[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Technical Basis Documents



Keith:

Humor, pun, scientific accuracy, what ever......

Units are important.

There is a principle in math and science that the denominator is "unitized"
as you make reference.  The 100 cm^2 is not a unit area, cm^2 is, and so is
m^2.  We don't measure speed in miles per/10hours, or concentration in parts
per 3.14 liters (there may be, as always, exceptions such as ours).  Why
can't we accept that the area to be smeared is 100 cm^2, and report the
results in dpm/cm^2.  The political benefit would be that our numbers we
report would be a factor of 100 smaller.  If our release limit is now 1000
dpm/100cm^2 would be represented as 10 dpm/cm^2.  We would also then (with
nose high in the air :^) be proper in our presentation of the units and
almost consistent with the rest of the world as you state.

 -----------------

To the person that wanted a "decimeter," I have special arrangements with a
secret calibration facility to make any meter a "decimeter."  It reports all
measurements by a factor of ten low :).

James East
MK Ferguson of Oak Ridge
eastje@mkf.ornl.gov
Opinions and attempts at humor are sorely my own.


 ----------
From: Keith Welch
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Technical Basis Documents
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 1996 11:00AM

At 01:03 PM 9/16/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>>It remained to quantify the activity on the smear in a "smear counter"
>>>in units of "dpm", and, Eureka, we have "dpm/100 cm|2".
>
>Why isn't it dpm per square decimeter?
>

Maybe I missed your humor but, the units are unimportant - transferable
activity per some unit area is the same regardless of the units you quantify
it in. (the rest of the world usually uses Bq/cm^2 or Bq/m^2) The basis in
question is the method, not the reporting units.  I think Paul's description
of practicability hits the mark.
Keith Welch
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Newport News VA
welch@cebaf.gov