On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:13:19 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Michael Kraemer @ home <M.Kr...@gsi.de> wrote:
> >Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >
> >> Other than some labs, who actually uses Kelvin?
> >
> >All of Thermodynamics and its applications.
> >That's way more than just "some labs".
> My thermo class used Rankine, but it was in the seventies.

Rankine? Really? I didn't know anyone used that so recently!

>
> Still, Kelvin gets used a lot for things like color temperatures, where it
> is useful because color changes are perfectly proportional (which they would
> not be if they were measured in centigrate).
> temperature is.
> --scott

That's right! Color! Good call.
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Alan

On 12/26/2021 5:48 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-12-25, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> As far as that goes, so is Fahrenheit with either. It's just a multiplier and
>> an offset.
>>
>> A couple of lines from a simple VB program I have:
>>
>> C = (F - 32) * 5 / 9
>> F = C * 9 / 5 + 32
>
> I looked at the above two statements and basically went "eek!" at
> all the implicit type conversions potentially going on above. :-)
>
> Does VB do the right thing above or do variables F and C get
> type converted to an integer (with loss of information) before
> the above calculations are done ?
>
> Just curious. (In situations like that, I would have written the
> integers with a decimal component, so 32 would become 32.0 for example.)

VMS Basic behaves like most other languages.

If the input variable is integer then it does integer math.

If the input variable is floating point then it does floating point math.

And it produces expected result if input variable and output
variable are same type.

Only if input is integer and output is floating point it is
necessary to do something to change the math from integer math
to floating point math.

Arne

On 12/26/2021 11:46 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> Other than some labs, who actually uses Kelvin?  I didn't in
> High School chemistry or physics.  I didn't in college chemistry
> or physics.  And I certainly never have in real life beyond seeing
> it used in a science fiction book once in a while.  :-)

All formulas using absolute temperature instead of
temperature difference should have been using K not C.

Arne

On 2021-12-26 19:25, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>>>
>>> Depends on the purpose. Use the right too for the job. And to my European freinds: How many Newtons do you weigh?
>> I think I might have hit reply instead of follow up. But instead of a
>> long rant, I'll just observe that newtons is force.
>>
>> And newtons are defined as kg * m/2^s. Anyone using SI units thus have a
>> pretty easy time to figure out how many newtons of force he asserts,
>> based on his mass. If you are lazy, you just add a "0" after your
>> weight, and you have approximately how many newtons you are asserting at
>> the surface of the earth. If you want to be a bit more precise you
>> multiply your weight by 9.81, and if you want to be very precise, you
>> need to know the actual gravity at the point where you are, and you
>> multiply your mass by that to find the force. (But then you need to also
>> really figure out what your mass is, which isn't that easy to figure out.)
>>
>> And of course, if we move to the moon, our weight, and the force we
>> assert will be all different.
>>
>> But in the most simplistic terms, since if you step on a scale, you get
>> a number for your weight, in kg, just multiplying it by 10 is usually
>> good enough for newtons.
>>
>> Do you have any other "difficult" questions for your European friends?
>>
>> And while we're at it, how many lbf do you weight? And what is lbf?
>
> You bet! I weigh myself every morning and can tell you in an instant. I'd rather not on a public forum though! And I don't even have to add a 0, which is not quite accurate enough in my book. If memorizing 32 and 212 is too much effort (which you don't even need to know the majority of the time you use temperature), then multiplying by 9.8 certainly is! Yes, you can figure it out, but if you go by that standard, neither system is superior.
>
> And it's lbs., not lbf. Well, I suppose you could use lbf. I'd have to look it up. Not really relevant here.

No. I was talking about lbf, *not* lbs.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force))

The parallel of N vs. kg.

The question seemed very relevant, as you asked if Europeans could tell
how much they weighted in N.

>> Force in pounds for acceleration expressed in m/s^2 ? So if you want it
>> in lb * foot/s^2, there isn't even a unit? How messed up is this thing?
>
> I never said anything about acceleration. I was talking about weighing things, esp. yourself. Well, I recall a value of 32 ft/sec/sec for g. Different system, different units and such. What's wrong with ft/sec/sec?

You were the one who brought up N. Then you should understand what it
is. And that means you bring in acceleration.

And the conversion between kg and N is rather simple on the surface of
the earth, as I observed.

The conversation between lbs and lbf is easy if you use SI units for
gravity, but becomes more convoluted if you use ft/s^2.

>>> Back to Fahrenheit: It has its advantages. When the temperature is in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s -- each range conjures up a different feeling. The Celsius degree is too big for that. "But is based on 0 and 100 for water!" So F what [pun not intended!]. How often do you even think of those when you are involved with the temperature. You've got two numbers: 32 and 212. Is this too hard to memorize? And when you hear those numbers you know it's temperature-related. 0 and 100 could be 'most anything.
>> There is absolutely no problems looking at celcius in ranges and figure
>> out a feeling based on that. Most people do. Nonsense to think you can't.
>
> Really? I'm talking ranges of 10. In Celsius if you say it's in the 20s, what does that really mean? Anywhere from 68 F to 86 Fahranheit. Is it hot out or comfortable? If I say 70s F, it's comfortable or slightly warm. Sure, if you give a particular number, like 23 deg C., you can have a feel for it. But in ranges of tens, F is clearly better.

Of course I have a feeling about when it's in the 20s. I'm actually
amazed that you think that I would not.
20s is acceptable summer temperature. I don't have to wear that much
clothes. High 20s and I might start thinking it's getting warm. But that
is starting to move into what I think of the 30s.

So again - there is nothing "clearly better with F".

Humans are rather flexible, and deal with systems pretty well. It's just
that it's nicer to have systems that are easy to do conversions on
without having to do an excessive amount of math, which is why the rest
of the world stopped using imperial units. Believe it or not, but until
200 years ago, we all did it the same way the US still does. But the
rest of the world moved on.

>>> Again, the reason Americans don't adopt Celsius is the same reason you haven't switched from the QWERTY to the Dvorak keyboard.
>> Definitely true in a sense. It's about using what you are used to in a way.
>> But you can both argue the superiority of Dvorak, and also observe and
>> countries like France and Germany don't even use Qwerty.
>
> Really? What do France and Germany use instead? Just askin'.

I think they use something called QWERTZ, but I don't think they are the
same between them. They move some letters around, which really mess me
up whenever I see one of their keyboards.

Johnny

On 2021-12-26 19:36, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> [...]
>> It's not about memorizing. Any human should be able to memorize. It's
>> about how easy or hard it is to use.
>> Yes, when you are used to one thing, it is always easy. If you learn
>> one, and then move to another. The interesting question is - do you want
>> to move back? That's what tells you which you should be going with.
>> Don't torment kids with the broken systems of their ancestors just
>> because it is easier for you...
>
> This cuts both ways. How is F hard to use? It's hard for YOU for the same reason you say C is hard for Americans: ". . . when you are used to one thing, it is always easy."

Of course it cuts both ways in that sense. That's the point of the
comment about what you are used to is always the easiest.

F is harder to use because all scientific work is not using it, or
anything close to it. Using C makes it very easy to do most scientific
work. Many times you are looking at temperature relatives, in which case
C and K are identical. And the times you actually have to deal with
absolute temperatures, it's just a simple addition and you are done.

That *is* easier.

> Yes, I'd want to move back. Why wouldn't I want to move back? When you switch to the Dvorak keyboard, let me know. Then I'll reconsider.

Change, and then we can talk.

> In science I like kelvins. For weather, cooking, laundry and such, I like F. Anything else would involve pointless effort. If something is given in C, like wash temperatures often are now, I convert. No biggie. 20 F is 68 C. 30 F is 86. Then just add or subtract 18 per 10 for anything else. Good enough.

Once you have changed, there is no effort. And also no need for all
these conversions. Win win.

Johnny

On 26/12/2021 18:36, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ... 20 F is 68 C. 30 F is 86. Then just add or subtract 18 per 10 for anything else. Good enough.
>
See, you even got that wrong "20 F is 68 C. 20 F is 86".

On 26/12/2021 18:36, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:

> ... 20 F is 68 C. 30 F is 86. Then just add or subtract 18 per 10 for
anything else. Good enough.

See, you even got that wrong: "20 F is 68 C. 30 F is 86."

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:49:19 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2021-12-26 19:25, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
> >>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> >>>>
> >>> Depends on the purpose. Use the right too for the job. And to my European freinds: How many Newtons do you weigh?
> >> I think I might have hit reply instead of follow up. But instead of a
> >> long rant, I'll just observe that newtons is force.
> >>
> >> And newtons are defined as kg * m/2^s. Anyone using SI units thus have a
> >> pretty easy time to figure out how many newtons of force he asserts,
> >> based on his mass. If you are lazy, you just add a "0" after your
> >> weight, and you have approximately how many newtons you are asserting at
> >> the surface of the earth. If you want to be a bit more precise you
> >> multiply your weight by 9.81, and if you want to be very precise, you
> >> need to know the actual gravity at the point where you are, and you
> >> multiply your mass by that to find the force. (But then you need to also
> >> really figure out what your mass is, which isn't that easy to figure out.)
> >>
> >> And of course, if we move to the moon, our weight, and the force we
> >> assert will be all different.
> >>
> >> But in the most simplistic terms, since if you step on a scale, you get
> >> a number for your weight, in kg, just multiplying it by 10 is usually
> >> good enough for newtons.
> >>
> >> Do you have any other "difficult" questions for your European friends?
> >>
> >> And while we're at it, how many lbf do you weight? And what is lbf?
> >
> > You bet! I weigh myself every morning and can tell you in an instant. I'd rather not on a public forum though! And I don't even have to add a 0, which is not quite accurate enough in my book. If memorizing 32 and 212 is too much effort (which you don't even need to know the majority of the time you use temperature), then multiplying by 9.8 certainly is! Yes, you can figure it out, but if you go by that standard, neither system is superior.

> > And it's lbs., not lbf. Well, I suppose you could use lbf. I'd have to look it up. Not really relevant here.
> No. I was talking about lbf, *not* lbs.
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force))
>
> The parallel of N vs. kg.

Picky, pikcy, picky. No one in America calls it lbf. We call it lbs. You get on the scale, write down the number, and you put lbs. to the right of it. This lbs. vs. lbf. for the purpose of this discussion is a difference without a distinction. WGAF? And no conversions. We get the right number from the start. Maybe lbs. vs. lbf. is good for engineers. IDK. I'm not an engineer and am not sufficiently up on the subject to say. Just a guess. Regardless, when Americans weigh themselves they use lbs. When you look at products in a store sold be weight, it's lbs. No one in America uses lbf. in ordinary day-to-day living.

And you said "vs." Didn't you mean "is"? That's how I read. A conversion! But I can handle it without bitching about it. In fact, I don't think I even noticed it until writing this post.

> The question seemed very relevant, as you asked if Europeans could tell
> how much they weighted in N.

You want to be picky? It's weigh, not weighted.

> >> Force in pounds for acceleration expressed in m/s^2 ? So if you want it
> >> in lb * foot/s^2, there isn't even a unit? How messed up is this thing?

I was talking about weighing yourself. Some claimed that the proper unit is N, as that is the SI base unit. Dynes, somehow, despite being a totally legitamite metric unit is somehow deprecated. In fact, it was Helbig:

"> Dynes or newtons?

"Both are metric, but newton is the SI, and hence preferred, unit. Same with tesla over gauss."

So I was going with newtons.

And the acceleration bit. Who's actually doing this? Why are you multiplying a force by an acceleration anyway? That makes no sense!

> >
> > I never said anything about acceleration. I was talking about weighing things, esp. yourself. Well, I recall a value of 32 ft/sec/sec for g. Different system, different units and such. What's wrong with ft/sec/sec?
> You were the one who brought up N. Then you should understand what it
> is. And that means you bring in acceleration.

Whatever.

>
> And the conversion between kg and N is rather simple on the surface of
> the earth, as I observed.

So when a European has to do a conversion to Fahrenheit, it's a nearly insurmountable task. What a PITA! Oh, but if you have to do a "simple conversion" in your own system, suddenly it's okay. I get on the scale and I immediately get a number in lbs. and that's it. I could flip the bars and get kg, but I grew up in a country that uses lbs., so I use pounds. Everything I read or see in video says lbs., so I go with lbs. So what? No conversion is involved! And kg is a unit of mass. Weight is a force. Again, this is picky, picky, picky. Well, I find it slightly annoying, but I get by.

