[geocentrism] Re: poundal
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:42:04 +0100 (BST)
I used lb-wt out of respect cos that's what the engineers use and yoos an
engineer.
Ye old, dusty books are the best, I think, because the authors seem to have a
genuine, deeper understanding of what they are talking about, even if they are
not so easy to read. (This is a terrible over generalisation perhaps.)
Neville.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville. said Isn't it a lb-wt (pound-weight)?
You are correct. I confused the poundal as the unit of Mass.. So wrong.
On checking my 1918, revised 1948 Duncan & Starling, I rediscovered that the
unit of mass was pound avoirdupois and was the quantity of matter contained in
a standard piece of platinum preserved in London.
How could I make such an error .. I'm hiding under the table in shame...
Here is what D & S states.
For many practical purposes the weight of the unit of mass is employed as the
unit of force, but this is not strictly scientific. the units were gram weight
, and pound weight lb.wt. as you showed.
The Absolute unit of force and thus weight is the poundal . Which is the
force required to accelerate one lb.wt. one ft.per second.
Thanks for giving me the incentive to lift ye old heavy and worn book down
from the shelf for a refresher course.. You can guess I am antagonistic to
using persons names for units.. Even though now I am forced to use Hz instead
of cycles per second.. Its disgusting. .
Philip.
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more
at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Other related posts:
