Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
weigh, please?

Mary

In article <449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net>,
"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
|> weigh, please?

Between 9 and 13 cwt, depending on the concrete. A cubic metre of
concrete weighs about 2.7 tons.

Don't try lifting it single-handed :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

A little over half a ton according to calculations I found on google, but I
would have thought heavier

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
International Festival of the Sea 28th June - 1st July 2007


"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
> weigh, please?
>
> Mary
>
>

In article <e7ec3m$boj$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
|>
|> Between 9 and 13 cwt, depending on the concrete. A cubic metre of
|> concrete weighs about 2.7 tons.

Damn. A cubic metre of SILICA! Allow 2-3 tons for concrete.

Nick.

Following up to "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> :

>Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
>weigh, please?

24x24x2 = 1152 cu.ins == 18878 cm3

depending on the sort of concrete - assume density of 2.3g/cm3

2.3x18878 = 43419.4cg = 43.4kg ( ~= 95lbs)

More than you'll probably need to know here:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml
--
Tim C.

IF IN DOUBT, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS

:-(((((

2' x 2' x 2' IS NOT the same as 2' x 2' x 2 INCHES

Sorry. I made a mistake and read it wrong :-((((

Paving slab I can lift ;-)

Mike

--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
International Festival of the Sea 28th June - 1st July 2007


"Tim C." <tim.challenger [at] aon.at> wrote in message
news:96dl92p41s91qqvgcudg1h04sr5j2ru3us [at] 4ax.com...
> Following up to "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> :
>
> >Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
> >weigh, please?
>
> 24x24x2 = 1152 cu.ins == 18878 cm3
>
> depending on the sort of concrete - assume density of 2.3g/cm3
>
> 2.3x18878 = 43419.4cg = 43.4kg ( ~= 95lbs)
>
> More than you'll probably need to know here:
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml
> --
> Tim C.

"Tim C." <tim.challenger [at] aon.at> wrote in message
news:96dl92p41s91qqvgcudg1h04sr5j2ru3us [at] 4ax.com...
> Following up to "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> :
>
>>Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
>>weigh, please?
>
> 24x24x2 = 1152 cu.ins == 18878 cm3
>
> depending on the sort of concrete - assume density of 2.3g/cm3
>
> 2.3x18878 = 43419.4cg = 43.4kg ( ~= 95lbs)
>
> More than you'll probably need to know here:
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml

What a nice site! Thanks.

95 lbs is a tad less than Spouse estimated, which is good. He said about 1
cwt - 8 st - 112 lbs.

Mary

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e7ec3m$boj$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net>,
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> |>
> |> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
> |> weigh, please?
>
> Between 9 and 13 cwt, depending on the concrete. A cubic metre of
> concrete weighs about 2.7 tons.
>
> Don't try lifting it single-handed :-)

I wouldn't, even at a hundredweight. Long gone are those days!

But Spouse would.

Mary

>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <4tadnSzRyu_rJwfZRVnytw [at] bt.com>, "Mike" <not [at] here.thanks> writes:
|> IF IN DOUBT, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS
|>
|> :-(((((
|>
|> 2' x 2' x 2' IS NOT the same as 2' x 2' x 2 INCHES
|>
|> Sorry. I made a mistake and read it wrong :-((((
|>
|> Paving slab I can lift ;-)

Oops. So did I! I can lift one of them, too, but not a 2' cube :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
> weigh, please?
>
> Mary


according to this site -

http://tinyurl.com/gy7xp

for -

http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/countertops/thicknes s_and_weight_of_countertops.htm


" A 1.5" thick standard concrete countertop has an approximate weight
of 18.75 pounds per square foot."

therefore a 1 foot thick countertop i.e. a 1 ft cube would be
8 times as much - 150 pounds

2 square feet = 8 1 foot cubes = 1200 lbs = 10.7 cwt

So Nick is correct.

[ Believe it or not concrete is heavier than granite according to
this site at least - Granite is approximately 18 pounds per square
foot. ]


michael adams

....






>
>

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303039303239449ADC7789 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <e7ec3m$boj$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
> from nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
>
>
> > In article <449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net>,
> > "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > |>
> > |> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block
would
> > |> weigh, please?
>
> For the mathematically challenged, that's a medium paving slab.

