| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don1" |
| Date: |
28 Jul 2005 06:39:12 AM |
| Object: |
volume and weight |
What is the volume and weight of a slug of water at 39.2 degrees F, and
atmospheric (sea level) pressure?
Don
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 11:41:44 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122550752.653356.226080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is the volume and weight of a slug of water at 39.2 degrees F, and
atmospheric (sea level) pressure?
Don
Why do you ask questions you fully know the answer to? Is this going to spin
off into another pointless thread where you try to tell people mass is
simply a derived value based on an objects weight and the local gravity. Or
are you going to rattle on about inertia for a while?
Why are you obsessed with imperial units? Do you find it easier to work with
things like a temperature scale where the difference between two values
changes depending on where it occurs, with units of measure that are in
different bases and where orders of magnitude mean nothing?
Interesting approach to science. I am glad it will die out with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 01:47:36 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122550752.653356.226080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is the volume and weight of a slug of water at 39.2 degrees F, and
atmospheric (sea level) pressure?
Don
Why do you ask questions you fully know the answer to?
First you complain that I ask a question and then give the answer. Now
you complain because I don't. I just want to verify what I think is the
answer, do you know or don't you?
Snip<
Interesting approach to science. I am glad it will die out with you.
Think you'll still be around to gloat then?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 02:11:33 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122576456.867426.281550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Think you'll still be around to gloat then?
Don
Why do you think I am gloating? That would imply I am correct and you are
wrong. However, no I don't think I will be around after you - unless you are
older than your posts make you seem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 04:49:29 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122576456.867426.281550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Think you'll still be around to gloat then?
Don
Why do you think I am gloating? That would imply I am correct and you
are wrong. However, no I don't think I will be around after you -
unless you are older than your posts make you seem.
I can help you there. On 11th June 2004, in a post entitled "Gramp's
wisdom", Shead claimed to be 74. Then, a few days later, he wrote: "A
lot of folks think that the next best thing to knowledge, is knowing
where to find it: After seventy-six years in the big parade of life,
I've learned a few important things: One
is that everything isn't all written down and what is isn't
necessarily all right".
Assuming there must be some confusion over units (often a problem for
Shead), I sought to clarify the issue, but without success.
So he is now probably either 75 or 77. I think Shead imagines that the
older he gets, the more mass his arguments carry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 05:19:41 PM |
|
|
"Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:42e952dd$0$6484$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122576456.867426.281550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Think you'll still be around to gloat then?
Don
Why do you think I am gloating? That would imply I am correct and you
are wrong. However, no I don't think I will be around after you -
unless you are older than your posts make you seem.
I can help you there. On 11th June 2004, in a post entitled "Gramp's
wisdom", Shead claimed to be 74. Then, a few days later, he wrote: "A lot
of folks think that the next best thing to knowledge, is knowing
where to find it: After seventy-six years in the big parade of life, I've
learned a few important things: One
is that everything isn't all written down and what is isn't necessarily
all right".
Assuming there must be some confusion over units (often a problem for
Shead), I sought to clarify the issue, but without success.
So he is now probably either 75 or 77. I think Shead imagines that the
older he gets, the more mass his arguments carry.
Very reassuring. Now I know I will still be around to gloat when his
crackpot approach to mass/weight dies out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 05:57:18 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:42e952dd$0$6484$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122576456.867426.281550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Think you'll still be around to gloat then?
Don
Why do you think I am gloating? That would imply I am correct and you
are wrong. However, no I don't think I will be around after you -
unless you are older than your posts make you seem.
I can help you there. On 11th June 2004, in a post entitled "Gramp's
wisdom", Shead claimed to be 74. Then, a few days later, he wrote: "A lot
of folks think that the next best thing to knowledge, is knowing
where to find it: After seventy-six years in the big parade of life, I've
learned a few important things: One
is that everything isn't all written down and what is isn't necessarily
all right".
Assuming there must be some confusion over units (often a problem for
Shead), I sought to clarify the issue, but without success.
So he is now probably either 75 or 77. I think Shead imagines that the
older he gets, the more mass his arguments carry.
Very reassuring. Now I know I will still be around to gloat when his
crackpot approach to mass/weight dies out.
Oh but it won't, no matter if you're still around or not.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "C. Bond" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 07:57:20 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
T Wake wrote:
[snip]
Very reassuring. Now I know I will still be around to gloat when his
crackpot approach to mass/weight dies out.
Oh but it won't, no matter if you're still around or not.
Don
The "crackpot approach to mass/weight" may not die out, but at least the
obnoxious cross-posting to sci.math will stop.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
03 Aug 2005 06:16:36 PM |
|
|
C. Bond wrote:
Don1 wrote:
T Wake wrote:
[snip]
Very reassuring. Now I know I will still be around to gloat when his
crackpot approach to mass/weight dies out.
Oh but it won't, no matter if you're still around or not.
Don
This has now reached the stage where it is no longer a crackpot
approach, and someone else will take up where I leave off. They will
cross-post to sci. math like you'd never believe.
Like it or not, sci.math depends on physics, and is an important part
of it..
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 05:19:30 PM |
|
|
Pyriform wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122576456.867426.281550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Think you'll still be around to gloat then?
Don
Why do you think I am gloating? That would imply I am correct and you
are wrong. However, no I don't think I will be around after you -
unless you are older than your posts make you seem.
I can help you there. On 11th June 2004, in a post entitled "Gramp's
wisdom", Shead claimed to be 74. Then, a few days later, he wrote: "A
lot of folks think that the next best thing to knowledge, is knowing
where to find it: After seventy-six years in the big parade of life,
I've learned a few important things: One
is that everything isn't all written down and what is isn't
necessarily all right".
Assuming there must be some confusion over units (often a problem for
Shead), I sought to clarify the issue, but without success.
So he is now probably either 75 or 77. I think Shead imagines that the
older he gets, the more mass his arguments carry.
I was born on Nov. 14, 1927 and have acquired a lot of wisdom since;
most of it is gone. but not completely forgotten, just harder to
recall. What are your problems? Like they say "too soon old, and too
late smart";^! You'd better get a wiggle on if you expect to 'ketchup'.
Quit wasting your time; it's the only time you'll get.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 12:26:30 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122550752.653356.226080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is the volume and weight of a slug of water at 39.2 degrees F, and
atmospheric (sea level) pressure?
Don
Why do you ask questions you fully know the answer to? Is this going to spin
off into another pointless thread where you try to tell people mass is
simply a derived value based on an objects weight and the local gravity. Or
are you going to rattle on about inertia for a while?
Why are you obsessed with imperial units? Do you find it easier to work with
things like a temperature scale where the difference between two values
changes depending on where it occurs, with units of measure that are in
different bases and where orders of magnitude mean nothing?
Interesting approach to science. I am glad it will die out with you.
I think mass is caused by the density of space.
In a less-dense space, matter will have less
inertia/less gravity.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 02:11:55 PM |
|
|
Corect john ..
mass is equal the energy it displaces.
Mass in less dence space is less mass.
Mass changes mass at c.
Obiting parts of atoms gain mass when at the top side of the orbit and
are less mass when at the bottom.
All the mass of te orbiting parts are falling to the center of the atom
as they orbit .
More mass is then falling in one direction than the other in an energy
slope .
The atom pushes its self down the energy slope. The GAIN in mass
pushes the atom to less energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 05:18:00 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6594-42E92DFB-207@storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net...
idiot
Half correct fool.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 12:31:48 PM |
|
|
Define "density of space".
Ideally, you would provide a quantitative estimate of this property
under some set of conditions. At the very least, you could provide
units for such a quantity.
PD
John Sefton wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1122550752.653356.226080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is the volume and weight of a slug of water at 39.2 degrees F, and
atmospheric (sea level) pressure?
Don
Why do you ask questions you fully know the answer to? Is this going to spin
off into another pointless thread where you try to tell people mass is
simply a derived value based on an objects weight and the local gravity. Or
are you going to rattle on about inertia for a while?
