Grams to Pounds

[Grams to Pounds]

how do I convert grams to pounds? is there a function for
this? I use Excel 97.

Thanks

 

[Dan E]

No function, but it can be calculated...

Wp = Wg/453.5924
Wp - Weight in pounds
Wg - Weight in grams

So if you had the weight in grams in cell A1
=A1/453.5924

Of course their is a longer explanation:
You cannot "convert" between grams and pounds since pounds
is generally a unit of "weight" and grams is a unit of "mass".
However, if your just looking to figure out how much chicken you
purchased and aren't launching a spaceship, the above should
work fine.

Dan E

 

[Don Guillett]

Amazing what you can find in HELP index
CONVERT
See Also

Converts a number from one measurement system to another. For example,
CONVERT can translate a table of distances in miles to a table of distances
in kilometers.

If this function is not available, and returns the #NAME? error, install and
load the Analysis ToolPak add-in.

How?

1.. On the Tools menu, click Add-Ins.
2.. In the Add-Ins available list, select the Analysis ToolPak box, and
then click OK.
3.. If necessary, follow the instructions in the setup program.
Syntax

CONVERT(number,from_unit,to_unit)

Number is the value in from_units to convert.

From_unit is the units for number.

To_unit is the units for the result. CONVERT accepts the following text
values (in quotation marks) for from_unit and to_unit.

Weight and mass From_unit or to_unit
Gram "g"
Slug "sg"
Pound mass (avoirdupois) "lbm"
U (atomic mass unit) "u"
Ounce mass (avoirdupois) "ozm"

 

[Gord Dibben]

Analysis Toolpak Function CONVERT will convert grams to pounds.

=CONVERT(454,"g","lbm")

Gord Dibben XL2002

 

[Gene Nygaard]

No function, but it can be calculated...

Wp = Wg/453.5924
Wp - Weight in pounds
Wg - Weight in grams

So if you had the weight in grams in cell A1
=A1/453.5924

Of course their is a longer explanation:
You cannot "convert" between grams and pounds since pounds
is generally a unit of "weight" and grams is a unit of "mass".

Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,
and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: He
really is an idiot.
Groucho Marx

In the first place, you need to understand that "weight" is an
ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. What you need to
distinguish are force and mass.

Second, the pounds we are talking about (the avoirdupois variety) are,
by definition, exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. Those kilograms are, of
course, the SI units of mass. Read the current U.S. law, and a
discussion of the prior U.S. law, and the 1959 international agreement
on the current value, at
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf
http://gssp.wva.net/html.common/refine.pdf

Third, there is also a pound force, but that is a recent spinoff. It
is so new, in fact, that a "pound force" is uniquely identified by
that name, because of all the hundreds of different pounds used at
various times and places throughout history, only one has spawned a
force unit of the name name. Those pounds force were never
well-defined units before the turn of the 20th century, when people
first started defining a "standard acceleration of gravity" for this
purpose. Even today, pounds force don't have an "official"
definition; we often borrow the standard acceleration of gravity which
is official for defining kilograms force (9.80665 m/s²), but other
values are used as well, such as 32.16 ft/s² or 386 in/s².

Let's look at the other pounds still in use.

There is also the troy "system of weights." The pound (373.2417216 g)
isn't used much any more, but the ounce (31.1034768 g) is, even in the
21st century enjoying a special exception the metrication laws of
places such as the United Kingdom (where the pound on which it is
based was outlawed back in the 19th century) and Australia. These
troy units of weight are always units of mass, never units of force.
Unlike their avoirdupois cousins, and unlike grams and kilograms, they
have never spun off a force unit of the same name. There is no troy
ounce force, and never has been.

The other pounds (Pfund, livre, libra, pund, etc.) still in use, at
least informally, in several different places in Europe and Latin
America, are the ones redefined back in the 19th century as 500 g
exactly. Half a kilogram. Units of mass.

However, if your just looking to figure out how much chicken you
purchased and aren't launching a spaceship, the above should
work fine.

Dan E

When you are buying chicken, those pounds are, of course, every bit as
much units of mass as the grams which appear right alongside them on
the labels in the United States, or which are the only units elsewhere
in the world. Pounds force are not legal for this purpose.

It's hard to believe that some people are so God-awful stupid as to
insist that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure
some quantity which varies with location. We should not do so; we do
not do so; we have never done so.

