me know if this is of any help to anyone, anywhere - especially world
travellers or news junkies.

Gary Eickmeier

[Pablo]

Guy Barry escribió:

> That would have been 2am local time in the UK, Portugal and Ireland, 3am
> local time in countries observing Central European Time (e.g. Germany),
> and 4am local time in countries observing Eastern European Time (e.g.
> Greece). Spain is on Central European Time as far as I know.
>

Our clocks went back when I got up.

--
Pablo

[Guy Barry]

"Pablo" wrote in message news:af53n0...@mid.individual.net...

> Our clocks went back when I got up.

Mine went back at the correct time of 2am. (I hesitate to add that I don't
always do this - I just happened to wake up at the right moment.)

It was interesting when I worked a night-shift for a taxi company. It
caused no end of confusion. Saturday night when the clubs are chucking out,
and all of a sudden the time changes. We understood it in the booking
office but I'm not sure if many customers did.

--
Guy Barry

[Robert Bannister]

On 29/10/12 12:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> The easiest way to figure out times anywhere on the globe is to use Z + or
> Z - terminology. "Z" stands for GMT, UTC, or whatever they are currently
> calling the standard time at the Greenwich meridian. If Britain is on summer
> time (daylight saving time) then the "time" is Z + 1. I live in the Eastern
> time zone EST) of the U.S. where the time is normally Z - 5, but in the
> summer it is Z - 4 (EDT). Thus, if you know what the GMT is, then you can
> compute any time anywhere. The time zones run Z - as you proceed west from
> Greenwich, and Z + as you go east, 15 degrees per hour.

It is interesting how few countries actually do muck about with the
clock. I live in a Z+8 zone, the same as China which also doesn't change
its clocks. The map shows where the clock muckers live:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_country


--
Robert Bannister

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:07:36 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> The easiest way to figure out times anywhere on the globe is to use Z + or
> Z - terminology. "Z" stands for GMT, UTC, or whatever they are currently
> calling the standard time at the Greenwich meridian. If Britain is on summer
> time (daylight saving time) then the "time" is Z + 1. I live in the Eastern
> time zone EST) of the U.S. where the time is normally Z - 5, but in the
> summer it is Z - 4 (EDT).
>

I use UTC-0500 or UTC-0400.

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> In Britain and Ireland "daylight saving time" has ended.

In all of Western Europe actually.
After a mere 50 years the EU countries have finally managed
to synchronise their daylight savings.
(it was of course unthinkable that the Americans
could have talked to a mere European about it
when they revamped their daylight savings system a few years later)

> English speakers originally proposed CUT (for "coordinated universal
> time"), while French speakers proposed TUC (for "temps universel
> coordonné"). The compromise that emerged was UTC,

One can't let them Froggies have their way all the time, eh?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Normal in scientific contexts, less so in normal civilian usage. I think
> there's a subtle difference between UTC and GMT (to do with the insertion of
> leap seconds), but they're the same for all practical purposes. I imagine
> it's just the Irish trying to distance themselves from Britain again.

GMT (despite Tony Blair's attempts to push it)
no longer exists.
The meaning of GMT is undefined.
Some take it to mean UTC, others take it to be UT1.

Given the confusion, the term is best avoided.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

A better look at the map
shows that almost all of the countries at higher latitudes do,
against almost none in the tropics.

You might guess at a reason for this curious herd behaviour?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <af62p1...@mid.individual.net>

> Well, Chinca has the most asinine system of any country in the world.

No, Australians are even more asinine.
They have a half hour difference,
and only in part of their country.

> Despite stretching across what should be 6 or so time zones, the entire
> country is on Beijing time. This means that in the far West, the sunrise
> comes near on 10am in the winter and not until 0730 even in midsummer.

Underlings of the Emperor (or Chairman) can't complain,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Normal in scientific contexts, less so in normal civilian usage. I think
> there's a subtle difference between UTC and GMT (to do with the insertion of
> leap seconds), but they're the same for all practical purposes. I imagine
> it's just the Irish trying to distance themselves from Britain again.

They are fundamentally different things.
UTC = TAI plus some leap seconds, is tied to clocks.

GMT, (when it still existed) and nowadays UT1
is tied to the actual observed rotation of the earth,
(relative to the 'distant stars')

Jan

[Guy Barry]

"J. J. Lodder" wrote in message
news:1kspy84.12u...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

Does it really matter for everyday purposes? It's like worrying about the
difference between a litre and a cubic decimetre.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:13:27 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Normal in scientific contexts, less so in normal civilian usage. I think
>> there's a subtle difference between UTC and GMT (to do with the insertion of
>> leap seconds), but they're the same for all practical purposes. I imagine
>> it's just the Irish trying to distance themselves from Britain again.
>
>GMT (despite Tony Blair's attempts to push it)
>no longer exists.
>The meaning of GMT is undefined.

I got the clear impression that when Tony Blair and others were pressing
for the retention of Greenwich Mean Time they did so because they
thought GMT and UTC were alternative names for the same thing. They
wanted to retain the historic name. They did not understand that GMT and
UTC were not exactly the same thing.

>Some take it to mean UTC, others take it to be UT1.
>
>Given the confusion, the term is best avoided.
>

GMT might be best avoided in technical contexts. I expect it to continue
in use indefinitely in BrE in the context of British Summer Time versus
Greenwich Mean Time.

If climate change results in typically colder winters in Britain GMT
might perhaps be renamed to British Winter Time.

[J. J. Lodder]

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "J. J. Lodder" wrote in message
> news:1kspy84.12u...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
>
> > Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Normal in scientific contexts, less so in normal civilian usage. I
> > > think
> > > there's a subtle difference between UTC and GMT (to do with the
> > > insertion of
> > > leap seconds), but they're the same for all practical purposes. I
> > > imagine
> > > it's just the Irish trying to distance themselves from Britain again.
>
> > GMT (despite Tony Blair's attempts to push it)
> > no longer exists.
> > The meaning of GMT is undefined.
> > Some take it to mean UTC, others take it to be UT1.
>
> > Given the confusion, the term is best avoided.
>
> Does it really matter for everyday purposes?

Depends on what your everyday purpose is.
If it's datestamping computer files,
or synchronizing power grids, or mobile telephony networks, or...

Our high tech society has for many purposes
become critically dependent on acuurate timing.

> It's like worrying about the
> difference between a litre and a cubic decimetre.

That one no longer exists.
(you are only about 50 years late)

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:13:27 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Normal in scientific contexts, less so in normal civilian usage. I
> >> think there's a subtle difference between UTC and GMT (to do with the
> >> insertion of leap seconds), but they're the same for all practical
> >> purposes. I imagine it's just the Irish trying to distance themselves
> >> from Britain again.
> >
> >GMT (despite Tony Blair's attempts to push it)
> >no longer exists.
> >The meaning of GMT is undefined.
>
> I got the clear impression that when Tony Blair and others were pressing
> for the retention of Greenwich Mean Time they did so because they
> thought GMT and UTC were alternative names for the same thing.

Indeed, they were confused about it,
and caused more confusion by using names indiscriminately.
If it really is the same thing it shouldn't have two names.
There was nothing behind it beyond stupid lokalchauvinismus.

The most natural interpretation of GMT
is the continuation of what it has always been:
mean solar time at Greenwich.
This however translates to UT1, not UTC,
and hence not to 'internet time'.

> They wanted to retain the historic name.

There is nothin g wrong with that,
provided the historic name is redefined
in an unambigeous and generally acceptable way.

> They did not understand that GMT
> and UTC were not exactly the same thing.

That's putting it mildly.
With internet timing down to microseconds
the two are far apart.
(by about a million microseconds)

> >Some take it to mean UTC, others take it to be UT1.
> >
> >Given the confusion, the term is best avoided.

> GMT might be best avoided in technical contexts. I expect it to continue
> in use indefinitely in BrE in the context of British Summer Time versus
> Greenwich Mean Time.

Sure, the Brits will probably keep it on
as their provincial name for their time zone.
In that context it is synonymous with 'London time' for example,

Jan

[Guy Barry]

"J. J. Lodder" wrote in message

news:1ksq8rg.1qn...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Does it really matter for everyday purposes?

> Depends on what your everyday purpose is.
> If it's datestamping computer files,
> or synchronizing power grids, or mobile telephony networks, or...

It's about knowing what time zone is being referred to. When the clocks
went back recently I wanted to know whether the time being announced was
British Summer Time (one hour ahead of GMT) or GMT. I didn't need to know
the time to the nearest fraction of a second.

> Our high tech society has for many purposes become critically dependent on
> acuurate timing.

For the purposes of knowing what time a programme will be broadcast on the
radio, it doesn't matter at all. The delay on digital transmissions is far
longer than the difference between UTC and UT1.

When I worked for a taxi company, do you think we cared about fractions of a
second in our timing? The taxis were often ten minutes late, or more.

> > It's like worrying about the
> > difference between a litre and a cubic decimetre.

> That one no longer exists.
> (you are only about 50 years late)

Doesn't it? I thought a "litre" was originally defined as the mass of a
kilogram of water at standard temperature and pressure, which was very
slightly different from a cubic decimetre. But for everyday purposes, it
made no difference. "Litre" isn't used in scientific contexts where precise
measurements are required.

Similarly for GMT. The scientific community may need to distinguish between
UTC and UT1, but for everyday purposes, who cares? "GMT" is good enough.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

On Oct 29, 12:06 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "J. J. Lodder"  wrote in messagenews:1kspy84.12u...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
>

> > Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Normal in scientific contexts, less so in normal civilian usage.  I
> > > think
> > > there's a subtle difference between UTC and GMT (to do with the
> > > insertion of
> > > leap seconds), but they're the same for all practical purposes.  I
> > > imagine
> > > it's just the Irish trying to distance themselves from Britain again.
> > GMT (despite Tony Blair's attempts to push it)
> > no longer exists.
> > The meaning of GMT is undefined.
> > Some take it to mean UTC, others take it to be UT1.
> > Given the confusion, the term is best avoided.
>
> Does it really matter for everyday purposes?  It's like worrying about the
> difference between a litre and a cubic decimetre.
>

No, it's different from worrying about that. A litre of water is still
a litre of water when it's frozen, but it isn't a cubic decimetre.

[Guy Barry]

"J. J. Lodder" wrote in message

news:1ksq8sa.152...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

> With internet timing down to microseconds
> the two are far apart.
> (by about a million microseconds)

Oh my god. Who cares about that outside the scientific and technological
community? Do you really think I care whether my local shop opens at 9am or
a million microseconds past 9am?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:8e4ca609-8902-43bb...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

"Litre" is a measure of volume, not mass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litre

A litre of water occupies a different volume when frozen. Hence it's no
longer a litre.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

I didn't say that it was a measure of mass. I didn't even say it
wasn't a litre - you said that, just after saying that it was a litre.

I simply said that a litre of water is still a litre of water when
it's frozen, but it isn't a cubic decimetre. This is completely true,
even though lump of ice frozen from a litre of water isn't a litre.

[Guy Barry]

"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:ztwjs.44490$g62....@fx06.am4...

> Doesn't it? I thought a "litre" was originally defined as the mass of a
> kilogram of water at standard temperature and pressure, which was very
> slightly different from a cubic decimetre.

I have this unerring capacity to get the crucial word wrong. I meant
"volume" above, not "mass". The mass of a kilogram of water is quite
clearly a kilogram, at any temperature and pressure. Sorry.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message

news:c89be39b-d957-4ab0...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

> I simply said that a litre of water is still a litre of water when
> it's frozen, but it isn't a cubic decimetre. This is completely true,
> even though lump of ice frozen from a litre of water isn't a litre.

"Litre" is a special name for the cubic decimetre (according to the
Wikipedia article). It was originally defined as the volume of a kilogram
of water at STP, but now it just means "cubic decimetre". When you freeze a
litre of water, it doesn't occupy a cubic decimetre, so it's not a litre.

A kilogram of water is still a kilogram when it's frozen. A litre of water
isn't still a litre, because it doesn't occupy the same volume.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

On Oct 29, 5:02 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter Brooks"  wrote in message
>
> news:c89be39b-d957-4ab0...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I simply said that a litre of water is still a litre of water when
> > it's frozen, but it isn't a cubic decimetre. This is completely true,
> > even though lump of ice frozen from a litre of water isn't a litre.
>
> "Litre" is a special name for the cubic decimetre (according to the
> Wikipedia article).  It was originally defined as the volume of a kilogram
> of water at STP, but now it just means "cubic decimetre".  When you freeze a
> litre of water, it doesn't occupy a cubic decimetre, so it's not a litre.
>

Not true. When you freeze a litre of water, the ice so-formed occupies
more than a litre, but it's still a litre of water.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message

news:b72a2b13-c55d-4f8f...@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

Either "litre" refers to volume, or it doesn't. You might as well say "this
length is longer than a metre, but it's still a metre".

When you freeze a kilogram of water, it's still a kilogram. When you freeze
a cubic decimetre of water, it's more than a cubic decimetre. When you
freeze a litre of water, does the word "litre" magically change from being a
unit of volume to a unit of mass?

--
Guy Barry

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 10/29/2012 1:58 PM, Peter Brooks wrote:
> Not true. When you freeze a litre of water, the ice so-formed occupies
> more than a litre, but it's still a litre of water.

That seems to me a bit like saying that when you chop up a human being
into pieces it's still a human being.

ŹR

[Peter Brooks]

If you could unchop him, then it would, but, unlike water that's
easily unfrozen, humans are known to be quite resistant to unchopping
up.

[Peter Brooks]

No, it doesn't at all. What changes is the water - from water to ice.
Actually, to be completely correct, the volume of the water does
change, depending on how hot it is, but not by as much as when it
freezes. When we say that we have a 'litre of water', we usually mean
that we have a litre of water at STP (standard temperature and
pressure), even if we don't know this.

So, if we freeze it, then boil it into steam, and then freeze it
again, but don't lose any of it in the process, then we still have, at
STP, a litre of water.

It's quite a nice little puzzle, actually, if you like that sort of
thing.

Mass doesn't really come into it, though, throughout the boiling,
freezing and keeping at STP process, you do have the same mass of
water, as well as the same volume of it, as measured at STP.

It's easier to play this with water because we con't call solid water
'water', but, rather, 'ice'. The same game doesn't work with CO2 that
we call carbon dioxide whether it's solid or gas (or liquid, though we
don't come across it as a liquid much).

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry (corrected):
> Doesn't it? I thought a "litre" was originally defined as the [volume]

> of a kilogram of water at standard temperature and pressure, which was
> very slightly different from a cubic decimetre.

Not "originally", although this was true from 1901 to 1964.

The original definitions of 1795 are reproduced here.

http://smdsi.quartier-rural.org/histoire/18germ_3.htm

The base unit was the gram back then, but never mind that. Under the
original definitions, 1 liter was equal to exactly 1 cubic decimeter
and 1 kilogram was the weight of that volume of water.

Naturally, official standard reference objects were created to
represent the meter and the kilogram. And later, when more precise
measurements made it clear that they were not quite the right size,
the decision was made that those objects would be the official
standard and not the original definitions. So the density of water
under those standard conditions is no longer exactly 1 kg/dm^3.

(The definition of the meter has changed two more times since then,
but with the intent of keeping it the same size as the former
official standard meter. The definition of the kilogram has not
changed, although one of these years it probably will -- but if so,
it will be done with the intent of keeping it the same size.)

I'm not sure how the liter was defined in the late 19th century, but
in 1901 it was officially defined as Guy says. In 1964, however,
the original definition was restored. So the density of water under
those standard conditions is no longer exactly 1 kg/L either; 1 kg/L
is the same as 1 kg/dm^3.

Since the change in the definition of the liter *did* change its size
slightly, it is recommended that the liter should not be used for
high-precision measurements.


I knew that the original definitions of 1795 included scaling prefixes
ranging from milli- = 1/1,000 up to myria- = 10,000, of which all but
myria- are still used today. What I did not know until just now is that
for weight or volume measures, the French words for "double" and "half"
were also allowed as prefixes, "in order to provide as much convenience
as one could want for the sale of various objects". So a weight of
200 grams could be called a "double-hectogram" ("double-hectogramme"),
and half a liter could be called a "half-liter" ("demi-litre"). Huh.
I guess I've heard "demi-litre" in modern usage, but I've always taken
it to be using "demi-" as a productive prefix.
--
Mark Brader | "Opening a monitor case is not for the inexperienced
Toronto | or the faint of heart, unless you need
m...@vex.net | defibrillation." -- Kevin D. Swan

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Curlytop]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] set the following eddies spiralling through the
space-time continuum:

> English speakers originally proposed CUT (for "coordinated universal
> time"), while French speakers proposed TUC (for "temps universel
> coordonné"). The compromise that emerged was UTC,

CUT sounds silly and TUC has too many bad associations. It is sufficient to
explain UTC as "it stands for something foreign".

As for the distinction between GMT and UTC, you get GMT if you measure the
frequency of the atomic clock oscillators in cycles per second, you get UTC
if you measure the frequencies in hertz.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

[Robert Bannister]

On 29/10/12 10:41 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <af62p1...@mid.individual.net>
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 29/10/12 12:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> The easiest way to figure out times anywhere on the globe is to use Z + or
>>> Z - terminology. "Z" stands for GMT, UTC, or whatever they are currently
>>> calling the standard time at the Greenwich meridian. If Britain is on summer
>>> time (daylight saving time) then the "time" is Z + 1. I live in the Eastern
>>> time zone EST) of the U.S. where the time is normally Z - 5, but in the
>>> summer it is Z - 4 (EDT). Thus, if you know what the GMT is, then you can
>>> compute any time anywhere. The time zones run Z - as you proceed west from
>>> Greenwich, and Z + as you go east, 15 degrees per hour.
>
>> It is interesting how few countries actually do muck about with the
>> clock. I live in a Z+8 zone, the same as China which also doesn't change
>> its clocks. The map shows where the clock muckers live:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_country
>
> Well, Chinca has the most asinine system of any country in the world.

> Despite stretching across what should be 6 or so time zones, the entire
> country is on Beijing time. This means that in the far West, the sunrise
> comes near on 10am in the winter and not until 0730 even in midsummer.
>

I am aware of that. If the Australian business community had its way, we
would have a similar situation here. They persuaded South Australia long
ago to have a time zone totally unsuited to most of the state.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 29/10/12 3:13 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <af62p1...@mid.individual.net>
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/10/12 12:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>> The easiest way to figure out times anywhere on the globe is to use Z +
>>>> or Z - terminology. "Z" stands for GMT, UTC, or whatever they are
>>>> currently calling the standard time at the Greenwich meridian. If
>>>> Britain is on summer time (daylight saving time) then the "time" is Z +
>>>> 1. I live in the Eastern time zone EST) of the U.S. where the time is
>>>> normally Z - 5, but in the summer it is Z - 4 (EDT). Thus, if you know
>>>> what the GMT is, then you can compute any time anywhere. The time zones
>>>> run Z - as you proceed west from Greenwich, and Z + as you go east, 15
>>>> degrees per hour.
>>
>>> It is interesting how few countries actually do muck about with the
>>> clock. I live in a Z+8 zone, the same as China which also doesn't change
>>> its clocks. The map shows where the clock muckers live:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_country
>>
>> Well, Chinca has the most asinine system of any country in the world.
>
> No, Australians are even more asinine.
> They have a half hour difference,
> and only in part of their country.

It may be sort of unofficial, but the eastern part of Western Australia
has its own time that is 45 minutes different. Actually, not even the
whole of the eastern part, but just the small townships and stations on
the Nullarbor Plain.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 29/10/12 3:13 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

There are only a limited number of latitudes where daylight saving is
acceptable. Too near the Equator, there is no seasonal change so it
makes no sense; too far away, and there are other problems. I can only
assume the south-eastern states of Australia chose to do it because they
were used to it in Europe.

Of course, when you say almost all the countries at higher latitudes
engage in this clock game, this ignores the whole of the former Soviet
Union and Finland - a not insignificant area - plus Argentina and South
Africa. In fact, "almost all countries" only works because there are a
lot of countries in Europe.

In the end, it boils down to "morning people" and "night people". I'm a
morning person myself; I get up at a quarter past five and so I hate
being robbed of the sunlight in the mornings.



--
Robert Bannister

[Nick Spalding]

Robert Bannister wrote, in <af8nks...@mid.individual.net>
on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:08:40 +0800:

> There are only a limited number of latitudes where daylight saving is
> acceptable. Too near the Equator, there is no seasonal change so it
> makes no sense; too far away, and there are other problems. I can only
> assume the south-eastern states of Australia chose to do it because they
> were used to it in Europe.

I was surprised to find that Salvador, Brazil where I have a grandson
living which is just under 13° S, well in the tropics, has it. I
suppose it is to keep it in step with big places like Rio and Sao Paolo.

> Of course, when you say almost all the countries at higher latitudes
> engage in this clock game, this ignores the whole of the former Soviet
> Union and Finland - a not insignificant area - plus Argentina and South
> Africa. In fact, "almost all countries" only works because there are a
> lot of countries in Europe.
>
> In the end, it boils down to "morning people" and "night people". I'm a
> morning person myself; I get up at a quarter past five and so I hate
> being robbed of the sunlight in the mornings.
--

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Daniel James]

In article
<b72a2b13-c55d-4f8f...@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,

Peter Brooks wrote:
> When you freeze a litre of water, the ice so-formed occupies
> more than a litre, but it's still a litre of water.

As in "This is a litre of water at standard temperature and pressure
.. it just isn't at standard temperature or pressure right now"?

I sorta hear what you're saying, but my sense of reason rebels against
your premise that a litre of something can still be called a litre of
something when its volume is clearly no longer a litre.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Daniel James]

In article <k6mv38$hcg$1...@dont-email.me>, Curlytop wrote:
>> English speakers originally proposed CUT (for "coordinated universal
>> time"), while French speakers proposed TUC (for "temps universel
>> coordonné"). The compromise that emerged was UTC,
>

> CUT sounds silly ...

.. and people might think it stood for Central Uropean Time <smile>

Cheers,
Daniel.

[R H Draney]

Daniel James filted:

I'm reminded of the time someone asked to borrow some rope to tie down a load
onto his truck...I reached into my bag and handed him a braid maybe eighteen
inches long..."that's not going to be enough", he complained, whereupon I showed
him that the braid could be unzipped into a fifty-foot rope...(the braiding
process not only makes the rope more compact for storage but completely
eliminates the usual tangled mess of a rope crammed into a bag for long
periods)....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[R H Draney]

Daniel James filted:

Oh, those wacky Zulus!...r

[Robert Bannister]

On 30/10/12 9:35 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <1kspyjo.1j8...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> In message <af62p1...@mid.individual.net>

>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>> On 29/10/12 12:07 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>>> The easiest way to figure out times anywhere on the globe is to use Z +
>>>>> or Z - terminology. "Z" stands for GMT, UTC, or whatever they are
>>>>> currently calling the standard time at the Greenwich meridian. If
>>>>> Britain is on summer time (daylight saving time) then the "time" is Z +
>>>>> 1. I live in the Eastern time zone EST) of the U.S. where the time is
>>>>> normally Z - 5, but in the summer it is Z - 4 (EDT). Thus, if you know
>>>>> what the GMT is, then you can compute any time anywhere. The time zones
>>>>> run Z - as you proceed west from Greenwich, and Z + as you go east, 15
>>>>> degrees per hour.
>>>
>>>> It is interesting how few countries actually do muck about with the
>>>> clock. I live in a Z+8 zone, the same as China which also doesn't change
>>>> its clocks. The map shows where the clock muckers live:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_country
>>>

>>> Well, Chinca has the most asinine system of any country in the world.
>
>> No, Australians are even more asinine.
>> They have a half hour difference,
>> and only in part of their country.
>

> I don't know why that is. India does it so that the entire country is on
> one time zone. It's a little on on the far west and east, but not that
> much.
>

It's because the business community want Adelaide to be in the same time
zone as Melbourne and Sydney. This already results in strange clock
times in the far west of the state; an extra half hour might cause a
riot, but I have read they are still pushing for it.

--
Robert Bannister

[Mark Brader]

Robert Bannister:

> There are only a limited number of latitudes where daylight saving is
> acceptable.

Yes, and that limit is zero.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Mark is probably right about something,
m...@vex.net | but I forget what" -- Rayan Zachariassen

[J. J. Lodder]

You might care about your postings arriving at others.
The internet is too inportant to allow meddling with it
by chauvinistic amateurs like Tony Bair,

Jan

Btw, a microsecond is -long- way, about 300 metres.
For practical purposes you'll want your position down to 10 nanoseconds.

[Guy Barry]

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
news:TeednUVspKW4SxPN...@vex.net...

> Guy Barry (corrected):
> > Doesn't it? I thought a "litre" was originally defined as the [volume]
> > of a kilogram of water at standard temperature and pressure, which was
> > very slightly different from a cubic decimetre.

Usage question: I was taught to use the French spellings "metre", "litre"
and "gramme", but at some stage I must have started using the Americanized
"gram", though I've kept the traditional spellings for the others. Is this
normal British usage now?

> Not "originally", although this was true from 1901 to 1964.

> The original definitions of 1795 are reproduced here.

> http://smdsi.quartier-rural.org/histoire/18germ_3.htm

OK, thanks.

> (The definition of the meter has changed two more times since then,
> but with the intent of keeping it the same size as the former
> official standard meter. The definition of the kilogram has not
> changed, although one of these years it probably will -- but if so,
> it will be done with the intent of keeping it the same size.)

Is there any reason why the kilogram is still officially defined as the mass
of a lump of metal in Paris? All other units are now defined in terms of
some fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in a laboratory.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Daniel James" wrote in message news:VA.000006e...@me.invalid...

To me it's like saying that if you have an elastic band a metre long, and
you stretch it, it's still a metre of elastic. Which I suppose it is in one
sense, but it's no longer a metre long.

Peter's example was supposed to illustrate the difference between a litre
and a cubic decimetre. You could substitute "cubic decimetre" in Peter's
statement and still make the same claim:
"when you freeze a cubic decimetre of water, the ice so-formed occupies more
than a cubic decimetre, but it's still a cubic decimetre of water". It
makes as much sense.

--
Guy Barry

[J. J. Lodder]

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Mark Brader" wrote in message
> news:TeednUVspKW4SxPN...@vex.net...
>
> > Guy Barry (corrected):
> > > Doesn't it? I thought a "litre" was originally defined as the [volume]
> > > of a kilogram of water at standard temperature and pressure, which was
> > > very slightly different from a cubic decimetre.
>
> Usage question: I was taught to use the French spellings "metre", "litre"
> and "gramme", but at some stage I must have started using the Americanized
> "gram", though I've kept the traditional spellings for the others. Is this
> normal British usage now?

It is not particularly American.
Most other languages, and most of the scientific literature
use gram, liter, and meter.

> > Not "originally", although this was true from 1901 to 1964.
>
> > The original definitions of 1795 are reproduced here.
>
> > http://smdsi.quartier-rural.org/histoire/18germ_3.htm
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> > (The definition of the meter has changed two more times since then,
> > but with the intent of keeping it the same size as the former
> > official standard meter. The definition of the kilogram has not
> > changed, although one of these years it probably will -- but if so,
> > it will be done with the intent of keeping it the same size.)
>
> Is there any reason why the kilogram is still officially defined as the mass
> of a lump of metal in Paris?

Yes, reproducibility.
(which is everything, in metrology)

> All other units are now defined in terms of
> some fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in a laboratory.

There is still the second.
(and that one will remain forever)

The kilogram will go too,
to be replaced by defined value for Planck's constant.
Implementation depends on technical conditions being met,

Jan

[Guy Barry]

"J. J. Lodder" wrote in message

news:1kstqn1.rg...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Is there any reason why the kilogram is still officially defined as the
> > mass
> > of a lump of metal in Paris?

> Yes, reproducibility.
> (which is everything, in metrology)

How do you reproduce a lump of metal in Paris?

> > All other units are now defined in terms of
> > some fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in a
> > laboratory.

> There is still the second.
> (and that one will remain forever)

Defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the caesium-133 atom, which *can* be reproduced, like the
definitions of the other fundamental SI units:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

> The kilogram will go too,
> to be replaced by defined value for Planck's constant.
> Implementation depends on technical conditions being met,

Any reason why this hasn't happened yet?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:26:54 -0000, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>"Mark Brader" wrote in message
>news:TeednUVspKW4SxPN...@vex.net...
>
>> Guy Barry (corrected):
>> > Doesn't it? I thought a "litre" was originally defined as the [volume]
>> > of a kilogram of water at standard temperature and pressure, which was
>> > very slightly different from a cubic decimetre.
>
>Usage question: I was taught to use the French spellings "metre", "litre"
>and "gramme", but at some stage I must have started using the Americanized
>"gram", though I've kept the traditional spellings for the others. Is this
>normal British usage now?
>

I think so.

I saved a copy of the Times (of London) On;ine Style Guide from its
website seven years ago. It has the entries:

gram, not gramme; similarly, kilogram

metres, as in distance, poetry etc; meters, as in gas, electricity
or parking etc

It has no entry for "litre", presumably because it is so standard in BrE
as not to require comment.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[J. J. Lodder]

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "J. J. Lodder" wrote in message
> news:1kstqn1.rg...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
>
> > Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Is there any reason why the kilogram is still officially defined as the
> > > mass
> > > of a lump of metal in Paris?
>
> > Yes, reproducibility.
> > (which is everything, in metrology)
>
> How do you reproduce a lump of metal in Paris?

Only the mass needs to be reproduced.
That's the point of measuring, you know?

> > > All other units are now defined in terms of
> > > some fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in a
> > > laboratory.
>
> > There is still the second.
> > (and that one will remain forever)
>
> Defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
> corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
> ground state of the caesium-133 atom, which *can* be reproduced, like the
> definitions of the other fundamental SI units:
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

You don't reproduce a second either.
You produce a clock (li;e the one before)
that displays seconds. (more or less)

> > The kilogram will go too,
> > to be replaced by defined value for Planck's constant.
> > Implementation depends on technical conditions being met,
>
> Any reason why this hasn't happened yet?

Yes, technical ones,

Jan

[Guy Barry]

"J. J. Lodder" wrote in message

news:1ksu5np.7yd...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > How do you reproduce a lump of metal in Paris?

> Only the mass needs to be reproduced.

And how do you do that without going over to Paris and measuring it for
yourself?

> You don't reproduce a second either.
> You produce a clock (li;e the one before)
> that displays seconds. (more or less)

You don't reproduce a metre. You reproduce some physical instantiation of a
metre. A metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in a
particular fraction of a second, so presumably it's possible to create a
light wave that's exactly a metre long (once you have the definition of a
second in place).

> > > The kilogram will go too,
> > > to be replaced by defined value for Planck's constant.
> > > Implementation depends on technical conditions being met,
>
> > Any reason why this hasn't happened yet?

> Yes, technical ones,

Do you know what they are? I suppose I could go and look it up, but I
thought you might know the answer.

--
Guy Barry

[Alan Curry]

In article <Yi6ks.135344$9W6.1...@fx08.am4>,

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>"J. J. Lodder" wrote in message
>news:1kstqn1.rg...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
>

>> There is still the second.
>> (and that one will remain forever)
>
>Defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
>corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
>ground state of the caesium-133 atom, which *can* be reproduced, like the
>definitions of the other fundamental SI units:
>
>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
>
>> The kilogram will go too,
>> to be replaced by defined value for Planck's constant.
>> Implementation depends on technical conditions being met,
>
>Any reason why this hasn't happened yet?
>

Not enough accuracy in the measurements so far.

