Tags: convert, excel, function, grams, microsoft, msdn, pounds, software

Grams to Pounds

On Microsoft » Microsoft Excel

78,928 words with 10 Comments; publish: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:57:00 GMT; (30678.13, « »)

how do I convert grams to pounds? is there a function for

this? I use Excel 97.

Thanks

All Comments

Leave a comment...

  • 10 Comments
    • No function, but it can be calculated...

      Wp = Wg/453.5924

      Wp - Weight in pounds

      Wg - Weight in grams

      So if you had the weight in grams in cell A1

      =A1/453.5924

      Of course their is a longer explanation:

      You cannot "convert" between grams and pounds since pounds

      is generally a unit of "weight" and grams is a unit of "mass".

      However, if your just looking to figure out how much chicken you

      purchased and aren't launching a spaceship, the above should

      work fine.

      Dan E

      "Grams to Pounds" <anonymous.excel.todaysummary.com.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:005e01c3bb45$4e921580$a101280a.excel.todaysummary.com.phx.gbl...

      > how do I convert grams to pounds? is there a function for

      > this? I use Excel 97.

      > Thanks

      #1; Fri, 23 May 2008 19:59:00 GMT
    • Amazing what you can find in HELP index

      CONVERT

      See Also

      Converts a number from one measurement system to another. For example,

      CONVERT can translate a table of distances in miles to a table of distances

      in kilometers.

      If this function is not available, and returns the #NAME? error, install and

      load the Analysis ToolPak add-in.

      How?

      1.. On the Tools menu, click Add-Ins.

      2.. In the Add-Ins available list, select the Analysis ToolPak box, and

      then click OK.

      3.. If necessary, follow the instructions in the setup program.

      Syntax

      CONVERT(number,from_unit,to_unit)

      Number is the value in from_units to convert.

      From_unit is the units for number.

      To_unit is the units for the result. CONVERT accepts the following text

      values (in quotation marks) for from_unit and to_unit.

      Weight and mass From_unit or to_unit

      Gram "g"

      Slug "sg"

      Pound mass (avoirdupois) "lbm"

      U (atomic mass unit) "u"

      Ounce mass (avoirdupois) "ozm"

      Don Guillett

      SalesAid Software

      donaldb.excel.todaysummary.com.281.com

      "Grams to Pounds" <anonymous.excel.todaysummary.com.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

      news:005e01c3bb45$4e921580$a101280a.excel.todaysummary.com.phx.gbl...

      > how do I convert grams to pounds? is there a function for

      > this? I use Excel 97.

      > Thanks

      begin 666 blueup.gif

      M1TE&.#EA#.excel.todaysummary.com.`*`,03```=B0``_Z6E[KVZ\JFFXPPHC]#.].excel.todaysummary.com.<`W]_A\00`Z.excel.todaysummary.com.8`

      MXI65_]#0_QT5VR0=VXN+_YJ:_[>W_________P``````````````````````

      M`````````````````````````"'Y! $``!,`+ `````.``H```4K8(%,9&F2

      H0&.<+! =`VL"4J (,LH$04+D.excel.todaysummary.com. ?/!US8<$ (+(=RK).excel.todaysummary.com.3$904`.excel.todaysummary.com.`[````

      `

      end

      #2; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:00:00 GMT
    • Analysis Toolpak Function CONVERT will convert grams to pounds.

      =CONVERT(454,"g","lbm")

      Gord Dibben XL2002

      On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:43:02 -0700, "Dan E"

      <nospam.danlelliot.excel.todaysummary.com.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

      >No function, but it can be calculated...

      >Wp = Wg/453.5924

      >Wp - Weight in pounds

      >Wg - Weight in grams

      >So if you had the weight in grams in cell A1

      >=A1/453.5924

      >Of course their is a longer explanation:

      >You cannot "convert" between grams and pounds since pounds

      >is generally a unit of "weight" and grams is a unit of "mass".

      >However, if your just looking to figure out how much chicken you

      >purchased and aren't launching a spaceship, the above should

      >work fine.

      >Dan E

      >"Grams to Pounds" <anonymous.excel.todaysummary.com.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:005e01c3bb45$4e921580$a101280a.excel.todaysummary.com.phx.gbl...

      >> how do I convert grams to pounds? is there a function for

      >> this? I use Excel 97.

      >> Thanks

      >

      #3; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:01:00 GMT
    • On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:43:02 -0700, "Dan E"

      <nospam.danlelliot.excel.todaysummary.com.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

      >No function, but it can be calculated...

      >Wp = Wg/453.5924

      >Wp - Weight in pounds

      >Wg - Weight in grams

      >So if you had the weight in grams in cell A1

      >=A1/453.5924

      >Of course their is a longer explanation:

      >You cannot "convert" between grams and pounds since pounds

      >is generally a unit of "weight" and grams is a unit of "mass".

      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

      In the first place, you need to understand that "weight" is an

      ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. What you need to

      distinguish are force and mass.

      Second, the pounds we are talking about (the avoirdupois variety) are,

      by definition, exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. Those kilograms are, of

      course, the SI units of mass. Read the current U.S. law, and a

      discussion of the prior U.S. law, and the 1959 international agreement

      on the current value, at

      http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf

      http://gssp.wva.net/html.common/refine.pdf

      Third, there is also a pound force, but that is a recent spinoff. It

      is so new, in fact, that a "pound force" is uniquely identified by

      that name, because of all the hundreds of different pounds used at

      various times and places throughout history, only one has spawned a

      force unit of the name name. Those pounds force were never

      well-defined units before the turn of the 20th century, when people

      first started defining a "standard acceleration of gravity" for this

      purpose. Even today, pounds force don't have an "official"

      definition; we often borrow the standard acceleration of gravity which

      is official for defining kilograms force (9.80665 m/s²), but other

      values are used as well, such as 32.16 ft/s² or 386 in/s².

      Let's look at the other pounds still in use.

      There is also the troy "system of weights." The pound (373.2417216 g)

      isn't used much any more, but the ounce (31.1034768 g) is, even in the

      21st century enjoying a special exception the metrication laws of

      places such as the United Kingdom (where the pound on which it is

      based was outlawed back in the 19th century) and Australia. These

      troy units of weight are always units of mass, never units of force.

      Unlike their avoirdupois cousins, and unlike grams and kilograms, they

      have never spun off a force unit of the same name. There is no troy

      ounce force, and never has been.

      The other pounds (Pfund, livre, libra, pund, etc.) still in use, at

      least informally, in several different places in Europe and Latin

      America, are the ones redefined back in the 19th century as 500 g

      exactly. Half a kilogram. Units of mass.

      >However, if your just looking to figure out how much chicken you

      >purchased and aren't launching a spaceship, the above should

      >work fine.