To make it easy for you, here are what some of the real experts in the
field have to say about it, from the official keepers of our
standards, such as the national standards laboratories of the United
States and the United Kingdom:

Here's a FAQ by the NPL, the national standards laboratory of the
U.K.:
http://www.npl.co.uk/force/faqs/forcemassdiffs.html

Weight
In the trading of goods, weight is taken to mean the
same as mass, and is measured in kilograms. Scientifically
however, it is normal to state that the weight of a
body is the gravitational force acting on it and hence
it should be measured in newtons, and this force
depends on the local acceleration due to gravity.
To add to the confusion, a weight (or weightpiece)
is a calibrated mass normally made from a dense
metal, and weighing is generally defined as a
process for determining the mass of an object.

So, unfortunately, weight has three meanings
and care should always be taken to appreciate
which one is meant in a particular context.


Note--they clearly refer to different *meanings* of this word.

Here's NIST, the U.S. national standards agency, in their Guide for
the Use of the International System of Units, NIST Special Publication
811,
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html

In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common
parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass.
Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this
sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means
"to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg
the briefcase weighs 6 kg
Net wt. 227 g

Note especially that last one--this is the proper usage for the sale
of chicken.

The National Standard of Canada, CAN/CSA-Z234.1-89 Canadian Metric
Practice Guide, January 1989:

5.7.3 Considerable confusion exists in the use of the
term "weight." In commercial and everyday use, the
term "weight" nearly always means mass. In science
and technology, "weight" has primarily meant a force
due to gravity. In scientific and technical work, the
term "weight" should be replaced by the term "mass"
or "force," depending on the application.

5.7.4 The use of the verb "to weigh" meaning "to
determine the mass of," e.g., "I weighed this object
and determined its mass to be 5 kg," is correct.

The thing to note here is the different treatment of the noun forms
and the verb forms, Contrast the application dependent meanings of
the former with the unqualified "is correct" in the latter.

The other thing to note is that "nearly always" is much stronger than
"primarily"--they even got that part correct.

Like the experts tell you, you are best off avoiding the word "weight"
in a technical context, and if you do use it, you need to make clear
which meaning is intended.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm
But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the
citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough
reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins,
reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established
in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal
affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply
and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.
U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, 1790

 

[Harlan Grove]

What's with the attached image?

 

[Don Guillett]

I copied from the HELP file and it just came along for the ride. So solly.
Only 2kb

 

[Dan E]

Thanks for the clarification.

Dan E

 

[Dan E]

Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,
and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: He
really is an idiot.
Groucho Marx

In the first place, you need to understand that "weight" is an
ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. What you need to
distinguish are force and mass.

Meanings of weight
From the columbia encyclopedia
1. measure of the force of gravity on a body (see gravitation). Since the
weights of different bodies at the same location are proportional to their
masses, weight is often used as a measure of mass. However, the two
are not the same; mass is a measure of the amount of matter present
in a body and thus has the same value at different locations, and weight
varies depending upon the location of the body in the earth's gravitational
field (or the gravitational field of some other astronomical body). A given
body will have the same mass on the earth and on the moon, but its
weight on the moon will be only about 16% of the weight as measured on
the earth. The distinction between weight and mass is further confused
by the use of the same units to measure both-the pound, the gram, or
the kilogram. One pound of weight, or force, is the force necessary at a
given location to accelerate a one-pound mass at a rate equal to the
acceleration of gravity at that location (about 32 ft per sec per sec).
Similar relationships hold between the gram of force and the gram of
mass and between the kilogram of force and the kilogram of mass.
---> Very clear on it's meaning of FORCE

Merriam Webster Dictionary
1 ---> irrelevent
2 a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount
b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an athletic
exercise or contest
---> Defenition missed by all your sources.
3 a : a unit of weight or mass -- see METRIC SYSTEM table b : a
piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in
weighing articles c : a system of related units of weight
---> Unit of weight (clearly refering to force as it's distinguished from mass)
4 a : something heavy : LOAD b : a heavy object to hold or press
something down or to counterbalance
---> One your sources got
5 ---> irrelevent
6 a : relative heaviness : MASS b : the force with which a body is attracted
toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the
product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
---> Clearly referring to FORCE
7 ---> irrelevent
8 : overpowering force
---> Again clearly referring to FORCE
9 ---> irrelevent
10 ---> irrelevent
11 --->irrelevent

Second, the pounds we are talking about (the avoirdupois variety) are,
by definition, exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. Those kilograms are, of
course, the SI units of mass. Read the current U.S. law, and a
discussion of the prior U.S. law, and the 1959 international agreement
on the current value, at
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf
http://gssp.wva.net/html.common/refine.pdf

Looks to me like they're re-defining the pound (creating a new meaning)
for a unit that's been around for centuries. Besides, why would we be
referring to that i'd prefer to talk about the british system, that's
the one the US system is based on. The british pound is a measure
of force and always has been. I'm not an american so I could care less
about the US "Imperial" system.

Third, there is also a pound force, but that is a recent spinoff. It
is so new, in fact, that a "pound force" is uniquely identified by
that name, because of all the hundreds of different pounds used at
various times and places throughout history, only one has spawned a
force unit of the name name. Those pounds force were never
well-defined units before the turn of the 20th century, when people
first started defining a "standard acceleration of gravity" for this
purpose. Even today, pounds force don't have an "official"
definition; we often borrow the standard acceleration of gravity which
is official for defining kilograms force (9.80665 m/s²), but other
values are used as well, such as 32.16 ft/s² or 386 in/s².

Pound-force as you call it is a recent definition by the US of the
british pound after re-working their pound to be a unit of mass. The
pound is and was a unit of force in said british system.

Let's look at the other pounds still in use.

There is also the troy "system of weights." The pound (373.2417216 g)
isn't used much any more, but the ounce (31.1034768 g) is, even in the
21st century enjoying a special exception the metrication laws of
places such as the United Kingdom (where the pound on which it is
based was outlawed back in the 19th century) and Australia. These
troy units of weight are always units of mass, never units of force.
Unlike their avoirdupois cousins, and unlike grams and kilograms, they
have never spun off a force unit of the same name. There is no troy
ounce force, and never has been.

The other pounds (Pfund, livre, libra, pund, etc.) still in use, at
least informally, in several different places in Europe and Latin
America, are the ones redefined back in the 19th century as 500 g
exactly. Half a kilogram. Units of mass.


When you are buying chicken, those pounds are, of course, every bit as
much units of mass as the grams which appear right alongside them on
the labels in the United States, or which are the only units elsewhere
in the world. Pounds force are not legal for this purpose.

OK, i'll believe you, luckily for you and others confused by mass and force
1 lbm exerts 1lbf, just as 1 kgm exerts 1kgf.

***********************************************************************************

It's hard to believe that some people are so God-awful stupid as to
insist that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure
some quantity which varies with location. We should not do so; we do
not do so; we have never done so.

Above you refer to weight to mean FORCE, you've just proved my point.

Scales (all scales) by the very nature of "weighing" measure a force exerted
on the surface of the scale. It can then be converted to a mass, again,
luckily 1 lbm exerts 1 lbf and 1 kgm exerts 1 kgf.

If your not using a scale you will need to determine the volume, and density
of the object in order to calculate it's mass. And I doubt that's how anyone
is doing it.

To make it easy for you, here are what some of the real experts in the
field have to say about it, from the official keepers of our
standards, such as the national standards laboratories of the United
States and the United Kingdom:

Here's a FAQ by the NPL, the national standards laboratory of the
U.K.:
http://www.npl.co.uk/force/faqs/forcemassdiffs.html

Weight
In the trading of goods, weight is taken to mean the
same as mass, and is measured in kilograms. Scientifically
however, it is normal to state that the weight of a
body is the gravitational force acting on it and hence
it should be measured in newtons, and this force
depends on the local acceleration due to gravity.
To add to the confusion, a weight (or weightpiece)
is a calibrated mass normally made from a dense
metal, and weighing is generally defined as a
process for determining the mass of an object.

So, unfortunately, weight has three meanings
and care should always be taken to appreciate
which one is meant in a particular context.


Note--they clearly refer to different *meanings* of this word.

Weight "is taken to mean" so it doesn't mean mass it's just being
interpreted as mass.
Weight has more than three meanings, unfortutely for them none
of the meanings is MASS

Here's NIST, the U.S. national standards agency, in their Guide for
the Use of the International System of Units, NIST Special Publication
811,
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html

In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common
parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass.
Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this
sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means
"to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg
the briefcase weighs 6 kg
Net wt. 227 g

Note especially that last one--this is the proper usage for the sale
of chicken.

Yes and in all cases the objects were likely weighed (had the force they
excert on a scale measured)

The National Standard of Canada, CAN/CSA-Z234.1-89 Canadian Metric
Practice Guide, January 1989:

5.7.3 Considerable confusion exists in the use of the
term "weight." In commercial and everyday use, the
term "weight" nearly always means mass. In science
and technology, "weight" has primarily meant a force
due to gravity. In scientific and technical work, the
term "weight" should be replaced by the term "mass"
or "force," depending on the application.

5.7.4 The use of the verb "to weigh" meaning "to
determine the mass of," e.g., "I weighed this object
and determined its mass to be 5 kg," is correct.

The thing to note here is the different treatment of the noun forms
and the verb forms, Contrast the application dependent meanings of
the former with the unqualified "is correct" in the latter.

The other thing to note is that "nearly always" is much stronger than
"primarily"--they even got that part correct.

Please reference the source stating that "nearly always" is a stronger
use of language than "primarily". I would say it's vice versa

Synonyms for primarily:
first and foremost
above all
chiefly
mainly
principally
for the most part
mostly
largely
predominantly

5.7.4 The use of the verb "to weigh" meaning "to
determine the mass of," e.g., "I weighed this object
and determined its mass to be 5 kg," is correct.

So weigh means to determine the mass of
By their definition they should say "I weighed this object to be 5 kg"
which sounds quite absurd.
There should be no need to qualify that statement with "and
determined its mass" if indeed weigh does mean what they take it
to mean.

Re-work
To weigh -> To determine the force which an object exerts
I weighed this object and determined it's mass to be 5kg
-> you weigh the object then determine it's mass by converting
the weight (force) to a mass using the local gravitational constant.

Like the experts tell you, you are best off avoiding the word "weight"
in a technical context, and if you do use it, you need to make clear
which meaning is intended.

Even you don't follow that rule look for *********** above

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm
But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the
citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough
reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins,
reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established
in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal
affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply
and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.
U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, 1790

At your site I notice you mention it's mostly engineers and physicists
mistaken on this point. When in all reality these are the people getting
space ships off of the ground. Therefore I will assume that it's laypeople
confused on this issue and not the people who deal with weights (forces)
and mass on a technical level daily.

Finally, next time you read a pressure make sure you qualify it it as
pounds force per square inch. I won't be doing that but you really should.

 

[Gene Nygaard]

Meanings of weight
From the columbia encyclopedia
1. measure of the force of gravity on a body (see gravitation). Since the
weights of different bodies at the same location are proportional to their
masses, weight is often used as a measure of mass. However, the two
are not the same; mass is a measure of the amount of matter present
in a body and thus has the same value at different locations, and weight
varies depending upon the location of the body in the earth's gravitational
field (or the gravitational field of some other astronomical body). A given
body will have the same mass on the earth and on the moon, but its
weight on the moon will be only about 16% of the weight as measured on
the earth. The distinction between weight and mass is further confused
by the use of the same units to measure both-the pound, the gram, or
the kilogram. One pound of weight, or force, is the force necessary at a
given location to accelerate a one-pound mass at a rate equal to the
acceleration of gravity at that location (about 32 ft per sec per sec).
Similar relationships hold between the gram of force and the gram of
mass and between the kilogram of force and the kilogram of mass.
---> Very clear on it's meaning of FORCE

Merriam Webster Dictionary
1 ---> irrelevent

Not irrelevant in the least

1 a : the amount that a thing weighs

That's ambiguous, but if you look up the verb weigh, its original
meaning was ": to ascertain the heaviness of by or as if by a
balance." That is mass.

b (1) : the standard or established amount that a thing should weigh

Invariably standards of mass. Expressed in kilograms in most of the
world.

(2) : one of the classes into which contestants in a sports event are
divided according to body weight (3) :

So what's a 63 kg weight class in Olympic wrestling? Whether pounds
or kilograms are used for weight classes in boxing or judo or
whatever, they are always units of mass.

2 a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount

This is so similar to 3b below that I'll deal with both of them there.

b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an athletic
exercise or contest

If you are putting the shot, what is the most important factor? Is it
the force which pushes downward due to gravity? No--that will indeed
affect how far it goes, but it won't have hardly any effect on how
fast it starts out. It would be just as hard to start the shot at the
same speed on leaving the hand at the moon, though it would travel
farther before gravity brought it to the surface.

Note that the women's shot is 4 kg. The men's shot is 16 lb mass, not
16 lbf. The same is true of the javelin or the hammer or whatever,
each having a standard mass. This mass was the same for the Olympics
at Helsinki as it was for the Olympics at Mexico City, though the
force exerted by each at these two places was significantly different.

---> Defenition missed by all your sources.
3 a : a unit of weight or mass -- see METRIC SYSTEM table

A table which includes units of mass, but does not include units of
force.

Are you also blind? What is that sixth word in this definition?

b : a
piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in
weighing articles

THese include the mass standards we use with balances, and the mass
standards used to test and certify any type of weighing device used in
commerce. The thing that allowed the electronic load cell device to
become so predominant in this area in the past 30 years is the
microprocessor. Using one of these test weights, the scales can be
calibrated for accurate measurement of mass in the location in which
they are used.

c : a system of related units of weight
---> Unit of weight (clearly refering to force as it's distinguished from mass)

I've already pointed out to you that in the "troy weight" (using
weight in this 3c definition) the units are ALWAYS units of mass,
never units of force. There is no troy ounce force. There never has
been a troy ounce force.

4 a : something heavy : LOAD

"Heavy" is a vague concept.

American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard for Metric
Practice, E 380-79, ASTM 1979.

3.4.1.5 The term load means either mass or force, depending
on its use. A load that produces a vertically downward force
because of the influence of gravity acting on a mass may be
expressed in mass units. A load that produces a force from
anything other than the influence of gravity is expressed in
force units.

b : a heavy object to hold or press
something down or to counterbalance
---> One your sources got
5 ---> irrelevent
6 a : relative heaviness : MASS

Gee, what's that word in caps?

The reason for the capitalization is because this means the definition
included in a separate entry for "mass" is incorporated by reference.

b : the force with which a body is attracted
toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the
product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
---> Clearly referring to FORCE

Certainly. If we didn't have that definition as well, I wouldn't be
telling you that this is an AMBIGUOUS word, would I?

7 ---> irrelevent
8 : overpowering force
---> Again clearly referring to FORCE
9 ---> irrelevent
10 ---> irrelevent
11 --->irrelevent


Looks to me like they're re-defining the pound (creating a new meaning)
for a unit that's been around for centuries.

What? Read it.

Announcement. Effective July 1, 1959, all calibrations in the
U.S. customary system of weights and measures carried out
by the National Bureau of Standards will continue to be based
upon metric measurement standards and, except those for
the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey as noted below, will
be made in terms of the following exact equivalents and
appropriate multiples and submultiples:
1 yard= 0.914 4 meter
1 pound (avoirdupois)= 0.453 592 37 kilogram

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf

Do you understand the phrase "will continue to be based on the metric
system"? It was also a unit of mass in the definition as a different
exact fraction of a kilogram in the United States for the 66 years
before then, wasn't it? Read more about that old definition in the
document cited.

Before that

Besides, why would we be
referring to that i'd prefer to talk about the british system, that's
the one the US system is based on.

Currently, the units defined by these same equivalents,
which have been designated as the International Yard
and the International Pound, respectively, will be used
by the National Standards Laboratories of Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and United
Kingdom; thus there will be brought about international
accord on the yard and pound by the English-speaking
nations of the world, in precise measurements involving
these basic units.

Ibid.

For earlier times, tell us how the London pound got propogated
throughout the world. If somebody made a copy in London, and took it
to Washington, D.C. or to Capetown or to Canberra or whereever to
serve as the standard for a pound at the new location, what exactly is
it the same about the pound there and the pound in London? These
standards do, of course, exert a different amount of force due to
gravity in their new location. What is the same is their mass.
Pounds are units of mass.

The british pound is a measure
of force and always has been. I'm not an american so I could care less
about the US "Imperial" system.

Are you one of those goofballs who think that "hundred" is written in
digits as "112"?

Note that the hundredweight, whether long or short, has always been
used as a unit of mass, not of force, in anything that I have seen.
They haven't spawned force units of the same name as the long and
short tons have. Same for the stone (1/8 long cwt in the definition
still in use, various other values in the past).

Canada: Weights and Measures Act of 1953 (they were already using
this definition before the 1959 international agreement)
U.K.: Weights and Measures Act of 1963 (I'll bet the NPL had already
been using the new definition for the four years before it was
formalized by Parliament)
Ireland (not a party to the original agreement): Weights and Measures
Act of 19xx (some time in the 1960s, I think)
Australia: Weights and Measures Regulations (used to have URL, but
don't find it now)
New Zealand:
South Africa:

Pound-force as you call it is a recent definition by the US of the
british pound after re-working their pound to be a unit of mass. The
pund is and was a unit of force in said british system.