To produce the new definition of a second, they needed to actually count
those 9,192,631,770 cycles occurring in a second, using the old definition.
It wouldn't be acceptable to say "9 billion - close enough", because then the
new second would become noticeably different from the old second as soon as a
more accurate measurement is made.

Likewise the speed of light was measured very accurately against the old
meter before being used to define the new meter.

To come up with an acceptable new definition, you need to pick a physical
constant and measure it against the old definition, and when you get enough
significant digits you just declare it to be exact. There has been sort of a
race going on to find the best way of doing this for the mass unit and none
of them have had enough precision to satisfy everyone. It seems to be almost
over now.

Here's a slightly outdated article covering two of the competitors:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110128/full/news.2011.51.html

And of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Proposed_future_definitions

--
Alan Curry

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:

> Usage question: I was taught to use the French spellings "metre",
> "litre" and "gramme", but at some stage I must have started using

> the Americanized "gram"...

You mean anglicized. British spelling doesn't use the "gramme"
spelling on any other words ending in -gram, most or all of which
come from the same Greek root.

> though I've kept the traditional spellings for the others. Is this
> normal British usage now?

Yes, I think so. I suspect it was settled when you officially converted
to metric, if not sooner. Google counts:

kilogram site:uk 431,000
kilogramme site:uk 16,000

> Is there any reason why the kilogram is still officially defined as the mass
> of a lump of metal in Paris? All other units are now defined in terms of
> some fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in a laboratory.

It's just a matter of producing a method that's provably better than the
lump-of-metal standard. If you want to say that the kilogram will now
be the mass of N atoms of carbon-12, say, then you have to be able to
demonstrate that N atoms of carbon-12 can be counted out -- or the
equivalent -- more accurately than the result of cleaning and weighing
that lump of metal. (And you also have to determine the correct value
of N to get agreement as close as possible with the previous standard.)

An agreement in principle to work toward the change was passed in 1999:

# The 21st Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures,
#
# CONSIDERING
#
# * the need to assure the long-term stability of the International
# System of Units (SI),
#
# * the intrinsic uncertainty in the long-term stability of the
# artifact defining the unit of mass, one of the base units of
# the SI,
#
# * the consequent uncertainty in the long-term stability of the
# other three base units of the SI that depend on the kilogram,
# namely, the ampere, the mole and the candela,
#
# * the progress already made in a number of different experiments
# designed to link the unit of mass to fundamental or atomic
# constants,
#
# * the desirability of having more than one method of making
# such a link,
#
# RECOMMENDS that national laboratories continue their efforts to
# refine experiments that link the unit of mass to fundamental
# or atomic constants with a view to a future redefinition of
# the kilogram.

See also http://www.npl.co.uk/educate-explore/redefining-the-kilogram/
(which happened to be one of the top hits on my spelling search).
--
Mark Brader | "The dream of a common standard is er... enhanced
Toronto | by the diversity of a myriad of national rules..."
m...@vex.net | --Ian Walmsley

[J. J. Lodder]

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "J. J. Lodder" wrote in message
> news:1ksu5np.7yd...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
>
> > Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > How do you reproduce a lump of metal in Paris?
>
> > Only the mass needs to be reproduced.
>
> And how do you do that without going over to Paris and measuring it for
> yourself?

You wouldn't be allowed to go anywhere near it.
You ask them nicely, pay them some,
and they'll do it for you.

BTW, -the- standard kilogram is almost never touched.
It sits in a vault, 10 meter underground, which is opened once a year
in accordance with a pre-established protocol,
just to verify that it is still there.
They use copies instead.

> > You don't reproduce a second either.

> > You produce a clock (like the one before)

> > that displays seconds. (more or less)
>
> You don't reproduce a metre. You reproduce some physical instantiation of a
> metre. A metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in a
> particular fraction of a second, so presumably it's possible to create a
> light wave that's exactly a metre long (once you have the definition of a
> second in place).

Actually they measure the wavelength of some stabilized laser,
which then serves as a secondary standard.
(for those who need that kind of accuracy)

> > > > The kilogram will go too,
> > > > to be replaced by defined value for Planck's constant.
> > > > Implementation depends on technical conditions being met,
> >
> > > Any reason why this hasn't happened yet?
>
> > Yes, technical ones,
>
> Do you know what they are? I suppose I could go and look it up, but I
> thought you might know the answer.

AFAIK reproducibility needs to be better established,
and in more places.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Alan Curry <pac...@kosh.dhis.org> wrote:

> In article <Yi6ks.135344$9W6.1...@fx08.am4>,
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"J. J. Lodder" wrote in message
> >news:1kstqn1.rg...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >> There is still the second.
> >> (and that one will remain forever)
> >
> >Defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
> >corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
> >ground state of the caesium-133 atom, which *can* be reproduced, like the
> >definitions of the other fundamental SI units:
> >
> >http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
> >
> >> The kilogram will go too,
> >> to be replaced by defined value for Planck's constant.
> >> Implementation depends on technical conditions being met,
> >
> >Any reason why this hasn't happened yet?
> >
>
> Not enough accuracy in the measurements so far.
>
> To produce the new definition of a second, they needed to actually count
> those 9,192,631,770 cycles occurring in a second, using the old definition.
> It wouldn't be acceptable to say "9 billion - close enough", because then the
> new second would become noticeably different from the old second as soon as a
> more accurate measurement is made.

????
counting 10 GHz is no problem at all,
with modern electronics.
(this is effectively just what an atomic clock does)

> Likewise the speed of light was measured very accurately against the old
> meter before being used to define the new meter.

The problem was that the realization of the meter
was the dominant error in the measurement.

Jan

[Andy Walker]

On 31/10/12 20:42, Mark Brader wrote:
> [...] British spelling doesn't use the "gramme"

> spelling on any other words ending in -gram, most or all of which
> come from the same Greek root.

"Programme". [Ignoring the quibble that it doesn't end
in "-gram"!]

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

> > [...] British spelling doesn't use the "gramme"
> > spelling on any other words ending in -gram, most or all of which
> > come from the same Greek root.

Andy Walker:
> "Programme".

Oops, my mistake. Make that *most* other words.
--
Mark Brader "I can say nothing at this point."
Toronto "Well, you were wrong."
m...@vex.net -- Monty Python's Flying Circus

[Robert Bannister]

On 31/10/12 4:23 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Mark Brader" wrote in message
>> news:TeednUVspKW4SxPN...@vex.net...
>>
>>> Guy Barry (corrected):
>>>> Doesn't it? I thought a "litre" was originally defined as the [volume]
>>>> of a kilogram of water at standard temperature and pressure, which was
>>>> very slightly different from a cubic decimetre.
>>
>> Usage question: I was taught to use the French spellings "metre", "litre"
>> and "gramme", but at some stage I must have started using the Americanized
>> "gram", though I've kept the traditional spellings for the others. Is this
>> normal British usage now?
>
> It is not particularly American.
> Most other languages, and most of the scientific literature
> use gram, liter, and meter.

BrE still distinguishes between
"meter" - a measuring device, and
"metre" - a measure;
these are useful distinctions. I don't know how you do that in Dutch,
but German variously uses the words for "teller/counter" or "clock"
where we use "meter".

As far as I know, "gram" has been spelt that way for a very long time,
possibly even when I was at school, even though we have retained the
unrelated "programme". I can't see any reason for "litre" not to change,
but we're not changing "centre" or "theatre", so why should we?

--
Robert Bannister

[Guy Barry]

"Alan Curry" wrote in message news:k6s0o2$e8n$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[kilogram]

> To come up with an acceptable new definition, you need to pick a physical
> constant and measure it against the old definition, and when you get
> enough
> significant digits you just declare it to be exact. There has been sort of
> a
> race going on to find the best way of doing this for the mass unit and
> none
> of them have had enough precision to satisfy everyone. It seems to be
> almost
> over now.

> Here's a slightly outdated article covering two of the competitors:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110128/full/news.2011.51.html

> And of course:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Proposed_future_definitions

Interesting - thanks. Essentially, because no one's been able to agree on a
reproducible definition so far, the original one continues by default.

Wouldn't that cylinder in Paris have become gradually eroded over time?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Mark Brader" wrote in message

news:vdKdncsuW76pEAzN...@vex.net...

> Guy Barry:
> > Usage question: I was taught to use the French spellings "metre",
> > "litre" and "gramme", but at some stage I must have started using
> > the Americanized "gram"...

> You mean anglicized. British spelling doesn't use the "gramme"
> spelling on any other words ending in -gram, most or all of which
> come from the same Greek root.

Others have mentioned "programme". Anyway, it's a false analogy. British
spelling uses "meter" for measuring devices (e.g. thermometer) and "metre"
for the unit, so it would seem entirely consistent to use "gramme" for the
unit and "gram" in words like "diagram".

> Yes, I think so. I suspect it was settled when you officially converted
> to metric, if not sooner.

When was that? The use of metric units for most purposes is now a legal
requirement because of EU membership, but there's no law against using
imperial units alongside them. In some areas, imperial units *must* be
used; beer is sold in pints, distances are signed in miles, speed limits are
given in miles per hour.

> See also http://www.npl.co.uk/educate-explore/redefining-the-kilogram/
> (which happened to be one of the top hits on my spelling search).

Thanks. I never knew the UK had its own standard kilogram - how do they
ensure that it maintains the same mass as the French one?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk93jeq....@mbp55.local...

> I love daylight saving time. It moves an hour from the useless 5am range
> to the useful 8pm range.

I used to think that until I had a job that started at 6am. During the last
week of March, just before the clocks went forward, the sun was just
starting to come up as I arrived at work. Then the following week I was
plunged back into darkness again.

Even now I think that British Summer Time goes on for too long - until the
last week in October. Before the clocks went back last week it was still
dark until around 7.45am - far too late in my view. And we can't blame
Europe for that one, because this was a rare instance where we got the rest
of Europe to fall into line with us (previously, most of continental Europe
had made the change at the end of September).

And I gather that in the US you now go on until the first week in November -
something to do with Halloween (which I thought was supposed to be dark).
Is this right?

--
Guy Barry

[J. J. Lodder]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

> On 31/10/12 4:23 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> "Mark Brader" wrote in message
> >> news:TeednUVspKW4SxPN...@vex.net...
> >>
> >>> Guy Barry (corrected):
> >>>> Doesn't it? I thought a "litre" was originally defined as the [volume]
> >>>> of a kilogram of water at standard temperature and pressure, which was
> >>>> very slightly different from a cubic decimetre.
> >>
> >> Usage question: I was taught to use the French spellings "metre", "litre"
> >> and "gramme", but at some stage I must have started using the Americanized
> >> "gram", though I've kept the traditional spellings for the others. Is this
> >> normal British usage now?
> >
> > It is not particularly American.
> > Most other languages, and most of the scientific literature
> > use gram, liter, and meter.
>
> BrE still distinguishes between
> "meter" - a measuring device, and
> "metre" - a measure;
> these are useful distinctions.

Yes, but you can do without.

> I don't know how you do that in Dutch,
> but German variously uses the words for "teller/counter" or "clock"
> where we use "meter".

Meaning is almost always clear from context.
Only a complete ignoramus might think that a 'voltmeter'
is some kind of distance.

> As far as I know, "gram" has been spelt that way for a very long time,
> possibly even when I was at school, even though we have retained the
> unrelated "programme". I can't see any reason for "litre" not to change,
> but we're not changing "centre" or "theatre", so why should we?

I don't know how Brits do it in the scientific literature.
Does Nature fore example have style rules on it?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <C6adnWJ2j4YRTw3N...@vex.net>

> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> > Robert Bannister:
> >> There are only a limited number of latitudes where daylight saving is
> >> acceptable.
>
> > Yes, and that limit is zero.
>

> I love daylight saving time. It moves an hour from the useless 5am range
> to the useful 8pm range.

Sure. Quite imposssible to get it abolished in Europe.
The tourist industry would make too much noise
for politicians to ignore.

Moreover, it is fixed in a Euro-treaty,
which should be changed by Euro-procedure.
(with all having a say in it)

Individual countries can (try to) break out,
but only at great political cost.
(as the French found out to their chagrin)
They were thoroughly humiliated by all the others
over just this,

Jan

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:

> Wouldn't that cylinder in Paris have become gradually eroded over time?

Speaking of flogging dead horses...
--
Mark Brader Table feel plays a large part, but here
Toronto I only have keyboard feel.
m...@vex.net --Stu Goodgold, in rec.games.bridge

[Guy Barry]

"J. J. Lodder" wrote in message

news:1ksvguv.1ca...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

> > BrE still distinguishes between
> > "meter" - a measuring device, and
> > "metre" - a measure;
> > these are useful distinctions.

> Yes, but you can do without.

I'd rather not, thank you. Why get rid of a useful distinction?

> Meaning is almost always clear from context.
> Only a complete ignoramus might think that a 'voltmeter'
> is some kind of distance.

"Kilometre" versus "barometer"? The spelling makes it clear that the first
is a unit and second a measuring device. (Especially important since some
people pronounce "kilometre" with second-syllable stress.)

> I don't know how Brits do it in the scientific literature.

They use "metre" as far as I'm aware, as they do in other contexts.

> Does Nature fore example have style rules on it?

I don't know, but this article suggests "metre" is acceptable in Nature:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Natur.303..373P

--
Guy Barry

Jan

[Guy Barry]

"Mark Brader" wrote in message

news:zKudnRc3796CrQ_N...@vex.net...

> Guy Barry:
> > Wouldn't that cylinder in Paris have become gradually eroded over time?

> Speaking of flogging dead horses...

Eh? Has this aspect been discussed before?

--
Guy Barry

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:
>>> Wouldn't that cylinder in Paris have become gradually eroded over time?

Mark Brader:

>> Speaking of flogging dead horses...

Guy Barry:

> Eh? Has this aspect been discussed before?

What, when you suggested the standard needed to be changed, you had some
other reason in mind? This is exactly why it should be done once it
becomes technically possible. As I quoted in my response to your
original posting:

# * the intrinsic uncertainty in the long-term stability of the
# artifact defining the unit of mass, one of the base units of
# the SI,

--
Mark Brader, Toronto | An actual human would feel guilt in this situation.
m...@vex.net | -- Scott Adams: Dilbert

[Guy Barry]

"Mark Brader" wrote in message

news:w8Gdndzi-oy63Q_N...@vex.net...

> Guy Barry:
>>>> Wouldn't that cylinder in Paris have become gradually eroded over time?

Mark Brader:
>>> Speaking of flogging dead horses...

Guy Barry:
>> Eh? Has this aspect been discussed before?

> What, when you suggested the standard needed to be changed, you had some
> other reason in mind? This is exactly why it should be done once it
> becomes technically possible. As I quoted in my response to your
> original posting:

I had exactly that reason in mind - although from the Wikipedia article it
looks as though it can gain as well as lose mass, through adsorption of
atmospheric contamination:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Stability_of_the_international_prototype_kilogram

However it looks as though the long-term drift is downwards:

"It is also clear that the mass of the IPK lost perhaps 50 痢 over the last
century, and possibly significantly more, in comparison to its official
copies. The reason for this drift has eluded physicists who have dedicated
their careers to the SI unit of mass. No plausible mechanism has been
proposed to explain either a steady decrease in the mass of the IPK, or an
increase in that of its replicas dispersed throughout the world."

I don't recall this issue being discussed in detail over the course of this
thread.

--
Guy Barry

[Nick Spalding]

Mark Brader wrote, in <udGdnWp9sJb5XwzN...@vex.net>
on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:29:24 -0500:

> Mark Brader:
> > > [...] British spelling doesn't use the "gramme"
> > > spelling on any other words ending in -gram, most or all of which
> > > come from the same Greek root.
>
> Andy Walker:
> > "Programme".
>
> Oops, my mistake. Make that *most* other words.

That is another word where BrE makes a useful distinction between
something seen on the television and something making a computer do
something useful.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Guy Barry]

"Nick Spalding" wrote in message
news:26l498l8f1v4bic3d...@4ax.com...

["program(me)"]

> That is another word where BrE makes a useful distinction between
> something seen on the television and something making a computer do
> something useful.

I may be wrong, but wasn't "programme" the original BrE spelling in the
computing sense? I thought "program" had come about because of American
influence.

Note that "programme" is the BrE spelling in all non-computing senses, not
just the television one - e.g. a programme of work, theatre programme. Also
the gerund/present participle is spelt "programming" in all senses in BrE
(is it "programing" in AmE spelling?).

--
Guy Barry

[Bill McCray]

On 11/1/2012 5:32 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> "It is also clear that the mass of the IPK lost perhaps 50 �g over the

> last century, and possibly significantly more, in comparison to its
> official copies. The reason for this drift has eluded physicists who
> have dedicated their careers to the SI unit of mass. No plausible
> mechanism has been proposed to explain either a steady decrease in the
> mass of the IPK, or an increase in that of its replicas dispersed
> throughout the world."

Liquids evaporate by molecules gaining enough energy to escape from the
liquid. It seems to me that it would be quite possible for molecules to
escape from solids, too, although the rate of escape would be much, much
lower than for liquids, given that the molecules are much more strongly
bound together.

Bill in Kentucky

[Andy Walker]

On 01/11/12 12:05, Guy Barry wrote:
> I may be wrong, but wasn't "programme" the original BrE spelling in
> the computing sense? I thought "program" had come about because of
> American influence.

Yes. My first serious computer programming was done in Atlas
Autocode, which used "programme" [though underlined] as one of its
reserved words. By then, "program" was accepted as a variant spelling,
but "-mme" was preferred. But the American spelling soon took over,
and in fact, as has been suggested, adds a useful distinction.

I don't know whether there are any other AmE influences in
UK programming languages of the period. Nowadays, words such as
"color" have crept into language libraries, but at least it's then
easy for BrE programmers to provide their own versions with the
"correct" spelling; not so easy* with reserved words.

* Though, many years ago, we had a friend who went to France on
vacation, came back, and wouldn't stop talking about how much he
liked the country, the people and the language. So we hacked his
compiler to make all the reserved words French. He was less than
chuffed. But at least he stopped talking.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Guy Barry]

"Bill McCray" wrote in message news:k6u07c$m89$1...@news.albasani.net...

> On 11/1/2012 5:32 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> > "It is also clear that the mass of the IPK lost perhaps 50 �g over the
> > last century,

A good example of the pitfalls of using non-ASCII characters in posts. I
copied the above from Wikipedia complete with the Greek character "mu"
before "g" (i.e. 50 micrograms). However when I read it just now in Google
Groups the character was missing, so it appeared to say "the mass of the IPK
lost perhaps 50 g over the last century" - which would be pretty serious!

> Liquids evaporate by molecules gaining enough energy to escape from the
> liquid. It seems to me that it would be quite possible for molecules to
> escape from solids, too, although the rate of escape would be much, much
> lower than for liquids, given that the molecules are much more strongly
> bound together.

You're saying it could be possible for solids to "evaporate" as well?
Wouldn't they have to go through a liquid state first?

--
Guy Barry

[Nick Spalding]

Guy Barry wrote, in <sAtks.136509$it2.1...@fx22.am4>
on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:05:48 -0000:

>
>
> "Nick Spalding" wrote in message
> news:26l498l8f1v4bic3d...@4ax.com...
>
> ["program(me)"]
>
> > That is another word where BrE makes a useful distinction between
> > something seen on the television and something making a computer do
> > something useful.
>
> I may be wrong, but wasn't "programme" the original BrE spelling in the
> computing sense? I thought "program" had come about because of American
> influence.

That's probably true but it is a useful distinction.

> Note that "programme" is the BrE spelling in all non-computing senses, not
> just the television one - e.g. a programme of work, theatre programme. Also
> the gerund/present participle is spelt "programming" in all senses in BrE
> (is it "programing" in AmE spelling?).
--

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Nick Spalding]

Andy Walker wrote, in <jwvks.91141$ti6....@fx20.am4>
on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:17:53 +0000:

I encountered COBOL in France in 1969 that had all the keywords in
French. I wasn't called upon to write in it I am glad to say, I just
saw it in passing.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Lanarcam]

Le 01/11/2012 15:26, Guy Barry a �crit :

No, "Sublimation is the process of transformation directly
from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through
an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an exothermic
phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures
below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram." (WP)

[Peter Brooks]

On Nov 1, 4:26 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Bill McCray"  wrote in messagenews:k6u07c$m89$1...@news.albasani.net...

Not necessarily. Freeze-drying, of coffee or corpses, involves having
such a low pressure that water quickly evaporates from ice, leaving a
dry residue.

If you drop an atom bomb, all sorts of things nearby, move from a
solid to a gaseous phase very quickly. Nothing forces them to hang
about in a liquid phase first.

If you've encountered 'dry ice', you'll have seen the condensation of
water in droplets where the cold CO2 has become a gas straight from
the solid lumps of CO2, known as 'dry ice'. You need a much higher
pressure to get liquid CO2.

[Guy Barry]

"Lanarcam" wrote in message news:50928e26$0$14784$426a...@news.free.fr...

> Le 01/11/2012 15:26, Guy Barry a �crit :

> > You're saying it could be possible for solids to "evaporate" as well?
> > Wouldn't they have to go through a liquid state first?
>
> No, "Sublimation is the process of transformation directly
> from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through
> an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an exothermic
> phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures
> below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram." (WP)

I'd forgotten about sublimation, but doesn't that only occur at certain
temperatures and pressures? Would a lump of metal in a vault in Paris be
able to sublime?

--
Guy Barry

[Lanarcam]

Le 01/11/2012 16:44, Guy Barry a �crit :

>
>
> "Lanarcam" wrote in message news:50928e26$0$14784$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
>> Le 01/11/2012 15:26, Guy Barry a �crit :
>
>> > You're saying it could be possible for solids to "evaporate" as well?
>> > Wouldn't they have to go through a liquid state first?
>>
>> No, "Sublimation is the process of transformation directly
>> from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through
>> an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an exothermic
>> phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures
>> below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram." (WP)
>
> I'd forgotten about sublimation, but doesn't that only occur at certain
> temperatures and pressures?

Yes, below the triple point.

> Would a lump of metal in a vault in Paris
> be able to sublime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point

[Bill McCray]

I'm sure ice can evaporate, which I think is called sublimation. If you
Hang laundry out on a cold day, it will freeze, but will dry, although
it probably takes longer. If ice can, other solids should be able to.

Bill in Kentucky

[Daniel James]

In article <IEvks.84442$9H4....@fx17.am4>, Guy Barry wrote:
> You're saying it could be possible for solids to "evaporate" as well?
> Wouldn't they have to go through a liquid state first?

The process is known as sublimation. Whether a solid substance melts or
evaporates when it is heated depends on the nature of the substance and
on the pressure. Solid carbon dioxide sublimes at room pressure (which,
I suppose, is why they call it /dry/ ice).

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Daniel James]

In article <vdKdncsuW76pEAzN...@vex.net>, Mark Brader
wrote:
> You mean anglicized. British spelling doesn't use the "gramme"
> spelling on any other words ending in -gram ...

Generally not, nowadays, no.

See however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram

The gram (alternative British English spelling: gramme; ...

(With reference to the Weights and Measures Act, 1985).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72/section/92

92. No provision contained in or made under this or any other Act
prevents the use of “gram” or “gramme” as alternative ways of
spelling that unit, and the same applies for other units in
the metric system which are compounds of “gram”.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:16:13 -0400, Bill McCray <billm...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

That was called sublimation when I was at school.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:26:52 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>
>"Bill McCray" wrote in message news:k6u07c$m89$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> On 11/1/2012 5:32 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> > "It is also clear that the mass of the IPK lost perhaps 50 �g over the
>> > last century,
>
>A good example of the pitfalls of using non-ASCII characters in posts. I
>copied the above from Wikipedia complete with the Greek character "mu"
>before "g" (i.e. 50 micrograms). However when I read it just now in Google
>Groups the character was missing, so it appeared to say "the mass of the IPK
>lost perhaps 50 g over the last century" - which would be pretty serious!

