CLOK BBS

How about scales for a Trader shop? Have them as a perk for them to buy, sell off (if they want) or maybe just in Trader sanctioned workyards.

Either way, with all the ores, gems, and such floating around you'd think there would be some way available to get standard weights especially as there is a large decorate scale when you enter the Coalition HQ. (Apparently)

Or even an NPC in the market that you can pay a few riln to, to have him use scales to give you an accurate weight of certain goods/objects.

I'd like scales too. When working with patterns that require specific weights, I'd like to be able to know that I'm using the correct amounts and not wasting materials.

Then again, maybe when professions are reworked this won't be a consideration. For things like leatherworking it would be nice to go based on the size of the pelt rather than the weight since patterns work on surface area, not weight.

Due to residual variability in measurement, the true weight of any object is unknowable. I'd still like to see some variability in measured weights even if scales are implemented. Maybe the variability in estimating weight without scales could be made to be higher if scales are added, with scales still maintaining some uncertainly (potentially different estimate ranges in different towns)?

This is one of the things I love about item weights in games (besides generally being absurdly unrealistic). Leaving a degree of uncertainty makes the math work out... and says "THIS GAME IS NOT ABOVE EQUATIONS." That translates into happiness.

Thank you.

-Acarin

It may not be equations.. but not knowing what weight you've got when dealing with ingots can lead to solving for X which makes it about an equation.

Knowing what weight it is means I don't spend five minutes or more mucking around, melting them down, cutting them, testing what weight it is as accurately I can.. and rinse and repeat.

I too would like to see scales implemented. =)

Also, Acarin...

Acarin wrote:Due to residual variability in measurement, the true weight of any object is unknowable. I'd still like to see some variability in measured weights even if scales are implemented.

I call bunk on this "residual variability", or at the very least on its significance.

Even a minimally sophisticated scale shouldn't suffer from residual variability on the low level of precision required here. Friction in the tipping mechanism, miniscule measuring errors in the length of the arms and error in gauging of the counterweights are the sources I can think of, and all of them should have at most a marginal effect -- well beyond the point where you can determine something's weight with a precision of less than a pound.

Acarin wrote:Leaving a degree of uncertainty makes the math work out...

Not at all. It simply makes the math untractable (not without going into statistics at least). It already works out. Something doesn't magically start working by not giving observers all the information. At best, it makes how it works unobservable.

Blitz wrote:I call bunk on this "residual variability", or at the very least on its significance.

Even a minimally sophisticated scale shouldn't suffer from residual variability on the low level of precision required here. Friction in the tipping mechanism, miniscule measuring errors in the length of the arms and error in gauging of the counterweights are the sources I can think of, and all of them should have at most a marginal effect -- well beyond the point where you can determine something's weight with a precision of less than a pound.

You can't call bunk on fact. Every measurement has residual variability (error) associated with it. It's a very basic concept. You provided reasons for possible variability but you are assuming a marginal effect. As far as I know, there's no international/national standards organization the regulates the precision of counterweights. Without one, and without a precise method for creating weights of known weight and density of material, weights are likely to vary from town to town. Lets assume a proportional error model (as opposed to additive). It's very obvious that even 10% off may have a profound impact if trying to weighing a heavier object. Yes, you are not likely to say that a 2 pound object is 3 pounds as the relative error is low (although this is definitely possible with no standardization). You are, however, likely to say that a slab of metal which has a true weight of 10 pounds is 11 pounds.

Blitz wrote:Not at all. It simply makes the math untractable (not without going into statistics at least). It already works out. Something doesn't magically start working by not giving observers all the information. At best, it makes how it works unobservable.

First of all, this comment was just me loving math, but since you have to bring this up I now have to point out that you are entirely wrong.

Observers never have all the information and never can. If you think that they do, I won't comment any further because there's no point in arguing with those who are irrational. Uncertainty is inherent in ANY meaningful (i.e. non-theoretical/simplified) calculations. You generally just choose to ignore it because, as you imply, it makes your life easier. You're simply making things work by taking an ideal system with nice rounded and certain whole numbers.

