On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:44:00 +0100, williamwright
wrote:

On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

If you 'put a load' in the washing machine, do you do so by weight?

Do you determine 'a load of people' by weighing them all?

Is the real world confusing for you? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

JohnP wrote:

John Smith wrote in news:2021040318145743662-
nospam@nospamcom:

On 2021-04-03 13:37:23 +0000, T i m said:

Put them on your property boundary with a 'Take me' note and they will
probably be gone by the morning (saving you a trip)?

I left a car battery in our front garden the other day - about an hour
later my wife saw someone making off with it. Round our way leaving
anything out front is a sure fire way to recycle.

Sorry - I think it is very irresponsible:

Others take your lead and all sorts of stuff appear on the front making the
area look a mess.

Those who take it will fly tip the unwanted parts.

They will contaminate land with fluids.

It encourages undesirables to keep driving past looking for stuff..

Scrap dealers with small trucks drive round here regularly.
Nowadays, If I have metal odds and ends to get rid of, I just
leave them on the lawn, and within 24 hours they are gone.

Yes, from time to time others do the same, sometimes with scrap,
others with stuff that some might find useful. No way could it be
considered detrimental to the appearance of the area.

A few years ago when I actually paid the council to have a
fridge-freezer removed, it was one of those very trucks (complete
with documentation - I checked) who collected it.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 06/04/2021 16:43, Chris J Dixon wrote:
JohnP wrote:

John Smith wrote in news:2021040318145743662-
nospam@nospamcom:

On 2021-04-03 13:37:23 +0000, T i m said:

Put them on your property boundary with a 'Take me' note and they will
probably be gone by the morning (saving you a trip)?

I left a car battery in our front garden the other day - about an hour
later my wife saw someone making off with it. Round our way leaving
anything out front is a sure fire way to recycle.

Sorry - I think it is very irresponsible:

Others take your lead and all sorts of stuff appear on the front making the
area look a mess.

Those who take it will fly tip the unwanted parts.

They will contaminate land with fluids.

It encourages undesirables to keep driving past looking for stuff..

Scrap dealers with small trucks drive round here regularly.
Nowadays, If I have metal odds and ends to get rid of, I just
leave them on the lawn, and within 24 hours they are gone.

Yes, from time to time others do the same, sometimes with scrap,
others with stuff that some might find useful. No way could it be
considered detrimental to the appearance of the area.

A few years ago when I actually paid the council to have a
fridge-freezer removed, it was one of those very trucks (complete
with documentation - I checked) who collected it.

Back in the '80s, my uncle and his family lived in Germany for about 5
years. Once a month, everyone put out their old bikes, washing machines,
cookers, furniture, etc. and people could take anything that they
wanted. Afterwards, the council would collect whatever was next for
recycling/disposal.

Fredxx wrote:

Robin wrote:

while cash sales are banned there is no law against offering a cheque
cashing service on the same premises

I thought it had to be seen to go into an account?

Last time I weighed some metal in, they did insist payment had to be a
tranfer into a bank account, but they didn't insist on seeing photo ID
which I think they should have?

On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 13:03:06 UTC+1, Chris Green wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

So can anyone give a rough idea of what the old is worth as scrap? I've
seen about 60p a kg quoted for scrap lead, but not sure how that
translates to batteries.

Our local scrap car/metal merchant pays close to 50p/kg for batteries,
that is they just weigh the batteries on their scales and pay
accordingly.

I've been wondering the same thing myself, having accrued a sizeable collection of old car and motorcycle batteries, not to mention a fair amount of old lead piping and electrical wiring... however - I also wondered if it worthwhile/cost-effective first attacking the batteries with drill/hosepipe/hacksaw/anglegrinder etc in order to (safely) extract the lead, so as to present that to the scrappy rather than the batteries?

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2021 16:43, Chris J Dixon wrote:
JohnP wrote:

John Smith wrote in news:2021040318145743662-
nospam@nospamcom:

On 2021-04-03 13:37:23 +0000, T i m said:

Put them on your property boundary with a 'Take me' note and they will
probably be gone by the morning (saving you a trip)?

