On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:30:51 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

As for reputation.... You, admittedly, have absolutely no
experience in the matter, and this is not rec.sci.amateur.hour.

I live in one of the windiest parts of the country, and I am quite
capable of recognizing the sound of hot air rushing by.

If there is, in fact, an official definition of the pound as a unit of
force, it isn't going to be a closely guarded secret, even post-11 Sep
2001.

If you are a Metrologist, it should be a piece of cake to find it.

So for you, or anyone else who would like to help you out, here are a
few hints.

Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the
resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of
the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is,
who defined it, and when.

Or go to someone you had as a science teacher, and enlist their help.

Go to a science teacher who is teaching your kids or grandkids.

Look in the textbooks you used, and see if the authors have any
footnotes citing the authority for whatever definition they use.

Look for the official definition in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics, or in the Engineer's Handbook.

Look for the official definition in Encyclopædia Britannica, or in
World Book Encyclopedia, or the World Almanac, and whatever source is
cited in any of these.

Write or email NIST, and be sure to ask them not only what the
official definition is, but what makes it official and how long it has
been in use.


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

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:04:26 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

Pepys could have written 1£
that is shorter, but he did not as it was obviously not what was
tendered to the debauched man. Even the debauched man would
understand the significance of weight v. mass and how equivalencies of
1pound = umpty-ump grams does not render the term pound as mass,

Let me explain to you the difference between your mere equivalence and
a definition.

At the same time the pound was redefined around the world as
0.45359237 kg, the yard was redefined as 0.9144 m. Since then, no
specific action has ever been taken to redefine the yard, yet its
ultimate definition has changed not just once but twice.

When the yard was redefined as 0.9144 m in 1959, exactly 2 parts per
million less than the old U.S. definition, the meter was defined by
the distance between two lines on a certain platinum-iridium bar with
a Tresca (crooked x) cross-section, kept by the BIPM at the same
location where the official kilogram is kept.

The yard was then 0.9144 times the distance between those two marks.

Then in 1960 the meter was redefined as 1650763.73 wavelengths of the
orange-red emission line emitted by a certain transition in krypton-86
atoms. Thus, at that time the yard was ultimately defined as
1509458.354712 wavelengths of the same light.

Then in 1983 the definition of the meter was changed, making it so the
speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299792458 meters per second. No
action was taken to change the definition of a yard, but it changed
nonetheless. A yard is now ultimately defined, for the present time
and until and if the meter definition ever changes again, as the
distance that light travels in a vacuum in 1143/374740572500 second.

On the other hand, suppose that one or all of the countries involved
choose to abrogate the 1959 redefinition of the yard in terms of the
meter, and instead restore some independent standard. What effect
would that have on the ultimate definition of the meter? None
whatsoever.

Likeways, if the kilogram were to be redefined as x buckyballs of
carbon-12, then the pound would automatically become 0.45359237x
buckyballs of carbon-12. OTOH, if someone restored the definition of
the pound to some independently maintained chunk of metal, that would
have no effect whatsoever on the definition of the kilogram, and the
realtionship between the pound and the kilogram would then become a
measured quantity rather than an exact definition.



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

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:18:36 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:30:51 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

As for reputation.... You, admittedly, have absolutely no
experience in the matter, and this is not rec.sci.amateur.hour.

I live in one of the windiest parts of the country, and I am quite
capable of recognizing the sound of hot air rushing by.

If there is, in fact, an official definition of the pound as a unit of
force, it isn't going to be a closely guarded secret, even post-11 Sep
2001.

If you are a Metrologist, it should be a piece of cake to find it.

So for you, or anyone else who would like to help you out, here are a
few hints.

Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the
resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of
the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is,
who defined it, and when.

Or go to someone you had as a science teacher, and enlist their help.

Go to a science teacher who is teaching your kids or grandkids.

Look in the textbooks you used, and see if the authors have any
footnotes citing the authority for whatever definition they use.

Look for the official definition in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics, or in the Engineer's Handbook.

Look for the official definition in Encyclopædia Britannica, or in
World Book Encyclopedia, or the World Almanac, and whatever source is
cited in any of these.

Write or email NIST, and be sure to ask them not only what the
official definition is, but what makes it official and how long it has
been in use.

More possibilities--

Go to sci.physics or slug.support and ask the people there to point
you to the official definition of the pound as a unit of force.

Search Lexis (http://www.lexis-nexis.com) for a legal definition, if
you are a subscriber to this service or know someone who has access to
it.

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

Gene wrote,


Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the
resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of
the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is,
who defined it, and when.

