On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:18:23 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:21:49 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
Now I have a challenge for you, Mr. Metrologist:

Hi Gene,

What are your credentials? Can one expect you have at least a degree
in English? ;-)

I am a wheat farmer who has already proved not only our resident
engineer/programmer and Capital-M Metrologist wrong, but our Chief
Peacekeeper Missileman Engineer as well. Isn't that enough for one
week?

Of course, from that job, I'm well aware of what a bushel is on the
Minneapolis Grain Exchange and other commodities markets, or at the
local grain elevator. It isn't a unit of volume at these places. And
while it is a certain number of pounds for each particular commodity,
it most certainly is not unit of force, either.

Not only did I prove Mr. Metrologist wrong, but I also proved that he
has no integrity. He won't even admit that I did so, even though I
followed his ground rules to a T, specifically citing a NIST web page
showing him to be wrong.

My degrees weren't in English, however--though I did enjoy some
English classes, and such a degree would have been quite relevant to
our discussion of linguistics earlier. What are your credentials in
linguistics? In the law, another primary subject matter of our
discussion? In history?

Now, find somebody on the NIST web pages with better credentials than
mine and yours to tell us what the official definition of a pound
force is. Still bet you can't do so.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:32:28 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
My credentials won't change what you WON'T find on the NIST web pages,
wimp!

Hi Gene,

OK no credentials. No proficiency in English and not even a CB? How
droll, that is indeed an amusing challenge from a middle aged farmer
who would challenge where the center of North America lies. I suppose
the doggerel of "a pint's a pound, the world round" bears more
directly on this slim side topic - but you don't offer credentials
into that. ;-)

You remain inseparable (through your own choice, but not view) from
any of 6 Billion who could as easily deny anything offered by me
through your simple random strokes at the keyboard for rebuff. Thus
fulfilling any -um- challenge is of equal magnitude in its
achievement.

"A learned gentleman who in the course of conversation
wished to inform us of this simple fact, that the counsel upon
the circuit at Shrewsbury were much bitten by fleas, took,
I suppose, seven or eight minutes in relating it circumstantially.
Johnson sat in great impatience till the gentleman had finished
his tedious narrative, and then burst out (playfully however),
'It is a pity, Sir, that you have not seen a lion; for a flea has
taken you such a time, that a lion must have served you for
a twelvemonth.'" "Boswell's Life of Johnson," pg. 407

Please leave plenty of room in front of you at the end of the line.
Those with credentials and important issues (and there are many,
metaphorical lions as it were instead of your fleas) will no doubt
(playfully however) slip in front of you in the future.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:05:08 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:



Gene Nygaard wrote:
Apparently Halliday and Resnick were a lot smarter a couple of decades
earlier, when they were only a little past their prime:

Hey Gene,

Maybe Halliday and Resnick in fact _avoided_ becoming "past their prime"
when they adapted their point of view to the one which now prevails.

It isn't a matter of "point of view." This isn't politics or an
opinion poll, and it isn't psychology or sociology, and it isn't
freshman literature. It's a matter of facts--of standards and
definitions. The fact is that pounds are units of mass, and that
pounds force also exist (a recent *******ization, of course).

Their 1981 Appendix misstates those facts. That's it, plain and
simple.

Now prevails? I issue you the same challenge I issued to our
Metrologist:

Show me an official definition of a pound force on the NIST pages.
Bet you can't do so. Note that a conditional definition, with a big
"if", indicating that this is only one possible acceptable definition,
is not sufficient--I want an official definition.

If you can't do that, try a broader problem: Show me an official
definition of a pound as a unit of force from ANY law of ANY country
in the world, or from ANY standard of ANY national or international
standards organization, or from ANY standard of ANY professional
organization.

Halliday and Resnick were right on top of things in 1960, already
aware of the change of definition that had taken place only 1 July of
the previous year, effective immediately on its publication. If you
haven't read what the National Bureau of Standards said in that
announcement, take the time now to do so (partial excerpt below).
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Fed...doc59-5442.pdf
http://gssp.wva.net/html.common/refine.pdf

Announcement. Effective July 1, 1959, all calibrations in
the U.S. customary system of weights and measures carried
out by the National Bureau of Standards will continue to be
based upon metric measurement standards and except for
the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey as noted below, will be
made in terms of the following exact equivalences and
appropriate multiples and submultiples:
1 yard = 0.9144 meter
1 pound (avoirdupois) = 0.453 592 37 kilogram

Currently, the units defined by these same equivalences,
which have been designated as the International Yard and
the International Pound, respectively, will be used by the
National Standards Laboratories of Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, South Africa, and United Kingdom; thus there will
be brought about international accord on the yard and
pound by the English-speaking nations of the world, in
precise measurements involving these basic units.

Now, perhaps you think something changed between 1960 and 1981 when
the revised Halliday & Resnick came out. What would that have been?
Some change in the law? In the standards kept by the National Bureau
of Standards (later replaced by NIST)? Show me some justification for
a change, some change in facts, that would justify a different "point
of view" as you put it.