So what exactly in the standard for this pound, idiot?

What is the nature of this standard? Something mechanical, something
electrical, or what?

Who made it the standard, and when, exactly? (Just the year will do).

To whom does the standard apply? IOW, for whom does the defining
agency have the authority to fix the definition?

OK, i'll believe you, luckily for you and others confused by mass and force
1 lbm exerts 1lbf, just as 1 kgm exerts 1kgf.

***********************************************************************************

Above you refer to weight to mean FORCE, you've just proved my point.

Scales (all scales) by the very nature of "weighing" measure a force exerted
on the surface of the scale. It can then be converted to a mass, again,
luckily 1 lbm exerts 1 lbf and 1 kgm exerts 1 kgf.

If your not using a scale you will need to determine the volume, and density
of the object in order to calculate it's mass. And I doubt that's how anyone
is doing it.


Weight "is taken to mean" so it doesn't mean mass it's just being
interpreted as mass.

No, that isn't what it means. You can't interpret that statement in
isolation from the statement that "weight has three meanings."

Weight has more than three meanings, unfortutely for them none
of the meanings is MASS


Yes and in all cases the objects were likely weighed (had the force they
excert on a scale measured)

You must have a strange notion of what it means "to measure"
something.

With a balance, we measure mass. We do not measure force.

Or, if you think we do, let's assume that I have a bar of platinum,
and at Hammerfest, Norway I weigh it on my balance, and with the troy
weights it takes a 200 oz weight, two 100 oz weights, a 1 oz weight, a
10 dwt weight and a 2 dwt weight to balance it. IOW, it weighs
401.15 oz troy. Now tell me, in any units of force you choose, how
much force does it exert due to gravity? Remember, there are no troy
ounces force.

Now suppose I take the bar of platinum and my scales to Quito,
Ecuador. I weigh it on my balance, and with the troy weights it takes
a 200 oz weight, two 100 oz weights, a 1 oz weight, a 10 dwt weight
and a 2 dwt weight to balance it. IOW, it weighs 401.15 oz troy.
Now tell me, in any units of force you choose, how much force does it
exert due to gravity.?

Please reference the source stating that "nearly always" is a stronger
use of language than "primarily". I would say it's vice versa

Synonyms for primarily:
first and foremost
above all
chiefly
mainly
principally
for the most part
mostly
largely
predominantly

So you think that these definitions, all with the rough meaning of
more than half, are stronger than "nearly always"?

Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,
and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: He
really is an idiot.
Groucho Marx

So weigh means to determine the mass of
By their definition they should say "I weighed this object to be 5 kg"
which sounds quite absurd.

No, they only say that it is indeed proper to say that. There are
other ways you could say it as well.

The reason for this is that using "to mass" as a verb with this
meaning is substandard usage, something which still grates on the ears
of most people, including most chemists and physicists.

So if you want to get us to give up our prior claim to the word
weight, you had damn sure better give us a verb as well as a
noun--something we can utter in public without embarrassing ourselves.

There should be no need to qualify that statement with "and
determined its mass" if indeed weigh does mean what they take it
to mean.

They don't say anything here about using the word "weigh" to mean to
determine the force due to gravity. That is also quite proper and
legitimate.

Re-work
To weigh -> To determine the force which an object exerts
I weighed this object and determined it's mass to be 5kg
-> you weigh the object then determine it's mass by converting
the weight (force) to a mass using the local gravitational constant.

No, you don't. See my platinum bar example above--where did I do any
calculations involving a gravitational constant when I weighed it (in
the determination-of-mass meaning)?

Even you don't follow that rule look for *********** above


At your site I notice you mention it's mostly engineers and physicists
mistaken on this point. When in all reality these are the people getting
space ships off of the ground. Therefore I will assume that it's laypeople
confused on this issue and not the people who deal with weights (forces)
and mass on a technical level daily.

In almost every case when the experts such as NIST talk about
confusion, the confusion is something not understood by the technical
people.

The general public often is unaware of the niceties of the
distinction, but they usually manage to use the words correctly.

Finally, next time you read a pressure make sure you qualify it it as
pounds force per square inch. I won't be doing that but you really should.

I do (and so do a significant number of others, especially those in
stnadards laboratories). But it is much clearer yet to just use
pascals.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

 

[Jim]

There is an excellent Convert application available for free download at
http://www.joshmadison.com/software/

In addition to the extensive conversions possible, you may create Custom
conversions.