Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:20:17 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:45:27 GMT, Gene Nygaard wrote: Not only did I prove Mr. Metrologist wrong, but I also proved that he has no integrity. Hi Gene, And yet this does not seem to satisfy you. ;-) No doubt this is product of an insecure basis in logic that is more heartfelt than intuitive (despite the cut-and-paste philosophies). snip As I offered elsewhere; there are many in my fan club who's minds I cannot change. For such trivial matters as yours, I am afraid you have to go to the end of that line, and leave room for others of substance ahead of you. We've already heard the same lame excuse three times before. Translation (from the point of view of Mr. Metrologist, aka R. Clark): I already wasted three hours searching through the NIST web site for a definition of a pound, and I couldn't find one either as a unit of force or as a unit of mass. So I didn't figure that some whippersnapper who just popped into this thread would be able to find any official definition of the pound as a unit of mass there. Okay, so he proved me wrong about pounds as units of mass. But I'll be damned if he's going to get me admit that there isn't any official definition of a pound force on NIST's pages. end of translation There, I told them anyway. BTW, though I can't find an "official" definition of a pound force on NIST's pages, I can find a conditional one, with a big "if" indicating fairly clearly that the pound force has never been officially defined. Can anyone else even find that one? Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
50 Ohms "Real Resistive" impedance a Misnomer? | Antenna |