      >Dan E

      When you are buying chicken, those pounds are, of course, every bit as

      much units of mass as the grams which appear right alongside them on

      the labels in the United States, or which are the only units elsewhere

      in the world. Pounds force are not legal for this purpose.

      It's hard to believe that some people are so God-awful stupid as to

      insist that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure

      some quantity which varies with location. We should not do so; we do

      not do so; we have never done so.

      To make it easy for you, here are what some of the real experts in the

      field have to say about it, from the official keepers of our

      standards, such as the national standards laboratories of the United

      States and the United Kingdom:

      Here's a FAQ by the NPL, the national standards laboratory of the

      U.K.:

      http://www.npl.co.uk/force/faqs/forcemassdiffs.html

      Weight

      In the trading of goods, weight is taken to mean the

      same as mass, and is measured in kilograms. Scientifically

      however, it is normal to state that the weight of a

      body is the gravitational force acting on it and hence

      it should be measured in newtons, and this force

      depends on the local acceleration due to gravity.

      To add to the confusion, a weight (or weightpiece)

      is a calibrated mass normally made from a dense

      metal, and weighing is generally defined as a

      process for determining the mass of an object.

      So, unfortunately, weight has three meanings

      and care should always be taken to appreciate

      which one is meant in a particular context.

      Note--they clearly refer to different *meanings* of this word.

      Here's NIST, the U.S. national standards agency, in their Guide for

      the Use of the International System of Units, NIST Special Publication

      811,

      http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html

      In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common

      parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass.

      Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this

      sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means

      "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

      Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg

      the briefcase weighs 6 kg

      Net wt. 227 g

      Note especially that last one--this is the proper usage for the sale

      of chicken.

      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.

      The thing to note here is the different treatment of the noun forms

      and the verb forms, Contrast the application dependent meanings of

      the former with the unqualified "is correct" in the latter.

      The other thing to note is that "nearly always" is much stronger than

      "primarily"--they even got that part correct.

      Like the experts tell you, you are best off avoiding the word "weight"

      in a technical context, and if you do use it, you need to make clear

      which meaning is intended.

      Gene Nygaard

      http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm

      But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the

      citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough

      reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins,

      reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established

      in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal

      affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply

      and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.

      U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, 1790

      #4; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:02:00 GMT
    • What's with the attached image?
      #5; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:03:00 GMT
    • I copied from the HELP file and it just came along for the ride. So solly.

      Only 2kb

      --

      Don Guillett

      SalesAid Software

      donaldb.excel.todaysummary.com.281.com

      "Harlan Grove" <HrlnGrv.excel.todaysummary.com.aol.com> wrote in message

      news:mQyAb.34476$cJ5.5072.excel.todaysummary.com.www.newsranger.com...

      > What's with the attached image?

      >

      #6; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:04:00 GMT
    • Thanks for the clarification.

      Dan E

      #7; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:05:00 GMT
    • "Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard.excel.todaysummary.com.nccray.com> wrote in message news:efl3tvkghvqo4em6cqj74dd1pkb0h3mlhk.excel.todaysummary.com.4ax.com...

      > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:43:02 -0700, "Dan E"

      > <nospam.danlelliot.excel.todaysummary.com.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

      > >No function, but it can be calculated...

      > >

      > >Wp = Wg/453.5924

      > >Wp - Weight in pounds

      > >Wg - Weight in grams

      > >

      > >So if you had the weight in grams in cell A1

      > >=A1/453.5924

      > >

      > >Of course their is a longer explanation:

      > >You cannot "convert" between grams and pounds since pounds

      > >is generally a unit of "weight" and grams is a unit of "mass".

      > 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

      > In the first place, you need to understand that "weight" is an

      > ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. What you need to

      > distinguish are force and mass.

      >

      Meanings of weight

      From the columbia encyclopedia

      1. measure of the force of gravity on a body (see gravitation). Since the

      weights of different bodies at the same location are proportional to their

      masses, weight is often used as a measure of mass. However, the two

      are not the same; mass is a measure of the amount of matter present

      in a body and thus has the same value at different locations, and weight

      varies depending upon the location of the body in the earth's gravitational

      field (or the gravitational field of some other astronomical body). A given

      body will have the same mass on the earth and on the moon, but its

      weight on the moon will be only about 16% of the weight as measured on

      the earth. The distinction between weight and mass is further confused

      by the use of the same units to measure both-the pound, the gram, or

      the kilogram. One pound of weight, or force, is the force necessary at a

      given location to accelerate a one-pound mass at a rate equal to the

      acceleration of gravity at that location (about 32 ft per sec per sec).

      Similar relationships hold between the gram of force and the gram of

      mass and between the kilogram of force and the kilogram of mass.

      --> Very clear on it's meaning of FORCE

      Merriam Webster Dictionary

      1 --> irrelevent

      2 a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount

      b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an athletic

      exercise or contest

      --> Defenition missed by all your sources.

      3 a : a unit of weight or mass -- see METRIC SYSTEM table b : a

      piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in

      weighing articles c : a system of related units of weight

      --> Unit of weight (clearly refering to force as it's distinguished from mass)

      4 a : something heavy : LOAD b : a heavy object to hold or press

      something down or to counterbalance

      --> One your sources got

      5 --> irrelevent

      6 a : relative heaviness : MASS b : the force with which a body is attracted

      toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the

      product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration

      --> Clearly referring to FORCE

      7 --> irrelevent

      8 : overpowering force

      --> Again clearly referring to FORCE

      9 --> irrelevent

      10 --> irrelevent

      11 -->irrelevent

      > Second, the pounds we are talking about (the avoirdupois variety) are,

      > by definition, exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. Those kilograms are, of

      > course, the SI units of mass. Read the current U.S. law, and a

      > discussion of the prior U.S. law, and the 1959 international agreement

      > on the current value, at

      > http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf

      > http://gssp.wva.net/html.common/refine.pdf

      >

      Looks to me like they're re-defining the pound (creating a new meaning)

      for a unit that's been around for centuries. Besides, why would we be

      referring to that i'd prefer to talk about the british system, that's

      the one the US system is based on. The british pound is a measure

      of force and always has been. I'm not an american so I could care less

      about the US "Imperial" system.

      > Third, there is also a pound force, but that is a recent spinoff. It

      > is so new, in fact, that a "pound force" is uniquely identified by

      > that name, because of all the hundreds of different pounds used at

      > various times and places throughout history, only one has spawned a

      > force unit of the name name. Those pounds force were never

      > well-defined units before the turn of the 20th century, when people

      > first started defining a "standard acceleration of gravity" for this

      > purpose. Even today, pounds force don't have an "official"

      > definition; we often borrow the standard acceleration of gravity which

      > is official for defining kilograms force (9.80665 m/s²), but other

      > values are used as well, such as 32.16 ft/s² or 386 in/s².

      >

      Pound-force as you call it is a recent definition by the US of the

      british pound after re-working their pound to be a unit of mass. The

      pound is and was a unit of force in said british system.

      > Let's look at the other pounds still in use.

      > There is also the troy "system of weights." The pound (373.2417216 g)

      > isn't used much any more, but the ounce (31.1034768 g) is, even in the

      > 21st century enjoying a special exception the metrication laws of

      > places such as the United Kingdom (where the pound on which it is

      > based was outlawed back in the 19th century) and Australia. These

      > troy units of weight are always units of mass, never units of force.

      > Unlike their avoirdupois cousins, and unlike grams and kilograms, they

      > have never spun off a force unit of the same name. There is no troy

      > ounce force, and never has been.

      > The other pounds (Pfund, livre, libra, pund, etc.) still in use, at

      > least informally, in several different places in Europe and Latin

      > America, are the ones redefined back in the 19th century as 500 g

      > exactly. Half a kilogram. Units of mass.

      > >However, if your just looking to figure out how much chicken you

      > >purchased and aren't launching a spaceship, the above should

      > >work fine.

      > >

      > >Dan E

      > When you are buying chicken, those pounds are, of course, every bit as

      > much units of mass as the grams which appear right alongside them on

      > the labels in the United States, or which are the only units elsewhere

      > in the world. Pounds force are not legal for this purpose.

      >

      OK, i'll believe you, luckily for you and others confused by mass and force

      1 lbm exerts 1lbf, just as 1 kgm exerts 1kgf.

      ***********************************************************************************

      > It's hard to believe that some people are so God-awful stupid as to

      > insist that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure

      > some quantity which varies with location. We should not do so; we do

      > not do so; we have never done so.

      >

      Above you refer to weight to mean FORCE, you've just proved my point.

      Scales (all scales) by the very nature of "weighing" measure a force exerted

      on the surface of the scale. It can then be converted to a mass, again,

      luckily 1 lbm exerts 1 lbf and 1 kgm exerts 1 kgf.

      If your not using a scale you will need to determine the volume, and density

      of the object in order to calculate it's mass. And I doubt that's how anyone

      is doing it.

      > To make it easy for you, here are what some of the real experts in the

      > field have to say about it, from the official keepers of our

      > standards, such as the national standards laboratories of the United

      > States and the United Kingdom:

      > Here's a FAQ by the NPL, the national standards laboratory of the

      > U.K.:

      > http://www.npl.co.uk/force/faqs/forcemassdiffs.html

      > Weight

      > In the trading of goods, weight is taken to mean the

      > same as mass, and is measured in kilograms. Scientifically

      > however, it is normal to state that the weight of a

      > body is the gravitational force acting on it and hence

      > it should be measured in newtons, and this force

      > depends on the local acceleration due to gravity.

      > To add to the confusion, a weight (or weightpiece)

      > is a calibrated mass normally made from a dense

      > metal, and weighing is generally defined as a

      > process for determining the mass of an object.

      > So, unfortunately, weight has three meanings

      > and care should always be taken to appreciate

      > which one is meant in a particular context.

      >

      > Note--they clearly refer to different *meanings* of this word.

      Weight "is taken to mean" so it doesn't mean mass it's just being

      interpreted as mass.

      Weight has more than three meanings, unfortutely for them none

      of the meanings is MASS

      > Here's NIST, the U.S. national standards agency, in their Guide for

      > the Use of the International System of Units, NIST Special Publication

      > 811,

      > http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html

      > In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common

      > parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass.

      > Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this

      > sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means

      > "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

      > Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg

      > the briefcase weighs 6 kg

      > Net wt. 227 g

      > Note especially that last one--this is the proper usage for the sale

      > of chicken.

      >

      Yes and in all cases the objects were likely weighed (had the force they

      excert on a scale measured)

      > 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.

      > The thing to note here is the different treatment of the noun forms

      > and the verb forms, Contrast the application dependent meanings of

      > the former with the unqualified "is correct" in the latter.

      > The other thing to note is that "nearly always" is much stronger than

      > "primarily"--they even got that part correct.

      >

      Please reference the source stating that "nearly always" is a stronger

      use of language than "primarily". I would say it's vice versa

      Synonyms for primarily:

      first and foremost

      above all

      chiefly

      mainly

      principally

      for the most part

      mostly

      largely

      predominantly

      > 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.

      So weigh means to determine the mass of

      By their definition they should say "I weighed this object to be 5 kg"

      which sounds quite absurd.

      There should be no need to qualify that statement with "and

      determined its mass" if indeed weigh does mean what they take it

      to mean.

      Re-work

      To weigh -> To determine the force which an object exerts

      I weighed this object and determined it's mass to be 5kg

      -> you weigh the object then determine it's mass by converting

      the weight (force) to a mass using the local gravitational constant.

      > Like the experts tell you, you are best off avoiding the word "weight"

      > in a technical context, and if you do use it, you need to make clear

      > which meaning is intended.

      >

      Even you don't follow that rule look for *********** above

      > Gene Nygaard

      > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm

      > But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the

      > citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough

      > reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins,

      > reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established

      > in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal

      > affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply

      > and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.

      > U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, 1790

      At your site I notice you mention it's mostly engineers and physicists

      mistaken on this point. When in all reality these are the people getting

      space ships off of the ground. Therefore I will assume that it's laypeople

      confused on this issue and not the people who deal with weights (forces)

      and mass on a technical level daily.

      Finally, next time you read a pressure make sure you qualify it it as

      pounds force per square inch. I won't be doing that but you really should.

      #8; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:06:00 GMT
    • On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:17:17 -0700, "Dan E"

      <nospam.danlelliot.excel.todaysummary.com.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

      >"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard.excel.todaysummary.com.nccray.com> wrote in message news:efl3tvkghvqo4em6cqj74dd1pkb0h3mlhk.excel.todaysummary.com.4ax.com...

      >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:43:02 -0700, "Dan E"

      >> <nospam.danlelliot.excel.todaysummary.com.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

      >> >No function, but it can be calculated...

      >> >

      >> >Wp = Wg/453.5924

      >> >Wp - Weight in pounds

      >> >Wg - Weight in grams

      >> >

      >> >So if you had the weight in grams in cell A1

      >> >=A1/453.5924

      >> >

      >> >Of course their is a longer explanation:

      >> >You cannot "convert" between grams and pounds since pounds

      >> >is generally a unit of "weight" and grams is a unit of "mass".

      >> 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

      >> In the first place, you need to understand that "weight" is an

      >> ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. What you need to

      >> distinguish are force and mass.