> The conversation between lbs and lbf is easy if you use SI units for
> gravity, but becomes more convoluted if you use ft/s^2.
> >>> Back to Fahrenheit: It has its advantages. When the temperature is in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s -- each range conjures up a different feeling. The Celsius degree is too big for that. "But is based on 0 and 100 for water!" So F what [pun not intended!]. How often do you even think of those when you are involved with the temperature. You've got two numbers: 32 and 212. Is this too hard to memorize? And when you hear those numbers you know it's temperature-related. 0 and 100 could be 'most anything.
> >> There is absolutely no problems looking at celcius in ranges and figure
> >> out a feeling based on that. Most people do. Nonsense to think you can't.
> >
> > Really? I'm talking ranges of 10. In Celsius if you say it's in the 20s, what does that really mean? Anywhere from 68 F to 86 Fahranheit. Is it hot out or comfortable? If I say 70s F, it's comfortable or slightly warm. Sure, if you give a particular number, like 23 deg C., you can have a feel for it. But in ranges of tens, F is clearly better.
> Of course I have a feeling about when it's in the 20s. I'm actually
> amazed that you think that I would not.
> 20s is acceptable summer temperature. I don't have to wear that much
> clothes. High 20s and I might start thinking it's getting warm. But

C'mon. 20 C is 68 F, just a tad cool. 29 C is 84 F. Definitely warm. Too warm.

Ah! High 20s! You have to add the "high". In F., OTOH, you can just say 80s.. Now tell me of the two which is simpler?

I think the Celsius degree is too large for everyday use. When I nudge the thermostat in my home, I do it by a single degree at a time. In C I'd have to use 1/2. Oh, but multiplying by 2 is too much of a pain for you.

that
> is starting to move into what I think of the 30s.
>
> So again - there is nothing "clearly better with F".

If I say it's in the 80s F it tells me a lot more than if I say the 20s C.

>
> Humans are rather flexible, and deal with systems pretty well. It's just
> that it's nicer to have systems that are easy to do conversions on
> without having to do an excessive amount of math, which is why the rest
> of the world stopped using imperial units. Believe it or not, but until
> 200 years ago, we all did it the same way the US still does. But the
> rest of the world moved on.

What conversions? Who's doing conversions? YOU GUYS are. I'm not doing any -- unless I'm cooking!

Also, the rest of the world didn't put men on the moon. The rest of the world doesn't have the primary currency of the world. The rest of the world doesn't define and set the base units of the metric or SI system, AFAIK. Yes, there's that kg mass in Paris, but that's finally been replaced with a better standard. Maybe other countries are involved. I don't know for sure. The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that? The U.S. used to be the leader in particle physics. Well, not so much anymore. Bummer.

So "the rest of the world" means nothing. Hey, use your system. I don't really care. I'm not telling you to switch. But YOU are telling ME to switch, to which I say, NO! Besides, there's plenty of metric use in the U.S.: beverages, tools, caliber, liquor, engine displacement, focal length, lens diameters, film widths, Apple brags that their new iMacs are 11.5 mm thick. Oh, sorry, the meter is preferred. mm is fine and in this case greatly preferred by me. (Sorry, Philip!) Drugs, both legal and illegal. All metric or a mix. And IMO there's no reason for Americans to switch to C for non-lab stuff.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 7:36:43 AM UTC-5, Roy Omond wrote:
> On 26/12/2021 18:36, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > ... 20 F is 68 C. 30 F is 86. Then just add or subtract 18 per 10 for anything else. Good enough.
> >
> See, you even got that wrong "20 F is 68 C. 20 F is 86".

Alright, so sometimes I'm slightly dyslexic. And the hour was late. Doesn't invalidate any of my points.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:53:23 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2021-12-26 19:36, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
> >>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> > [...]
[...]
]>
> F is harder to use because all scientific work is not using it, or
> anything close to it. Using C makes it very easy to do most scientific
> work. Many times you are looking at temperature relatives, in which case
> C and K are identical. And the times you actually have to deal with
> absolute temperatures, it's just a simple addition and you are done.
>
> That *is* easier.

OK, let me re-quote that for readability:

You wrote:
"F is harder to use because all scientific work is not using it, or
anything close to it. Using C makes it very easy to do most scientific
work. Many times you are looking at temperature relatives, in which case C and K are identical. And the times you actually have to deal with absolute temperatures, it's just a simple addition and you are done. That *is* easier."

I'm not aware of anyone in science using C unless they're converting to it for ordinary daily use, like the temperature ranges for drugs. Maybe chemists do. Physicists don't, AFAIK. (Physics is a rather broad field. Maybe the condensed matter people use it, for instance. Not my sub-field.)

Besides, as I've said elsewhere, scientists, especially astronomers, use plenty of non-metric units: astronomical unit, solar mass, parsec, light-year, stellar magnitude, electron volts, feet, atmospheres, G-forces, minutes, days, years, sols, the electric charges of particles, \hbar for angular momentum, the Bohr radius and the Compton wavelength, for distance, all those "Planck units", and I'm sure even more -- none of which are metric units!!! And then there's \alpha, the fine structure constant, which is very close to 1/137. It is a dimensionless number which is the same in all systems of units!

> Johnny

Alan (^_^(

On 27/12/2021 15:48, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 7:36:43 AM UTC-5, Roy Omond wrote:
>> On 26/12/2021 18:36, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ... 20 F is 68 C. 30 F is 86. Then just add or subtract 18 per 10 for anything else. Good enough.
>>>
>> See, you even got that wrong "20 F is 68 C. 20 F is 86".
>
> Alright, so sometimes I'm slightly dyslexic. And the hour was late. Doesn't invalidate any of my points.
>

Gentlenen (I use the term loosely) and (if any) Ladies:
Please mark any continuation of this particular topic as "OT"
Thanks,
Merry Christmas and hoping for a happy New Year.
Mike

--
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before
and: http://alpha.mike-r.com/jargon/T/top-post.html
Missile address: N31.7624/E34.9691

alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>

well, given you are on a patriotic trip ...

> The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that?

Easily, even if we add those you have forgotten (Sg, Lv):
Ge Re Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Es
all have German context.

Finding those elements with French, Russian or Swedish context I leave
as a homework for you.