Or were Halliday and Resnick just terribly prescient, and they foresaw
some change that took place between 1981 and today? If so, tell us
exactly what that change was.

Or maybe you think that the 1959 redefinition is just some sort of
"legal definition" and that in the sciences we have some other "real
definition" that we go by. Is that your position? No problem if it
is, but if that is indeed what you are claiming, please fill us in on
a few followup questions:

1. What is the nature of the standard for a pound in its "scientific
definition"? Is it something mechanical, something electrical, or
what?

2. Who declared whatever the standard is to be the standard? NIST?
U.S. Congress? ISO? BIPM? The First International Extraordinary
Hydrographic Conference (they are the ones who defined the standard
for the international nautical mile)? Some other entity?

3. When was it made the standard? Just the year will do.

4. To whom does the standard apply? In other words, for whom does
the defining agency have the authority to make the standards?

5. Along the same lines, if this is a "scientific definition" which
differs from the "legal definition," what is its scope? What is "in
science"? Does it include Halliday and Resnick's definition of a Btu,
and their use of units of Btu/(lb °F) for specific heat capacity?
Same for Sears and Zemansky, the textbook cited by the Peacekeeper
Engineer?

6. What is the exact relationship between pounds force and the metric
units, or the relationship to the greatest precision in which it can
be expressed if it is not exact?

7. Even if all this were true, would it mean that the pound is a unit
of mass? Is there some rule that says that textbook authors are
allowed to bury their heads in the sand, and ignore the real world
which does in fact use the definition agreed on by those six national
standards laboratories of some of the most advanced nations in the
world in 1959?


Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:45:27 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
Not only did I prove Mr. Metrologist wrong, but I also proved that he
has no integrity.

Hi Gene,

And yet this does not seem to satisfy you. ;-)

No doubt this is product of an insecure basis in logic that is more
heartfelt than intuitive (despite the cut-and-paste philosophies).

A historical lesson is brought to bear by the publisher of Newton's
Principia:
21 Nov. 1667
"I out and took coach and to Arundell house, where the meeting
of Gresham College was broke up; but there meeting Creed, I
with him to the tavern in St. Clements churchyard, where
was Deane Wilkins, Dr. Whistler, Dr. Floyd, a divine, admitted,
I perceive, this day, and other brave men. Among the rest, they
discourse of a man that is a little frantic (that hath been a kind
of minister, Dr, Wilkins saying that he hath read for him in his
church) that is poor and a debauched man, that the College have
hired for 20s. to have some of the blood of a Sheep let into his
body; and it is to be done Saturday next. They purpose to let in
about twelve ounces, which they compute is what will be let in in
a minutes time by a watch. They differ in the opinion they have
of the effects of it..."

30 Nov. 1667
"I was pleased to the see the person who had his blood taken
out. He speaks well, and did this day give the Society a relation
thereof in Latin, saying he finds himself much better since, and
as a new man. But he is cracked a little in his head, though he
speaks very reasonably and very well, He had but 20s. for his
suffering it, and is to have the same tried upon him..."

As I offered elsewhere; there are many in my fan club who's minds I
cannot change. For such trivial matters as yours, I am afraid you
have to go to the end of that line, and leave room for others of
substance ahead of you.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:20:17 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

But he is cracked a little in his head, though he
speaks very reasonably and very well

Hi Gene,

Knowing you need references (a classic education would have exposed
this to you and it would have served no purpose to cite) Samuel Pepys.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gene Nygaard wrote:
Now, perhaps you think something changed between 1960 and 1981 when
the revised Halliday & Resnick came out.

Hi Gene,
You'll be surprised to learn that a lot has changed since 1960.

Show me some justification for
a change, some change in facts, that would justify a different "point
of view" as you put it.

Since it's apparent that you have no need to change your point of view,
I find that I likewise have no need to change your point of view.

Why do you think torque wrenches have the unit 'foot-pounds' printed on
them if the pound is a unit of mass?

2. Who declared whatever the standard is to be the standard?

I don't know, but I guess they should have spoken to you about it
first. ;-)

4. To whom does the standard apply?

It applies to everyone except the people who apparently don't want it to
apply to them. :-)

6. What is the exact relationship between pounds force and the metric
units, or the relationship to the greatest precision in which it can
be expressed if it is not exact?

It's not like it's a big secret or anything.

7. Even if all this were true, would it mean that the pound is a unit
of mass?

The pound is generally accepted to be a unit of force. Otherewise,
they'd have to get rid of all the PSI pressure gauges.

Is there some rule that says that textbook authors are
allowed to bury their heads in the sand, and ignore the real world
which does in fact use the definition agreed on by those six national
standards laboratories of some of the most advanced nations in the
world in 1959?

It really wouldn't hurt you to pick up a (modern) physics book and just
look at it some time. Or maybe you're of the opinion that all modern
physics books are wrong?

But here's a question: if one pound of mass weighs one pound and exerts
one pound of force, given F = MA, what are the units of A (little g)?
Or, would you claim one pound of mass actually weighs 32.17 pounds?

73, Jim AC6XG

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:44:09 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
Now, perhaps you think something changed between 1960 and 1981 when
the revised Halliday & Resnick came out.

Hi Gene,
You'll be surprised to learn that a lot has changed since 1960.

Show me some justification for
a change, some change in facts, that would justify a different "point
of view" as you put it.

Since it's apparent that you have no need to change your point of view,
I find that I likewise have no need to change your point of view.

Why do you think torque wrenches have the unit 'foot-pounds' printed on
them if the pound is a unit of mass?

Mine also has "meter kilograms" on it. What does that tell you?

Note that I've said all along that pounds force exist as well. I've
just been attacking the idiots who claim that pounds are never units
of mass.

2. Who declared whatever the standard is to be the standard?

I don't know, but I guess they should have spoken to you about it
first. ;-)

Did anybody do so?

Missed that part, didn't you!

4. To whom does the standard apply?

It applies to everyone except the people who apparently don't want it to
apply to them. :-)

6. What is the exact relationship between pounds force and the metric
units, or the relationship to the greatest precision in which it can
be expressed if it is not exact?

It's not like it's a big secret or anything.

7. Even if all this were true, would it mean that the pound is a unit
of mass?

The pound is generally accepted to be a unit of force. Otherewise,
they'd have to get rid of all the PSI pressure gauges.

And what about Btu's? Specific heat capacities in Btu/(lb °F)?

Is there some rule that says that textbook authors are
allowed to bury their heads in the sand, and ignore the real world
which does in fact use the definition agreed on by those six national
standards laboratories of some of the most advanced nations in the
world in 1959?

It really wouldn't hurt you to pick up a (modern) physics book and just
look at it some time. Or maybe you're of the opinion that all modern
physics books are wrong?

But here's a question: if one pound of mass weighs one pound and exerts
one pound of force, given F = MA,

There's your error, a faulty premise.

All we really know is that force is proportional to mass times
acceleration. One way we can express this is F = k·m·a. Yes, we can
choose our units so that the proportionality constant is one, but we
don't have to do so. In any case, the k, whether it is 1 or some
other number, is always the same for a particular choice of units for
those three quantities.

Also, when we do choose our units that way, we have several different
ways we can do so using English units, as well as several ways we can
do so using metric units (only one of which is SI, the modern metric
system).

what are the units of A (little g)?
Or, would you claim one pound of mass actually weighs 32.17 pounds?

A pound of mass at sea level on Earth exerts a force of 32.088
poundals and 32.258 poundals (not pounds force). It will exert a
force of something like 32.024 poundals atop Mt. Chimborazo, the
highest mountain on Earth (at least in both ways relevant to this
example). It exerts a force of somewhere between 0.9973 lbf and
1.0026 lbf at sea level.

--
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
"It's not the things you don't know
what gets you into trouble.

"It's the things you do know
that just ain't so."
Will Rogers

I am 240 pounds 'mass' on earth. That's a fact.

I am 240 pounds 'mass' on moon. That's a weird assertion!

If that assertion is true, who changed the density of the moon??

Dave Shrader wrote:
"If that assertion (I am 240 pounds "mass" on earth. That`s a fact. I am
240 pounds "mass" on moon. That`s a weird assertion!) is true, who
changed te density of the moon??"

Mass is the bulk of matter though not necessarily equal to its weight. A
mass weighing 240 pounds on earth weighs less on the moon because there
is less mutual attraction between the moon, of much smaller mass than
the earth`s mass, and the object which weighs 240 pounds on the earth.

Mass is the property which provides a body with inertia. Mass is the
mechanical analogy of inductance. Mass is equal to the weight of a body
divided by the acceleration due from gravity (32ft./sec./sec.). This is
an expression of Newton`s 2nd law of motion: F = MA, thus M = F/A.

Newton`s 1st law says that to move a body at rest, enough force must be
applied to overcome its inertia.

Newton`s 3rd law says that for every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction.

The gravitational force of the earth is stated as "1". The gravitational
force on the moon is about 0.16 that on earth, so an object weighing 240
pounds on earth would weigh only 38.4 pounds on the moon.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:48:24 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

I am 240 pounds 'mass' on earth. That's a fact.
No, in the US system of measurement your mass is measured in slugs.
your weigh is measured in pounds and is 240# on earth

In the metric system mass is in kg. Again the metric system is easier.
240#=109.091 kg

I am 240 pounds 'mass' on moon. That's a weird assertion!

Your mass is still the same (109.091 kg), but your weight is
considerably less on the moon.


If that assertion is true, who changed the density of the moon??

It has nothing to do with the assertion, but the mass of the moon is
less than the mass of the earth.

The mass of you and the earth sets what you weight on earth.
Your mass and the mass of the moon set what you weigh on the moon. The
mass of the moon is much less than that of earth so you weight much
less on the moon.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)