      >Meanings of weight

      >From the columbia encyclopedia

      >1. measure of the force of gravity on a body (see gravitation). Since the

      >weights of different bodies at the same location are proportional to their

      >masses, weight is often used as a measure of mass. However, the two

      >are not the same; mass is a measure of the amount of matter present

      >in a body and thus has the same value at different locations, and weight

      >varies depending upon the location of the body in the earth's gravitational

      >field (or the gravitational field of some other astronomical body). A given

      >body will have the same mass on the earth and on the moon, but its

      >weight on the moon will be only about 16% of the weight as measured on

      >the earth. The distinction between weight and mass is further confused

      >by the use of the same units to measure both-the pound, the gram, or

      >the kilogram. One pound of weight, or force, is the force necessary at a

      >given location to accelerate a one-pound mass at a rate equal to the

      >acceleration of gravity at that location (about 32 ft per sec per sec).

      >Similar relationships hold between the gram of force and the gram of

      >mass and between the kilogram of force and the kilogram of mass.

      >--> Very clear on it's meaning of FORCE

      >Merriam Webster Dictionary

      >1 --> irrelevent

      Not irrelevant in the least

      1 a : the amount that a thing weighs

      That's ambiguous, but if you look up the verb weigh, its original

      meaning was ": to ascertain the heaviness of by or as if by a

      balance." That is mass.

      b (1) : the standard or established amount that a thing should weigh

      Invariably standards of mass. Expressed in kilograms in most of the

      world.

      (2) : one of the classes into which contestants in a sports event are

      divided according to body weight (3) :

      So what's a 63 kg weight class in Olympic wrestling? Whether pounds

      or kilograms are used for weight classes in boxing or judo or

      whatever, they are always units of mass.

      >2 a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount

      This is so similar to 3b below that I'll deal with both of them there.

      >b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an athletic

      >exercise or contest

      If you are putting the shot, what is the most important factor? Is it

      the force which pushes downward due to gravity? No--that will indeed

      affect how far it goes, but it won't have hardly any effect on how

      fast it starts out. It would be just as hard to start the shot at the

      same speed on leaving the hand at the moon, though it would travel

      farther before gravity brought it to the surface.

      Note that the women's shot is 4 kg. The men's shot is 16 lb mass, not

      16 lbf. The same is true of the javelin or the hammer or whatever,

      each having a standard mass. This mass was the same for the Olympics

      at Helsinki as it was for the Olympics at Mexico City, though the

      force exerted by each at these two places was significantly different.

      >--> Defenition missed by all your sources.

      >3 a : a unit of weight or mass -- see METRIC SYSTEM table

      A table which includes units of mass, but does not include units of

      force.

      Are you also blind? What is that sixth word in this definition?

      >b : a

      >piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in

      >weighing articles

      THese include the mass standards we use with balances, and the mass

      standards used to test and certify any type of weighing device used in

      commerce. The thing that allowed the electronic load cell device to

      become so predominant in this area in the past 30 years is the

      microprocessor. Using one of these test weights, the scales can be

      calibrated for accurate measurement of mass in the location in which

      they are used.

      >c : a system of related units of weight

      >--> Unit of weight (clearly refering to force as it's distinguished from mass)

      I've already pointed out to you that in the "troy weight" (using

      weight in this 3c definition) the units are ALWAYS units of mass,

      never units of force. There is no troy ounce force. There never has

      been a troy ounce force.

      >4 a : something heavy : LOAD

      "Heavy" is a vague concept.

      American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard for Metric

      Practice, E 380-79, ASTM 1979.

      3.4.1.5 The term load means either mass or force, depending

      on its use. A load that produces a vertically downward force

      because of the influence of gravity acting on a mass may be

      expressed in mass units. A load that produces a force from

      anything other than the influence of gravity is expressed in

      force units.

      >b : a heavy object to hold or press

      >something down or to counterbalance

      >--> One your sources got

      >5 --> irrelevent

      >6 a : relative heaviness : MASS

      Gee, what's that word in caps?

      The reason for the capitalization is because this means the definition

      included in a separate entry for "mass" is incorporated by reference.

      >b : the force with which a body is attracted

      >toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the

      >product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration

      >--> Clearly referring to FORCE

      Certainly. If we didn't have that definition as well, I wouldn't be

      telling you that this is an AMBIGUOUS word, would I?

      >7 --> irrelevent

      >8 : overpowering force

      >--> Again clearly referring to FORCE

      >9 --> irrelevent

      >10 --> irrelevent

      >11 -->irrelevent

      >> Second, the pounds we are talking about (the avoirdupois variety) are,

      >> by definition, exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. Those kilograms are, of

      >> course, the SI units of mass. Read the current U.S. law, and a

      >> discussion of the prior U.S. law, and the 1959 international agreement

      >> on the current value, at

      >> http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf

      >> http://gssp.wva.net/html.common/refine.pdf

      >Looks to me like they're re-defining the pound (creating a new meaning)

      >for a unit that's been around for centuries.

      What? Read it.

      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

      http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf

      Do you understand the phrase "will continue to be based on the metric

      system"? It was also a unit of mass in the definition as a different

      exact fraction of a kilogram in the United States for the 66 years

      before then, wasn't it? Read more about that old definition in the

      document cited.

      Before that

      > Besides, why would we be

      >referring to that i'd prefer to talk about the british system, that's

      >the one the US system is based on.

      Currently, the units defined by these same equivalents,

      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.

      Ibid.

      For earlier times, tell us how the London pound got propogated

      throughout the world. If somebody made a copy in London, and took it

      to Washington, D.C. or to Capetown or to Canberra or whereever to

      serve as the standard for a pound at the new location, what exactly is

      it the same about the pound there and the pound in London? These

      standards do, of course, exert a different amount of force due to

      gravity in their new location. What is the same is their mass.

      Pounds are units of mass.

      >The british pound is a measure

      >of force and always has been. I'm not an american so I could care less

      >about the US "Imperial" system.

      Are you one of those goofballs who think that "hundred" is written in

      digits as "112"?

      Note that the hundredweight, whether long or short, has always been

      used as a unit of mass, not of force, in anything that I have seen.

      They haven't spawned force units of the same name as the long and

      short tons have. Same for the stone (1/8 long cwt in the definition

      still in use, various other values in the past).

      Canada: Weights and Measures Act of 1953 (they were already using

      this definition before the 1959 international agreement)

      U.K.: Weights and Measures Act of 1963 (I'll bet the NPL had already

      been using the new definition for the four years before it was

      formalized by Parliament)

      Ireland (not a party to the original agreement): Weights and Measures

      Act of 19xx (some time in the 1960s, I think)

      Australia: Weights and Measures Regulations (used to have URL, but

      don't find it now)

      New Zealand:

      South Africa:

      >> Third, there is also a pound force, but that is a recent spinoff. It

      >> is so new, in fact, that a "pound force" is uniquely identified by

      >> that name, because of all the hundreds of different pounds used at

      >> various times and places throughout history, only one has spawned a

      >> force unit of the name name. Those pounds force were never

      >> well-defined units before the turn of the 20th century, when people

      >> first started defining a "standard acceleration of gravity" for this

      >> purpose. Even today, pounds force don't have an "official"

      >> definition; we often borrow the standard acceleration of gravity which

      >> is official for defining kilograms force (9.80665 m/s²), but other

      >> values are used as well, such as 32.16 ft/s² or 386 in/s².

      >Pound-force as you call it is a recent definition by the US of the

      >british pound after re-working their pound to be a unit of mass. The

      >p

      und is and was a unit of force in said british system.

      So what exactly in the standard for this pound, idiot?

      What is the nature of this standard? Something mechanical, something

      electrical, or what?

      Who made it the standard, and when, exactly? (Just the year will do).

      To whom does the standard apply? IOW, for whom does the defining

      agency have the authority to fix the definition?

      >> Let's look at the other pounds still in use.

      >> There is also the troy "system of weights." The pound (373.2417216 g)

      >> isn't used much any more, but the ounce (31.1034768 g) is, even in the

      >> 21st century enjoying a special exception the metrication laws of

      >> places such as the United Kingdom (where the pound on which it is

      >> based was outlawed back in the 19th century) and Australia. These

      >> troy units of weight are always units of mass, never units of force.

      >> Unlike their avoirdupois cousins, and unlike grams and kilograms, they

      >> have never spun off a force unit of the same name. There is no troy

      >> ounce force, and never has been.

      >> The other pounds (Pfund, livre, libra, pund, etc.) still in use, at

      >> least informally, in several different places in Europe and Latin

      >> America, are the ones redefined back in the 19th century as 500 g

      >> exactly. Half a kilogram. Units of mass.

      >> >However, if your just looking to figure out how much chicken you

      >> >purchased and aren't launching a spaceship, the above should

      >> >work fine.

      >> >

      >> >Dan E

      >> When you are buying chicken, those pounds are, of course, every bit as

      >> much units of mass as the grams which appear right alongside them on

      >> the labels in the United States, or which are the only units elsewhere

      >> in the world. Pounds force are not legal for this purpose.

      >OK, i'll believe you, luckily for you and others confused by mass and force

      >1 lbm exerts 1lbf, just as 1 kgm exerts 1kgf.

      >***********************************************************************************

      >> It's hard to believe that some people are so God-awful stupid as to

      >> insist that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure

      >> some quantity which varies with location. We should not do so; we do

      >> not do so; we have never done so.

      >Above you refer to weight to mean FORCE, you've just proved my point.

      >Scales (all scales) by the very nature of "weighing" measure a force exerted

      >on the surface of the scale. It can then be converted to a mass, again,

      >luckily 1 lbm exerts 1 lbf and 1 kgm exerts 1 kgf.

      >If your not using a scale you will need to determine the volume, and density

      >of the object in order to calculate it's mass. And I doubt that's how anyone

      >is doing it.

      >> To make it easy for you, here are what some of the real experts in the

      >> field have to say about it, from the official keepers of our

      >> standards, such as the national standards laboratories of the United

      >> States and the United Kingdom:

      >> Here's a FAQ by the NPL, the national standards laboratory of the

      >> U.K.:

      >> http://www.npl.co.uk/force/faqs/forcemassdiffs.html

      >> Weight

      >> In the trading of goods, weight is taken to mean the

      >> same as mass, and is measured in kilograms. Scientifically

      >> however, it is normal to state that the weight of a

      >> body is the gravitational force acting on it and hence

      >> it should be measured in newtons, and this force

      >> depends on the local acceleration due to gravity.

      >> To add to the confusion, a weight (or weightpiece)

      >> is a calibrated mass normally made from a dense

      >> metal, and weighing is generally defined as a

      >> process for determining the mass of an object.

      >> So, unfortunately, weight has three meanings

      >> and care should always be taken to appreciate

      >> which one is meant in a particular context.

      >>

      >> Note--they clearly refer to different *meanings* of this word.

      >Weight "is taken to mean" so it doesn't mean mass it's just being

      >interpreted as mass.

      No, that isn't what it means. You can't interpret that statement in

      isolation from the statement that "weight has three meanings."

      >Weight has more than three meanings, unfortutely for them none

      >of the meanings is MASS

      >> Here's NIST, the U.S. national standards agency, in their Guide for

      >> the Use of the International System of Units, NIST Special Publication

      >> 811,

      >> http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html

      >> In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common

      >> parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass.

      >> Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this

      >> sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means

      >> "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

      >> Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg

      >> the briefcase weighs 6 kg

      >> Net wt. 227 g

      >> Note especially that last one--this is the proper usage for the sale

      >> of chicken.

      >Yes and in all cases the objects were likely weighed (had the force they

      >excert on a scale measured)

      You must have a strange notion of what it means "to measure"

      something.

      With a balance, we measure mass. We do not measure force.

      Or, if you think we do, let's assume that I have a bar of platinum,

      and at Hammerfest, Norway I weigh it on my balance, and with the troy

      weights it takes a 200 oz weight, two 100 oz weights, a 1 oz weight, a

      10 dwt weight and a 2 dwt weight to balance it. IOW, it weighs

      401.15 oz troy. Now tell me, in any units of force you choose, how

      much force does it exert due to gravity? Remember, there are no troy

      ounces force.

      Now suppose I take the bar of platinum and my scales to Quito,

      Ecuador. I weigh it on my balance, and with the troy weights it takes

      a 200 oz weight, two 100 oz weights, a 1 oz weight, a 10 dwt weight

      and a 2 dwt weight to balance it. IOW, it weighs 401.15 oz troy.

      Now tell me, in any units of force you choose, how much force does it

      exert due to gravity.?

      >> 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.

      >> The thing to note here is the different treatment of the noun forms

      >> and the verb forms, Contrast the application dependent meanings of

      >> the former with the unqualified "is correct" in the latter.

      >> The other thing to note is that "nearly always" is much stronger than

      >> "primarily"--they even got that part correct.

      >Please reference the source stating that "nearly always" is a stronger

      >use of language than "primarily". I would say it's vice versa

      >Synonyms for primarily:

      >first and foremost

      >above all

      >chiefly

      >mainly

      >principally

      >for the most part

      >mostly

      >largely

      >predominantly

      So you think that these definitions, all with the rough meaning of

      more than half, are stronger than "nearly always"?

      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

      >> 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.

      >So weigh means to determine the mass of

      >By their definition they should say "I weighed this object to be 5 kg"

      >which sounds quite absurd.

      No, they only say that it is indeed proper to say that. There are

      other ways you could say it as well.

      The reason for this is that using "to mass" as a verb with this

      meaning is substandard usage, something which still grates on the ears

      of most people, including most chemists and physicists.

      So if you want to get us to give up our prior claim to the word

      weight, you had damn sure better give us a verb as well as a

      noun--something we can utter in public without embarrassing ourselves.

      >There should be no need to qualify that statement with "and

      >determined its mass" if indeed weigh does mean what they take it

      >to mean.

      They don't say anything here about using the word "weigh" to mean to

      determine the force due to gravity. That is also quite proper and

      legitimate.

      >Re-work

      >To weigh -> To determine the force which an object exerts

      >I weighed this object and determined it's mass to be 5kg

      >-> you weigh the object then determine it's mass by converting

      >the weight (force) to a mass using the local gravitational constant.

      No, you don't. See my platinum bar example above--where did I do any

      calculations involving a gravitational constant when I weighed it (in

      the determination-of-mass meaning)?

      >> Like the experts tell you, you are best off avoiding the word "weight"

      >> in a technical context, and if you do use it, you need to make clear

      >> which meaning is intended.

      >Even you don't follow that rule look for *********** above

      >> Gene Nygaard

      >> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm

      >> But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the

      >> citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough

      >> reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins,

      >> reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established

      >> in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal

      >> affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply

      >> and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.

      >> U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, 1790

      >At your site I notice you mention it's mostly engineers and physicists

      >mistaken on this point. When in all reality these are the people getting

      >space ships off of the ground. Therefore I will assume that it's laypeople

      >confused on this issue and not the people who deal with weights (forces)

      >and mass on a technical level daily.

      In almost every case when the experts such as NIST talk about

      confusion, the confusion is something not understood by the technical

      people.

      The general public often is unaware of the niceties of the

      distinction, but they usually manage to use the words correctly.

      >Finally, next time you read a pressure make sure you qualify it it as

      >pounds force per square inch. I won't be doing that but you really should.

      I do (and so do a significant number of others, especially those in

      stnadards laboratories). But it is much clearer yet to just use

      pascals.

      Gene Nygaard

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

      #9; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:07:00 GMT
    • There is an excellent Convert application available for free download at

      http://www.joshmadison.com/software/

      In addition to the extensive conversions possible, you may create Custom

      conversions.

      --

      Greeting from the Gulf Coast!

      http://myweb.cableone.net/twodays

      "Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard.excel.todaysummary.com.nccray.com> wrote in message

      news:vnjjtv4fp5uqoqqgejmdmcaliq80677m04.excel.todaysummary.com.4ax.com...

      > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:17:17 -0700, "Dan E"

      > <nospam.danlelliot.excel.todaysummary.com.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

      > >"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard.excel.todaysummary.com.nccray.com> wrote in message

      news:efl3tvkghvqo4em6cqj74dd1pkb0h3mlhk.excel.todaysummary.com.4ax.com...

      > >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:43:02 -0700, "Dan E"

      > >> <nospam.danlelliot.excel.todaysummary.com.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

      > >>

      > >> >No function, but it can be calculated...

      > >> >

      > >> >Wp = Wg/453.5924

      > >> >Wp - Weight in pounds

      > >> >Wg - Weight in grams

      > >> >

      > >> >So if you had the weight in grams in cell A1

      > >> >=A1/453.5924

      > >> >

      > >> >Of course their is a longer explanation:

      > >> >You cannot "convert" between grams and pounds since pounds

      > >> >is generally a unit of "weight" and grams is a unit of "mass".

      > >>

      > >> 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

      > >>

      > >> In the first place, you need to understand that "weight" is an

      > >> ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. What you need to

      > >> distinguish are force and mass.

      > >>

      > >

      > >Meanings of weight

      > >From the columbia encyclopedia

      > >1. measure of the force of gravity on a body (see gravitation). Since the

      > >weights of different bodies at the same location are proportional to

      their

      > >masses, weight is often used as a measure of mass. However, the two

      > >are not the same; mass is a measure of the amount of matter present

      > >in a body and thus has the same value at different locations, and weight

      > >varies depending upon the location of the body in the earth's

      gravitational

      > >field (or the gravitational field of some other astronomical body). A

      given

      > >body will have the same mass on the earth and on the moon, but its

      > >weight on the moon will be only about 16% of the weight as measured on

      > >the earth. The distinction between weight and mass is further confused

      > >by the use of the same units to measure both-the pound, the gram, or

      > >the kilogram. One pound of weight, or force, is the force necessary at a

      > >given location to accelerate a one-pound mass at a rate equal to the

      > >acceleration of gravity at that location (about 32 ft per sec per sec).

      > >Similar relationships hold between the gram of force and the gram of

      > >mass and between the kilogram of force and the kilogram of mass.

      > >--> Very clear on it's meaning of FORCE

      > >

      > >Merriam Webster Dictionary

      > >1 --> irrelevent

      > Not irrelevant in the least

      > 1 a : the amount that a thing weighs

      > That's ambiguous, but if you look up the verb weigh, its original

      > meaning was ": to ascertain the heaviness of by or as if by a

      > balance." That is mass.

      > b (1) : the standard or established amount that a thing should weigh

      > Invariably standards of mass. Expressed in kilograms in most of the

      > world.

      > (2) : one of the classes into which contestants in a sports event are

      > divided according to body weight (3) :

      > So what's a 63 kg weight class in Olympic wrestling? Whether pounds

      > or kilograms are used for weight classes in boxing or judo or

      > whatever, they are always units of mass.

      > >2 a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount

      > This is so similar to 3b below that I'll deal with both of them there.

      > >b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an

      athletic

      > >exercise or contest

      > If you are putting the shot, what is the most important factor? Is it

      > the force which pushes downward due to gravity? No--that will indeed

      > affect how far it goes, but it won't have hardly any effect on how

      > fast it starts out. It would be just as hard to start the shot at the

      > same speed on leaving the hand at the moon, though it would travel

      > farther before gravity brought it to the surface.

      > Note that the women's shot is 4 kg. The men's shot is 16 lb mass, not

      > 16 lbf. The same is true of the javelin or the hammer or whatever,

      > each having a standard mass. This mass was the same for the Olympics

      > at Helsinki as it was for the Olympics at Mexico City, though the

      > force exerted by each at these two places was significantly different.

      > >--> Defenition missed by all your sources.

      > >3 a : a unit of weight or mass -- see METRIC SYSTEM table

      > A table which includes units of mass, but does not include units of

      > force.

      > Are you also blind? What is that sixth word in this definition?

      > >b : a

      > >piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in

      > >weighing articles

      > THese include the mass standards we use with balances, and the mass

      > standards used to test and certify any type of weighing device used in

      > commerce. The thing that allowed the electronic load cell device to

      > become so predominant in this area in the past 30 years is the

      > microprocessor. Using one of these test weights, the scales can be

      > calibrated for accurate measurement of mass in the location in which

      > they are used.

      >

      > >c : a system of related units of weight

      > >--> Unit of weight (clearly refering to force as it's distinguished from

      mass)

      > I've already pointed out to you that in the "troy weight" (using

      > weight in this 3c definition) the units are ALWAYS units of mass,

      > never units of force. There is no troy ounce force. There never has

      > been a troy ounce force.

      > >4 a : something heavy : LOAD

      > "Heavy" is a vague concept.

      > American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard for Metric

      > Practice, E 380-79, ASTM 1979.

      > 3.4.1.5 The term load means either mass or force, depending

      > on its use. A load that produces a vertically downward force

      > because of the influence of gravity acting on a mass may be

      > expressed in mass units. A load that produces a force from

      > anything other than the influence of gravity is expressed in

      > force units.

      > >b : a heavy object to hold or press

      > >something down or to counterbalance

      > >--> One your sources got

      > >5 --> irrelevent

      > >6 a : relative heaviness : MASS

      > Gee, what's that word in caps?

      > The reason for the capitalization is because this means the definition

      > included in a separate entry for "mass" is incorporated by reference.

      >

      > >b : the force with which a body is attracted

      > >toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to

      the

      > >product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration

      > >--> Clearly referring to FORCE

      > Certainly. If we didn't have that definition as well, I wouldn't be

      > telling you that this is an AMBIGUOUS word, would I?

      > >7 --> irrelevent

      > >8 : overpowering force

      > >--> Again clearly referring to FORCE

      > >9 --> irrelevent

      > >10 --> irrelevent

      > >11 -->irrelevent

      > >

      > >> Second, the pounds we are talking about (the avoirdupois variety) are,

      > >> by definition, exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. Those kilograms are, of

      > >> course, the SI units of mass. Read the current U.S. law, and a

      > >> discussion of the prior U.S. law, and the 1959 international agreement

      > >> on the current value, at

      > >> http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf

      > >> http://gssp.wva.net/html.common/refine.pdf

      > >>

      > >

      > >Looks to me like they're re-defining the pound (creating a new meaning)

      > >for a unit that's been around for centuries.

      > What? Read it.

      > 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

      > http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf

      > Do you understand the phrase "will continue to be based on the metric

      > system"? It was also a unit of mass in the definition as a different

      > exact fraction of a kilogram in the United States for the 66 years

      > before then, wasn't it? Read more about that old definition in the

      > document cited.

      > Before that

      > > Besides, why would we be

      > >referring to that i'd prefer to talk about the british system, that's

      > >the one the US system is based on.

      > Currently, the units defined by these same equivalents,

      > 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.

      > Ibid.

      > For earlier times, tell us how the London pound got propogated

      > throughout the world. If somebody made a copy in London, and took it

      > to Washington, D.C. or to Capetown or to Canberra or whereever to

      > serve as the standard for a pound at the new location, what exactly is

      > it the same about the pound there and the pound in London? These

      > standards do, of course, exert a different amount of force due to

      > gravity in their new location. What is the same is their mass.

      > Pounds are units of mass.

      > >The british pound is a measure

      > >of force and always has been. I'm not an american so I could care less

      > >about the US "Imperial" system.

      > Are you one of those goofballs who think that "hundred" is written in

      > digits as "112"?

      > Note that the hundredweight, whether long or short, has always been

      > used as a unit of mass, not of force, in anything that I have seen.

      > They haven't spawned force units of the same name as the long and

      > short tons have. Same for the stone (1/8 long cwt in the definition

      > still in use, various other values in the past).

      > Canada: Weights and Measures Act of 1953 (they were already using

      > this definition before the 1959 international agreement)

      > U.K.: Weights and Measures Act of 1963 (I'll bet the NPL had already

      > been using the new definition for the four years before it was

      > formalized by Parliament)

      > Ireland (not a party to the original agreement): Weights and Measures

      > Act of 19xx (some time in the 1960s, I think)

      > Australia: Weights and Measures Regulations (used to have URL, but

      > don't find it now)

      > New Zealand:

      > South Africa:

      > >> Third, there is also a pound force, but that is a recent spinoff. It

      > >> is so new, in fact, that a "pound force" is uniquely identified by

      > >> that name, because of all the hundreds of different pounds used at

      > >> various times and places throughout history, only one has spawned a

      > >> force unit of the name name. Those pounds force were never

      > >> well-defined units before the turn of the 20th century, when people

      > >> first started defining a "standard acceleration of gravity" for this

      > >> purpose. Even today, pounds force don't have an "official"

      > >> definition; we often borrow the standard acceleration of gravity which

      > >> is official for defining kilograms force (9.80665 m/s²), but other

      > >> values are used as well, such as 32.16 ft/s² or 386 i

      /s².

      > >>

      > >

      > >Pound-force as you call it is a recent definition by the US of the

      > >british pound after re-working their pound to be a unit of mass. The

      > >pound is and was a unit of force in said british system.

      > So what exactly in the standard for this pound, idiot?

      > What is the nature of this standard? Something mechanical, something

      > electrical, or what?

      > Who made it the standard, and when, exactly? (Just the year will do).

      > To whom does the standard apply? IOW, for whom does the defining

      > agency have the authority to fix the definition?

      >

      > >

      > >> Let's look at the other pounds still in use.

      > >>

      > >> There is also the troy "system of weights." The pound (373.2417216 g)

      > >> isn't used much any more, but the ounce (31.1034768 g) is, even in the

      > >> 21st century enjoying a special exception the metrication laws of

      > >> places such as the United Kingdom (where the pound on which it is

      > >> based was outlawed back in the 19th century) and Australia. These

      > >> troy units of weight are always units of mass, never units of force.

      > >> Unlike their avoirdupois cousins, and unlike grams and kilograms, they

      > >> have never spun off a force unit of the same name. There is no troy

      > >> ounce force, and never has been.

      > >>

      > >> The other pounds (Pfund, livre, libra, pund, etc.) still in use, at

      > >> least informally, in several different places in Europe and Latin

      > >> America, are the ones redefined back in the 19th century as 500 g

      > >> exactly. Half a kilogram. Units of mass.

      > >>

      > >> >However, if your just looking to figure out how much chicken you

      > >> >purchased and aren't launching a spaceship, the above should

      > >> >work fine.

      > >> >

      > >> >Dan E

      > >>

      > >> When you are buying chicken, those pounds are, of course, every bit as

      > >> much units of mass as the grams which appear right alongside them on

      > >> the labels in the United States, or which are the only units elsewhere

      > >> in the world. Pounds force are not legal for this purpose.

      > >>

      > >

      > >OK, i'll believe you, luckily for you and others confused by mass and

      force

      > >1 lbm exerts 1lbf, just as 1 kgm exerts 1kgf.

      > >

      >***************************************************************************

      ********

      > >> It's hard to believe that some people are so God-awful stupid as to

      > >> insist that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure

      > >> some quantity which varies with location. We should not do so; we do

      > >> not do so; we have never done so.

      > >>

      > >

      > >Above you refer to weight to mean FORCE, you've just proved my point.