On 2021-12-27 14:47, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:49:19 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2021-12-26 19:25, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
>>>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on the purpose. Use the right too for the job. And to my European freinds: How many Newtons do you weigh?
>>>> I think I might have hit reply instead of follow up. But instead of a
>>>> long rant, I'll just observe that newtons is force.
>>>>
>>>> And newtons are defined as kg * m/2^s. Anyone using SI units thus have a
>>>> pretty easy time to figure out how many newtons of force he asserts,
>>>> based on his mass. If you are lazy, you just add a "0" after your
>>>> weight, and you have approximately how many newtons you are asserting at
>>>> the surface of the earth. If you want to be a bit more precise you
>>>> multiply your weight by 9.81, and if you want to be very precise, you
>>>> need to know the actual gravity at the point where you are, and you
>>>> multiply your mass by that to find the force. (But then you need to also
>>>> really figure out what your mass is, which isn't that easy to figure out.)
>>>>
>>>> And of course, if we move to the moon, our weight, and the force we
>>>> assert will be all different.
>>>>
>>>> But in the most simplistic terms, since if you step on a scale, you get
>>>> a number for your weight, in kg, just multiplying it by 10 is usually
>>>> good enough for newtons.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any other "difficult" questions for your European friends?
>>>>
>>>> And while we're at it, how many lbf do you weight? And what is lbf?
>>>
>>> You bet! I weigh myself every morning and can tell you in an instant. I'd rather not on a public forum though! And I don't even have to add a 0, which is not quite accurate enough in my book. If memorizing 32 and 212 is too much effort (which you don't even need to know the majority of the time you use temperature), then multiplying by 9.8 certainly is! Yes, you can figure it out, but if you go by that standard, neither system is superior.
>
>>> And it's lbs., not lbf. Well, I suppose you could use lbf. I'd have to look it up. Not really relevant here.
>> No. I was talking about lbf, *not* lbs.
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force))
>>
>> The parallel of N vs. kg.
>
> Picky, pikcy, picky. No one in America calls it lbf. We call it lbs. You get on the scale, write down the number, and you put lbs. to the right of it. This lbs. vs. lbf. for the purpose of this discussion is a difference without a distinction. WGAF? And no conversions. We get the right number from the start. Maybe lbs. vs. lbf. is good for engineers. IDK. I'm not an engineer and am not sufficiently up on the subject to say. Just a guess. Regardless, when Americans weigh themselves they use lbs. When you look at products in a store sold be weight, it's lbs. No one in America uses lbf. in ordinary day-to-day living.

Now, wait a minute. Why did you ask for Europeans wight in newton if you
then call me picky when I ask for your weight in lbf. It is *not* the
same as lbs.

You really need to understand what you ask for, and don't get into
something and then call others picky when they just talk about the exact
thing *you* asked about.

When people talk about weight in Europe, they normally use kilogram, and
not newton, because newton is *force*. And yes, you can argue that
weight and force as equivalent. Because weight is usually meant as mass
at earth gravity. I weight much less at the moon... But I have the same
mass.

You seem to not understand what lbf is at all. Read the link I gave to
Wikipedia. If you use SI units for gravity, then lbf is roughly lbs*10
(more exactly 9.81, and yet more exact if you figure out exactly what
the gravity is where you are).
The number on your scale gives you lbs, yes. Just as my scale gives me
kilogrammes.

I could ask the obvious question why you even asked about my weight in
newton in the first place. Did you think it would be some magic,
complicated number that I wouldn't know? I suspect most europeans know
their weight in newton, since it's pretty much their weight in kilos,
with an added 0. And pretty much everyone knows their weight in kilos.

> And you said "vs." Didn't you mean "is"? That's how I read. A conversion! But I can handle it without bitching about it. In fact, I don't think I even noticed it until writing this post.

You asked about Europeans weight in newtons. Noone measure their weight
in newtons. Newtons is force. But obviously there is a clear correlation
between what you consider your weight, and the force you exercise.

So it really is "vs". You asked for weight in N, while we normally
measure weight in kg. So I tossed the question back to you about lbf,
and you don't even understand the difference between lbs and lbf.

But the relationsship between kg and N is exactly corresponding to the
difference between lbs and lbf. Hence the "vs".

>> The question seemed very relevant, as you asked if Europeans could tell
>> how much they weighted in N.
>
> You want to be picky? It's weigh, not weighted.

I'm not a native English speaker. If you really want to get out of this
discussion by trying to find spelling errors, or incorrect application
of temporal forms then it would seem you really don't have much more to
say on the topic.

>>>> Force in pounds for acceleration expressed in m/s^2 ? So if you want it
>>>> in lb * foot/s^2, there isn't even a unit? How messed up is this thing?
>
> I was talking about weighing yourself. Some claimed that the proper unit is N, as that is the SI base unit. Dynes, somehow, despite being a totally legitamite metric unit is somehow deprecated. In fact, it was Helbig:

N is the SI unit for force. This shouldn't be that hard...
When you start tossing weight around, it's a different thing.

> And the acceleration bit. Who's actually doing this? Why are you multiplying a force by an acceleration anyway? That makes no sense!

1 Newton is defined as the force required to accelerate a mass of 1 kg
by 1 m/s/s.

It has everything to do with acceleration.

How would you define a unit for force?

>> And the conversion between kg and N is rather simple on the surface of
>> the earth, as I observed.
>
> So when a European has to do a conversion to Fahrenheit, it's a nearly insurmountable task. What a PITA! Oh, but if you have to do a "simple conversion" in your own system, suddenly it's okay. I get on the scale and I immediately get a number in lbs. and that's it. I could flip the bars and get kg, but I grew up in a country that uses lbs., so I use pounds. Everything I read or see in video says lbs., so I go with lbs. So what? No conversion is involved! And kg is a unit of mass. Weight is a force. Again, this is picky, picky, picky. Well, I find it slightly annoying, but I get by.

I see that you don't get it. What I don't get is why you then try to
pick a fight about it.

>> The conversation between lbs and lbf is easy if you use SI units for
>> gravity, but becomes more convoluted if you use ft/s^2.
>>>>> Back to Fahrenheit: It has its advantages. When the temperature is in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s -- each range conjures up a different feeling. The Celsius degree is too big for that. "But is based on 0 and 100 for water!" So F what [pun not intended!]. How often do you even think of those when you are involved with the temperature. You've got two numbers: 32 and 212. Is this too hard to memorize? And when you hear those numbers you know it's temperature-related. 0 and 100 could be 'most anything.
>>>> There is absolutely no problems looking at celcius in ranges and figure
>>>> out a feeling based on that. Most people do. Nonsense to think you can't.
>>>
>>> Really? I'm talking ranges of 10. In Celsius if you say it's in the 20s, what does that really mean? Anywhere from 68 F to 86 Fahranheit. Is it hot out or comfortable? If I say 70s F, it's comfortable or slightly warm. Sure, if you give a particular number, like 23 deg C., you can have a feel for it. But in ranges of tens, F is clearly better.
>> Of course I have a feeling about when it's in the 20s. I'm actually
>> amazed that you think that I would not.
>> 20s is acceptable summer temperature. I don't have to wear that much
>> clothes. High 20s and I might start thinking it's getting warm. But
>
> C'mon. 20 C is 68 F, just a tad cool. 29 C is 84 F. Definitely warm. Too warm.
>
> Ah! High 20s! You have to add the "high". In F., OTOH, you can just say 80s. Now tell me of the two which is simpler?