Oops again.


michael adams

....

>
> > Between 9 and 13 cwt, depending on the concrete.
>
> I must be stronger than I thought.
>
> Janet
>
> --
> Isle of Arran Open Gardens weekend 21,22,23 July 2006
> 5 UKP three-day adult ticket (funds go to island charities) buys entry
> to 26 private gardens

|>
> |> Sorry. I made a mistake and read it wrong :-((((
> |>
> |> Paving slab I can lift ;-)
>
> Oops. So did I! I can lift one of them, too, but not a 2' cube :-)
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
>

At least we have the guts to say "We got it wrong" :-))))

Mike


--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
International Festival of the Sea 28th June - 1st July 2007

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
> weigh, please?
>
> Mary

Am I the only one.....................why do you want to know ?
Jenny :~))

"JennyC" <Jenny.squirrel [at] chello.nl> wrote in message
news:4g03mmF1kerlvU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
>> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
>> weigh, please?
>>
>> Mary
>
> Am I the only one.....................why do you want to know ?
> Jenny :~))
>
To know how many the vehicle can carry without overloading.

Steve

In article <3130303039303239449ADC7789 [at] zetnet.co.uk>,
Janet Baraclough <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> For the mathematically challenged, that's a medium paving slab.

Thank you SO much! It wasn't my mathematics that failed to meet the
challenge :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:4g01tmF1l8b17U1 [at] individual.net...
>

> http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/countertops/thicknes s_and_weight_of_countertops.htm
>
>
> " A 1.5" thick standard concrete countertop has an approximate weight
> of 18.75 pounds per square foot."
>
> therefore a 1 foot thick countertop i.e. a 1 ft cube would be
> 8 times as much - 150 pounds

?

"JennyC" <Jenny.squirrel [at] chello.nl> wrote in message
news:4g03mmF1kerlvU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
>> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block would
>> weigh, please?
>>
>> Mary
>
> Am I the only one.....................why do you want to know ?

Because we want to transport some and need to know how many we can load into
our trailer and car.

Pretty boring, really ... sorry -)

Mary

michael adams wrote:
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
>> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block
>> would weigh, please?
>>
>> Mary
>
>
> according to this site -
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gy7xp
>
> for -
>
> http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/countertops/thicknes s_and_weight_of_countertops.htm
>
>
> " A 1.5" thick standard concrete countertop has an approximate weight
> of 18.75 pounds per square foot."
>
> therefore a 1 foot thick countertop i.e. a 1 ft cube would be
> 8 times as much - 150 pounds
>
> 2 square feet = 8 1 foot cubes = 1200 lbs = 10.7 cwt
>
> So Nick is correct.
>
> [ Believe it or not concrete is heavier than granite according to
> this site at least - Granite is approximately 18 pounds per square
> foot. ]
>

You're going all over the place with this one, plus you are using an
American site, whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to ours.

2 square feet isn't 8 cubic feet, 8 cubic feet is...and a two foot by two
foot flag, 2 inches thick is exactly 43Kg, I lift them all day, every day.

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:449ae6b0$0$911$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
>
> "michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:4g01tmF1l8b17U1 [at] individual.net...
> >
>
> >
http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/countertops/thicknes s_and_weight_of_countertops.htm
> >
> >
> > " A 1.5" thick standard concrete countertop has an approximate weight
> > of 18.75 pounds per square foot."
> >
> > therefore a 1 foot thick countertop i.e. a 1 ft cube would be
> > 8 times as much - 150 pounds
>
> ?
>

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303039303239449ADC7789 [at] zetnet.co.uk...

> For the mathematically challenged, that's a medium paving slab.



"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...

> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block

block ?




That's my excuse anyway. McLaren can speak for himself.


michael adams

....

>>
>
> You're going all over the place with this one, plus you are using an
> American site, whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to
> ours.
>

"whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to ours."

Are you sure about that?


Steve

shazzbat wrote:
> someone wrote:
>>You're going all over the place with this one, plus you are using an
>>American site, whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to
>>ours.
>
> "whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to ours."
>
> Are you sure about that?

