On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:36:15 -0500 (CDT),
(Richard Harrison) wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
"What is the relevant factor here -- that it is pressing down with a
force due to gravity of 9000 pounds due to gravity of 9000 pounds force?
Or that it has a mass of 9000 pounds?

The tonnage of a ship is the weight of the water it displaces.

The force pressing down (normal force) in mechanical problems is
significant when friction is involved.

Force equals mass time acceleration. So, the mass opposes and increases
the force required to get an object moving, or slowed, for that matter.
That includes a ship. It has inertia and requires force to change its
velocity. Drag is imposed on the submerged portion of the hull,
especially when coated with barnacles.

I shipped out of Long Beach in WW-2 on the LSM 472. I returned to San
Francisco on the LSM 94. I was transferred to the LST 604 to take it up
river to Stockton to be decomissioned and scrapped. While at the ship
yard there I witnessed a curious sight. A large merchant vessel was
moved from one berth to another using a small boat with an outboard
motor as the tow boat. River current in the basin was almost nil, yet it
took several hours to move that large ship with the power of only an
outboard motor. It worked! There must have been nothing more powerful
available and there must have been no rush to get the berth swap made.

Point is that it is likely that neither mass nor weight is as important
as current in many situations. How soon you can get up to speed depends
a lot on mass as Newton predicts. That motorboat would have done its
thing much more quickly with a waterskier in tow than it did with a big
merchant ship in tow.

So what is the SI equivalent of those 27,561 tons deadweight for that
U.S. Navy ship?

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

Gene wrote,


So what is the SI equivalent of those 27,561 tons deadweight for that
U.S. Navy ship?

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



I asked first. Why are you spamming the newsgroup with off-topic
posts?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On 01 Oct 2003 14:59:45 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:

Gene wrote,


So what is the SI equivalent of those 27,561 tons deadweight for that
U.S. Navy ship?

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



I asked first. Why are you spamming the newsgroup with off-topic
posts?

You seem to be operating under several delusions.

I'm not spamming.

I didn't start this discussion.

The discussion I entered was not off topic here.

You yourself, while you have contributed to the on-topic discussion,
have also been responsible for more thread drift in this thread than
anyone else. Democritus? Good grief! There wasn't anything on-topic
in the message in which you brought him up. What connection do you
find between him and the definition of ohms, and the inaccurate
analogy using faulty defintions of pounds that lead to my entry into
the discussion?

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

Gene wrote,


You seem to be operating under several delusions.

I'm not spamming.

I didn't start this discussion.

The discussion I entered was not off topic here.

You yourself, while you have contributed to the on-topic discussion,
have also been responsible for more thread drift in this thread than
anyone else. Democritus? Good grief! There wasn't anything on-topic
in the message in which you brought him up. What connection do you
find between him and the definition of ohms, and the inaccurate
analogy using faulty defintions of pounds that lead to my entry into
the discussion?

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


Nope, you're spamming. The subject you keep harping on has very little
to do with antennas. Evidently, it's so overwhelmingly important to you
that you're willing to hand out gratuitous insults and a never-ending series
of posts to those you perceive as not agreeing with your narrow understanding
of the subject. I'm reminded of Samuel Johnson's friend who only had one
idea in his head, and that a wrong one. While you're not alone here in being
possessed of an overwhelming obsession, at least the obsessions of the others
bear some relation to antenna and transmission line theory. Personally, I
don't much care what you do, but I'm curious as to why you do it. How can
such a small idea trigger such a large obsession?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:54:56 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:36:15 -0500 (CDT),
(Richard Harrison) wrote:

Gene Nygaard wrote:
"What is the relevant factor here -- that it is pressing down with a
force due to gravity of 9000 pounds due to gravity of 9000 pounds force?
Or that it has a mass of 9000 pounds?

The tonnage of a ship is the weight of the water it displaces.

The force pressing down (normal force) in mechanical problems is
significant when friction is involved.

Force equals mass time acceleration. So, the mass opposes and increases
the force required to get an object moving, or slowed, for that matter.
That includes a ship. It has inertia and requires force to change its
velocity. Drag is imposed on the submerged portion of the hull,
especially when coated with barnacles.

I shipped out of Long Beach in WW-2 on the LSM 472. I returned to San
Francisco on the LSM 94. I was transferred to the LST 604 to take it up
river to Stockton to be decomissioned and scrapped. While at the ship
yard there I witnessed a curious sight. A large merchant vessel was
moved from one berth to another using a small boat with an outboard
motor as the tow boat. River current in the basin was almost nil, yet it
took several hours to move that large ship with the power of only an
outboard motor. It worked! There must have been nothing more powerful
available and there must have been no rush to get the berth swap made.

Point is that it is likely that neither mass nor weight is as important
as current in many situations. How soon you can get up to speed depends
a lot on mass as Newton predicts. That motorboat would have done its
thing much more quickly with a waterskier in tow than it did with a big
merchant ship in tow.

So what is the SI equivalent of those 27,561 tons deadweight for that
U.S. Navy ship?

Let me open it up to everyone, and make it a multiple choice:

1. 245.19 MN
2. 245.19 hectopascals
3. 2.5003 x 10^7 kg
4. 28.003 Gg
5. 2.1892 x 10^8 newtons
6. 28 003 metric tons
7. 25 003 metric tons force
8. to have five significant digits, it depends on the latitude of the
ship
9. all of the above
10. none of the above

Does your answer fit in with Richard Harrison's description above?

Does it fit with what any shipbuilder or any navy uses?

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