Hey Thomas, read this and eat some crow.
bushay
And he ought to write another artice about Draper tomarrow.
ChuckcuhC
"bushay" <bush...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cdadneRu_YT...@comcast.com...
> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/bonus/2004-04-06-role-player_x.htm
>
> And he ought to write another artice about Draper tomarrow.
>
http://tennessean.com/sports/predators/archives/04/04/49600105.shtml?Element_ID=49600105
Hockeyguy
with the idea that it actually was worth something. What asked what the
point was he implied that it could be used to form some conclusion - but he
without posting any conclusion or observation of his own. I offerred to
dump the Webster dictionary for him and then he could make up a story about
how useless his contributions or perspectives are. Guy is a boob...
Go wings....
NewsGuyOne
Hockeyguy wrote:
Thanks god you're here to counterbalance him.
>
>
> Go wings....
The Original Archie Leach
Thomas's obsession for the Coloraduh Evilanche, and his equivalent
obsession with hating on the Wings (what year was it when Thomas
declared Kirk Maltby to be "just another AHLer"?) borders on
legendary.
Archie Leach
WalkinDude
<heym...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Previously this Thomas idiot dumped a bunch of hockey stats in a posting
>with the idea that it actually was worth something.
And this dumbshit post of yours is just worth its weight in gold.
Yeesh.
Doug Norris
news:pqch701g481sv63sd...@4ax.com...
> And this dumbshit post of yours is just worth its weight in gold.
What weighs more - a pound of feathers, or a pound of gold?
Doug
WalkinDude
Whichever one is hitched to forty pounds of hockeyguy's rambling
bullshit.
Doug Norris
I'm serious here - a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.
Doug
WalkinDude
<norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:14:42 GMT, "Doug Norris"
>> <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
>>
>> >"WalkinDude" <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>> >news:pqch701g481sv63sd...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> And this dumbshit post of yours is just worth its weight in gold.
>> >
>> >What weighs more - a pound of feathers, or a pound of gold?
>>
>> Whichever one is hitched to forty pounds of hockeyguy's rambling
>> bullshit.
>
>I'm serious here - a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.
By about 80 grams.
Doug Norris
Exactly.
Doug
NewsGuyOne
Doug Norris wrote:
> "WalkinDude" <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
> news:nafh70dadkqm1sga4...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:34:24 GMT, "Doug Norris"
> > <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:14:42 GMT, "Doug Norris"
> > >> <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"WalkinDude" <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
> > >> >news:pqch701g481sv63sd...@4ax.com...
> > >> >
> > >> >> And this dumbshit post of yours is just worth its weight in gold.
> > >> >
> > >> >What weighs more - a pound of feathers, or a pound of gold?
> > >>
> > >> Whichever one is hitched to forty pounds of hockeyguy's rambling
> > >> bullshit.
> > >
> > >I'm serious here - a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of
> gold.
> >
> > By about 80 grams.
>
> Exactly.
What the fuck are you guys talking about here?
>
>
> Doug
The Original Archie Leach
Okay, maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but how can it be possible for a
pound of feathers to weigh 80 grams more than a pound of gold? Grams
are a metric unit of mass, while pounds are an English unit of weight.
If I'm not mistaken (and it's been over 10 years since I last took a
physics class), mass is a function of density and volume, while weight
is a function of mass and the gravitational attraction between the
object and earth.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html
Of course, the answer has to do with different "values" and systems
for the "pound" being used in the question above--most everything
weight in the foot-pound-second using the avoirdupois system, having
evolved from the troy system of measuring precious metals during the
reign of Elizabeth I. (Apparently, the weight of precious metals is
still measured in troy units.....splitters!)
http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/weight.htm
As such, an avoirdupois pound of anything will have a heavier weight
(by the amount of the weight contained in 1240 Grains at sea level)
than a troy pound of gold (or silver or tungsten or feta cheese),
assuming equal gravitational conditions for the two "pounds".
I'm guessing that it would be a different case for a pound of feathers
at sea level vs. a troy pound of gold at 20 miles above mean sea level
elevation...
Archie Leach
Mister Science for the day
39N95W
"NewsGuyOne" <YouWon'tRea...@ThisPhonyAddress.com> wrote in message
news:40794757...@ThisPhonyAddress.com...
I'll take a stab at this. "pounds" when used to desrcibe weight is actually
a force unit, not a mass unit. It just so happens that on earth that the
force unit "pounds" is equivalent to the mass unit, which I forget what the
English mass unit is. Ergs? Anyway, I still would have guessed that the
two were equal (pound of feathers and pound of gold). However, there may be
some slight differences in the math as it relates to the gravitational
constant used to compute force, which may account for an 80 gram difference
(grams are a mass unit in SI units, not a force). Even though I still think
they should be the same, on earth at least, it wouldn't surprise me at all
if the obvious assumption were false. It's similar to the phenomenon that
hot water will freeze faster than cold water. Barely measurable, but true
nonetheless.
One more usless physics related trivia: the reason puddles, lakes and other
bodies of water don't freeze from the bottom up is that water is at its most
dense at about 4 degrees Celsius, thus the water at the freeze threshold is
always "lighter" and thus on top when it freezes. Sounds kinda pointless
but were it not so then we wouldn't be here today.
-gk-
Doug Norris
news:40794757...@ThisPhonyAddress.com...
>
>
Feathers are weighed by avoirdupois (standard) weight, so a pound of
feathers weighs sixteen ounces.
Gold is weighed by troy measurement, so a pound of gold weighs ten ounces.
Doug
nJb
Fair enough. Which freezes faster hot water or cold water?
--
Jack
DaveHX
"nJb" <bobo...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:4079A113...@xmission.com...
nJb
BZZZZZT. Hot water doesn't freeze.
--
Jack
39N95W
"The Original Archie Leach" <master_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0fc426a.04041...@posting.google.com...
[snippage]
Ahhh, thanks for the pointer. Turns out I was wrong, but I figured it would
be a technicality like that.
-gk-
39N95W
> DaveHX wrote:
> >
> > Hot water freezes faster
That is true. But if the question were rephrased, such as "two equal
volumes of water are place in a sub freezing environment. One volume of
water is cold when placed inside, the other volume is hot. Which one would
freeze first?" Then the answer would be "hot".
-gk-
nJb
The correct answer is "under certain conditions, hot".
--
Jack
Captain K
"39N95W" <gkam...@sunflower.com> wrote in message
news:107jmut...@corp.supernews.com...
Hockeyguy
"NewsGuyOne" <YouWon'tRea...@ThisPhonyAddress.com> wrote in message
simle...
Hockeyguy
The guy is a pretentious oaf - what exactly was the point of that mega-dump
of stats.
Yep
You prefer to *move on* when it comes to discussion of Moore/Bertuzzi, yet
you get bent out-of-shape over someone posting stats, however pointless they
may be?
Gene Nygaard
You are way out of your league now.
Stick to hockey. It's obvious that you are clueless in the field of
metrology, and even worse in the science of semantics.
Gene Nygaard
Michael P. Reed
wrote:
Better a boob than an ass, eh? As I took his post, it was a FYI sorta thing.
Personally, I found at least some of it interesting (much more than the
I-hate-Shanny and I-hate-Dandeneaux/Devereaux threads that are so prevelent in
these parts). And, FWIW, at least the stats were on topic as opposed to the
Webster's dictionary. Poor retort.
> Go wings....
For all your belly aching, ought that not be "Go Avs?"
--
Michael P. Reed
Michael P. Reed
> I'll take a stab at this. "pounds" when used to desrcibe weight is actually
> a force unit, not a mass unit. It just so happens that on earth that the
> force unit "pounds" is equivalent to the mass unit, which I forget what the
> English mass unit is. Ergs?
Slugs. Ergs is an SI unit for energy.
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Gene Nygaard
Original Archie Leach) wrote:
>WalkinDude <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<nafh70dadkqm1sga4...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:34:24 GMT, "Doug Norris"
>> <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:14:42 GMT, "Doug Norris"
>> >> <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"WalkinDude" <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:pqch701g481sv63sd...@4ax.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> And this dumbshit post of yours is just worth its weight in gold.
>> >> >
>> >> >What weighs more - a pound of feathers, or a pound of gold?
>> >>
>> >> Whichever one is hitched to forty pounds of hockeyguy's rambling
>> >> bullshit.
>> >
>> >I'm serious here - a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.
>>
>> By about 80 grams.
>
>Okay, maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but how can it be possible for a
>pound of feathers to weigh 80 grams more than a pound of gold?
You ought to stick to hockey, also.
The avoirdupois pound is, by definition, 453.59237 grams
The troy pound is, by definition 373.2417216 grams
-----------
The difference is 80.3506484 grams
Pounds are units of mass, and have been since they were first used.
>Grams
>are a metric unit of mass, while pounds are an English unit of weight.
Sure, there is also a pound force, just as there is a kilogram force.
The metric system is, of course, still fully supported and updated,
and the keepers of our standards have been telling us for nearly half
a century to quit using kilograms force, though we do still see
vestiges of their use in things such as torque wrenches in "meter
kilograms" and pressure gauges in "kg/cm²" and thrust of jet or rocket
engines in kilograms force and tension of bicycle spokes in kilograms
force.
OTOH, nobody is ever going to bother telling us not to use pounds
force without telling us not to use pounds at all. Those systems are
no longer supported and updated. They are like obsolete software;
they might still work fine for your own use, but aren't so good when
you decide you need to communicate with the rest of the world.
Now, getting back to pounds. Note the article I associated with
pounds force above: the article "a" pound force. Pounds force are
such a recent spinoff that they are uniquely identified by that name.
Of all the hundreds of different pounds used at various times and
places throughout history, only one has spawned a unit of force of the
same name that has seen any significant use.
In particular, that one pound force is an avoirdupois pound force. But
that's only one of the units called pounds which you were discussing
in this thread. The troy pound, on the other hand, is one of the
hundreds of pounds which were never units of force. In the troy
system of weights, the units are always units of mass. There is no
troy pound force and no troy ounce force, and there never have been
any.
So if you are going to compare troy pounds to avoirdupois pounds, you
need to compare them to avoirdupois pounds mass, not to avoirdupois
pounds force.
We no longer have any independent standards for avoirdupois pounds.
They have been defined around the world as exactly 0.45359237 kg since
1959, when the national standards laboratories of the six major
countries using English units agreed on a common definition. That
redefinition, of course, did not change the fact that they were units
of mass--it just made them the same amount of mass everywhere. In
fact, in the United States, the avoirdupois pound had already been
defined as a slightly different exact fraction of a kilogram for 66
years before then. Read more about this at either of these sites, the
same document which is the current U.S. law:
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.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
those for the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey as noted
below, will be made in terms of the following exact equivalents
and appropriate multiples and submultiples:
1 yard= 0.914 4 meter
1 pound (avoirdupois)= 0.453 592 37 kilogram
> If I'm not mistaken (and it's been over 10 years since I last took a
>physics class), mass is a function of density and volume, while weight
>is a function of mass and the gravitational attraction between the
>object and earth.
You are mistaken--the science in which you are most deficient is not
physics, but rather linguistics. This is strictly a question of
semantics, not of physics.
The fact of the matter is that "weight" is an ambiguous word, one with
several different meanings. (So is "mass"--but there is only one of
its definitions which is normally used with specific quantities in
units of measure.)
Furthermore, the original statement didn't deal with the noun "weight"
but rather with the verb "to weigh"--and this is one of the situations
where there is a difference in the usage of the noun forms and the
verb forms. See, e.g., The National Standard of Canada,
CAN/CSA-Z234.1-89 Canadian Metric Practice Guide, January 1989:
5.7.3 Considerable confusion exists in the use of
the term "weight." In commercial and everyday use,
the term "weight" nearly always means mass. In
science and technology, "weight" has primarily meant
a force due to gravity. In scientific and technical
work, the term "weight" should be replaced by the
term "mass" or "force," depending on the application.
5.7.4 The use of the verb "to weigh" meaning "to
determine the mass of," e.g., "I weighed this object
and determined its mass to be 5 kg," is correct.
Note especially
1. The difference in the noun form in 5.7.3 and the verb form in
5.7.4, with the context specific usage in the former and the
unqualified "is correct" in the latter.
2. That "nearly always" is stronger than "primarily"--they even got
that part right.
3. That the word "weight" should be avoided in a technical context,
precisely because it does have several different meanings.
>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
>
>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html
>
>Of course, the answer has to do with different "values" and systems
>for the "pound" being used in the question above--most everything
>weight in the foot-pound-second using the avoirdupois system, having
>evolved from the troy system of measuring precious metals during the
>reign of Elizabeth I. (Apparently, the weight of precious metals is
>still measured in troy units.....splitters!)
>
>http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/weight.htm
>
>As such, an avoirdupois pound of anything will have a heavier weight
>(by the amount of the weight contained in 1240 Grains at sea level)
>than a troy pound of gold (or silver or tungsten or feta cheese),
>assuming equal gravitational conditions for the two "pounds".
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "sea level." It has nothing
whatsoever to do with "equal gravitational conditions." Furthermore,
even if you limit yourself to sea level on the Earth, the local
acceleration of free fall will vary by more than 0.53%, or more than
one part in 190. So "sea level" wouldn't be an adequate specification
even if it did have anything to do with local gravitational
conditions.
>
>I'm guessing that it would be a different case for a pound of feathers
>at sea level vs. a troy pound of gold at 20 miles above mean sea level
>elevation...
>
>
>Archie Leach
>Mister Science for the day
Suppose I have a bar of gold and an equal-arm balance with a set of
weights. (It doesn't have to be equal arms, of course, I'm just
specifying that for additional clarity.) I weigh it at Hammerfest,
Norway, and it takes 401.23 troy ounces on the one pan to balance the
gold bar on the other pan. How much force does it exert due to
gravity, in whatever units of force you choose (remember, troy ounces
are never units of force).
Then suppose I take the whole shebang to Quito, Ecuador and weigh it
again. It takes 401.23 tory ounces on the one pan to balance the gold
bar on the other pan. How much force does that gold bar exert due to
gravity, in units of newtons?
--
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
Uncle Al
>
> On 11 Apr 2004 08:47:36 -0700, master_b...@hotmail.com (The
> Original Archie Leach) wrote:
>
> >WalkinDude <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<nafh70dadkqm1sga4...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:34:24 GMT, "Doug Norris"
> >> <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 03:14:42 GMT, "Doug Norris"
> >> >> <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"WalkinDude" <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:pqch701g481sv63sd...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> And this dumbshit post of yours is just worth its weight in gold.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What weighs more - a pound of feathers, or a pound of gold?
> >> >>
> >> >> Whichever one is hitched to forty pounds of hockeyguy's rambling
> >> >> bullshit.
> >> >
> >> >I'm serious here - a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.
> >>
> >> By about 80 grams.
> >
> >Okay, maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but how can it be possible for a
> >pound of feathers to weigh 80 grams more than a pound of gold?
>
> You ought to stick to hockey, also.
>
> The avoirdupois pound is, by definition, 453.59237 grams
> The troy pound is, by definition 373.2417216 grams
> -----------
> The difference is 80.3506484 grams
>
> Pounds are units of mass, and have been since they were first used.
Pounds are units of force, mass multiplied by local gravitational
acelleration. The English System unit of mass is the slug.
If you think the metric system is "merely" convenience,
1) What does a cubic kilometer of water at 4 C mass or weigh? One
trillion grams or 9.81 trillion Newtons.
2) What does a cubic mile of water at 4 C mass or weigh? Good
luck, Charlie.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
You are a fucking idiot, Uncle Al.
You and your buddy Dumb Donny are a fairly evenly matched pair on this
point--the only difference is that he actually *knows* that pounds are
units of mass, he just chooses to lie about it.
Yes, there are also pounds force--a recent bastardization of one, and
ONLY ONE, of the pounds under discussion here. But we have been
discussing two different pounds here, both the avoirdupois pound and
the troy pound. Both units of mass.
The other pound under duscussion here has not spawned a unit of force
called a pound. There is no troy pound force. There never has been a
troy pound force. The troy units of weight are always units of mass,
and they have always been units of mass.
Of course, from the time of Henry VIII until some time after 1850,
there never was an independent standard for the avoirdupois pound. It
was, by definition, an exact fraction of the troy pound, for which
there was a standard. The avoirdupois pound then was every bit as
much a unit of mass as the troy pound according to which it was
defined, just as the avoirdupois pound today is a unit of mass, by
definition an exact fraction of a kilogram.
Are you just too fucking stupid to understand the official definition
which I quoted to you, in what you snipped from your reply? I told
you to read more about this at either of these sites, the same
document which is the current U.S. law:
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.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
those for the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey as noted
below, will be made in terms of the following exact equivalents
and appropriate multiples and submultiples:
1 yard= 0.914 4 meter
1 pound (avoirdupois)= 0.453 592 37 kilogram
> The English System unit of mass is the slug.
In one particular, limited subset of English mechanical units, used
only in calculations.
In a similar but much older limited subset of English mechanical
units, the derived unit of force is the poundal. It is the force
which will accelerate the base unit of mass in this subsystem at a
rate of 1 ft/s². Now, Uncle Al, show us whether or not you are as
smart as Dumb Donny. Fill in the blank:
The base unit of mass in this oldest coherent fps system of English
units is the ______________.
Of course, if you are too stupid to understand that the 24 oz (1 lb 8
oz) which appears right alongside the 680 g on an American bottle of
ketchup are every bit as much units of mass as the grams which appear
right alongside them, you are stoopider than Dumb Donny, who does in
fact know that, even though he rarely admits it.
I don't remember--are you in Canada or in the U.S.A.? If you are in
Canada, go look up the Weights and Measures Act of 1953, in which
Canada had already adopted the current international definition of the
pound, six years before the same definition was adopted
internationally by the national standards laboratories of the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, and New
Zealand. That is, of course, discussed in the U.S. law (URL above),
which also tells you about the earlier U.S. definition ever since 1893
(when slugs as a unit of measure didn't even exist) as a slightly
different exact fraction of a kilogram.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,
and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: He
really is an idiot.
Groucho Marx
M. Zaiem Beg
->
->"nJb" <bobo...@xmission.com> wrote in message
->news:4079D4C9...@xmission.com...
->> DaveHX wrote:
->> >
->> > Hot water freezes faster
->
->That is true. But if the question were rephrased, such as "two equal
->volumes of water are place in a sub freezing environment. One volume of
->water is cold when placed inside, the other volume is hot. Which one would
->freeze first?" Then the answer would be "hot".
Okay, I'll bite. What's the reason for this?
->
--
M. Zaiem Beg zb...@iglou.com
The Original Archie Leach
[...]
> Are you just too fucking stupid to understand the official definition
[...]
> Now, Uncle Al, show us whether or not you are as
> smart as Dumb Donny. Fill in the blank:
>
> The base unit of mass in this oldest coherent fps system of English
> units is the ______________.
>
> Of course, if you are too stupid to understand that the 24 oz (1 lb 8
> oz) which appears right alongside the 680 g on an American bottle of
> ketchup are every bit as much units of mass as the grams which appear
> right alongside them, you are stoopider than Dumb Donny, who does in
> fact know that, even though he rarely admits it.
>
[...]
You may in fact be correct on this point, but my first impression,
gained from the extreme level of condescension in your posts,
indicates that you're probably something of a jerk. Congrats. At
least you know your physics.
Archie Leach
hanson
in message news:b0fc426a.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > >Gene Nygaard wrote:
> > >> master_b...@hotmail.com (The Original Archie Leach):
> > >> >WalkinDude <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in
> > >> >> "Doug Norris" <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
> > >> >> >> "Doug Norris" <norr...@edu.colorado> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >"WalkinDude" <m...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote
> > >> >> >> >> And this dumbshit post of yours is just worth its weight in
> > >> >> >> >>gold.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >What weighs more - a pound of feathers, or a pound of gold?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Whichever one is hitched to forty pounds of hockeyguy's rambling
> > >> >> >> bullshit.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I'm serious here - a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of
> > >> >> >gold.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> By about 80 grams.
> > >> >
> > >> >Okay, maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but how can it be possible for a
> > >> >pound of feathers to weigh 80 grams more than a pound of gold?
> > >>
> > >> You ought to stick to hockey, also.
> > >>
> > >> The avoirdupois pound is, by definition, 453.59237 grams
> > >> The troy pound is, by definition 373.2417216 grams
> > >> -----------
> > >> The difference is 80.3506484 grams
> > >>
> > >> Pounds are units of mass, and have been since they were first used.
> > >
> > >Pounds are units of force, mass multiplied by local gravitational
> > >acelleration.
> >
> > You are a fucking idiot, Uncle Al.
> >
> > You and your buddy Dumb Donny
>
>
>
> > smart as Dumb Donny. Fill in the blank:
> >
> > The base unit of mass in this oldest coherent fps system of English
> > units is the ______________.
> >
> > Of course, if you are too stupid to understand that the 24 oz (1 lb 8
> > oz) which appears right alongside the 680 g on an American bottle of
> > ketchup are every bit as much units of mass as the grams which appear
> > right alongside them, you are stoopider than Dumb Donny, who does in
> > fact know that, even though he rarely admits it.
> >
> gained from the extreme level of condescension in your posts,
> indicates that you're probably something of a jerk. Congrats. At
> least you know your physics.
> Archie Leach
>
AAHAHAHAhahaha.....ahahahah......oh, you guys don't know
from jack shit. Here are the latest unit definitions directly from
the horsesses, well, the mare's mouth:
From: Humma...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:08:41 EDT
Conversion numbers:
For all you engineers (and other geniuses)
who have difficulty converting units ...