On 2021-12-27 15:11, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:53:23 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2021-12-26 19:36, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
>>>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>> [...]
> [...]
> ]>
>> F is harder to use because all scientific work is not using it, or
>> anything close to it. Using C makes it very easy to do most scientific
>> work. Many times you are looking at temperature relatives, in which case
>> C and K are identical. And the times you actually have to deal with
>> absolute temperatures, it's just a simple addition and you are done.
>>
>> That *is* easier.
>
> OK, let me re-quote that for readability:
>
> You wrote:
> "F is harder to use because all scientific work is not using it, or
> anything close to it. Using C makes it very easy to do most scientific
> work. Many times you are looking at temperature relatives, in which case C and K are identical. And the times you actually have to deal with absolute temperatures, it's just a simple addition and you are done. That *is* easier."
>
> I'm not aware of anyone in science using C unless they're converting to it for ordinary daily use, like the temperature ranges for drugs. Maybe chemists do. Physicists don't, AFAIK. (Physics is a rather broad field. Maybe the condensed matter people use it, for instance. Not my sub-field.)

I wonder if you are missing the point on purpose. I didn't say they use
C. I said that when you are in C, things becomes very easy, since most
of the work you do with temperatures are using relative temperatures, at
which point K and C are identical.

How hard can that be to understand?

When I want to compute the energy required to heat water at 0 C to 20 C,
I'm looking at the energy required to heat water by 20 degrees. Don't
matter if it's in K or C. It turns out to be the same.

But I suspect you are not going to accept that no matter how much I
repeat it. After having to help my daughter with her gymnasium physics
this last year I can tell that I'm very happy she didn't have to also
deal with conversions from F in addition to all the numbers she had to
throw around. It would *not* have helped.

Johnny

Den 2021-12-27 kl. 14:47, skrev alanfe...@gmail.com:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:49:19 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2021-12-26 19:25, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
>>>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on the purpose. Use the right too for the job. And to my European freinds: How many Newtons do you weigh?
>>>> I think I might have hit reply instead of follow up. But instead of a
>>>> long rant, I'll just observe that newtons is force.
>>>>
>>>> And newtons are defined as kg * m/2^s. Anyone using SI units thus have a
>>>> pretty easy time to figure out how many newtons of force he asserts,
>>>> based on his mass. If you are lazy, you just add a "0" after your
>>>> weight, and you have approximately how many newtons you are asserting at
>>>> the surface of the earth. If you want to be a bit more precise you
>>>> multiply your weight by 9.81, and if you want to be very precise, you
>>>> need to know the actual gravity at the point where you are, and you
>>>> multiply your mass by that to find the force. (But then you need to also
>>>> really figure out what your mass is, which isn't that easy to figure out.)
>>>>
>>>> And of course, if we move to the moon, our weight, and the force we
>>>> assert will be all different.
>>>>
>>>> But in the most simplistic terms, since if you step on a scale, you get
>>>> a number for your weight, in kg, just multiplying it by 10 is usually
>>>> good enough for newtons.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any other "difficult" questions for your European friends?
>>>>
>>>> And while we're at it, how many lbf do you weight? And what is lbf?
>>>
>>> You bet! I weigh myself every morning and can tell you in an instant. I'd rather not on a public forum though! And I don't even have to add a 0, which is not quite accurate enough in my book. If memorizing 32 and 212 is too much effort (which you don't even need to know the majority of the time you use temperature), then multiplying by 9.8 certainly is! Yes, you can figure it out, but if you go by that standard, neither system is superior.
>
>>> And it's lbs., not lbf. Well, I suppose you could use lbf. I'd have to look it up. Not really relevant here.
>> No. I was talking about lbf, *not* lbs.
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force))
>>
>> The parallel of N vs. kg.
>
> Picky, pikcy, picky. No one in America calls it lbf. We call it lbs. You get on the scale, write down the number, and you put lbs. to the right of it. This lbs. vs. lbf. for the purpose of this discussion is a difference without a distinction. WGAF? And no conversions. We get the right number from the start. Maybe lbs. vs. lbf. is good for engineers. IDK. I'm not an engineer and am not sufficiently up on the subject to say. Just a guess. Regardless, when Americans weigh themselves they use lbs. When you look at products in a store sold be weight, it's lbs. No one in America uses lbf. in ordinary day-to-day living.
>
> And you said "vs." Didn't you mean "is"? That's how I read. A conversion! But I can handle it without bitching about it. In fact, I don't think I even noticed it until writing this post.
>
>> The question seemed very relevant, as you asked if Europeans could tell
>> how much they weighted in N.
>
> You want to be picky? It's weigh, not weighted.
>
>>>> Force in pounds for acceleration expressed in m/s^2 ? So if you want it
>>>> in lb * foot/s^2, there isn't even a unit? How messed up is this thing?
>
> I was talking about weighing yourself. Some claimed that the proper unit is N, as that is the SI base unit. Dynes, somehow, despite being a totally legitamite metric unit is somehow deprecated. In fact, it was Helbig:
>
> "> Dynes or newtons?
>
> "Both are metric, but newton is the SI, and hence preferred, unit. Same with tesla over gauss."
>
> So I was going with newtons.
>
> And the acceleration bit. Who's actually doing this? Why are you multiplying a force by an acceleration anyway? That makes no sense!
>
>>>
>>> I never said anything about acceleration. I was talking about weighing things, esp. yourself. Well, I recall a value of 32 ft/sec/sec for g. Different system, different units and such. What's wrong with ft/sec/sec?
>> You were the one who brought up N. Then you should understand what it
>> is. And that means you bring in acceleration.
>
> Whatever.
>
>>
>> And the conversion between kg and N is rather simple on the surface of
>> the earth, as I observed.
>
> So when a European has to do a conversion to Fahrenheit, it's a nearly insurmountable task. What a PITA! Oh, but if you have to do a "simple conversion" in your own system, suddenly it's okay. I get on the scale and I immediately get a number in lbs. and that's it. I could flip the bars and get kg, but I grew up in a country that uses lbs., so I use pounds. Everything I read or see in video says lbs., so I go with lbs. So what? No conversion is involved! And kg is a unit of mass. Weight is a force. Again, this is picky, picky, picky. Well, I find it slightly annoying, but I get by.
>
>> The conversation between lbs and lbf is easy if you use SI units for
>> gravity, but becomes more convoluted if you use ft/s^2.
>>>>> Back to Fahrenheit: It has its advantages. When the temperature is in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s -- each range conjures up a different feeling. The Celsius degree is too big for that. "But is based on 0 and 100 for water!" So F what [pun not intended!]. How often do you even think of those when you are involved with the temperature. You've got two numbers: 32 and 212. Is this too hard to memorize? And when you hear those numbers you know it's temperature-related. 0 and 100 could be 'most anything.
>>>> There is absolutely no problems looking at celcius in ranges and figure
>>>> out a feeling based on that. Most people do. Nonsense to think you can't.
>>>
>>> Really? I'm talking ranges of 10. In Celsius if you say it's in the 20s, what does that really mean? Anywhere from 68 F to 86 Fahranheit. Is it hot out or comfortable? If I say 70s F, it's comfortable or slightly warm. Sure, if you give a particular number, like 23 deg C., you can have a feel for it. But in ranges of tens, F is clearly better.
>> Of course I have a feeling about when it's in the 20s. I'm actually
>> amazed that you think that I would not.
>> 20s is acceptable summer temperature. I don't have to wear that much
>> clothes. High 20s and I might start thinking it's getting warm. But
>
> C'mon. 20 C is 68 F, just a tad cool. 29 C is 84 F. Definitely warm. Too warm.
>
> Ah! High 20s! You have to add the "high". In F., OTOH, you can just say 80s. Now tell me of the two which is simpler?
>
> I think the Celsius degree is too large for everyday use. When I nudge the thermostat in my home, I do it by a single degree at a time. In C I'd have to use 1/2. Oh, but multiplying by 2 is too much of a pain for you.
>
> that
>> is starting to move into what I think of the 30s.
>>
>> So again - there is nothing "clearly better with F".
>
> If I say it's in the 80s F it tells me a lot more than if I say the 20s C.
>
>>
>> Humans are rather flexible, and deal with systems pretty well. It's just
>> that it's nicer to have systems that are easy to do conversions on
>> without having to do an excessive amount of math, which is why the rest
>> of the world stopped using imperial units. Believe it or not, but until
>> 200 years ago, we all did it the same way the US still does. But the
>> rest of the world moved on.
>
> What conversions? Who's doing conversions? YOU GUYS are. I'm not doing any -- unless I'm cooking!
>
> Also, the rest of the world didn't put men on the moon. The rest of the world doesn't have the primary currency of the world. The rest of the world doesn't define and set the base units of the metric or SI system, AFAIK. Yes, there's that kg mass in Paris, but that's finally been replaced with a better standard. Maybe other countries are involved. I don't know for sure.

