Doubt expressed over accuracy of measurement of the ‘Beard-Second’

In Uncategorized on September 3, 2017 by kmflett

Beard Liberation Front

press release 3rd September contact Keith Flett 07803 167266

Doubt expressed over accuracy of measurement of the ‘Beard-Second’

The Beard Liberation Front, the informal network of beard wearers, has expressed doubt over the accuracy of the unit of measurement known as the ‘Beard-Second’.

The ‘Beard-Second’ is designed to measure how quickly in time a beard grows.

According to Wiki:

The beard-second is a unit of length inspired by the light-year, but applicable to extremely short distances such as those in integrated circuits. The beard-second is defined as the length an average beard grows in one second. Kemp Bennett Kolb defines the distance as exactly 100 angstroms (10 nanometers). as does Nordling and Österman’s Physics Handbook. However, Google Calculator supports the beard-second for unit conversions using the value 5 nm.

The beard-second establishes a related unit of time, the beard-inch which is 29.4 days (or 58.8 days according to Google)

The BLF says that it will be noted that based on the ‘Beard-Second’ the ‘average’ beard will grow one inch in length in one or two months depending on which scale is issued. However there is no such thing as an ‘average’ beard.

The campaigners say that beards are highly individualistic, far from the ‘man with a beard’ stereotype. The rate of growth may be accelerated or diminished by a range of activities including pruning the beard, marinading it in imperial stout etc.

BLF Organiser Keith Flett said, we think further research into the accuracy of the ‘Beard-Second’ is required and we may carry out our own tests.

One Response to “Doubt expressed over accuracy of measurement of the ‘Beard-Second’”

  1. Reblogged this on In the Dark and commented:
    As a practising scientist I too am concerned about the reliability of the definition of the `Beard Second’. Many factors affect beard growth, so any definition must include conditions such as temperature, pressure, sunlight levels and whether or not the beard is supplied with nutrients. In any case the term `average’ usually applies to the arithmetic mean, whereas the quoted text seems to imply the median.

    My advice to the Beard Liberation Front is to refer this matter to the National Measurement and Regulation Office for review but along with most government offices nowadays it only seems interested in issues that directly affect the ability of businesses to profit rather than safeguarding the accuracy and reproducibility of scientific matters of direct interest to the public, such as the rate of beard growth.

    In the longer term, however, I believe the only way to establish a reliable standard for the `beard second’ is through an extensive research programme. A detailed proposal is in preparation to UK Research and Innovation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: