Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Technical accuracy in crossword puzzles
103 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian
May 16, 2013, 1:30:28 AM5/16/13
to
I was doing a crossword puzzle the other day, and the clue was ,"2.2
pound weight unit" and the answer was "kilo." This is not technically
accurate in 2 senses.
First, "kilo" is a prefix meaning 1000. A "2.2 pound weight unit is a
kiloGRAM, not a kilo.
Second, in some contexts, for example cooking, kilo means 2.2 pounds. A
kilogram weighs 2.2 pounds in a 1g gravity field (does that make it a
"trivia question"). On the moon it would weigh a few ounces. On the sun
it would weigh a few tons (I think).
That brought to my mind the question of just how technically accurate
"should" crossword clues be?
Brian Christiansen
pound weight unit" and the answer was "kilo." This is not technically
accurate in 2 senses.
First, "kilo" is a prefix meaning 1000. A "2.2 pound weight unit is a
kiloGRAM, not a kilo.
Second, in some contexts, for example cooking, kilo means 2.2 pounds. A
kilogram weighs 2.2 pounds in a 1g gravity field (does that make it a
"trivia question"). On the moon it would weigh a few ounces. On the sun
it would weigh a few tons (I think).
That brought to my mind the question of just how technically accurate
"should" crossword clues be?
Brian Christiansen
Virgil
May 16, 2013, 3:24:50 AM5/16/13
to
In article <kn1qtj$aqf$1...@dont-email.me>,
Brian <brian_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was doing a crossword puzzle the other day, and the clue was ,"2.2
> pound weight unit" and the answer was "kilo." This is not technically
> accurate in 2 senses.
>
> First, "kilo" is a prefix meaning 1000. A "2.2 pound weight unit is a
> kiloGRAM, not a kilo.
>
> Second, in some contexts, for example cooking, kilo means 2.2 pounds. A
> kilogram weighs 2.2 pounds in a 1g gravity field (does that make it a
> "trivia question"). On the moon it would weigh a few ounces. On the sun
> it would weigh a few tons (I think).
On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
> I was doing a crossword puzzle the other day, and the clue was ,"2.2
> pound weight unit" and the answer was "kilo." This is not technically
> accurate in 2 senses.
>
> First, "kilo" is a prefix meaning 1000. A "2.2 pound weight unit is a
> kiloGRAM, not a kilo.
>
> Second, in some contexts, for example cooking, kilo means 2.2 pounds. A
> kilogram weighs 2.2 pounds in a 1g gravity field (does that make it a
> "trivia question"). On the moon it would weigh a few ounces. On the sun
> it would weigh a few tons (I think).
>
> That brought to my mind the question of just how technically accurate
> "should" crossword clues be?
>
> Brian Christiansen
--
> That brought to my mind the question of just how technically accurate
> "should" crossword clues be?
>
> Brian Christiansen
Brian
May 16, 2013, 5:29:33 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:24:50 -0600, Virgil wrote:
> On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
It won't weigh a kilogram anywhere, kilogram is a measure of mass, not
> On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
weight.
According to wikipededia, the difference between mass and weight:
"In everyday usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its
weight though these are in fact different concepts and quantities. In
scientific contexts, mass refers loosely to the amount of "matter" in an
object (though "matter" may be difficult to define), whereas weight
refers to the force experienced by an object due to gravity.[1] In other
words, an object with a mass of 1.0 kilograms will weigh 9.8 newtons
(newton is the unit of force, while kilogram is the unit of mass) on
Earth (its mass multiplied by the gravitational field strength). Its
weight will be less on Mars (where gravity is weaker), more on Saturn,
and negligible in space when far from any significant source of gravity,
but it will always have the same mass."
The entire article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight.
John Jones
May 16, 2013, 7:22:56 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:29:33 +0000 (UTC), "Brian"
<brian_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <kn28tt$dnj$1@dont-
email.me>...
My tuppence:
Clearly this wasnt a cryptic crossword. For a general knowledge or quick
crossword I think the clue to be reasonable. "kilo" is how you would
request some chicken in a French boucherie. And 2.2 pounds is a well
known approximation.
I dont think scientific accuracy is required as long as "you know what
they mean". I.e. it's a clue.
With regard to the moon, Virgil, who may well have written the wiki
article, was indicating a balance scale. This would show that a kilogram
of chicken had balance with a reference weight labelled "1 Kg". Whereas
a trusty spring scale (relying on Hooke) would show both the chicken and
the weight to be in egregious breach of galactic consumer law!
Moral: get the law clarified before you open a boucherie on the moon.
HTH
JJ
<brian_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <kn28tt$dnj$1@dont-
email.me>...
Clearly this wasnt a cryptic crossword. For a general knowledge or quick
crossword I think the clue to be reasonable. "kilo" is how you would
request some chicken in a French boucherie. And 2.2 pounds is a well
known approximation.
I dont think scientific accuracy is required as long as "you know what
they mean". I.e. it's a clue.
With regard to the moon, Virgil, who may well have written the wiki
article, was indicating a balance scale. This would show that a kilogram
of chicken had balance with a reference weight labelled "1 Kg". Whereas
a trusty spring scale (relying on Hooke) would show both the chicken and
the weight to be in egregious breach of galactic consumer law!
Moral: get the law clarified before you open a boucherie on the moon.
HTH
JJ
Phil Carmody
May 26, 2013, 4:14:06 AM5/26/13
to
Brian <brian_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
> I was doing a crossword puzzle the other day, and the clue was ,"2.2
> pound weight unit" and the answer was "kilo." This is not technically
> accurate in 2 senses.
>
> First, "kilo" is a prefix meaning 1000. A "2.2 pound weight unit is a
> kiloGRAM, not a kilo.
You're conflating what you wish others to call that unit with
> I was doing a crossword puzzle the other day, and the clue was ,"2.2
> pound weight unit" and the answer was "kilo." This is not technically
> accurate in 2 senses.
>
> First, "kilo" is a prefix meaning 1000. A "2.2 pound weight unit is a
> kiloGRAM, not a kilo.
what other people actually call that unit.
> Second, in some contexts, for example cooking, kilo means 2.2 pounds. A
> kilogram weighs 2.2 pounds in a 1g gravity field (does that make it a
> "trivia question"). On the moon it would weigh a few ounces. On the sun
> it would weigh a few tons (I think).
to invent some argot that clashes with thousands of years of prior use
is irrelevant.
> That brought to my mind the question of just how technically accurate
> "should" crossword clues be?
Phil
--
"In a world of magnets and miracles"
-- Insane Clown Posse, Miracles, 2009. Much derided.
"Magnets, how do they work"
-- Pink Floyd, High Hopes, 1994. Lauded as lyrical geniuses.
Brian
May 26, 2013, 2:50:14 PM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:14:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Brian <brian_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
> You're conflating what you wish others to call that unit with what other
> people actually call that unit.
>
I am not conflating anything. What people commonly call that unit makes
no difference. In certain contexts, "kilo" can mean kilogram, but that
does not change the fact that it is a prefix that means "1000."
> Weight has always been a measure of mass. That some scientists decided
> to invent some argot that clashes with thousands of years of prior use
> is irrelevant.
>
No it isn't, mass and weight are different things. They are directly
related, but are different things. It may have taken time to realize
that, but they have always been different things, even before the
"scientific community" discovered what the difference is.
Each variant of the metric system has a degree of coherence—the various
derived units being directly related to the base units without the need
of intermediate conversion factors, and force (weight) = mass ×
acceleration, so at least the metric system has always recognized the
difference.
Bria Christiansen
> Brian <brian_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
> You're conflating what you wish others to call that unit with what other
> people actually call that unit.
>
no difference. In certain contexts, "kilo" can mean kilogram, but that
does not change the fact that it is a prefix that means "1000."
> Weight has always been a measure of mass. That some scientists decided
> to invent some argot that clashes with thousands of years of prior use
> is irrelevant.
>
related, but are different things. It may have taken time to realize
that, but they have always been different things, even before the
"scientific community" discovered what the difference is.
Each variant of the metric system has a degree of coherence—the various
derived units being directly related to the base units without the need
of intermediate conversion factors, and force (weight) = mass ×
acceleration, so at least the metric system has always recognized the
difference.
Bria Christiansen
mbuck
May 27, 2013, 8:30:56 AM5/27/13
to
What does a boat weigh when it is floating vs when it is dry-docked? What does a person weigh when they are in a car that goes over a bump vs when it hits the ground afterwards?
Their weight changes (as is demonstrated by a spring scale), but of course the mass does not.
PuzzleScot
May 28, 2013, 11:36:39 AM5/28/13
to
On 16/05/2013 10:29, Brian wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:24:50 -0600, Virgil wrote:
>
>> On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
>
> It won't weigh a kilogram anywhere, kilogram is a measure of mass, not
> weight.
On the ISS, I wonder if they say "Pass the 4 lb mallet"?
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:24:50 -0600, Virgil wrote:
>
>> On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
>
> It won't weigh a kilogram anywhere, kilogram is a measure of mass, not
> weight.
Since "pounds" are not a measure of mass, the term is meaningless in space!
There is slightly more to the metric system than meets the eye!
:)
Phil Carmody
Jun 10, 2013, 10:26:19 AM6/10/13
to
Brian <brian_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:14:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
> > Brian <brian_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > You're conflating what you wish others to call that unit with what other
> > people actually call that unit.
> >
> I am not conflating anything. What people commonly call that unit makes
> no difference.
Except in the context of communication. If you claim you're not actually
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:14:06 +0300, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
> > Brian <brian_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > You're conflating what you wish others to call that unit with what other
> > people actually call that unit.
> >
> I am not conflating anything. What people commonly call that unit makes
> no difference.
attempting to communicate anything, then I can accept that, and the
thread may end there.
> In certain contexts, "kilo" can mean kilogram, but that
> does not change the fact that it is a prefix that means "1000."
> > Weight has always been a measure of mass. That some scientists decided
> > to invent some argot that clashes with thousands of years of prior use
> > is irrelevant.
>
> No it isn't, mass and weight are different things.
time the terms have been in use.
> They are directly
> related, but are different things. It may have taken time to realize
> that, but they have always been different things, even before the
> "scientific community" discovered what the difference is.
>
> Each variant of the metric system has a degree of coherence—the various
> derived units being directly related to the base units without the need
> of intermediate conversion factors, and force (weight) = mass ×
> acceleration, so at least the metric system has always recognized the
> difference.
for the terms both historically and in the present day. And at almost all
relevant corners of government. The majority of legislation governing the
sale of a quantity of material (which corresponds strictly to 'mass'),
is described in terms of "Weights and Measures".
Pretending that "weight" only means the net force acting upon an
object really is buring your head in the sand.
Archive.org and other archives should have some record of the screeds
of Gene Nygaard, who had more citations to hand supporting this
argument than anyone could ever want to know.
Phil Carmody
Jun 10, 2013, 10:33:21 AM6/10/13
to
PuzzleScot <puzzl...@virginmedia.com> writes:
> On 16/05/2013 10:29, Brian wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:24:50 -0600, Virgil wrote:
> >
> >> On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
> >
> > It won't weigh a kilogram anywhere, kilogram is a measure of mass, not
> > weight.
>
> On the ISS, I wonder if they say "Pass the 4 lb mallet"?
> Since "pounds" are not a measure of mass
False.
> On 16/05/2013 10:29, Brian wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:24:50 -0600, Virgil wrote:
> >
> >> On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
> >
> > It won't weigh a kilogram anywhere, kilogram is a measure of mass, not
> > weight.
>
> On the ISS, I wonder if they say "Pass the 4 lb mallet"?
> Since "pounds" are not a measure of mass
The unit of force corresponding to one pound of mass is the
"pound force" or "lbf", which of course presumes a standard
gravitational field (as defined, for example in NIST SP 330).
>, the term is meaningless in space!
>
> There is slightly more to the metric system than meets the eye!
>
> :)
Virgil
Jul 21, 2013, 8:51:25 PM7/21/13
to
In article <kn28tt$dnj$1...@dont-email.me>,
--
Brian <brian_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:24:50 -0600, Virgil wrote:
>
> > On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
>
> It won't weigh a kilogram anywhere, kilogram is a measure of mass, not
> weight.
On a balance scale mass and weight are equivalent.
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:24:50 -0600, Virgil wrote:
>
> > On a balance scale, a kilogram will weigh a kilogram anywhere.
>
> It won't weigh a kilogram anywhere, kilogram is a measure of mass, not
> weight.
--
Dr Nick
Aug 4, 2013, 6:19:36 AM8/4/13
to
gravity and two very large lumps of lead, one above one pan and the
other below the other.
mbuck
Aug 7, 2013, 11:39:18 AM8/7/13
to
On Monday, June 10, 2013 10:26:19 PM UTC+8, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>
> Pretending that "weight" only means the net force acting upon an
>
> object really is buring your head in the sand.
>
>
Well, has 'weightless' ever, in any context, meant 'without mass'?
>
>
> Pretending that "weight" only means the net force acting upon an
>
> object really is buring your head in the sand.
>
>
--riverman
0 new messages