Why are you obsessed with imperial units? Do you find it easier to work with
things like a temperature scale where the difference between two values
changes depending on where it occurs, with units of measure that are in
different bases and where orders of magnitude mean nothing?
Interesting approach to science. I am glad it will die out with you.
I think mass is caused by the density of space.
In a less-dense space, matter will have less
inertia/less gravity.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 07:57:20 AM |
|
|
1 litre weighs exactly 1Kg. This is the definition temperature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 08:51:25 AM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
1 litre weighs exactly 1Kg. This is the definition temperature.
I think you are confusing weight (w) and mass (m) Ian. I believe 1
kilogram is the mass, and inertia, of 1 cubic decimeter of pure water
at its maximum density, and weighs 9.806 65 newtons, wherever the
acceleration of free fall (g) is 9.806 65 m/sec^2; so that w/g = ONE
sec^2per meter.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 09:35:19 AM |
|
|
In article <1122555440.438958.154410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ian Parker" <ianparker2@gmail.com> writes:
1 litre weighs exactly 1Kg. This is the definition temperature.
From 1793 to 1901 the litre was exactly 1 cubic decimeter.
A liter of water did _NOT_ weigh 1kg during this period. The kilogram
was defined variously as the mass of the Kilogram of the Archives
and as the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram during this
time frame.
In 1902 at the 3rd CPGM, the liter was redefined to be the volume
of 1 kilogram of pure water under various precise conditions.
A liter of water _DID_ weigh 1 kg during this period. By definition.
(But the relevant definition was the definition of the liter, not the
definition of the kilogram).
In 1964 at the 12th CPGM, the liter was returned to its original
definition as a cubic decimeter. That definition remains in force
today.
A liter of water does _NOT_ weigh 1 kg today. The kilogram is defined
as the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram and although
it is close to the mass of a liter of water, it's off by just a tad.
John Briggs
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 02:07:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1122555440.438958.154410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ian Parker" <ianparker2@gmail.com> writes:
1 litre weighs exactly 1Kg. This is the definition temperature.
From 1793 to 1901 the litre was exactly 1 cubic decimeter.
A liter of water did _NOT_ weigh 1kg during this period. The kilogram
was defined variously as the mass of the Kilogram of the Archives
and as the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram during this
time frame.
In 1902 at the 3rd CPGM, the liter was redefined to be the volume
of 1 kilogram of pure water under various precise conditions.
A liter of water _DID_ weigh 1 kg during this period. By definition.
(But the relevant definition was the definition of the liter, not the
definition of the kilogram).
In 1964 at the 12th CPGM, the liter was returned to its original
definition as a cubic decimeter. That definition remains in force
today.
A liter of water does _NOT_ weigh 1 kg today. The kilogram is defined
as the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram and although
it is close to the mass of a liter of water, it's off by just a tad.
John Briggs
O.K. John ; after all the didling: What _is_ the volume and weight of a
kilogram of pure water at 39.2 degrees F, and atmospheric (sea level)
pressure?
Isn't it 1 cubic decimeter, and doesn't it weigh 9.806 65 newtons
wherever the acceleration of free fall is 9.806 65 m/sec^2?
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cnctut" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 03:45:21 PM |
|
|
As the weekend approaches, Don1 pulls a slug from him bum and converts
it into another mmm-- ***** discussion--and like with the Pied Piper--all
the lemmings follow. ;-))
Tut
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 08:54:06 AM |
|
|
At 39.2=B0F (=3D4=B0C) water density is maximum : exactly 1kg/litre.
Then 1 slug of water =3D 14.5939 kg ~ 14.5939 litres.
(that's not maths, just physics)
v=2Ea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: volume and weight |
28 Jul 2005 09:26:57 AM |
|
|
wrote:
At 39.2=B0F (=3D4=B0C) water density is maximum : exactly 1kg/litre.
Then 1 slug of water =3D 14.5939 kg ~ 14.5939 litres.
(that's not maths, just physics)
v.a.
It looks like some sort of botched mathematics to me, but then again,
what is "maths";^?
What is the volume and weight of a slug of water at 39.2 degrees F, and
atmospheric (sea level) pressure?=20
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
