I knew right away that your answer wasn't right as 1.38 N is a very weak
force and would probably be about the strength of sewing thread.

When one has a feel for metric values, one can easily tell if an amount is
right or not.

Euric


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Hooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, 2004-04-17 12:34
Subject: [USMA:29566] Re: Use of the term "weight"


> Recently, in answer to the question:
> > "What information do we have when we know that a fishing line is 10
> > pound test?" Is that a pound of mass or a pound of "weight"?
> the reply I wrote was:
> > First of
> > all, it is neither; it is the force that the line can exert without
> > breaking (also called the breaking strength). Since it is a force, then
> > the equivalent value in metric is 1.38 newtons.
>
> I think everything I wrote is correct except the numerical value of the
> result. It should be:
>
> "... the equivalent (of 1 pound force) in metric is 4.45 N."
>
> I make no excuses for my careless error, but it is perhaps of interest
> to mention what caused me to make it. I used a chart of conversion
> factors that included the pound of force and  also the poundal of
> force, both units of force in Ye Olde English mix. There being no
> standard abbreviation for "poundal" that I know of, the author used
> "pdf" which I misunderstood to mean "pound force" (instead of "poundal
> force"). Both were given in the table, but I picked the wrong one.
> (Pound force was abbreviated "lbf" in the table.)
>
> The poundal of force is equal to 0.138 N while the pound of force is
> equal to 4.45 N. The pound of force in Ye Olde English mix is the force
> required to accelerate 1 slug of mass at a rate of 1 foot per second
> squared, while a poundal is the force required to accelerate 1 pound of
> mass at a rate of 1 foot per second squared. The force of gravity
> (sometimes called weight) of a 1 pound mass is equal to a force of 1
> pound force if the conditions are right (in a gravitational field of a
> particular, precisely specified strength).
>
> Confusing? Of course it's confusing ... it is Ye Olde English mixture;
> it's supposed to be confusing.  :-)
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Keep it simple; Make it Metric
> <><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> Regards,
> Bill Hooper
> Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
>
>

Reply via email to