I'm not a science teacher, but it wasn't hard to find. Look in the _Handbook
of
Mathematical Functions_ under "Physical Constants and Conversion Factors," by
A.G. McNish of the National Bureau of Standards (this is an old book). There
it is,
clear as a drunkard's gin, 1 pound force = 4.44822 Newtons. Speaking of
Newtons,
Newton, is the catty a unit of weight, force, or mass, and where is the
official
definition of same? What! No official definition of a unit that has been in
use for
thousands of years?
Why are you arguing about old measurement standards on a newsgroup that is
supposed to be devoted to the amateur use of antennas? There should be a
newsgroup
devoted to the obsessions of amateur physicists where like-minded people
could rail at one another without bothering anyone else. You should understand
that
there are very few people in the world who ever bother to let the concept of
pound
force disturb their sleep at night. Perhaps you shouldn't let it bother yours,
either.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On 29 Sep 2003 15:08:27 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:

Gene wrote,


Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the
resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of
the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is,
who defined it, and when.

I'm not a science teacher, but it wasn't hard to find. Look in the _Handbook
of
Mathematical Functions_ under "Physical Constants and Conversion Factors," by
A.G. McNish of the National Bureau of Standards (this is an old book). There
it is,
clear as a drunkard's gin, 1 pound force = 4.44822 Newtons. Speaking of
Newtons,

How old? When was it published (before or after 1959, in particular).

I will bet that Richard Clark won't endorse your finding as being any
sort of "official definition." What do you say, Richard? Did he find
a hidden treasure?

McNish also gives a conversion factor for pounds to kilograms, doesn't
he? From what you have given us, he identified the "pounds force" as
such. What does he call the pounds which are converted to kilograms?
Just "pounds"? Or "pounds mass"? Or just "pounds avoirdupois" and
"pounds troy" without saying that they are pounds mass?

I'll also bet that McNish didn't call them "Newtons"--it is newtons,
not capitalized in English.

Now, let's assume that this were an official definition. Then what is
the "standard acceleration of gravity" in English units? A pound
force is equal to a pound mass times the standard acceleration of
gravity. We already know a pound is officially defined as 0.45359237
kg, so that standard acceleration of gravity will be 1 lbf divided by
1 lb.

1 lbf/1 lb =4.44822 N/0.45359237 kg = (4.44822 kg m/s²)/0.45359237 kg
= 4.44822/0.45359237 m/s² or about 9.80664643896 m/s²

(4.44822/0.45359237 m/s²)(1 ft/0.3048 m) =
4.44822/0.138254954376 ft/s² =
32.17403687... ft/s²

That is indeed awfully close to the standard acceleration of free fall
which is official for defining kilograms force. But it isn't the
same, if that is an official definition of a pound force.

Newton, is the catty a unit of weight, force, or mass, and where is the
official
definition of same? What! No official definition of a unit that has been in
use for
thousands of years?

There are lots of official definitions--but since I don't read
Chinese, I'm not about to venture a guess as to whether or not any of
them are found on the Internet.

They are units of mass, of course. Originally represented by
independently maintained standards, and varying somewhat in different
countries. Just as pounds were and just as kilograms still are. But
at various times and places, and for various purposes such as
international trade, catties were officially redefined in several
different ways: as exactly 1 1/3 lb avoirdupois, as exactly 600 g,
and as exactly 500 g are just a few of those official
redefinitions--there might also have been one in terms of troy units,
perhaps 20 oz troy = 1 2/3 lb troy, and perhaps other redefinitions in
terms of either Spanish or Portuguese libras.

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

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:53:34 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
I will bet that Richard Clark won't endorse your finding as being any
sort of "official definition." What do you say, Richard? Did he find
a hidden treasure?

Hi Gene,

You haven't got it yet?
I don't care. :-)

Your correspondence with its one note tune reminds me of the couplet
about fleas
"and fleas have littler fleas,
and so on ad infinitum"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 29 Sep 2003 15:08:27 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:

Gene wrote,


Some of you likely are or have been science teachers. Use the
resources you have at hand to find this elusive official definition of
the pound as a unit of force. Tell me exactly what the standard is,
who defined it, and when.

I'm not a science teacher, but it wasn't hard to find. Look in the
_Handbook
of
Mathematical Functions_ under "Physical Constants and Conversion Factors,"
by
A.G. McNish of the National Bureau of Standards (this is an old book).
There
it is,
clear as a drunkard's gin, 1 pound force = 4.44822 Newtons. Speaking of
Newtons,

How old? When was it published (before or after 1959, in particular).