Keep error in scales. You can thank me later for all the joy it brings.

I'd like to point out a couple of things.

1) You are right about error. Residual variability is indeed associated with every measurement. As a biologist, I'm all too well aware of this. However, as I said before, I think its role in weight measurements on a scale as proposed to be implemented above, should be FAR less significant than you propose in Clok's setting, because...

2) There are standards for the definition of weight. In the real world, these standards are very well defined even. Several organizations are involved with a) the definition of these standards and b) their regulation. There are the International Bureau and Committee of Weights and Measures and the Organization of International Legal Metrology in France (BIPM, CIPM and OIML), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US, and most importantly the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), responsible for the Treaty of the Meter back in 1875, the establishment of the SI system in 1960, and set to have its 25th meeting in 2014. FUNCTIONAL definitions of weight and measures actually predate all of this, and worked quite fine as well.

The concept of using volumes of water to define mass goes back all the way to 1668, when John Wilkins proposed the idea. In 1795, the gram was defined as the mass of 1 cubic centimeter (1mL) of water at 4 degrees Celsius under standard atmospheric pressure. Soon after, the prototype kilogram was made of (1799) with a mass equal to that of 1L of water. Following the Treaty of the Meter (1875), the CGPM commissioned the International Prototype Kilogram (IPK), and 40 replicas whose change in mass over time (relative to the IPK) has been tracked and averages out at about 1 microgram per year. The IPK itself, at the time of its creation, had a mass indistinguishable from the kilogram prototype made in 1799.

The reason I've dug this deep into a history lesson is not because I think there's no proportional error on measuring a standardized weight. It's because I think the 10% used in your example is outrageously high for a physics phenomenon, and that the level of technology we had access to in the real world 214 years ago was sufficient for a FAR higher precision; the original kilogram prototype (1799) was found to have a mass deviating from that of 1L of Vienna Standard Mean ocean water by 25 parts per million.

Let that sink in for a moment. That's 25mg error on a 1kg weight. The mass drift of the 40 replicas used as national standards add another negligible 1ug per year onto that, which leads me to suggest...

3) If the real world is capable of doing this properly with technology first developed over two centuries ago, something similar should be achievable in Clok. The first thing that comes to mind here is the academic nation of Grum, whose entire culture is devoted to scientific advance if I understand correctly. (I don't put it beyond them to develop the Clok-equivalent of a Watt balance.) Second, I would think the Western Coalition has a) large interest in being able to measure precisely what they're dealing with (the weight of a gem, the purity of an ore, the density of an alloy, etc.) and b) the financial power to obtain such technology, either by developing it themselves or by funding external genii.

Even giving some leeway on the job well done on earth, I'd say 0.1% accuracy should very well be achievable. Remember the real world's error was expressed in PPM -- several orders of magnitude more precise than 0.1%. This would mean that objects with masses up to 1000 pounds should be weighable to within 1 pound of accuracy, which I think is very much in line with my previous post's statement regarding precision, especially as far as items we would commonly like to measure in Clok are concerned.

...

4) This is really more of a side-track, but I wanted to add that you're not simply making things work by taking an ideal system with nice rounded and certain whole numbers. The system already works. Physics work independent of being observable. What doesn't work is our simplified description of it. Regardless, I don't think we're disagreeing -- at least not on this point. I misunderstood what you were saying, and tried to say the same thing with different words.

Blitz wrote: As a biologist, I'm all too well aware of this.

Please, call me Dr. Acarin from now on.

Blitz wrote:However, as I said before, I think its role in weight measurements on a scale as proposed to be implemented above, should be FAR less significant than you propose in Clok's setting, because...

This should be an interesting history lesson...

Blitz wrote:2) There are standards for the definition of weight. In the real world, these standards are very well defined even. Several organizations are involved with a) the definition of these standards and b) their regulation.

As I previously suggested, no such organization exists in Arad to my knowledge. I tried to start one last night, however.

