Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 16, Issue 12, pp 657–658 | Cite as

Unresolved concerns about the “new SI”

Letter to the Editor


  1. 1.
    Mills IM, Quinn TJ, Mohr PJ, Taylor BN, Williams ER (2011) Adapting the International system of units to the 21st century. Phil Trans R Soc A 369:3907–3924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Hill TP, Miller J, Censullo AC (2011) Towards a better definition of the kilogram. Metrologia 48:83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hill TP (2011) Criticisms of the proposed “new SI”. Accredit Qual Assur 16:471–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Price G (2011) A skeptic‘s review of the new SI. Accredit Qual Assur 16:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leonard B (2011) Why the invariant atomic-scale unit, entity, is essential for understanding stoichiometry without “Avogadro anxiety”. Accredit Qual Assur 16:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pavese F (2011) Some reflections on the proposed redefinition of the unit for the amount of substance and of other SI units. Accredit Qual Assur 16:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khruschov A (2010) Fundamental problems in metrology: possible definition of the unit of mass and fixed values of the fundamental physical constants. Meas Tech 53:583–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rusch P (2011) “Redefining the kilogram and mole”, ACS comment, chemical and engineering news digital edition., 30 May
  10. 10.
    Feller U (2011) The International system of units—a case for reconsideration. Accredit Qual Assur 16:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chemistry International (2011) The kilogram in the “New SI”.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack Miller
    • 1
  • Theodore P. Hill
    • 2
  • Albert Censullo
    • 3
  1. 1.Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.School of MathematicsGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.California Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations