Google: sphere close pack or some similar terms. Mathematicians amuse themselves endlessly with stuff like this (I just borrow the results). Perhaps more useful, assuming close pack, but considering edge effects, you can develop relationships for spheres in rectangular boxes. Similar results can be derived for cylinders (real world: pipe or rod). But you ARE right, it is just an estimate. For real accuracy, it is better to perform the experiment and weigh a known volume.
--- On Thu, 11/19/09, Teran McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: From: Teran McKinney <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:46188] Re: Trader Joe's tomatoes To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 7:23 AM Or you could also just stick it on a weigh scale ;-). Nice figures though, I'd never heard of those estimates for spheres being closely packed. --Teran On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:54, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote: > > If the goal is to make a point, you have insufficient info. If the goal is a > servicable estimate, I think it is possible to proceed. > > The intrinsic density (no air space) has to be close to 1 g/cm³ as it is > mostly water. (You can test whether slightly more or less than one by > throwing in a glass of water) > > It is a spheroid, not a true sphere. However, close packed spheres occupy > 74% of the volume, random packed spheres around 64%. The bulk density > (includes air space) of many practical powders and particulates fall in the > range of 60 - 67% of intrinsic density. Taking 64%, a dry pint of tomatoes > is about 350 g. > > Compare on that basis, and any error in which to buy will be too small to > matter. > --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:46184] Re: Trader Joe's tomatoes > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 12:18 AM > > > On Saturday 07 November 2009 20:21:30 Michael Payne wrote: > > I think if they are prepacked, and not weighed at point of sale, they have > > to list both customary and metric units. > > True, but I still don't know how to compare 551 ml of tomatoes, including > interstices, with 454 g of tomatoes. > > I went back there and there's still no indication of the weight of the dry > pint of tomatoes. > > Pierre > > -- > lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko >
