LeahC July 3, 2017 08:26 AM This sounds all good, but from my understanding, suspending an object via electromagnetic forces in order to calculate a standard unit of weight will also be effected by the vary same issues that the older method is. Weight is after all Mass x Gravity and is purely an Earth bound measurement. In space 1kg has no meaning, instead the object's Mass and resistance to movement would be more important. So to say that the calibration can be conducted anywhere is false, as Gravity is different at different altitudes (distances from the center of the earth). The other issue is the dirt on the object being suspended will surely have the same effect as dirt on the original 1 Kg cylinder. Then the medium it is being suspended in needs to be taken into account as well. I am no expert by any means and perhaps I have not understood all aspects of the article, but surely it would be better to base it on an Atomic Mass of a specific element or something a bit more universal. Soon, humans will be on Mars or one day further and this form of measurement will not be applicable anywhere other than on earth. pmshah July 3, 2017 09:07 AM A US institute that is going to define a KG eight that absolutely noone in the industry is gong to use. Great !!!Only thing that will change is the equivalent weight in grams that is printed on "some" packaged food products. Brian M July 3, 2017 09:13 AM 'To measure the Planck constant, the researchers used a Kibble balance, a device that suspends a 1-kg weight with electromagnetic forces'So actually its based on a 1 -kg weight - Full circle then! Its not an absolute measurement as its based on a physical lump of metal (plus dirt!) which was used to calculate Planks constant. But at least the new value will be in terms (albeit relative to an arbitrary 1 kg block of metal) of a electromagnetic force, so shouldn't change (?). MalcolmLander July 3, 2017 11:43 AM Don't confuse mass with weight. A kilogram is a unit of mass. Weight (or force) is measured as mass x acceleration. So the scientists working on this project have their basic physics correct. What a surprise! 1 kg will still be 1 kg mass on the moon. But you can't measure it using a set of bathroom scales accurately unless you recalibrate the scales to the gravitational field. On earth, they are calibrated to the average gravitational field which technically means that they measure a kilogram-force rather than a kilogram. S Michael July 3, 2017 03:14 PM I have read all of the post and they make a lot of sense. My question is this. If a piece of metal, stored in a vault gains weight because of so called "dirt". How much weight do planets gain just being in space? How much weight does our planet gain every 1000 years? Is there a tipping point that changes our obit or balance? Or does the solar winds keep the "dirt" away and keep us balanced? Grunchy July 3, 2017 03:18 PM Dibs on the platinum cylinder. Gregg Eshelman July 3, 2017 11:09 PM "...they have low enough levels of uncertainty..."We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty! Vroomfondel "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Surefoot July 4, 2017 09:23 AM @pmshah, the whole world uses that unit. Yes even you in USA since your medieval units are now derived off this kilogram definition.@LeahC, the atomic mass is defined with.. the kilogram.@Malcolm, they actually use calibrated pressure sensors under a specific apparatus that compensates for the local gravity field. It's quite big so upper weights need to be compensated since they are in an ever so slightly weaker gravity field ! Crazy stuff.@S Michael, yes planets gain weight, from space dust and debris (meteors and such). The gain is very, very small compared to the planets mass. And yes it affects its orbit and even its spin (and precession), ever so slightly, from what i recall internal movements from the planet core and mantle affect it a lot more. We do adjust world atomic clocks every few years or so (up or down 1 second) as a result. The change over 1000 years will still be impossible to notice without very precise instruments and atomic clocks.. T N Args July 4, 2017 09:17 PM Not sure what is wrong with defining a kilogram of mass as the mass of a litre of H20 at a specified temperature and pressure. JimFox July 5, 2017 04:19 PM "Not sure what is wrong with defining a kilogram of mass as the mass of a litre of H20 at a specified temperature and pressure." Very hard to measure a litre of water, either by mass or volume, to the degree of accuracy achieved by these folks [13 parts per billion]. Slippery stuff, water- meniscus effect, surface tension, atoms escaping/recombining.