[HN Gopher] Let's order strange things from NIST
___________________________________________________________________
Let's order strange things from NIST
Author : ggm
Score : 174 points
Date : 2022-10-15 06:28 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| MereInterest wrote:
| I used to work in a lab that bought mud from NIST. We were
| measuring soil contaminants, and needed a calibration point for
| the data collected. So, whenever we collected data from river
| mud, we also ran the NIST mud. That way, any drift in our
| experimental setup over time could be normalized out.
| edrxty wrote:
| Ok, I gotta ask. How does NIST source a large supply of mud
| that's stable in composition over a long period of time, both
| in terms of supply chain and storage?
|
| That seems to be the case for a lot of these items. Either they
| have a process for making these products with sourced
| ingredients that are somehow hyper stable or they buy up
| 1000lbs of breakfast cereal, grind it into powder, then vacuum
| seal and freeze it in a vault somewhere alongside powdered
| sewage, all the time assuming nobody in the future of the
| planet will need more than 1000lbs of reference powdered
| breakfast cereal total.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/08/07/baseball-mud-rawlings fun
| story about consistent mud collecting for the mlb
| voxadam wrote:
| As I understand it, each and every sample isn't necessarily
| uniform bur rather each sample is characterized and qualified
| by a NIST lab and a certificate of analysis (COA) is supplied
| with each sample. This allows tier 2 and lower labs to verify
| that their equipment and analyses are within spec.
| samatman wrote:
| There are exact standards both for the accuracy of the
| reference material and the precision of the COA.
|
| So NIST can work backward, using faster tests to confirm
| that the material has suitable qualities to represent, say,
| 2% milk, then take the precise measurements for the actual
| batch of sample, which of course will vary.
| zinekeller wrote:
| > Ok, I gotta ask. How does NIST source a large supply of mud
| that's stable in composition over a long period of time, both
| in terms of supply chain and storage?
|
| Technically, they don't. Obviously, they have _some_ storage
| (this is one of those things you don 't want to use just-in-
| time manufacturing). Instead, NIST (and other analogous
| standards organisations) have batches of materials and
| really, really expensive machines (that are hard to mass-
| produce) that can measure out the precise quantities of
| whatever thing they need to measure backed by processes that
| intrinsically is just precise ( _and_ accurate, for pedants),
| for example, electron microscopes or atomic force
| microscopes, which is then used by others (like in this case
| for measuring mud) to machines that are easy to mass-produce
| but can measure badly if not checked regularly.
|
| For some things though (like drug testing in urine), they
| instead have a pure substance laced with precise amounts of
| substances you've expect to find, but that's relatively
| easier than most SRMs where you're measuring things you've
| already have (whether it's mud, crude oil, whale blubber or
| peanut butter).
| [deleted]
| deathgripsss wrote:
| In my youth I used to work in a laboratory that tested mattress
| flammability and we used the NIST standard cigarettes. I remember
| people used to pocket a few of them and smoke them on break, not
| sure how good an idea that was.
| OJFord wrote:
| I'd like to imagine there's a cigarette reviewer out there who
| compares various manufacturers/products against 'NIST standard
| cigarette' as baseline. I've never smoked, I just think that'd
| be brilliant.
| raydiatian wrote:
| "We give American Spirits 8/10 Nicotines."
| FiatLuxDave wrote:
| I used to work extensively with the NIST radioisotope SRMs. I
| particularly remember working with SRM 4965a (https://shop.nist.g
| ov/ccrz__ProductDetails?sku=4965a&cclcl=e...).
|
| My wife was very worried when I told her that I'd be working with
| radioactive hydrochloric acid. Technically, that is what it is,
| but the acid is very dilute and the radioactivity is very low. It
| sure sounds dangerous though!
|
| I had to repackage it into a new container so that I could
| contain and draw off the radon gas, but still have the capsule
| remain wet so that the emanation rate would stay constant. My
| low-tech solution was to put a wet sponge in the chamber, so that
| the air would remain saturated with water vapor but that the
| condensation would not dilute the acid. It worked great for about
| 10 years. I passed that source on to another company, it might be
| working still. Radium sources tend to be rather long-lasting.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| The MSDS for that jar of peanut butter says it's not an
| asphyxiant... as someone with peanut allergy, I beg to differ ;)
|
| Nice submission. Brings back memories of making alcoholic drinks
| from expensive spectroscopy grade ethanol. We never dared hitting
| the deuterated ethanol for NMR purposes...
| metaphor wrote:
| > _The MSDS for that jar of peanut butter says it 's not an
| asphyxiant... as someone with peanut allergy, I beg to differ
| ;)_
|
| Just in case the sarcasm wasn't abundantly obvious, the precise
| term used was _simple asphyxiant_ with the following regulatory
| meaning[1]:
|
| >> _Simple asphyxiant_ means a substance or mixture that
| displaces oxygen in the ambient atmosphere, and can thus cause
| oxygen deprivation in those who are exposed, leading to
| unconsciousness and death.
|
| [1] https://www.osha.gov/laws-
| regs/regulations/standardnumber/19...
| perihelions wrote:
| That'd be one expensive cocktail.
|
| Always remember to drink in (neutron) moderation!
| robk wrote:
| Were the drinks good? Less hangover inducing?
| perihelions wrote:
| Regarding the deuterated version, it's actually possible it
| would have very different pharmacokinetics to normal ethanol.
| The first step in metabolism involves breaking the -O-H bond
| to create the =O aldehyde, so replacing that with a heaver
| -O-D would have a kinetic effect.
|
| For example, here's a Derek Lowe article about deuterated
| drugs (not ethanol):
|
| - _" So a well placed deuterium (or two, or three) can
| actually have a significant effect on how long a drug will
| circulate in the bloodstream, by slowing down the liver's
| clearance mechanism."_
|
| https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/first-
| deuterated-d... ( _" The First Deuterated Drug Arrives"_)
| gruez wrote:
| An economist article about Standard Reference Materials:
|
| https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2022/08/17/...
| xani_ wrote:
| Now we need most expensive restaurant cooking only with NIST-
| rated ingredients
| Metacelsus wrote:
| https://jabde.com/2022/07/29/immaterials-and-methods-reagent...
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| A mere $30k for a laboratory grade cookie. I'm surprised
| coconut oil is the most expensive ingredient at over half the
| recipe cost.
| OJFord wrote:
| I'm not, it would also be the most expensive ingredient at
| the supermarket instead of NIST.
| analog31 wrote:
| This is just because they haven't come up with a quantum standard
| for peanut butter yet.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Your tax dollars at work!
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| You would rather have industrial makers have nothing to test
| and calibrate their impurity detection equipment on? Probably
| nothing bad will happen if they just wing it
| jtvjan wrote:
| An army marches on its stomach. Without a standards
| organisation to ensure high-quality peanut butter, the nation
| will slowly fall to ruin!
| zinekeller wrote:
| Haha, definitely true, but of course the SRMs also help for
| more serious things (like metal strength for vehicles, which
| can be the difference between life and death).
| simlan wrote:
| Excatly. Keeping instruments calibrated and true.
| msla wrote:
| So's the ARPANet.
|
| Remember, kiddo: Microsoft-Orcale-Apple didn't invent the
| Internet. They just jumped on.
| bergenty wrote:
| This but unironically.
| EamonnMR wrote:
| They probably aren't losing money on $800 jars of peanut
| butter.
| trelane wrote:
| They probably _are_ since the methods and requirements are
| very different to what you buy in the store.
| blululu wrote:
| Having standards is one of the more important functions of
| government and this work has broad implications for consumer
| protection. The price is mot even cheap so at least the largest
| beneficiaries pay to brunt of the cost. If you're serious about
| government waste I would suggest looking at larger budget items
| like Lockheed or it's partners in the military first.
| mattkrause wrote:
| In fact, it's specifically called out in the US Constitution.
| Article I, Section VIII authorizes the government to "fix the
| standard of weights and measures".
| fortran77 wrote:
| It looks like they charge for the materials to offset the cost.
| This whole program, to ensure Americans get what they pay for
| in consumer items, is a much better use of my tax dollars than,
| say, paying for rich kids college loans.
| dry_soup wrote:
| Rich kids tend not to have college debt.
| Moosdijk wrote:
| This is a really good way to spend tax dollars, actually.
| lathiat wrote:
| Tom Scott & Half as Interesting did a few related videos:
|
| https://youtu.be/9mAcJRFfAL0
|
| https://youtu.be/nAsrsMPftOI
|
| https://youtu.be/jvJzi0BXcGI
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| I've been watching through Lost, with all the Dharma Initiative
| branded food in generic black and white boxes.
| wlonkly wrote:
| And that in turn influenced by generics[1], who have been
| raised to a yellow art form by Canada's "No Name" brand[3].
|
| [1] No, the other kind.[2]
|
| [2] http://gbnfgroceries.blogspot.com/2014/01/from-misc-foods-
| ai...
|
| [3] https://www.noname.ca/
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Hah, the aesthetic is indeed similar!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-15 23:00 UTC)