> The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that?

Den 2021-12-27 kl. 16:52, skrev Jan-Erik Söderholm:
> Den 2021-12-27 kl. 14:47, skrev alanfe...@gmail.com:
>
>> The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American
>> entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a
>> lab in California). Can any other country beat that?
>
> How many did you list, 5 if I'm right? And that is for the whole of the US?
> One single mine in Sweden (Ytterby) has 4 elements dicovered and named
> after it, and 4 more discovered at the same place but named after
> other Swedish locations or persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ytterby
>
> Anyway... Can you, without looking it up, describe the original definition
> of the Fahrenheit scale? I think that the definition for 0 and 100 deg C
> is well known to anyone, and very simple to reproduce and test. And both
> points can be easilly refered to in everyday life.
>
> So what did 0 deg F and 100 deg F refered to when that scale was made up?
> Without looking it up...
>

Here is an overview of the natural elements with there country of discovery.

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-brilliant-graphic-shows-you-which-country-discovered-every-element-in-the-periodic-table-2014-4?r=US&IR=T

I think that small Sweden stands out quite well here. The top 5 are:

UK: 24
US: 21
Sweden: 20
Germany: 19
France: 17
Russia: 9

Then it quickly drops down just a few or a single one discovered.
Another point of interest is where the US flags are in that picture.
Most seems to be weird laboratory elements with minor practical use
today. Lowest element number is 85. Compare with the more usual
elements with lower numbers.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-5, Michael Kraemer @ home wrote:
> alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> well, given you are on a patriotic trip ...
> > The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that?
> Easily, even if we add those you have forgotten (Sg, Lv):
> Ge Re Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Es
> all have German context.
>
> Finding those elements with French, Russian or Swedish context I leave
> as a homework for you.

I was thinking of making them in the lab, not "discovering" those that are already lying around.

Fine.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:20:20 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2021-12-27 14:47, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:49:19 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >> On 2021-12-26 19:25, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
> >>>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Depends on the purpose. Use the right too for the job. And to my European freinds: How many Newtons do you weigh?
> >>>> I think I might have hit reply instead of follow up. But instead of a
> >>>> long rant, I'll just observe that newtons is force.
> >>>>
> >>>> And newtons are defined as kg * m/2^s. Anyone using SI units thus have a
> >>>> pretty easy time to figure out how many newtons of force he asserts,
> >>>> based on his mass. If you are lazy, you just add a "0" after your
> >>>> weight, and you have approximately how many newtons you are asserting at
> >>>> the surface of the earth. If you want to be a bit more precise you
> >>>> multiply your weight by 9.81, and if you want to be very precise, you
> >>>> need to know the actual gravity at the point where you are, and you
> >>>> multiply your mass by that to find the force. (But then you need to also
> >>>> really figure out what your mass is, which isn't that easy to figure out.)
> >>>>
> >>>> And of course, if we move to the moon, our weight, and the force we
> >>>> assert will be all different.
> >>>>
> >>>> But in the most simplistic terms, since if you step on a scale, you get
> >>>> a number for your weight, in kg, just multiplying it by 10 is usually
> >>>> good enough for newtons.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have any other "difficult" questions for your European friends?
> >>>>
> >>>> And while we're at it, how many lbf do you weight? And what is lbf?
> >>>
> >>> You bet! I weigh myself every morning and can tell you in an instant. I'd rather not on a public forum though! And I don't even have to add a 0, which is not quite accurate enough in my book. If memorizing 32 and 212 is too much effort (which you don't even need to know the majority of the time you use temperature), then multiplying by 9.8 certainly is! Yes, you can figure it out, but if you go by that standard, neither system is superior.
> >
> >>> And it's lbs., not lbf. Well, I suppose you could use lbf. I'd have to look it up. Not really relevant here.
> >> No. I was talking about lbf, *not* lbs.
> >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force))
> >>
> >> The parallel of N vs. kg.
> >
> > Picky, pikcy, picky. No one in America calls it lbf. We call it lbs. You get on the scale, write down the number, and you put lbs. to the right of it. This lbs. vs. lbf. for the purpose of this discussion is a difference without a distinction. WGAF? And no conversions. We get the right number from the start. Maybe lbs. vs. lbf. is good for engineers. IDK. I'm not an engineer and am not sufficiently up on the subject to say. Just a guess. Regardless, when Americans weigh themselves they use lbs. When you look at products in a store sold be weight, it's lbs. No one in America uses lbf. in ordinary day-to-day living.
> Now, wait a minute. Why did you ask for Europeans wight in newton if you
> then call me picky when I ask for your weight in lbf. It is *not* the
> same as lbs.