I will bet that Richard Clark won't endorse your finding as being any
sort of "official definition." What do you say, Richard? Did he find
a hidden treasure?

McNish also gives a conversion factor for pounds to kilograms, doesn't
he? From what you have given us, he identified the "pounds force" as
such. What does he call the pounds which are converted to kilograms?
Just "pounds"? Or "pounds mass"? Or just "pounds avoirdupois" and
"pounds troy" without saying that they are pounds mass?

I'll also bet that McNish didn't call them "Newtons"--it is newtons,
not capitalized in English.

Now, let's assume that this were an official definition. Then what is
the "standard acceleration of gravity" in English units? A pound
force is equal to a pound mass times the standard acceleration of
gravity. We already know a pound is officially defined as 0.45359237
kg, so that standard acceleration of gravity will be 1 lbf divided by
1 lb.

1 lbf/1 lb =4.44822 N/0.45359237 kg = (4.44822 kg m/s²)/0.45359237 kg
= 4.44822/0.45359237 m/s² or about 9.80664643896 m/s²

(4.44822/0.45359237 m/s²)(1 ft/0.3048 m) =
4.44822/0.138254954376 ft/s² =
32.17403687... ft/s²

That is indeed awfully close to the standard acceleration of free fall
which is official for defining kilograms force. But it isn't the
same, if that is an official definition of a pound force.

Gene wrote,
Newton, is the catty a unit of weight, force, or mass, and where is the
official
definition of same? What! No official definition of a unit that has been in
use for
thousands of years?

There are lots of official definitions--but since I don't read
Chinese, I'm not about to venture a guess as to whether or not any of
them are found on the Internet.

They are units of mass, of course. Originally represented by
independently maintained standards, and varying somewhat in different
countries. Just as pounds were and just as kilograms still are. But
at various times and places, and for various purposes such as
international trade, catties were officially redefined in several
different ways: as exactly 1 1/3 lb avoirdupois, as exactly 600 g,
and as exactly 500 g are just a few of those official
redefinitions--there might also have been one in terms of troy units,
perhaps 20 oz troy = 1 2/3 lb troy, and perhaps other redefinitions in
terms of either Spanish or Portuguese libras.

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


That's the kind of reply I expected. You didn't reply, however, to my
contention
that your posts are off topic and excessively obsessive. I'd like to
know something, though. What made you believe that anyone here
would be interested in your petty distinction between pounds and pounds?
I expect Richard is enjoying himself, as he collects much laughter up the
sleeve, but I think the whole thing is strange, even for this newsgroup.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:38:03 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:53:34 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
I will bet that Richard Clark won't endorse your finding as being any
sort of "official definition." What do you say, Richard? Did he find
a hidden treasure?

Hi Gene,

You haven't got it yet?
I don't care. :-)

Gee, I forgot.

I suppose 14 responses are pretty good evidence of how little you do
care.

If anybody actually does come up with an official definition, you'll
be latching onto it like a fly onto ****.

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

Richard Clark wrote:
"The folks at the end of the line are beginning to complain - could you
move back some more?"

Could Richard Clark be referring to Stan Freburg`s parody of Harry
Belafonte`s "Banana Boat Song" (Day-O, Day-O, etc)?

Some more! They can still hear you!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:56:50 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
Let me explain to you the difference between your mere equivalence and
a definition.

Hi Gene,

You admittedly don't have the skills (which is evident in the single
sentence quote above). And further, you say nothing responsive to the
post, instead, yet again repeating, ad nauseum, the same poor quality
of scripted response.

You are out of your element and terribly devoid of communication
concepts that go beyond a cut-and-paste philosophy. Your knee jerk
response to label any intelligent response as being offered by a fool
is no retort of substance here. I willingly embrace such a title of
fool. You can easily consult Google to the matter, but I will repeat
it for you:
"Considering how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that
it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any
other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.

"Some calculus-tricks are quite easy, Some are enormously
difficult. The fools who write the text-books of advanced
mathematics - and they are the most clever fools - seldom take the
trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the
contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous
cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.

"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach
myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools
the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest
will follow. What one fool can do, another can."
Silvanus P. Thompson, F.R.S.

If this seems a little dense in its meaning, it suggests the totality
of your intellectual achievement in 3000+ posts can be contained in a
handheld calculator with that calculator's added benefit that it won't
back sass the operator. :-)

C'mon now Gene, we both know that any perceived admission to your
inestimable authority would deflate you immediately into the
depression of not being the focus - merely the period ending a
lengthy, but trivial unread footnote. The web is littered with
similar academic wannabees.

Your one note opera doesn't even need the fat lady.

Curtain.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC