|
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:30:51 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote: As for reputation.... You, admittedly, have absolutely no experience in the matter, and this is not rec.sci.amateur.hour. I live in one of the windiest parts of the country, and I am quite capable of recognizing the sound of hot air rushing by. If there is, in fact, an official definition of the pound as a unit of force, it isn't going to be a closely guarded secret, even post-11 Sep 2001. If you are a Metrologist, it should be a piece of cake to find it. So for you, or anyone else who would like to help you out, here are a few hints. Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is, who defined it, and when. Or go to someone you had as a science teacher, and enlist their help. Go to a science teacher who is teaching your kids or grandkids. Look in the textbooks you used, and see if the authors have any footnotes citing the authority for whatever definition they use. Look for the official definition in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, or in the Engineer's Handbook. Look for the official definition in Encyclopædia Britannica, or in World Book Encyclopedia, or the World Almanac, and whatever source is cited in any of these. Write or email NIST, and be sure to ask them not only what the official definition is, but what makes it official and how long it has been in use. Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ |
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:04:26 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote: Pepys could have written 1£ that is shorter, but he did not as it was obviously not what was tendered to the debauched man. Even the debauched man would understand the significance of weight v. mass and how equivalencies of 1pound = umpty-ump grams does not render the term pound as mass, Let me explain to you the difference between your mere equivalence and a definition. At the same time the pound was redefined around the world as 0.45359237 kg, the yard was redefined as 0.9144 m. Since then, no specific action has ever been taken to redefine the yard, yet its ultimate definition has changed not just once but twice. When the yard was redefined as 0.9144 m in 1959, exactly 2 parts per million less than the old U.S. definition, the meter was defined by the distance between two lines on a certain platinum-iridium bar with a Tresca (crooked x) cross-section, kept by the BIPM at the same location where the official kilogram is kept. The yard was then 0.9144 times the distance between those two marks. Then in 1960 the meter was redefined as 1650763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line emitted by a certain transition in krypton-86 atoms. Thus, at that time the yard was ultimately defined as 1509458.354712 wavelengths of the same light. Then in 1983 the definition of the meter was changed, making it so the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299792458 meters per second. No action was taken to change the definition of a yard, but it changed nonetheless. A yard is now ultimately defined, for the present time and until and if the meter definition ever changes again, as the distance that light travels in a vacuum in 1143/374740572500 second. On the other hand, suppose that one or all of the countries involved choose to abrogate the 1959 redefinition of the yard in terms of the meter, and instead restore some independent standard. What effect would that have on the ultimate definition of the meter? None whatsoever. Likeways, if the kilogram were to be redefined as x buckyballs of carbon-12, then the pound would automatically become 0.45359237x buckyballs of carbon-12. OTOH, if someone restored the definition of the pound to some independently maintained chunk of metal, that would have no effect whatsoever on the definition of the kilogram, and the realtionship between the pound and the kilogram would then become a measured quantity rather than an exact definition. Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:18:36 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:30:51 GMT, Richard Clark wrote: As for reputation.... You, admittedly, have absolutely no experience in the matter, and this is not rec.sci.amateur.hour. I live in one of the windiest parts of the country, and I am quite capable of recognizing the sound of hot air rushing by. If there is, in fact, an official definition of the pound as a unit of force, it isn't going to be a closely guarded secret, even post-11 Sep 2001. If you are a Metrologist, it should be a piece of cake to find it. So for you, or anyone else who would like to help you out, here are a few hints. Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is, who defined it, and when. Or go to someone you had as a science teacher, and enlist their help. Go to a science teacher who is teaching your kids or grandkids. Look in the textbooks you used, and see if the authors have any footnotes citing the authority for whatever definition they use. Look for the official definition in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, or in the Engineer's Handbook. Look for the official definition in Encyclopædia Britannica, or in World Book Encyclopedia, or the World Almanac, and whatever source is cited in any of these. Write or email NIST, and be sure to ask them not only what the official definition is, but what makes it official and how long it has been in use. More possibilities-- Go to sci.physics or slug.support and ask the people there to point you to the official definition of the pound as a unit of force. Search Lexis (http://www.lexis-nexis.com) for a legal definition, if you are a subscriber to this service or know someone who has access to it. Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ |
Gene wrote,
Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is, who defined it, and when. I'm not a science teacher, but it wasn't hard to find. Look in the _Handbook of Mathematical Functions_ under "Physical Constants and Conversion Factors," by A.G. McNish of the National Bureau of Standards (this is an old book). There it is, clear as a drunkard's gin, 1 pound force = 4.44822 Newtons. Speaking of Newtons, Newton, is the catty a unit of weight, force, or mass, and where is the official definition of same? What! No official definition of a unit that has been in use for thousands of years? Why are you arguing about old measurement standards on a newsgroup that is supposed to be devoted to the amateur use of antennas? There should be a newsgroup devoted to the obsessions of amateur physicists where like-minded people could rail at one another without bothering anyone else. You should understand that there are very few people in the world who ever bother to let the concept of pound force disturb their sleep at night. Perhaps you shouldn't let it bother yours, either. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:53:34 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote: I will bet that Richard Clark won't endorse your finding as being any sort of "official definition." What do you say, Richard? Did he find a hidden treasure? Hi Gene, You haven't got it yet? I don't care. :-) Your correspondence with its one note tune reminds me of the couplet about fleas "and fleas have littler fleas, and so on ad infinitum" 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On 29 Sep 2003 15:08:27 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote: Gene wrote, Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is, who defined it, and when. I'm not a science teacher, but it wasn't hard to find. Look in the _Handbook of Mathematical Functions_ under "Physical Constants and Conversion Factors," by A.G. McNish of the National Bureau of Standards (this is an old book). There it is, clear as a drunkard's gin, 1 pound force = 4.44822 Newtons. Speaking of Newtons, How old? When was it published (before or after 1959, in particular). I will bet that Richard Clark won't endorse your finding as being any sort of "official definition." What do you say, Richard? Did he find a hidden treasure? McNish also gives a conversion factor for pounds to kilograms, doesn't he? From what you have given us, he identified the "pounds force" as such. What does he call the pounds which are converted to kilograms? Just "pounds"? Or "pounds mass"? Or just "pounds avoirdupois" and "pounds troy" without saying that they are pounds mass? I'll also bet that McNish didn't call them "Newtons"--it is newtons, not capitalized in English. Now, let's assume that this were an official definition. Then what is the "standard acceleration of gravity" in English units? A pound force is equal to a pound mass times the standard acceleration of gravity. We already know a pound is officially defined as 0.45359237 kg, so that standard acceleration of gravity will be 1 lbf divided by 1 lb. 1 lbf/1 lb =4.44822 N/0.45359237 kg = (4.44822 kg m/s²)/0.45359237 kg = 4.44822/0.45359237 m/s² or about 9.80664643896 m/s² (4.44822/0.45359237 m/s²)(1 ft/0.3048 m) = 4.44822/0.138254954376 ft/s² = 32.17403687... ft/s² That is indeed awfully close to the standard acceleration of free fall which is official for defining kilograms force. But it isn't the same, if that is an official definition of a pound force. Gene wrote, Newton, is the catty a unit of weight, force, or mass, and where is the official definition of same? What! No official definition of a unit that has been in use for thousands of years? There are lots of official definitions--but since I don't read Chinese, I'm not about to venture a guess as to whether or not any of them are found on the Internet. They are units of mass, of course. Originally represented by independently maintained standards, and varying somewhat in different countries. Just as pounds were and just as kilograms still are. But at various times and places, and for various purposes such as international trade, catties were officially redefined in several different ways: as exactly 1 1/3 lb avoirdupois, as exactly 600 g, and as exactly 500 g are just a few of those official redefinitions--there might also have been one in terms of troy units, perhaps 20 oz troy = 1 2/3 lb troy, and perhaps other redefinitions in terms of either Spanish or Portuguese libras. Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ That's the kind of reply I expected. You didn't reply, however, to my contention that your posts are off topic and excessively obsessive. I'd like to know something, though. What made you believe that anyone here would be interested in your petty distinction between pounds and pounds? I expect Richard is enjoying himself, as he collects much laughter up the sleeve, but I think the whole thing is strange, even for this newsgroup. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:38:03 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:53:34 GMT, Gene Nygaard wrote: I will bet that Richard Clark won't endorse your finding as being any sort of "official definition." What do you say, Richard? Did he find a hidden treasure? Hi Gene, You haven't got it yet? I don't care. :-) Gee, I forgot. I suppose 14 responses are pretty good evidence of how little you do care. If anybody actually does come up with an official definition, you'll be latching onto it like a fly onto ****. Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ |
Richard Clark wrote:
"The folks at the end of the line are beginning to complain - could you move back some more?" Could Richard Clark be referring to Stan Freburg`s parody of Harry Belafonte`s "Banana Boat Song" (Day-O, Day-O, etc)? Some more! They can still hear you! Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:56:50 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote: Let me explain to you the difference between your mere equivalence and a definition. Hi Gene, You admittedly don't have the skills (which is evident in the single sentence quote above). And further, you say nothing responsive to the post, instead, yet again repeating, ad nauseum, the same poor quality of scripted response. You are out of your element and terribly devoid of communication concepts that go beyond a cut-and-paste philosophy. Your knee jerk response to label any intelligent response as being offered by a fool is no retort of substance here. I willingly embrace such a title of fool. You can easily consult Google to the matter, but I will repeat it for you: "Considering how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any other fool to learn how to master the same tricks. "Some calculus-tricks are quite easy, Some are enormously difficult. The fools who write the text-books of advanced mathematics - and they are the most clever fools - seldom take the trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way. "Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. What one fool can do, another can." Silvanus P. Thompson, F.R.S. If this seems a little dense in its meaning, it suggests the totality of your intellectual achievement in 3000+ posts can be contained in a handheld calculator with that calculator's added benefit that it won't back sass the operator. :-) C'mon now Gene, we both know that any perceived admission to your inestimable authority would deflate you immediately into the depression of not being the focus - merely the period ending a lengthy, but trivial unread footnote. The web is littered with similar academic wannabees. Your one note opera doesn't even need the fat lady. Curtain. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com