Blitz wrote:The concept of using volumes of water to define mass goes back all the way to 1668, when John Wilkins proposed the idea. In 1795, the gram was defined as the mass of 1 cubic centimeter (1mL) of water at 4 degrees Celsius under standard atmospheric pressure. Soon after, the prototype kilogram was made of (1799) with a mass equal to that of 1L of water. Following the Treaty of the Meter (1875), the CGPM commissioned the International Prototype Kilogram (IPK), and 40 replicas whose change in mass over time (relative to the IPK) has been tracked and averages out at about 1 microgram per year. The IPK itself, at the time of its creation, had a mass indistinguishable from the kilogram prototype made in 1799.

As you've pointed out here, the standardization of a mass unit requires a prototype/origin i.e. something that can be used to accurately calibrate other devices used in measurement. So in the CLOK world, we need either one individual or "company" producing these devices in order to be sure of their precision across scales, otherwise there will likely be significant variation. Your history of mass measurements is for an ideal situation. That is, you are stating that the technology exists somewhere therefore everyone can use it to achieve near perfect accuracy. In game terms, this means that distribution of this system of measurement/calibration tools throughout the world is complete, coming from a single origin and defined in terms of units for which there is singular agreement. I find this highly unlikely. Again, just because a technology exists does not mean it is in common use. Theory and implementation are two entirely different beasts. I should know, being a pharmacist (by training), pharmacokineticist, and biochemist (I had to).

Blitz wrote:The reason I've dug this deep into a history lesson is not because I think there's no proportional error on measuring a standardized weight.

Proportional error was speculation. It could just as easily be additive or a mixed model. I'm fairly certain the variance follows a normal distribution though.

Blitz wrote:It's because I think the 10% used in your example is outrageously high for a physics phenomenon, and that the level of technology we had access to in the real world 214 years ago was sufficient for a FAR higher precision; the original kilogram prototype (1799) was found to have a mass deviating from that of 1L of Vienna Standard Mean ocean water by 25 parts per million.

It may be high. I'm not basing the 10% on any real data, so in the end it's speculation. Again, this assumes access to a replica and that the manufacturer of the scale and user is not trying to scam people for a profit. It also assumes counterweights in pristine condition. Again, without regulation I would expect greater variance.

Blitz wrote:3) If the real world is capable of doing this properly with technology first developed over two centuries ago, something similar should be achievable in Clok. The first thing that comes to mind here is the academic nation of Grum, whose entire culture is devoted to scientific advance if I understand correctly. (I don't put it beyond them to develop the Clok-equivalent of a Watt balance.) Second, I would think the Western Coalition has a) large interest in being able to measure precisely what they're dealing with (the weight of a gem, the purity of an ore, the density of an alloy, etc.) and b) the financial power to obtain such technology, either by developing it themselves or by funding external genii.

Lets assume the technology exists. First, the Grum who developed it would have to share their resources with all other nations along with their standards. Second, you would have to assume that the Western Coalition, who loves to make riln, is perfectly honest in their transactions (we know this is not the case from that fairly shifty trader ability that lets them scam the marketplace) and that everyone has been honest with them. This also assumes that we are able to deal with the operational aspects necessary to distribute and ensure consistency.

Blitz wrote:Even giving some leeway on the job well done on earth, I'd say 0.1% accuracy should very well be achievable. Remember the real world's error was expressed in PPM -- several orders of magnitude more precise than 0.1%. This would mean that objects with masses up to 1000 pounds should be weighable to within 1 pound of accuracy, which I think is very much in line with my previous post's statement regarding precision, especially as far as items we would commonly like to measure in Clok are concerned.

Common commercial scales are not even close to this accurate in current times. Yes, the analytical balances you are used to using as a biologist likely are, but other scales are not. It also would depend on the calibration range of the scale of course, i.e. if the scale is able to accurately measure 100 kg, it probably does a horrible job measuring 1 kg (again, these are arbitrary numbers). I assume we're asking for a 1 scale fits all system? Overall, you are taking an extreme example of accuracy and precision and trying to make it the norm.

