Yahoo Answers: Bastion of Stupidity

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
In summary, Yahoo Answers has many stupid as hell answers to difficult questions from professional physicists.
  • #36
Pengwuino said:
lbs... as in pounds right? Don't we use pounds for force and mass in the english system?

lbs is pounds right?
No. lbs are force and slugs are mass. If I deduce your species of penguin correctly, you're a slug. It would take about 32 lbs of force to accelerate you at 1 ft/sec^2.

Math Is Hard said:
Oh, mercy! I did a search on "penguins" and got this jewel.
At least there was one jewel: "all peguins are homosexual, and they all go to shark heaven" :rofl: :rofl:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
dav2008 said:
Yes so I looked it up and they're used for both.


Lbs (from the latin libra) does mean pounds. They are a measure of weight, that is force, and should not strictly be used for mass, but since at the surface of the Earth the acceleration of gravity is approximately constant, it is an acceptable hack in normal circumstances. 1 lb = 2.2 Kg.

The true English system unit of mass is the slug, defind by 1 slug = 1 pound/ g feet per second per second. Where g is the acceleration of gravity, approximately 32 ft/sec^2.
 
  • #38
Oh yah that slug unit :grumpy: :grumpy: :grumpy:
 
  • #39
selfAdjoint said:
(snip)acceptable hack in normal circumstances. 1 lb = 2.2 Kg.
(snip)

Wanna run that by again?
 
  • #40
selfAdjoint said:
Lbs (from the latin libra) does mean pounds. They are a measure of weight, that is force, and should not strictly be used for mass, but since at the surface of the Earth the acceleration of gravity is approximately constant, it is an acceptable hack in normal circumstances. 1 lb = 2.2 Kg.

The true English system unit of mass is the slug, defind by 1 slug = 1 pound/ g feet per second per second. Where g is the acceleration of gravity, approximately 32 ft/sec^2.
That was my initial thought but then I looked it up and it says that the pound can be a unit of mass as well.
 
  • #41
A "pound" is a unit of mass, not force, and don't take my word for it, ask NIST. "Pound-weight", or "Pound-force", is the graviational-force equivalent. Any other usage is in violation of federal law as interpreted by NIST.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
selfAdjoint said:
The true English system unit of mass is the slug, defind by 1 slug = 1 pound/ g feet per second per second. Where g is the acceleration of gravity, approximately 32 ft/sec^2.

Oh, you mean an Imperial slug. I'm more familiar with the metric slug (9.81 kg).

Funny name, "Imperial Slug". The snail who would be king?
 
  • #43
Rach3 said:
Um, no? :confused:
Any quantity with dimensions [itex][M^a~L^b~T^c] [/itex] does (a,b,c integers).
 
  • #44
That only gets you powers of energy. [Energy] is not the same as [Energy]^3 or 1/[Energy]. There's a great variety - you can have any integral power of energy you want!
 
  • #45
Rach3 said:
That only gets you powers of energy. [Energy] is not the same as [Energy]^3 or 1/[Energy]. There's a great variety - you can have any integral power of energy you want!
Once you have some power of [energy] you merely divide by one lesser power of [itex]\sqrt{\frac{\hbar c^5}{G}} [/itex] to leave you with [energy].
 
  • #46
That's because G has units of distance^3 / (mass*time^2) = distance/mass = 1/energy^2. If it were made dimensionless, nothing would have any dimension, and the terrorists win.
 
  • #47
dav2008 said:
That was my initial thought but then I looked it up and it says that the pound can be a unit of mass as well.
It is a unit of mass, but it is not the base unit. That is the slug. If one uses pounds-mass in calculations, there is always the 32.2 conversion factor that has to be worked in. It's a pain that is really left over from the older folks. They liked the idea that a unit of mass and force were the same numbers. Personally I found it pretty confusing and it took me a while to get it. I prefer the metric system for doing calcs. The only problem is that I have no feel for what a kilogram or a Newton are. Now a pound and a pound is easy.
 
  • #48
FredGarvin said:
It is a unit of mass, but it is not the base unit. That is the slug. If one uses pounds-mass in calculations, there is always the 32.2 conversion factor that has to be worked in. It's a pain that is really left over from the older folks. They liked the idea that a unit of mass and force were the same numbers. Personally I found it pretty confusing and it took me a while to get it. I prefer the metric system for doing calcs. The only problem is that I have no feel for what a kilogram or a Newton are. Now a pound and a pound is easy.
One Newton is about the weight of an apple.
 

Similar threads

Replies
79
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
666
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
973
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top