1. Ratio of an igloo's circumference to its diameter = Eskimo Pi
2. 2000 pounds of Chinese soup = Won ton
3. 1 millionth of a mouthwash = 1 microscope
4. Time between slipping on a peel and smacking the pavement =
1 bananosecond
5. Weight an evangelist carries with God = 1 billigram
6. Time it takes to sail 220 yards at 1 nautical mile per hour =
Knotfurlong
7. 16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling
8. Half of a large intestine = 1 semicolon
9. 1,000,000 aches = 1 megahurtz
10. Basic unit of laryngitis = 1 hoarsepower
11. Shortest distance between two jokes = A straight line
12! . 453.6 graham crackers = 1 pound cake
13. 1 million-million microphones = 1 megaphone
14. 2 million bicycles = 2 megacycles
15. 365.25 days = 1 unicycle
16. 2000 mockingbirds = 2 kilomockingbirds
17. 52 cards = 1 decacards
18. 1 kilogram of falling figs = 1 Fig Newton
19. 1000 milliliters of wet socks = 1 literhosen
20. 1 millionth of a fish = 1 microfiche
21. 1 trillion pins = 1 terrapin
22. 10 rations = 1 decoration
23. 100 rations = 1 C-ration
24. 2 monograms = 1 diagram
25. 4 nickels = 2 paradigms
26. 2.4 statute miles of intravenous surgical tubing at Yale Uiversity
Hospital = 1 IV League
27. 100 Senators = Not 1 decision
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>Gene Nygaard wrote:
>> The avoirdupois pound is, by definition, 453.59237 grams
>> The troy pound is, by definition 373.2417216 grams
>> -----------
>> The difference is 80.3506484 grams
>>
>> Pounds are units of mass, and have been since they were first used.
>
>Pounds are units of force, mass multiplied by local gravitational
>acelleration. The English System unit of mass is the slug.
Slugs are indeed units of mass. But that little used 20th century
invention, which didn't appear in physics books before 1940 and which
has since disappeared from them with the rest of the English units, is
by no stretch of the imagination "the" English unit of mass.
The "hyl" is a metric unit of mass--see, e.g.,
http://www.sizes.com/units/sys_MKGFS.htm
http://unihedron.com/projects/gonvert/downloads/gonvert.pyw
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/21_569.html
http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/feynman.htm
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14992&page=3
The hyl is, of course, the mass which a kilogram of force will
accelerate at a rate of 1 m/s².
This system has been reinvented many times over, as evidenced by the
other names by which the same unit is known. In addition to hyl, it is
also called a kilohyl, or a TME (a German acronym for a name which
translates as "technical unit of mass"), or a metric slug, or a mug.
Now, tell me, Uncle Al, does the existence of the hyl prove that the
kilogram is not a unit of mass? Of course not.
By the same token, the existence of the slug does not in any way
whatsoever prove that the pound is not a unit of mass.
Of course, you've already seen that the pound is indeed a unit of
mass. Just to review, since you have shown yourself to be such a slow
learner
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.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.
Of course, even the inventor of the slug, A.M. Worthington, told us:
Distinction between ‘pound' and ‘lb.'–The student should
always bear in mind that the word pound is used in two senses,
sometimes as a force, sometimes as a mass. He will find that
it will contribute greatly to clearness to follow the practice
adopted in this book, and to write the word ‘pound' whenever
a force is meant, and to use the symbol ‘lb.' when a mass
is meant.
Of course, that slug inventor also used the much older absolute fps
system of units as well as his newly invented system:
Since in the British absolute system, in which the lb. is
chosen as the unit of mass, the foot as unit of length,
and the second as unit of time, the unit of force is the
poundal, it is reasonable and is agreed that the British
absolute unit of torque shall be that of a poundal acting
at a distance of 1 foot,
Gene Nygaard
"Life's tough. But it's tougher if you're stupid." - John Wayne
Michael Varney
"The Original Archie Leach" <master_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0fc426a.04041...@posting.google.com...
You are correct in that Nygarrd is a jerk. He is also an asshole and
borderline crackpot. However, he does not know physics. He has simply
concentrated on units and measurements as a hobby so that he can argue with
people... that's all.
Back to work.
nJb
There's tons written on this.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=freezing+hot+and+cold+water
Don't switch to filling your ice cube trays with hot water just yet. In
my not so official research it never worked for me.
--
Jack