| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don1" |
| Date: |
02 Sep 2005 07:50:50 AM |
| Object: |
The slug and the kilogram |
In the United States today there are two systems of weights and
measures: They are the customary foot-pound-second, and the metric
meter-kilogram-second.
The slug is the unit of mass in the customary system, and the kilogram
is the unit of mass in the metric system; they each consist of
different units of the three fundamental variables of physics; which
are force (f), forced displacement (s), and time (t):
The slug consists of 1 pound, divided by the rate of displacement (s/t)
that it causes: Mathematically, 1 slug=1# sec^2/1foot.
The kilogram consists of 1 newton, divided by the rate of displacement
(s/t) that it causes: Mathematically, 1 kilogram=1N sec^2/1meter.
The slug and the kilogram are units of inertia.
Don
.
|
|
| User: "Solbek" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 10:03:59 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1125665450.487650.188310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The slug and the kilogram are units of inertia.
Inertia is something that keeps rotating wheels upright.
Kilogram is a unit of mass which has no weight in zero gravity.
A Slug is a snail without its shell.
None are related to each other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "odin" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 10:13:19 AM |
|
|
Inertia is something that keeps rotating wheels upright.
Would that not be angular momentum rather than inertia?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 11:06:12 AM |
|
|
"odin" <ragnarok@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BrydnVOzR4uQ8YXeRVn-iA@whidbeytel.com...
Inertia is something that keeps rotating wheels upright.
Would that not be angular momentum rather than inertia?
No, it's the axle
sr
.
|
|
|
| User: "odin" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 01:04:26 PM |
|
|
Inertia is something that keeps rotating wheels upright.
Would that not be angular momentum rather than inertia?
No, it's the axle
good point!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 02:54:27 PM |
|
|
"odin" <ragnarok@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sOGdnZ4Tccq1CYXeRVn-qQ@whidbeytel.com...
Inertia is something that keeps rotating wheels upright.
Would that not be angular momentum rather than inertia?
No, it's the axle
good point!
It is usually a rod, not a point
sr
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Spragg" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
05 Sep 2005 07:28:56 PM |
|
|
....went to sea,
in a beautiful pea-green boat,
They took some honey and plenty of money,
Wrapped up in a 5 lb note.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 12:06:22 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
In the United States today there are two systems of weights and
measures: They are the customary foot-pound-second, and the metric
meter-kilogram-second.
The slug is the unit of mass in the customary system,
[snip]
Or the "pound mass". Or "slinches", a bit like slugs only
inch based. Sad part was that pounds WERE mass units oh
so long ago before we knew the difference between mass
and weight (the balance was the predominate method of
weighing). If they had known enought to do it back then,
the "newton" would have been 32.17 lb*ft/sec^2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 05:32:04 PM |
|
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote ...
Or the "pound mass". Or "slinches", a bit like slugs only
inch based. Sad part was that pounds WERE mass units oh
so long ago before we knew the difference between mass
and weight (the balance was the predominate method of
weighing). If they had known enought to do it back then,
the "newton" would have been 32.17 lb*ft/sec^2
And here we go again ...
You are the latest victim of Don's trolling.
The pound is equal to 0.453 592 37 kg.
It's a unit of mass.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 06:57:37 PM |
|
|
Herman Trivilino wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote ...
Or the "pound mass". Or "slinches", a bit like slugs only
inch based. Sad part was that pounds WERE mass units oh
so long ago before we knew the difference between mass
and weight (the balance was the predominate method of
weighing). If they had known enought to do it back then,
the "newton" would have been 32.17 lb*ft/sec^2
And here we go again ...
You are the latest victim of Don's trolling.
The pound is equal to 0.453 592 37 kg.
It's a unit of mass.
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _weight of_ 0.453 592 37 kg
of mass.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 08:44:21 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1125705457.941413.137570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Herman Trivilino wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote ...
Or the "pound mass". Or "slinches", a bit like slugs only
inch based. Sad part was that pounds WERE mass units oh
so long ago before we knew the difference between mass
and weight (the balance was the predominate method of
weighing). If they had known enought to do it back then,
the "newton" would have been 32.17 lb*ft/sec^2
And here we go again ...
You are the latest victim of Don's trolling.
The pound is equal to 0.453 592 37 kg.
It's a unit of mass.
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _weight of_ 0.453 592 37 kg
of mass.
Where?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
03 Sep 2005 07:19:20 AM |
|
|
Richard Henry wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1125705457.941413.137570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Herman Trivilino wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote ...
Or the "pound mass". Or "slinches", a bit like slugs only
inch based. Sad part was that pounds WERE mass units oh
so long ago before we knew the difference between mass
and weight (the balance was the predominate method of
weighing). If they had known enought to do it back then,
the "newton" would have been 32.17 lb*ft/sec^2
And here we go again ...
You are the latest victim of Don's trolling.
The pound is equal to 0.453 592 37 kg.
It's a unit of mass.
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _weight of_ 0.453 592 37 kg
of mass.
Where?
Your not that naive; your Stonewalling. You know as well as anybody
else does that weight varies at various locations.
We are talking about ON EARTH:
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
03 Sep 2005 10:11:13 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Your not that naive; your Stonewalling. You know as well as anybody
else does that weight varies at various locations.
We are talking about ON EARTH:
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
Don
Don't be silly. You're giving the conversion factor to 8 significant
figures! "On Earth" is not sufficient, since g varies by much more
than the accuracy you are concerned with.
Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
03 Sep 2005 10:33:13 PM |
|
|
<redbelly98@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125803473.879578.147730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don1 wrote:
Your not that naive; your Stonewalling. You know as well as anybody
else does that weight varies at various locations.
We are talking about ON EARTH:
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
Don
Don't be silly. You're giving the conversion factor to 8 significant
figures! "On Earth" is not sufficient, since g varies by much more
than the accuracy you are concerned with.
sHead has been told many times that the 'pound' is *defined* as a unit of
mass, and that it is defined in terms of the standard (artifact) kilogram.
He deliberately ignores these facts, This makes him worse than simple
ignorant. It means he is actively stupid.
I recommend you leave the troll to build his own virtual universe wherein he
is the only inhabitant. Someday he may strip the padding from the walls and
smash his own skull on the bricks.
Apparently they let OCD patients have Internet access now, as it is cheaper
and more 'politically correct' than electric shock 'treatments.' It makes
them calm and tractable just the same.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
04 Sep 2005 06:24:17 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Your not that naive; your Stonewalling. You know as well as anybody
else does that weight varies at various locations.
We are talking about ON EARTH:
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
Don
Don't be silly. You're giving the conversion factor to 8 significant
figures! "On Earth" is not sufficient, since g varies by much more
than the accuracy you are concerned with.
Mark
The accuracy 99% of the people are concerned with is much less than 8
digits. Only a handful of scientists and chemists need more than 3 or 4
significant digits.
It's not the accuracy that's so important, it's the principle of what
things are, and how they work. Like what is mass and inertia and how do
weight-scales work.
Science is hung-up on striving for impractical accuracy; thinking that
the metric system will achieve it.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
04 Sep 2005 10:23:19 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote ...
The accuracy 99% of the people are concerned with is much less than 8
digits. Only a handful of scientists and chemists need more than 3 or 4
significant digits.
More important than the fraction of the population that makes use of
precision is what those people contribute to society. Without them we'd
still be living in the Dark Ages and you'd have no means of communicating
your message other than printing a pamphlet.
It's not the accuracy that's so important, it's the principle of what
things are, and how they work. Like what is mass and inertia and how do
weight-scales work.
Why sacrifice one for the other when we already have both?!
Science is hung-up on striving for impractical accuracy; thinking that
the metric system will achieve it.
What's so impractical about providing things like computers and automobiles?
The metric system was modified in 1960 in response to a growing need by
society for precision. It is now officially sanctioned as the SI.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
04 Sep 2005 10:43:10 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote ...
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
More like about 2.2 pounds. Two significant figures is the limit of your
precision since the weight force on ANY object varies by more than 0.5%
across Earth's surface.
You like to claim that we need to realize that the ratio of the weight force
to the free fall acceleration is a constant, and that the weight force and
the free fall acceleration vary from place to place. Having realized that,
society makes use of it and defines its standard NOT on the weight force
(which varies) , but rather on the ratio of the weight force to the free
fall acceleration (which doesn't vary).
Anyone who proposes that we abandon such a system and instead adopt a system
based on the quantity that does vary would need to either explain why or
base the proposal on some other foundation. Religion comes to mind.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
04 Sep 2005 04:07:02 PM |
|
|
Herman Trivilino wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote ...
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
More like about 2.2 pounds. Two significant figures is the limit of your
precision since the weight force on ANY object varies by more than 0.5%
across Earth's surface.
That variation don't make a darn bit of difference. It's irelevant as
far as the ratio w/g goes.
You like to claim that we need to realize that the ratio of the weight force
to the free fall acceleration is a constant, and that the weight force and
the free fall acceleration vary from place to place. Having realized that,
society makes use of it and defines its standard NOT on the weight force
(which varies) , but rather on the ratio of the weight force to the free
fall acceleration (which doesn't vary).
You aren't saying that the free fall acceleration doesn't vary are you?
Because it does.
Too bad "society" isn't aware that this constant 'ratio of the weight
force to the free
fall acceleration' is the measure of what they call mass, and inertia.
Anyone who proposes that we abandon such a system and instead adopt a system
based on the quantity that does vary would need to either explain why or
base the proposal on some other foundation. Religion comes to mind.
You know of course that I'm not basing physics on weight; because
weight is just that particular force which is one ot the three
fundamental _variables_ that comprise the fundamental _constant_ that
we call mass and inertia.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
04 Sep 2005 05:10:25 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote ...
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453
592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
More like about 2.2 pounds. Two significant figures is the limit of your
precision since the weight force on ANY object varies by more than 0.5%
across Earth's surface.
That variation don't make a darn bit of difference.
But, it does make a difference if a person is claiming that the pound is a
unit of force equal to the weight force exerted on an object of mass 0.453
592 37 kg.
Do you notice that that person is YOU!
It's irelevant as far as the ratio w/g goes.
True, which is why I specified the ratio of 0.453 592 37 kg rather than the
force of 2.204 pounds.
You do realize that it is YOU who specified the force (the quantity that
varies) and it's me you specified the ratio (the quantity that doesn't vary)
don't you?
You like to claim that we need to realize that the ratio of the weight
force
to the free fall acceleration is a constant, and that the weight force
and
the free fall acceleration vary from place to place. Having realized
that,
society makes use of it and defines its standard NOT on the weight force
(which varies) , but rather on the ratio of the weight force to the free
fall acceleration (which doesn't vary).
You aren't saying that the free fall acceleration doesn't vary are you?
Because it does.
No. I'm saying that the ratio doesn't vary.
I mentioned that it is you who claims that we need to realize that the ratio
of the weight force to the free fall acceleration is a constant. But it is
YOU who insists that instead of using the ratio (the thing that doesn't
vary) as the standard we should be using the force (the thing that does
vary) as the standard.
Too bad "society" isn't aware that this constant 'ratio of the weight
force to the free fall acceleration' is the measure of what they call
mass, and inertia
It makes no difference if society is aware of this. What makes a difference
is that society benefits from the advances made by those who are aware of
it. Aware, that is, that a standard based on a quantity that doesn't vary
is of far more utility than a standard based on a quantity that varies by
0.5%.
You know of course that I'm not basing physics on weight; because
weight is just that particular force which is one ot the three
fundamental _variables_ that comprise the fundamental _constant_ that
we call mass and inertia.
You stated (see first paragraph quoted above) that the pound is the unit of
force equal to the "Earth weight" of 0.453 592 37 kg of mass. Isn't that
the standard you are proposing?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dik T. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
03 Sep 2005 09:36:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1125749960.085072.42140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> writes:
....
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _weight of_ 0.453 592 37 kg
of mass.
Where?
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
I think you are mixing things. The common pound is a unit of mass, equal
to 0.453 592 37 kg (that is exact since 1963, before that time there were
a few different pounds). In the gravitational system there is the "pound
weight" (or "pound force") which you mean, and which is a weight (or force).
That is the "weight" of the standard unit of mass in a standard gravitational
field with g = 0.980665S (which was agreed on in 1901). So, it is *not*
the earth-weight, it is the weight in a standard gravitational field. See
how difficult the pound system is?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dik T. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
04 Sep 2005 06:58:41 PM |
|
|
In article <IM9txB.10J@cwi.nl> "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> writes:
In article <1125749960.085072.42140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> writes:
....
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
I think you are mixing things. The common pound is a unit of mass, equal
to 0.453 592 37 kg (that is exact since 1963, before that time there were
a few different pounds).
To be precise, in the UK that value is exact since 1963, before that time
there was no exact relationship between the pound and the kilogramme. In
the US the situation is a bit different. In 1866 the pound was defined
to be exactly equal to 1/2.2046 kg. In 1893 that constant was changed to
1/2.20462, and in 1894 to 1/2.20462234. And finally in 1959 to the
value above. No force in any of the definitions.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
05 Sep 2005 05:27:03 PM |
|
|
Dik T. Winter wrote:
In article <IM9txB.10J@cwi.nl> "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> writes:
In article <1125749960.085072.42140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> writes:
...
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _EARTH-weight of_ 0.453 592
37 kg of mass! Which makes 1 kg weigh 1#/0.453 592... equal to about
2.204 pounds here on Earth.
I think you are mixing things. The common pound is a unit of mass, equal
to 0.453 592 37 kg (that is exact since 1963, before that time there were
a few different pounds).
To be precise, in the UK that value is exact since 1963, before that time
there was no exact relationship between the pound and the kilogramme. In
the US the situation is a bit different. In 1866 the pound was defined
to be exactly equal to 1/2.2046 kg. In 1893 that constant was changed to
1/2.20462, and in 1894 to 1/2.20462234. And finally in 1959 to the
value above. No force in any of the definitions.
These changes were all made by arbitration: Not by computing that mass,
or inertia is the ratio of 1 unit of force (a newton) acting on, or by
a body, divided by the the rate of change in velocity that it causes.
Finagling with values that way isn't very scientific.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 08:11:31 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Herman Trivilino wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote ...
Or the "pound mass". Or "slinches", a bit like slugs only
inch based. Sad part was that pounds WERE mass units oh
so long ago before we knew the difference between mass
and weight (the balance was the predominate method of
weighing). If they had known enought to do it back then,
the "newton" would have been 32.17 lb*ft/sec^2
And here we go again ...
You are the latest victim of Don's trolling.
The pound is equal to 0.453 592 37 kg.
It's a unit of mass.
The pound is a unit of force; equal to the _weight of_ 0.453 592 37 kg
of mass.
Don
And of course that makes 1 kg weigh 1/0.453 592 pounds = 2.204 #.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 12:57:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Don1 wrote:
In the United States today there are two systems of weights and
measures: They are the customary foot-pound-second, and the metric
meter-kilogram-second.
The slug is the unit of mass in the customary system,
[snip]
Or the "pound mass". Or "slinches", a bit like slugs only
inch based. Sad part was that pounds WERE mass units oh
so long ago before we knew the difference between mass
and weight (the balance was the predominate method of
weighing).
The predominate methods of weighing, are the spring-scale and the
steelyard balance-scale. Boh of which measure that particular force
that we call weight.
If they had known enought to do it back then,
the "newton" would have been 32.17 lb*ft/sec^2
No, the newton is the force (N) that will displace 1 kilogram at a rate
of 1 meter per second, per second: Mathematically 1 N=1 kg/(1 m/1
sec^2); I think.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 01:07:55 PM |
|
|
"Mommy, the world is falling apart and these guys are talking about
8th-grade physics stuff?????"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 01:23:26 PM |
|
|
In article <1125679100.012304.9160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
[snip troll]
Or the "pound mass". Or "slinches", a bit like slugs only
inch based. Sad part was that pounds WERE mass units oh
so long ago before we knew the difference between mass
and weight (the balance was the predominate method of
weighing). If they had known enought to do it back then,
the "newton" would have been 32.17 lb*ft/sec^2
That is the "pound force" you are giving a value for. The force
unit corresponding to the newton is the "poundal".
You are, of course, quite right about the fact that it was mass that
was measured long before Sir Isaac Newton made clear the distinction
between force and mass.
John Briggs
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "odin" |
|
| Title: Re: The slug and the kilogram |
02 Sep 2005 09:21:40 AM |
|
|
Move on to a new topic please...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
What was the basis, and measure for the first kilogram?
What is the difference between gram-mass, pound-mass, and kilogram-mass?
SI GiORGi (MKSA) units are meter, kilogram, second and Ampere, duh.!! SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. The cgs ..or MKS units are no longer con
So, what if we took a kilogram, calibrated it against the reference, and flew it once around the world?
Moving masses, time-deletion and the expanding Universe, and the standard kilogram (take 2)
Could there be a connection between standard kilogram having less weight then its copies, and Pioneer's anomalous acceleration?
Official prototype of kilogram mysteriously losing weight?
The kilogram's average weight is about 8.9 N, the world around
| SCIENTISTS DEBATE WHETHER TO REDEFINE THE KILOGRAM
The kilogram of the archives is not a mathematical unit
definitions for a kilogram
Why the metric committee chose the kilogram as the standard mass
Magnitudes ..SI kilogram mass.
Re: UK scientists working towards a redefinition of the kilogram
shrinking kilogram bewilders scientists
|
|
|
