On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
We've already heard the same lame excuse three times before.

Hi Gene,

So how deep do I have to plant it before it takes root? ;-)

Like this compulsive interest with your fleas, you have written a
Gregorian Mass that consists of only one note. To your advantage, if
you had transposed "Old MacDonald Had a Farm"; then the monotonic
rendition would at least give the appearance of CW. You are
dreadfully out of your element here.

Given the low intellectual bandwidth offered by your specious claims,
I can sit back and enjoy some stylistic variations to exercise my
fingers at the keyboard. I especially enjoy your barnyard epithets -
such a self fulfilling cliche inspires my anecdotes. Here's another
that a liberal education would have exposed you to (if only):

21 Nov. 1667
"On this occasion Dr. Whistler told a pretty story related
by Muffett, a good author, of Dr. Cayus that built Key's
College: that being very old and lived only at that time upon
woman's milk, he, while he fed upon the milk of a angry
fretful woman, was so himself; and then being advised to
take of a good natured woman, he did become so, beyond the
common temper of his age."

Oh, if you missed the citation to the quote above, that was again from
Samuel Pepys (same day in fact) who, although not trained in the
sciences, did learn to respect others of learning and accomplishment.
And by the way, that earlier quote:
Dr, Wilkins saying that he hath read for him in his
church) that is poor and a debauched man, that the College have
hired for 20s. to have some of the blood of a Sheep let into his
body
Contains a Pound reference you obviously missed (from the exchange
rate of 20 Shillings). Now, as every good Englishman would have
understood back then, this was a conversion. If he held 20 coins they
were NOT a Pound which is a single coin. There is an equivalency, but
this does not constitute an equality. 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,
merely an antiquated variant much like 10000 swallows' tongues = 1KG.
Shirley you don't consider swallows' tongues as units of mass? Cow
tongues (Neat's tongue to the English) perhaps. And this leads us
back to the good Dr. Cayus' condition - perhaps you should change your
diet.

The folks at the end of the line are beginning to complain - could you
move back some more?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Dr, Wilkins saying that he hath read for him in his
church) that is poor and a debauched man, that the College have
hired for 20s. to have some of the blood of a Sheep let into his
body
Contains a Pound reference you obviously missed (from the exchange
rate of 20 Shillings). Now, as every good Englishman would have
understood back then, this was a conversion. If he held 20 coins they
were NOT a Pound which is a single coin. There is an equivalency, but
this does not constitute an equality. Pepys could have written 1£
that is shorter, but he did not as it was obviously not what was
tendered to the debauched man.

Hi All,

The application of the monetary unit is not without is antecedents in
weight. The ancients, that is the pre-Newtonians, did not comprehend
the separable notion of mass from weight as they did not accept the
concept of "force" which was largely rejected by scientists of
Newton's day. In fact, Newton introduced the notion of forces in his
treatise "Opticks."

However, to return to the legacy of £. The symbol is drawn from
Libra. I have already discussed the operation of the balance scale
and its relationship to Libra is evident in the astrological
application. Libra (as is the latinate pondo) was the unit of weight
(not scientific mass, they had no such distinction) in ancient Rome.

I notice that our correspondent who relies on scientific cut-and-paste
retorts to dismiss scientific workers; and, as an acknowledged
untutored English speaker (several classes notwithstanding) also
leverages dictionaries to the same poor quality of transliteration.

The OED (which I am sure to get copious and unreliable rebuttal to)
offers of "mass" a physics application buried quite deeply within the
usage of this word across time (the OED is a dictionary of enumerated
usage by time, not by current application). For many hundreds of
years, mass merely meant the agglomeration of stuff (it didn't matter
what or why). Through the work of Newton's introduction of the
concept of force, the term, by OED account, then gained a distinction
such that they offer the definition:
"6.b. Physics. The quantity of matter which a body contains;
in strict use distinct from weight. 1704"

This is a pleasurable aside, these side bars of minutia to our usual
concerns. A do enjoy the drama queens that our group attracts and
the revisionist logic that attends their petty issues. Forgive me
Gene, but you don't have much else to offer and you will be gone soon
anyway, so go away mad (to invert an old saw). ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:39:53 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

Hi All,

Star Avoirdupois Pound
http://museum.nist.gov/object.asp?ObjID=10

Hassler constructed troy pounds and avoirdupois pounds, for
distribution to the custom-houses and to the States. The mass of a
troy pound is 0.82286 of an avoirdupois pound's mass. The troy pound
is used for determining the mass of precious metals. Hassler used the
troy pound of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, procured in London in
1827 by Albert Gallatin, to derive both types of standards. It is
likely that the Star Avoirdupois Pound (so named because of the star
inscribed on top of its knob) is the avoirdupois pound that was
directly derived from the Mint Pound by Hassler.

http://museum.nist.gov/exhibits/ex1/Room2.html
Ferdinand Rudolph Hassler was appointed the first Superintendent of
the Survey of the Coast by President Madison in 1816.
Born in Aarau, Switzerland in 1770, Hassler emigrated to the United
States in 1805.


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

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

Given the low intellectual bandwidth offered by your specious claims,

Still dreaming that somebody is going to come to your rescue, and show
us some NIST web page giving an _official_ definition of a pound as a
unit of force, aren't you?

Wake up and smell the coffee! It isn't going to happen, for several
reasons, including

1. Your research skills are better than those of most others
following this thread, and

2. You are better able to distinguish "swallow's tongue" conversion
factors from official definitions, and

3. They don't have a reputation to reconstruct, and

4. They don't know people at NIST that they can call on for help in
this search for the official definition, and

5. You've got them all convinced that you are an expert in this area,
and everyone expects that you could easily prove your point, and

6. A lot of people who know more about this than you do have
unsucessfully searched for an official definition, and

7. Dr. Barry Taylor, the NIST expert in this particular field who
must be a METROLOGIST if you are a mere capital-M Metrologist, is the
one who gives us the conditional definition which is a clear indicator
that an official definition does not exist.

Face the facts. Hard as it might be to believe (even for me, when I
first came to this realization!), THERE IS NO SUCH OFFICIAL DEFINITION
OF A POUND FORCE. Nobody has ever gone to the trouble of officially
defining these ******* offspring of pounds as units of mass, and
nobody will bother doing so in the future.

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

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:10:13 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
Wake up and smell the coffee!

Hi Gene,

You've missed one point (beyond I am not a coffee drinker) to which I
can respond:
I don't give a damn. :-)

Your condescending attitude towards others
all convinced that you are an expert
is obviously spun from your imagination as absolutely no one here has
commented for me, with me, to me, or about me (your QRM hardly allows
them that).

As for reputation.... You, admittedly, have absolutely no experience
in the matter, and this is not rec.sci.amateur.hour. Given your
petulance out of the gate discussing the subject, you don't even
qualify for honorary troll. You have no style, and the cut-and-paste
philosophy runs thick in this group as it is. Yours certainly is no
more distinctive, and when it is laid out by the ream like so much
textual fertilizer, it won't grow the crops to save the farm.

C'mon now Gene, we both know what I have to say on the matter is
wholly irrelevant to how you are going to boast about it around town.
Sort of like the tailor who wore on his belt "Killed seven with one
blow" and was only boasting about flies while gushing it up about
giants. Talk about (emphasis on talk) reputations made. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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 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