I left a car battery in our front garden the other day - about an hour
later my wife saw someone making off with it. Round our way leaving
anything out front is a sure fire way to recycle.

Sorry - I think it is very irresponsible:

Others take your lead and all sorts of stuff appear on the front making
the
area look a mess.

Those who take it will fly tip the unwanted parts.

They will contaminate land with fluids.

It encourages undesirables to keep driving past looking for stuff..

Scrap dealers with small trucks drive round here regularly.
Nowadays, If I have metal odds and ends to get rid of, I just
leave them on the lawn, and within 24 hours they are gone.

Yes, from time to time others do the same, sometimes with scrap,
others with stuff that some might find useful. No way could it be
considered detrimental to the appearance of the area.

A few years ago when I actually paid the council to have a
fridge-freezer removed, it was one of those very trucks (complete
with documentation - I checked) who collected it.

Back in the '80s, my uncle and his family lived in Germany for about 5
years. Once a month, everyone put out their old bikes, washing machines,
cookers, furniture, etc.

We used to have that a couple of times a year. Not anymore tho.

and people could take anything that they wanted.

That wasnt officially allowed here because the operation that
contracted with the council to pick it all up got the stuff, in
theory.

Afterwards, the council would collect whatever was next for
recycling/disposal.

On 06/04/2021 18:33, Lobster wrote:
On Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 13:03:06 UTC+1, Chris Green wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

So can anyone give a rough idea of what the old is worth as scrap? I've
seen about 60p a kg quoted for scrap lead, but not sure how that
translates to batteries.

Our local scrap car/metal merchant pays close to 50p/kg for batteries,
that is they just weigh the batteries on their scales and pay
accordingly.

I've been wondering the same thing myself, having accrued a sizeable collection of old car and motorcycle batteries, not to mention a fair amount of old lead piping and electrical wiring... however - I also wondered if it worthwhile/cost-effective first attacking the batteries with drill/hosepipe/hacksaw/anglegrinder etc in order to (safely) extract the lead, so as to present that to the scrappy rather than the batteries?

More trouble than it is worth IMHO. I also (slightly) rob myself by
draining the acid and rinsing out the cells with water, and emptying
them. Remember that your strategy will also lose the sludge at the
bottom of the cells and maybe from the plates themselves, which will
contain a certain amount of lead as sulphate and oxides.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 05:06:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


We used to have

WHO's that "we" you are constantly hallucinating about, senile sociopath?
There's NO "we" for you, EVER! Nobody, really nobody, identifies with you!

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:43:43 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:
snip

Yes, from time to time others do the same, sometimes with scrap,
others with stuff that some might find useful.

snip

I think that's where you can get an issue ... and doing it seems more
prevalent in people from different cultures.

They put something out they have finished with but is still useable
(let's say a baby buggy) because where they (originally) came from,
that's what everone did and it would always get taken by someone in
need (to use or clean-up and sell etc).

The number of times I've seen what look like perfectly good / clean
fabric sofas or wooden bedside cabinets left outside peoples houses
and then it rains on them for several days ... ;-(

Someone does similar on an estate here where they will put out a pile
of bones (for dogs or foxes presumably) and I've even seen a large
whole fish!

The other things is fridges / freezers that I don't believe the scrap
places will take (without being degassed?) so they just take the
compressors out (I saw one whilst walking the dog late one night just
collect the compressor that looked to have been previously disconnect
but left in place).

Cheers, T i m

On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.

On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which should be
measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be somewhat less.

Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which should be
measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be somewhat less.


Being even more pedantic, Bill said €œfair load€�, not weight. To me €œload€�
encompasses volume and weight, not weight alone.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which should be
measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be somewhat less.

yes, W = mg or more scientifically F = ma

SH

On 7 Apr 2021 16:08:41 GMT, Tim+ wrote:

snips

On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

Being even more pedantic, Bill said “fair load”, not weight. To me “load”
encompasses volume and weight, not weight alone.