Because Philip Helbig brought it up. He said newtons are the preferred unit of weight.

And asking for lbf instead of lbs IS picky. Thank you for making my point for me.

Alright, I was responding to Helbig re newtons. I bet most Europeans don't even know what newtons are. Maybe they do. I don't really know. But forced to guess, I'd say not. You tell me!

I should not have brought it up because it wasn't you who brought up newtons. Helbig did. I should have stayed quiet or responded to Helbig. But in the context of his answer I saw no reason to. Still, no one in the U.S. cares about lbf., and few even know about it. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

OK, maybe no one in Europe cares or knows about newtons. Fine. We're even. End of discussion about newtons and lbs. and lbf. and all that.

>
> You really need to understand what you ask for, and don't get into
> something and then call others picky when they just talk about the exact
> thing *you* asked about.
>
> When people talk about weight in Europe, they normally use kilogram, and
> not newton, because newton is *force*. And yes, you can argue that
> weight and force as equivalent. Because weight is usually meant as mass
> at earth gravity. I weight much less at the moon... But I have the same
> mass.

We all know this stuff about mass vs weight vs force vs all the relevant stuff. We don't need to explain it to each other. There is some ambiguity about weight though. You can go to the moon and weigh less, but you haven't lost weight! _Context matters_. Sometimes you have to not take words too literally. And then there's the nonsense about lbs vs lbf. Nobody GAF in the U.S. Nobody cares. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

So Europeans think that a kg is a measure of weight? OK. Whatever.

>
> You seem to not understand what lbf is at all. Read the link I gave to
> Wikipedia. If you use SI units for gravity, then lbf is roughly lbs*10
> (more exactly 9.81, and yet more exact if you figure out exactly what
> the gravity is where you are).
> The number on your scale gives you lbs, yes. Just as my scale gives me
> kilogrammes.

NOBODY IN THE U.S. CARES ABOUT lbf. FEW EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT. IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. NOBODY IN THE U.S. GAF. I'M TALKING ABOUT NORMAL EVERYDAY USE, NOT NITPICKING LBS VS LBF. How often do I have to repeat this?

> I could ask the obvious question why you even asked about my weight in
> newton in the first place. Did you think it would be some magic,
> complicated number that I wouldn't know? I suspect most europeans know
> their weight in newton, since it's pretty much their weight in kilos,
> with an added 0. And pretty much everyone knows their weight in kilos.

As you yourself said, a kg is not a unit of weight. Now you say it is. Sure.. Also, adding a zero doesn't give accuracy to comparable to lbs.

> > And you said "vs." Didn't you mean "is"? That's how I read. A conversion! But I can handle it without bitching about it. In fact, I don't think I even noticed it until writing this post.
> You asked about Europeans weight in newtons. No one measure their weight
> in newtons. Newtons is force. But obviously there is a clear correlation
> between what you consider your weight, and the force you exercise.
>
> So it really is "vs". You asked for weight in N, while we normally
> measure weight in kg. So I tossed the question back to you about lbf,
> and you don't even understand the difference between lbs and lbf.

NOBODY CARES ABOUT LBS. vs. LBF. IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. NOBODY IN THE U.S. USES IT SAVE PERHAPS FOR ENGINEERS. STOP BRINGING IT UP.

I'll make you a deal. Stop bringing up lbf, and I'll stop bringing up newtons. It was Helbig who brought up newtons, so I shouldn't have replied to you about it. I apologize for that. I still stand by my words though.

>
> But the relationsship between kg and N is exactly corresponding to the
> difference between lbs and lbf. Hence the "vs".
> >> The question seemed very relevant, as you asked if Europeans could tell
> >> how much they weighted in N.
> >
> > You want to be picky? It's weigh, not weighted.
> I'm not a native English speaker. If you really want to get out of this
> discussion by trying to find spelling errors, or incorrect application
> of temporal forms then it would seem you really don't have much more to
> say on the topic.

I was making a point, not criticizing your English. You're being picky about lbs. vs. lbf. Again, no one in the U.S. uses lbf. Few even know about it. And the ones who do probably don't care about the difference when it comes to weighing humans and food. It doesn't matter.

Nobody goes to the store, sees a label saying there's 2 lbs. worth of product in the package, and complains that it should be lbf. NO ONE CARES. IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

> >>>> Force in pounds for acceleration expressed in m/s^2 ? So if you want it
> >>>> in lb * foot/s^2, there isn't even a unit? How messed up is this thing?
> >
> > I was talking about weighing yourself. Some claimed that the proper unit is N, as that is the SI base unit. Dynes, somehow, despite being a totally legitamite metric unit is somehow deprecated. In fact, it was Helbig:
> N is the SI unit for force. This shouldn't be that hard...
> When you start tossing weight around, it's a different thing.
> > And the acceleration bit. Who's actually doing this? Why are you multiplying a force by an acceleration anyway? That makes no sense!
> 1 Newton is defined as the force required to accelerate a mass of 1 kg
> by 1 m/s/s.
>
> It has everything to do with acceleration.

Speaking of which, is the C++ license going to be renewed?

The situation at the moment, while trying to compile something,
results in this message being shown:
%LICENSE-E-NOAUTH, DEC CXX-V use is not authorized on this node
-LICENSE-F-NOLICENSE, no license is active for this software product
-LICENSE-I-SYSMGR, please see your system manager

- MG

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:52:15 AM UTC-5, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-12-27 kl. 14:47, skrev alanfe...@gmail.com:
> > On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:49:19 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >> On 2021-12-26 19:25, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
> >>>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> >>>>>>
[...]
> > The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that?

> How many did you list, 5 if I'm right? And that is for the whole of the US?
> One single mine in Sweden (Ytterby) has 4 elements dicovered and named
> after it, and 4 more discovered at the same place but named after
> other Swedish locations or persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ytterby

Obviously I was thinking of manufacturing new ones that don't exist in nature. I should have made that clear. Sorry. I misspoke. My bad.

>
> Anyway... Can you, without looking it up, describe the original definition
> of the Fahrenheit scale?

No, I can't. So what? How does that affect its usefulness? It doesn't.

Did you know without looking it up that the original definition of the meter was 1/10,000,000th of the distance from the north pole to the equator through Paris or some city? Maybe. Maybe not. Is the meter any less useful if you don't know? No, it isn't!!! OK, if you need a quick estimate of the circumference or diameter of the earth, then it would be of some help. But for everything else it doesn't matter. And do you know the current definitions of all the SI units? I bet you don't without look them up.

> I think that the definition for 0 and 100 deg C
> is well known to anyone, and very simple to reproduce and test. And both
> points can be easilly refered to in everyday life.

Not as easy as you might think. The melting and boiling points of water vary with pressure. So you have to add what your standard pressure is. And then you have to produce that pressure. Easy? Not as easy as you thought. Ever hear of cooking times varying with altitude due to changes in atmospheric pressure? I have.

Later, to be more precise and more easily reproducible, it was later defined that 0.01 deg. C would be the triple point of water. And you'd have to add some stuff about kelvins in there to get what 0 and 100 deg. are. Not something you're going to do at home, but it doesn't depend on pressure. There is only one triple point. And did you know all that without looking it up? And do you know what the triple point of water even is without looking it up? And do you know the new standard without looking it up (newer than the triple point)? It doesn't really matter for normal everyday use, does it now? And simple? I think not!

Just like disk shadowing or mirroring. Not as easy as it first appears!!!

And again, please don't bring up the science lab bit. In science lab you use C or kelvins. In physics courses you typically use just kelvins.

> So what did 0 deg F and 100 deg F refered to when that scale was made up?
> Without looking it up...

I think it was the range of temperatures that were deemed useful in everyday life. Doesn't matter. It doesn't affect the usefulness of F.

Again you are missing the point. The vast majority of the time, no one needs to know any of this when using F. When you set the thermostat to 72 deg. F, do you really need to know any of this stuff? When you pre-heat your oven to 350 deg. F, do you need to know any of this stuff? You only need to know 32 and 212 and even then only some of the time. In places where the temperature reaches freezing, yes, 32 is a good number to know. But laypeople can handle it.

So I'm guessing you don't know the current definition of Celsius. But I know the current definition of Fahrenheit!

F = 9/5 C + 32

And I didn't have to look that up. And if I don't have to do conversions, I don't need to know it anyway.

Also, I'm talking about using these temperature scales in ordinary everyday living. Not in the science lab. Not in the physics textbook. I'm talking laypeople.

alanfe...@gmail.com <alanfeldman48@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 2:13:19 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Michael Kraemer @ home <M.Kr...@gsi.de> wrote:
>> >Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> >
>> >> Other than some labs, who actually uses Kelvin?
>> >
>> >All of Thermodynamics and its applications.
>> >That's way more than just "some labs".
>> My thermo class used Rankine, but it was in the seventies.
>
>Rankine? Really? I didn't know anyone used that so recently!

We had simulations at work using Rankine well into the 2000-2010 era when
the last two guys who thought in Rankine finally retired.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

>alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that?

Russia, by a long shot. They have all the superheavy elements, even if
Americans have a few of the transuranics. But then Russians have a bunch
of weird ones like Samarium on top of that.

And many of the rare earth elements are named after places in Scandinavia.
Holmium is named after Stockholm, Scandium and Thulium after Scandinavia
in general, Erbium, Terbium, Ytterbium all after the Ytterby mine in
Sweden.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-5, Michael Kraemer @ home wrote:
> alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> well, given you are on a patriotic trip ...
> > The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that?
> Easily, even if we add those you have forgotten (Sg, Lv):
> Ge Re Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Es
> all have German context.
>
> Finding those elements with French, Russian or Swedish context I leave
> as a homework for you.

Yes, but I said American entities, not German or other countries' entities! (~_^)
For instance, no country other than the U.S. has elements named after American entities!

OK, obviously I meant no other country has manufactured elements that don't exist in nature. I misspoke. Sorry. My bad.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-5, Michael Kraemer @ home wrote:
> alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> well, given you are on a patriotic trip ...

I went on a "patriotic trip" because people here were bashing Americans for not switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius. OK? Seems only fair to me to bash back.

Hey, Europe is now the king of particle physics, not America. But we are still doing experiments at Fermi lab. A few other biggies might still be running. I've been out of the field for quite a while, so I'd have to look them up.

> > The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that?
> Easily, even if we add those you have forgotten (Sg, Lv):
> Ge Re Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Es
> all have German context.
>
> Finding those elements with French, Russian or Swedish context I leave
> as a homework for you.

Sorry, I meant manufactured elements that don't exist in nature.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 3:25:16 PM UTC-5, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:52:15 AM UTC-5, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> > Den 2021-12-27 kl. 14:47, skrev alanfe...@gmail.com:
> > > On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:49:19 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > >> On 2021-12-26 19:25, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > >>>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> > >>>>>> In article <00B6DA8D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-
> > >>>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
[...]
>
> Later, to be more precise and more easily reproducible, it was later defined that 0.01 deg. C would be the triple point of water. And you'd have to add some stuff about kelvins in there to get what 0 and 100 deg. are. Not something you're going to do at home, but it doesn't depend on pressure.

Oops! It does. But there's only temperature and pressure combination that will give you a triple point.

There is only one triple point. And did you know all that without looking it up? And do you know what the triple point of water even is without looking it up? And do you know the new standard without looking it up (newer than the triple point)? It doesn't really matter for normal everyday use, does it now? And simple? I think not!
[...]

Alan (^_^(