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

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/

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:51:55 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
You haven't got it yet?
I don't care. :-)

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

Hi Gene,

Suffering from www.Alzheimer's? You dropped the cue in the space of
one line. :-)

You really need to read Tom's comment. Your return to barnyard
epithets again reinforces the fulfilled cliché of the bumpkin. Our
comparison of credentials does serve a useful purpose, n'est pas?

My sleeve runneth over.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:29:54 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:51:55 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
You haven't got it yet?
I don't care. :-)

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

Hi Gene,

Suffering from www.Alzheimer's? You dropped the cue in the space of
one line. :-)

You really need to read Tom's comment.

It's good to see that you have enough integrity left not to claim that
the old NBS conversion factor which Tom found (which differs from the
conditional definition given by Dr. Barry Taylor of NIST in 1995) is
the *official* definition of a pound as a unit of force.

Even if you were deceitfully hoping that some of the others in this
thread would misinterpret that last-quoted statement that way.

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

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 29 Sep 2003 16:50:17 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:
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

Hi Tom,

You are right. There come's a time when too much laughing is going
on, and not enough commentary. To quote a British comic, Frankie
Howerd of "Up Pompeii"
"It's a sin to mock the afflicted."

But to put this into perspective (I haven't lost my taste for humor),
there's still the eh antenna! I suppose I will go and sin some more.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC