Talk:Dyne

Comment

Dyne is also an online community of open source developers and programmers.

www.Dyne.org

Perhaps this org merits its own article, and a disambig link from this article? Ian Cairns 21:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obsolete or not?

On 2 Feb, I changed the first sentence to say that the CGS system is "obsolete". This was reverted four days later. However, I think it is important to put the dyne / CGS into perspective, so now I changed "cgs" to "cgs, a predecessor of the modern SI". Hope that variant will become consensus.

Apart from that, the edit that reverted my edit had this comment:

CGS units are still widely used in astronomy, astrophysics and petrophysics (Oil&Gas Industry) (they are not obsolete)

From what I'm reading on the CGS page, "widely used" is an overstatement--it's more like "occasionally encountered". So in order to provide context for further edits, here are some quotes from the CGS article:

"The centimeter-gram-second system [...] was replaced by the MKS"
"the CGS system never gained wide general use outside the field of electrodynamics and was gradually superseded internationally"
"CGS units are still occasionally encountered in older technical literature, especially in the United States in the fields of electrodynamics and astronomy".

--193.99.145.162 11:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, presumably you've seen the commentary on the talk page over at CGS as well, but I'm a graduate student in physics at the moment, and I would say based on my experience that CGS is definitely not obsolete. My classes use CGS almost exclusively; moreover, so does my research -- it's still (as far as I can tell) the standard for describing things like surface tension. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur before my time ;-) Chalkdusted 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I just came to this article because one paper I'm reading on surface tension uses dyne/cm, and I needed to know what does that mean. Maybe a better replacement could be that "CGS is obsolete except for a few countries and fields of science" — and keep the "fields of science" as a sign of good will to those countries. Also, according to wikipedia on SI, that didn't evolve from CGS as the alternative seems to implicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.121.122 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that the existence of international standards does not necessarily translate to the fields of study themselves, but rather act as just that: a means by which the subject matter is translatable across all disciplines. Classical standards are generally in practice because they allow the resident experts in those fields to continue advancing the study of the material without breaking the fluid connection with the field's history, which is essential in any field of study. -MVD — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelVernonDavis (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dyne and Newton

The page says one dyne is 10⁻⁵ kg·m/s², which is 10^-5 N, but then says that it is equal to 10 µN, which is 10^-6 N. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.121.122 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, stupid mistake. 10^-5 kg.m/s² = 10 µN

References

Only reference link for this article is out of date, effectively leaving this page without references. -MVD — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelVernonDavis (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]