Well I'm glad to hear that Google groups mangles messages gated in as well as
those gated out, so that those who send messages that are difficult to read
also receive mangled messages. For what it's worth, I found the mu quite
readable, unlike a lot of stuff sent by people on Google groups, with their
long lines etc.

[Guy Barry]

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:t2c598lisb6afsges...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:26:52 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:

> >A good example of the pitfalls of using non-ASCII characters in posts. I
> >copied the above from Wikipedia complete with the Greek character "mu"
> >before "g" (i.e. 50 micrograms). However when I read it just now in
> >Google
> >Groups the character was missing, so it appeared to say "the mass of the
> >IPK
> >lost perhaps 50 g over the last century" - which would be pretty serious!

> Well I'm glad to hear that Google groups mangles messages gated in as well
> as
> those gated out, so that those who send messages that are difficult to
> read
> also receive mangled messages. For what it's worth, I found the mu quite
> readable, unlike a lot of stuff sent by people on Google groups, with
> their
> long lines etc.

I didn't send it via Google Groups - I sent it via my newsreader. However
sometimes I read messages on Google Groups as well as in my reader (I find
it useful if I want to get an overview of a thread).

I occasionally post using the old version of Google Groups as well, if I'm
having problems with my newsfeed. It doesn't produce any long lines, unlike
the new version. I find it quite an acceptable alternative.

--
Guy Barry

[Robert Bannister]

On 1/11/12 9:18 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <C6adnWJ2j4YRTw3N...@vex.net>
> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>> Robert Bannister:
>>> There are only a limited number of latitudes where daylight saving is
>>> acceptable.
>
>> Yes, and that limit is zero.
>
> I love daylight saving time. It moves an hour from the useless 5am range
> to the useful 8pm range.
>

For those of us who get up just after 5 and prefer to dine by artificial
light, (candles are nice, but not always convenient) I cannot possibly
agree. Moreover, if you weren't fast asleep during the best hours of the
day, you would be surprised at just how many people are out and about at
that time.

However, the whole argument has no economic sense; it is purely a
question of who are morning persons and who are night people, and
whether night people prefer to operate in daylight or in the dark.

--
Robert Bannister

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:05:48 -0000, Guy Barry wrote:
>(is it "programing" in AmE spelling?).

M-W lists it as an alternative, but we normally pronounce it with
secondary stress on the short A so it needs the double M.

ŹR http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html
God damn it, now I have a .sig, Andrew Pearson.

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:

>> (is it "programing" in AmE spelling?).

Glenn Knickerbocker:

> M-W lists it as an alternative, but we normally pronounce it with
> secondary stress on the short A so it needs the double M.

Yes, it's like "kidnapped". In American spelling one sometimes sees
"kidnaped" and "programer", but the doubled letters are more usual.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It is one thing to praise discipline, and another
m...@vex.net | to submit to it." -- Miguel de Cervantes, 1613

[Guy Barry]

"Glenn Knickerbocker" wrote in message
news:99m6985df9a2tc3av...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:05:48 -0000, Guy Barry wrote:
> > (is it "programing" in AmE spelling?).

> M-W lists it as an alternative, but we normally pronounce it with
> secondary stress on the short A so it needs the double M.

What does "secondary stress" mean in this context? As far as I'm concerned
secondary stress can only occur in words of three syllables or more, and it
can't occur on a syllable next to the one with the primary stress. E.g.
"programmatic" has a secondary stress on the first syllable and a primary
stress on the third. "Program" and "programming" have no secondary stress.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk97j5s....@mbp55.local...

> In message <8Ypks.131086$Tf3....@fx12.am4>
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > I used to think that until I had a job that started at 6am.

> What sort of sadistic bastard makes people come in at 6am?

There was no sadistic bastard involved. I ran a newsagent's, which opened
at 6.45am. There wouldn't have been much point in opening it at 9am,
because you sell most newspapers early in the morning. I did the early
shift because it was much easier to cover it myself than try to get the
staff to do it. And it meant I finished at 2pm every day, which was great.
Still miss the job.

> > Even now I think that British Summer Time goes on for too long

> I think it starts too early. Traditionally (well, meaning 'as it was
> when i was young') it started the first Sunday in April, which seems
> about right. In the US it seemed a little perverse to end it right
> before Halloween.

It starts in the second of week of March in the US now, right? It used to
start in mid-March here, but in the interests of European harmonization they
moved it to the end of March. I wouldn't mind if they moved it earlier
again, but there's little chance of that happening.

> > And I gather that in the US you now go on until the first week in
> > November

> When we changed from April to mid March we also added a week at the end,
> I don't know if Halloween was a consideration, but I expect it was.

That's what I read - it was supposed to be dangerous for children to go out
trick-or-treating in the dark. Which I thought was the whole point, but
then I was brought up in less safety-conscious days.

> Halloween has two completely different components:

> 1) Little kids (0-12 or so) go out door to door collecting candy
> (trick or treating). Since they are little kids, the more
> light hours the better.

> 2) Adult parties, which often don't even start until 10pm and so
> have no relationship to DST.

> It appears that at least the adlut Halloween has become something of a
> thing in the UK in recent years, if passing references on TV are to be
> believed.

If they have, it's completely passed me by. Traditionally we've tended to
focus more on Bonfire Night (November 5th) here, though Halloween has always
been observed as well. I certain remember making pumpkin masks at primary
school. I thought the tradition started here and spread to the US, but it
seems to be seen as mainly an American thing now.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk97jd8....@mbp55.local...

> In message <IEvks.84442$9H4....@fx17.am4>

> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > A good example of the pitfalls of using non-ASCII characters in posts.
> > I
> > copied the above from Wikipedia complete with the Greek character "mu"
> > before "g" (i.e. 50 micrograms). However when I read it just now in
> > Google
> > Groups the character was missing,

> Googlegroup's incompetence is no reason to avoid standard UTF-8
> characters. We saw the µ character just fine.

Who are "we"? I'm aware that I'm writing for people on Google Groups just
as much as people with regular news servers. I read the group in both
formats.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Halloween is celebrated here in Northern Ireland. Bonfire Night
(November 5th), in general, is not.[1] The Halloween celebrations, like
November 5th in GB, are partly partly family parties at home and partly
organised public festivities. Lots of fireworks are used at both home
and public parties. I don't think things are quite the same as they are
in the US.

This lists some of the public Halloween festivities this year:
http://www.discovernorthernireland.com/Halloween-Events-in-Northern-Ireland-A2788

Just two items from that page to give a flavour:

Banks of the Foyle Halloween Carnival, Derry~Londonderry (27 - 31
October):
Ireland's largest street party returns with a packed five-day
programme, culminating in a magnificent fireworks display
and a glorious parade through the city's atmospheric streets. This
year's line-up includes a catwalk parade for the best-dressed
revellers, a Halloween ball and jammhouse, ghost stories and
Halloween film screenings, markets and children's workshops.

Halloween Metro Monster Mash, Belfast (28 October):
Attractions will include live on-stage music and dance performances,
walkabout entertainers, breathtaking fire shows, wacky workshops and
special guests. Free 'ghost buses' will whisk little ghouls and
goblins to and from the event at The Odyssey [Arena].

[1] There are Bonfire/Guy Fawkes Night (Nov 5th) parties with fireworks
at the military bases in NI. The soldiers and their families are from
all parts of the UK and the children, in particular, expect the Guy
Fawkes parties with fireworks that they are accustomed to.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:b0l798duusd9a2sdn...@4ax.com...

> Halloween is celebrated here in Northern Ireland. Bonfire Night
> (November 5th), in general, is not.[1]

Yes, I suppose burning effigies of Catholics isn't too popular over there in
some quarters...

(And of course I was never too fond of it with my first name!)

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

You should be safe in Edenbridge, Kent, this year. They are burning an
effigy of Lance Armstrong:
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/oddballs/916546-lance-armstrong-to-be-burned-by-edenbridge-bonfire-society

http://news.sky.com/story/1005389/lance-armstrong-effigy-to-burn-on-bonfire