Blitz wrote:4) This is really more of a side-track, but I wanted to add that you're not simply making things work by taking an ideal system with nice rounded and certain whole numbers. The system already works. Physics work independent of being observable. What doesn't work is our simplified description of it. Regardless, I don't think we're disagreeing -- at least not on this point. I misunderstood what you were saying, and tried to say the same thing with different words.

I'm a firm believer that physics does not actually exist. It is a model to describe our universe. So what you are saying is that the universe works independently of our observations. This is true. Physics is a simplified description of it. You're making this model work or more accurately "fit" by simplifying. I think we are basically in agreement on this.

This has been fun, sir! I really did enjoy the history lesson.

Blitz wrote: the original kilogram prototype (1799) was found to have a mass deviating from that of 1L of Vienna Standard Mean ocean water by 25 parts per million.

Also, I assume this was under SATP conditions, i.e. 1 atm and 25 C? Can we accurately measure these in Clok? If so, I'd like to see the appropriate measurement devices come out with scales! I can think of numerous applications...

Acarin wrote:As you've pointed out here, the standardization of a mass unit requires a prototype/origin i.e. something that can be used to accurately calibrate other devices used in measurement. So in the CLOK world, we need either one individual or "company" producing these devices in order to be sure of their precision across scales, otherwise there will likely be significant variation.

Agreed. Whether or not such an organization really exists in Arad, I do not know. Probably best to leave that up to the GMs. I see plenty of reasons for there to be one, though. The Coalition, the Grum, perhaps even the University... Several places where this technology would be of use, and equally many which are in a position to develop it.

Acarin wrote:Lets assume the technology exists. First, the Grum who developed it would have to share their resources with all other nations along with their standards. Second, you would have to assume that the Western Coalition, who loves to make riln, is perfectly honest in their transactions (we know this is not the case from that fairly shifty trader ability that lets them scam the marketplace) and that everyone has been honest with them. This also assumes that we are able to deal with the operational aspects necessary to distribute and ensure consistency.

True, true, and true. All of which, I think aren't unfair assumptions... except perhaps for the WC being honest, but even then, the technology would exist -- it simply wouldn't be used as intended by its developer(s), but then again what is nowadays?

Acarin wrote:Also, I assume this was under SATP conditions, i.e. 1 atm and 25 C? Can we accurately measure these in Clok?

4C actually, because after years of research (prior to 1795) it was discovered that is where water reaches its maximal density. I would again speculate that we can indeed measure these in Clok, looking hopefully at the Grum among others. There ARE numerous applications, which is why I suspect people would have developed the technology required to measure these things.

I didn't cherry pick this story from several independent developments of a standardized metrology system. I went with this one because it's the best documented -- probably because it worked out so well, and is still in use today. It has gone through several iterations of improvement (e.g. the alloy used for The Standard, using physical constants like light instead of a bar to standardize distances, etc.) and is still being improved today. Again, I feel that if the real world is capable of achieving a good level of accuracy with technology first developed over two centuries ago, regardless of the fact we're making it even more accurate today, something similar should be achievable in Clok. Whether or not it has been is not for me to decide. However, the forum's subtitle says the setting is "mid-fantasy/wild west/gaslamp". Of those, the wild west and gaslamp bits should definitely involve technology more than sufficiently advanced to contain standardized counterweights for weighing balances. Even mid-fantasy might.

I'm sort of both amused and horrified that you people have gone to such extremes to argue about having a weight system in a game.

Agreed. I just wanted something to tell me pounds since most things I make are 1lb patterns and 'weigh' just says it's under two pounds. /shrug

People mostly agreed up to there. Things went "BOOM" when Acarin suggested the scales should be inaccurate. =P

I've really enjoyed this. It shows me that the boards can still be as entertaining as cool game mechanics like weight measurement error.

Looks like things have calmed down a bit, so I'm going to weigh in. Right now, this isn't a priority. I understand why you guys might want it, but weights in game are so screwy that they'd need a major overhaul before we implemented this. So consider it on the todo list, but pretty far down because it's not all that important and would require a pretty major overhaul. Also, I'm terrible with weights and have absolutely no ability to figure out how much things should weigh (IRL and IG), so there's that.