Being less pedantic and more accurate, *I* said you need 'a fair
load', not Bill.

Bill was the one trying to be clever. ;-)

Eg, one carrier bag of brass might get you a fiver whereas 4 full
rubbish sacks of crushed ally cans might get you £2.50 (and why we
stopped crushing and collecting them).

You need a 'whole load more' to get anywhere with ally (obviously a
right brainers term) and so better for the Council to collect and
recycle them because they *can* get a whole load more from everone in
the borough. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which should be
measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be somewhat less.

I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the same
weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they do here.

Andy

On 09/04/2021 21:23, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which should
be measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be somewhat less.

I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the same
weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they do
here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg and it is confusing to mix weight and mass. In
my o-level physics days weight was sometime given the units kgf (kg
force). But it's not an SI unit.

There is a fly in the ointment. While mass is mass, weight depends on
another factor, the medium it displaces. 1 kg of helium in a big balloon
won't have a weight of 9.81N at sea level. Water when measured by weight
will be 0.1% in error when compared to 1kg lead weight.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which should be
measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be somewhat less.

I think the point being made is that *in the same conditions* 1 kg of
anything, no matter how dense or "un-dense" (what *is* the opposite of
dense?), will weigh the same. 1 kg of feathers or of lead will weigh the
same as each other on earth. They will still weigh the same as each other
(but not the same as on earth) on the moon or a long way from any
planet/moon.


I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the same
weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they do
here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg and it is confusing to mix weight and mass. In my
o-level physics days weight was sometime given the units kgf (kg force).
But it's not an SI unit.

At least SI has totally different unit names for mass and weight (or other
force). So often US scientific or engineering texts will refer to "a thrust
of 30,000 pounds". Wrong! A pound, like a kg, is a unit of mass. A newton
(and whatever the imperial equivalent is) is a unit of force, whether
gravitational weight or thrust from a jet engine. Or am I being too picky
there? "A pound of force" is lazy shorthand for "a force equal to the weight
of 1 pound (at the earth's surface)". And that "pound of force" needs a name
other than "pound".

There is a fly in the ointment. While mass is mass, weight depends on
another factor, the medium it displaces. 1 kg of helium in a big balloon
won't have a weight of 9.81N at sea level. Water when measured by weight
will be 0.1% in error when compared to 1kg lead weight.

Yes, if you want to be really accurate, you need to take into account
buoyancy in the atmosphere, so a large object of unit mass will weigh
fractionally less than a small, dense object of unit mass because the former
displaces a greater volume/mass/weight of air.


And don't get me started about a pound of gold weighing differently to a
pound of flour because of the different definitions of troy and avoirdupois
pound - it's little things like that which demonstrate that the imperial
system was made up as they went along.

On 09/04/2021 23:03, NY wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which
should be measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be
somewhat less.

I think the point being made is that *in the same conditions* 1 kg of
anything, no matter how dense or "un-dense" (what *is* the opposite of
dense?), will weigh the same. 1 kg of feathers or of lead will weigh the
same as each other on earth. They will still weigh the same as each
other (but not the same as on earth) on the moon or a long way from any
planet/moon.


I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the same
weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they
do here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg and it is confusing to mix weight and mass. In
my o-level physics days weight was sometime given the units kgf (kg
force). But it's not an SI unit.

At least SI has totally different unit names for mass and weight (or
other force). So often US scientific or engineering texts will refer to
"a thrust of 30,000 pounds". Wrong! A pound, like a kg, is a unit of
mass. A newton (and whatever the imperial equivalent is) is a unit of
force, whether gravitational weight or thrust from a jet engine. Or am I
being too picky there? "A pound of force" is lazy shorthand for "a force
equal to the weight of 1 pound (at the earth's surface)". And that
"pound of force" needs a name other than "pound".

There is a unit called a poundal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundal

Which I thought was a pound-force, but it isn't and indeed the Wikipedia
article has enlightened me as well as reminding me of the 'slug'.

There is a fly in the ointment. While mass is mass, weight depends on
another factor, the medium it displaces. 1 kg of helium in a big
balloon won't have a weight of 9.81N at sea level. Water when measured
by weight will be 0.1% in error when compared to 1kg lead weight.

Yes, if you want to be really accurate, you need to take into account
buoyancy in the atmosphere, so a large object of unit mass will weigh
fractionally less than a small, dense object of unit mass because the
former displaces a greater volume/mass/weight of air.


And don't get me started about a pound of gold weighing differently to a
pound of flour because of the different definitions of troy and
avoirdupois pound - it's little things like that which demonstrate that
the imperial system was made up as they went along.

No worries, I'll stick to SI units.

On 06/04/2021 15:20, T i m wrote:
Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

If you 'put a load' in the washing machine, do you do so by weight?

I wouldn't attempt to clean aluminium in the washing machine.

Bill

On 07/04/2021 17:08, Tim+ wrote:


Being even more pedantic, Bill said €œfair load€�, not weight. To me €œload€�
encompasses volume and weight, not weight alone.

Tim


That depends.

Bill

On 07/04/2021 18:08, T i m wrote:
Bill was the one trying to be clever.;-)

I ****ing was not because I know it's hopeless.

Bill

On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:
Weight has never been formally measured in kg

My greengrocer is quite formal and he weights things in kilograms.

Bill

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 04:33:50 +0100, williamwright
wrote:

On 06/04/2021 15:20, T i m wrote:
Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

If you 'put a load' in the washing machine, do you do so by weight?

I wouldn't attempt to clean aluminium in the washing machine.


Yet many people do of course.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 04:36:21 +0100, williamwright
wrote:

On 07/04/2021 18:08, T i m wrote:
Bill was the one trying to be clever.;-)

I ****ing was not because I know it's hopeless.

;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 9 Apr 2021 at 23:03:08 BST, ""NY"" wrote:

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which should be
measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be somewhat less.

I think the point being made is that *in the same conditions* 1 kg of
anything, no matter how dense or "un-dense" (what *is* the opposite of
dense?), will weigh the same. 1 kg of feathers or of lead will weigh the
same as each other on earth. They will still weigh the same as each other
(but not the same as on earth) on the moon or a long way from any
planet/moon.


I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the same
weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they do
here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg and it is confusing to mix weight and mass. In my
o-level physics days weight was sometime given the units kgf (kg force).
But it's not an SI unit.

At least SI has totally different unit names for mass and weight (or other
force). So often US scientific or engineering texts will refer to "a thrust
of 30,000 pounds". Wrong! A pound, like a kg, is a unit of mass. A newton
(and whatever the imperial equivalent is) is a unit of force, whether
gravitational weight or thrust from a jet engine. Or am I being too picky
there? "A pound of force" is lazy shorthand for "a force equal to the weight
of 1 pound (at the earth's surface)". And that "pound of force" needs a name
other than "pound".

There is a fly in the ointment. While mass is mass, weight depends on
another factor, the medium it displaces. 1 kg of helium in a big balloon
won't have a weight of 9.81N at sea level. Water when measured by weight
will be 0.1% in error when compared to 1kg lead weight.

Yes, if you want to be really accurate, you need to take into account
buoyancy in the atmosphere, so a large object of unit mass will weigh
fractionally less than a small, dense object of unit mass because the former
displaces a greater volume/mass/weight of air.


And don't get me started about a pound of gold weighing differently to a
pound of flour because of the different definitions of troy and avoirdupois
pound - it's little things like that which demonstrate that the imperial
system was made up as they went along.

ISTR a thing called a poundal. I won't look it up, because that would only
spoil it.

--
Roger Hayter

On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/04/2021 21:23, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which should
be measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be somewhat less.

I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the same
weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they do
here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg

Others might consider its use as a unit of weight in UK and EU
legislation pretty formal.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10/04/2021 12:23, Robin wrote:
On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/04/2021 21:23, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which
should be measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be
somewhat less.

I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the same
weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they
do here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg

Others might consider its use as a unit of weight in UK and EU
legislation pretty formal.

Which just goes to show how clueless law writers and their teachers are.

The problem is historic, where pounds was also considered a weight by
those less well informed.

On 10/04/2021 14:14, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 12:23, Robin wrote:
On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/04/2021 21:23, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get
anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which
should be measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be
somewhat less.

I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the same
weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they
do here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg

Others might consider its use as a unit of weight in UK and EU
legislation pretty formal.

Which just goes to show how clueless law writers and their teachers are.


Then please share your suggestion for practicable definitions of weights
for the purposes of "weights and measures" legislation which don't
equate it with mass. And FTAOD that's practicable including taking
account of the variation in gravitational acceleration from place to place.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10/04/2021 15:16, Robin wrote:
On 10/04/2021 14:14, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 12:23, Robin wrote:
On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/04/2021 21:23, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get
anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which
should be measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be
somewhat less.

I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the
same weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what they
do here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg

Others might consider its use as a unit of weight in UK and EU
legislation pretty formal.

Which just goes to show how clueless law writers and their teachers are.


Then please share your suggestion for practicable definitions of weights
for the purposes of "weights and measures" legislation which don't
equate it with mass.Â* And FTAOD that's practicable including taking
account of the variation in gravitational acceleration from place to place.

Simply by describing objects measured by way of by mass and not weight.
We have volumes measure in unit of pints or litres, so why not measure
mass in terms of units for 'mass'?

On 10/04/2021 15:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 15:16, Robin wrote:
On 10/04/2021 14:14, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 12:23, Robin wrote:
On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/04/2021 21:23, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get
anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which
should be measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be
somewhat less.

I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the
same weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what
they do here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg

Others might consider its use as a unit of weight in UK and EU
legislation pretty formal.

Which just goes to show how clueless law writers and their teachers are.


Then please share your suggestion for practicable definitions of
weights for the purposes of "weights and measures" legislation which
don't equate it with mass.Â* And FTAOD that's practicable including
taking account of the variation in gravitational acceleration from
place to place.

Simply by describing objects measured by way of by mass and not weight.
We have volumes measure in unit of pints or litres, so why not measure
mass in terms of units for 'mass'?

Three points on that.

First, that is not defining weight at all.

Second, it makes me wonder if you know the UK legislation - especially:

"for the purposes of any measurement of weight falling to be so made,
the weight of any thing may be expressed, by reference to the units of
measurement set out in Part V of that Schedule, in the same terms as its
mass." (s.1(2) Weights and Measures Act 1985)

Third, "law writers" legislate with more than an eye to people going
about their daily lives, and so wish to avoid such things as:

Customer: "How much does that leg of pork weigh?"
Butcher: "I can't tell you that. I can tell you it's
mass is 1.2 kg."





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10/04/2021 16:14, Robin wrote:
On 10/04/2021 15:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 15:16, Robin wrote:
On 10/04/2021 14:14, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 12:23, Robin wrote:
On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/04/2021 21:23, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/04/2021 12:47, Andrew wrote:
On 06/04/2021 14:44, williamwright wrote:
On 04/04/2021 12:52, T i m wrote:
Ally is similar
but because being light, you still need a fair load to get
anywhere.

Aluminium is the same weight per kilo as copper or brass.

Bill

:-)

Even on the moon too.


Being pedantic the mass will be the same but the weight, which
should be measured as a force in units such as Newtons, would be
somewhat less.

I was under the impression that a kilo of aluminium will be the
same weight as a kilo of copper or brass _anywhere_.

It's just on the moon they'll both weigh about a sixth of what
they do here.

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is
wholly dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has
never been formally measured in kg

Others might consider its use as a unit of weight in UK and EU
legislation pretty formal.

Which just goes to show how clueless law writers and their teachers
are.


Then please share your suggestion for practicable definitions of
weights for the purposes of "weights and measures" legislation which
don't equate it with mass.Â* And FTAOD that's practicable including
taking account of the variation in gravitational acceleration from
place to place.

Simply by describing objects measured by way of by mass and not
weight. We have volumes measure in unit of pints or litres, so why not
measure mass in terms of units for 'mass'?

Three points on that.

First, that is not defining weight at all.

Second, it makes me wonder if you know the UK legislation - especially:

"for the purposes of any measurement of weight falling to be so made,
the weight of any thing may be expressed, by reference to the units of
measurement set out in Part V of that Schedule, in the same terms as its
mass." (s.1(2) Weights and Measures Act 1985)

Third, "law writers" legislate with more than an eye to people going
about their daily lives, and so wish to avoid such things as:

Customer: "How much does that leg of pork weigh?"
Butcher: "I can't tell you that. I can tell you it's
mass is 1.2 kg."





Doesnt it depend on what type of "scales" he uses ?

On 10/04/2021 15:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 15:16, Robin wrote:
On 10/04/2021 14:14, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 12:23, Robin wrote:
On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is wholly
dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has never been
formally measured in kg

Others might consider its use as a unit of weight in UK and EU
legislation pretty formal.

Which just goes to show how clueless law writers and their teachers are.


Then please share your suggestion for practicable definitions of
weights for the purposes of "weights and measures" legislation which
don't equate it with mass.Â* And FTAOD that's practicable including
taking account of the variation in gravitational acceleration from
place to place.

Simply by describing objects measured by way of by mass and not weight.
We have volumes measure in unit of pints or litres, so why not measure
mass in terms of units for 'mass'?

Depends on how you are measuring it. Traditional scales with the load
one side and weights the other, or with a sliding weight, measure mass.
(Beam balances) Spring or electronic scales measure weight.

My electronic kitchen scales are calibrated in grams or pounds and
ounces. Perhaps they should also have Centinewtons (cN), but, since 1 cN
= 1.02 grams-force, it wouldn't make much difference to cooking.

--
Max Demian

On 10/04/2021 17:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/04/2021 15:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 15:16, Robin wrote:
On 10/04/2021 14:14, Fredxx wrote:
On 10/04/2021 12:23, Robin wrote:
On 09/04/2021 22:47, Fredxx wrote:

With respect you've missed the difference between mass and weight.

Mass is independent of gravity and measured in kg. Weight is
wholly dependent on gravity and measured in Newtons. Weight has
never been formally measured in kg

Others might consider its use as a unit of weight in UK and EU
legislation pretty formal.

Which just goes to show how clueless law writers and their teachers
are.


Then please share your suggestion for practicable definitions of
weights for the purposes of "weights and measures" legislation which
don't equate it with mass.Â* And FTAOD that's practicable including
taking account of the variation in gravitational acceleration from
place to place.

Simply by describing objects measured by way of by mass and not
weight. We have volumes measure in unit of pints or litres, so why not
measure mass in terms of units for 'mass'?

Depends on how you are measuring it. Traditional scales with the load
one side and weights the other, or with a sliding weight, measure mass.
(Beam balances) Spring or electronic scales measure weight.

My electronic kitchen scales are calibrated in grams or pounds and
ounces. Perhaps they should also have Centinewtons (cN), but, since 1 cN
= 1.02 grams-force, it wouldn't make much difference to cooking.

My Applied Maths learning spanned the transition from imperial to SI
units (with cgs thrown in) . It took me a long time to work out where or
if I needed a "G" in the equation. Seemed so obvious once we were just
using SI units.

On 10/04/2021 17:40, Robert wrote:
On 10/04/2021 16:14, Robin wrote:

snip


Customer: "How much does that leg of pork weigh?"
Butcher: "I can't tell you that. I can tell you it's
mass is 1.2 kg."





Doesnt it depend on what type of "scales" he uses ?

I think all kinds of "scales" could cope after the butcher's been told
how "weight" is defined for traders. Not just the units (presumably
Newtons) but also what value of "g" is to be used for balances (or for
calibration). I don't know how much it varies across the UK but I bet
the SNP would soon find out


--
Robin


reply-to address is (intended to be) valid