      > >

      > >Scales (all scales) by the very nature of "weighing" measure a force

      exerted

      > >on the surface of the scale. It can then be converted to a mass, again,

      > >luckily 1 lbm exerts 1 lbf and 1 kgm exerts 1 kgf.

      > >

      > >If your not using a scale you will need to determine the volume, and

      density

      > >of the object in order to calculate it's mass. And I doubt that's how

      anyone

      > >is doing it.

      > >

      > >> To make it easy for you, here are what some of the real experts in the

      > >> field have to say about it, from the official keepers of our

      > >> standards, such as the national standards laboratories of the United

      > >> States and the United Kingdom:

      > >>

      > >> Here's a FAQ by the NPL, the national standards laboratory of the

      > >> U.K.:

      > >> http://www.npl.co.uk/force/faqs/forcemassdiffs.html

      > >>

      > >> Weight

      > >> In the trading of goods, weight is taken to mean the

      > >> same as mass, and is measured in kilograms. Scientifically

      > >> however, it is normal to state that the weight of a

      > >> body is the gravitational force acting on it and hence

      > >> it should be measured in newtons, and this force

      > >> depends on the local acceleration due to gravity.

      > >> To add to the confusion, a weight (or weightpiece)

      > >> is a calibrated mass normally made from a dense

      > >> metal, and weighing is generally defined as a

      > >> process for determining the mass of an object.

      > >>

      > >> So, unfortunately, weight has three meanings

      > >> and care should always be taken to appreciate

      > >> which one is meant in a particular context.

      > >>

      > >>

      > >> Note--they clearly refer to different *meanings* of this word.

      > >

      > >Weight "is taken to mean" so it doesn't mean mass it's just being

      > >interpreted as mass.

      > No, that isn't what it means. You can't interpret that statement in

      > isolation from the statement that "weight has three meanings."

      > >Weight has more than three meanings, unfortutely for them none

      > >of the meanings is MASS

      > >

      > >>

      > >> Here's NIST, the U.S. national standards agency, in their Guide for

      > >> the Use of the International System of Units, NIST Special Publication

      > >> 811,

      > >> http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html

      > >>

      > >> In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common

      > >> parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass.

      > >> Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this

      > >> sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means

      > >> "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

      > >>

      > >> Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg

      > >> the briefcase weighs 6 kg

      > >> Net wt. 227 g

      > >>

      > >> Note especially that last one--this is the proper usage for the sale

      > >> of chicken.

      > >>

      > >

      > >Yes and in all cases the objects were likely weighed (had the force they

      > >excert on a scale measured)

      > You must have a strange notion of what it means "to measure"

      > something.

      > With a balance, we measure mass. We do not measure force.

      > Or, if you think we do, let's assume that I have a bar of platinum,

      > and at Hammerfest, Norway I weigh it on my balance, and with the troy

      > weights it takes a 200 oz weight, two 100 oz weights, a 1 oz weight, a

      > 10 dwt weight and a 2 dwt weight to balance it. IOW, it weighs

      > 401.15 oz troy. Now tell me, in any units of force you choose, how

      > much force does it exert due to gravity? Remember, there are no troy

      > ounces force.

      > Now suppose I take the bar of platinum and my scales to Quito,

      > Ecuador. I weigh it on my balance, and with the troy weights it takes

      > a 200 oz weight, two 100 oz weights, a 1 oz weight, a 10 dwt weight

      > and a 2 dwt weight to balance it. IOW, it weighs 401.15 oz troy.

      > Now tell me, in any units of force you choose, how much force does it

      > exert due to gravity.?

      > >> 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.

      > >>

      > >> The thing to note here is the different treatment of the noun forms

      > >> and the verb forms, Contrast the application dependent meanings of

      > >> the former with the unqualified "is correct" in the latter.

      > >>

      > >> The other thing to note is that "nearly always" is much stronger than

      > >> "primarily"--they even got that part correct.

      > >>

      > >

      > >Please reference the source stating that "nearly always" is a stronger

      > >use of language than "primarily". I would say it's vice versa

      > >

      > >Synonyms for primarily:

      > >first and foremost

      > >above all

      > >chiefly

      > >mainly

      > >principally

      > >for the most part

      > >mostly

      > >largely

      > >predominantly

      > So you think that these definitions, all with the rough meaning of

      > more than half, are stronger than "nearly always"?

      > 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

      > >

      > >> 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.

      > >

      > >So weigh means to determine the mass of

      > >By their definition they should say "I weighed this object to be 5 kg"

      > >which sounds quite absurd.

      > No, they only say that it is indeed proper to say that. There are

      > other ways you could say it as well.

      > The reason for this is that using "to mass" as a verb with this

      > meaning is substandard usage, something which still grates on the ears

      > of most people, including most chemists and physicists.

      > So if you want to get us to give up our prior claim to the word

      > weight, you had damn sure better give us a verb as well as a

      > noun--something we can utter in public without embarrassing ourselves.

      > >There should be no need to qualify that statement with "and

      > >determined its mass" if indeed weigh does mean what they take it

      > >to mean.

      > They don't say anything here about using the word "weigh" to mean to

      > determine the force due to gravity. That is also quite proper and

      > legitimate.

      > >Re-work

      > >To weigh -> To determine the force which an object exerts

      > >I weighed this object and determined it's mass to be 5kg

      > >-> you weigh the object then determine it's mass by converting

      > >the weight (force) to a mass using the local gravitational constant.

      > No, you don't. See my platinum bar example above--where did I do any

      > calculations involving a gravitational constant when I weighed it (in

      > the determination-of-mass meaning)?

      > >> Like the experts tell you, you are best off avoiding the word "weight"

      > >> in a technical context, and if you do use it, you need to make clear

      > >> which meaning is intended.

      > >>

      > >

      > >Even you don't follow that rule look for *********** above

      > >

      > >> Gene Nygaard

      > >> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm

      > >> But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the

      > >> citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough

      > >> reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins,

      > >> reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established

      > >> in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal

      > >> affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply

      > >> and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.

      > >> U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, 1790

      > >

      > >At your site I notice you mention it's mostly engineers and physicists

      > >mistaken on this point. When in all reality these are the people getting

      > >space ships off of the ground. Therefore I will assume that it's

      laypeople

      > >confused on this issue and not the people who deal with weights (forces)

      > >and mass on a technical level daily.

      > In almost every case when the experts such as NIST talk about

      > confusion, the confusion is something not understood by the technical

      > people.

      > The general public often is unaware of the niceties of the

      > distinction, but they usually manage to use the words correctly.

      > >

      > >Finally, next time you read a pressure make sure you qualify it it as

      > >pounds force per square inch. I won't be doing that but you really

      should.

      > I do (and so do a significant number of others, especially those in

      > stnadards laboratories). But it is much clearer yet to just use

      > pascals.

      > Gene Nygaard

      > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

      #10; Fri, 23 May 2008 20:08:00 GMT