They say, over there, "A pint's a pound the whole world 'round". It
isn't. Everyone knows that really "A pint of pure water weighs a pound
and a quarter" - don't they!

In article <e7eqj5$tu0$1 [at] newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"shazzbat" <shazzbat [at] spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> > You're going all over the place with this one, plus you are using an
|> > American site, whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to
|> > ours.
|>
|> "whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to ours."
|>
|> Are you sure about that?

I am. However, I also know by how much they differ - and the answer is,
for practical purposes, not at all. For very high-precision science,
they would, but NOBODY outside the USA uses anything other than the
international metric system for that any longer.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e7er27$c7t$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <e7eqj5$tu0$1 [at] newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "shazzbat" <shazzbat [at] spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> |>
> |> > You're going all over the place with this one, plus you are using an
> |> > American site, whose pounds, feet and everything else are different
> to
> |> > ours.
> |>
> |> "whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to ours."
> |>
> |> Are you sure about that?
>
> I am. However, I also know by how much they differ - and the answer is,
> for practical purposes, not at all. For very high-precision science,
> they would, but NOBODY outside the USA uses anything other than the
> international metric system for that any longer.

So for high precision science, what's the difference between an American
pound and a British pound?

Steve

"michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:4g07s5F1l6r7dU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:449ae6b0$0$911$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
>>
>> "michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4g01tmF1l8b17U1 [at] individual.net...
>> >
>>
>> >
> http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/countertops/thicknes s_and_weight_of_countertops.htm
>> >
>> >
>> > " A 1.5" thick standard concrete countertop has an approximate weight
>> > of 18.75 pounds per square foot."
>> >
>> > therefore a 1 foot thick countertop i.e. a 1 ft cube would be
>> > 8 times as much - 150 pounds
>>
>> ?
>>
>
> "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3130303039303239449ADC7789 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
>
>> For the mathematically challenged, that's a medium paving slab.
>
>
>
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
>
>> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block
>
> block ?

LOL! At what point does a slab become a block?

I specified 2' x 2' x 2" :-)

Mary

"shazzbat" <shazzbat [at] spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e7eqj5$tu0$1 [at] newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>>
>>
>> You're going all over the place with this one, plus you are using an
>> American site, whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to
>> ours.
>>
>
> "whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to ours."
>
> Are you sure about that?

I'm not, but so many things are, it's not worth assuming that US standards
(in anything) are the same as UK's.

I'll say no more about that :-)

Mary
>
>
> Steve
>
>

"shazzbat" <shazzbat [at] spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e7erqs$sf0$1 [at] news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> So for high precision science, what's the difference between an American
> pound and a British pound?

A can of worms :-)

Mary
>
> Steve
>

"Phil L" <neverchecked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xNBmg.90102$wl.29006 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> michael adams wrote:
> > "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:449aafd8$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
> >> Has anyone a rough idea of how much a 2' x 2' x 2" Concrete block
> >> would weigh, please?
> >>
> >> Mary
> >
> >
> > according to this site -
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/gy7xp
> >
> > for -
> >
> >
http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/countertops/thicknes s_and_weight_of_countertops.htm
> >
> >
> > " A 1.5" thick standard concrete countertop has an approximate weight
> > of 18.75 pounds per square foot."
> >
> > therefore a 1 foot thick countertop i.e. a 1 ft cube would be
> > 8 times as much - 150 pounds
> >
> > 2 square feet = 8 1 foot cubes = 1200 lbs = 10.7 cwt
> >
> > So Nick is correct.
> >
> > [ Believe it or not concrete is heavier than granite according to
> > this site at least - Granite is approximately 18 pounds per square
> > foot. ]
> >
>
> You're going all over the place with this one, plus you are using an
> American site, whose pounds, feet and everything else are different to
ours.
>
> 2 square feet isn't 8 cubic feet,

....

That was an obvious typo which didn't affect the accuracy of the
calculation as presented. Even if based on a faulty assumption.

Neverthess, do your little lap of honour if you must.

....


> 8 cubic feet is...and a two foot by two
> foot flag, 2 inches thick is exactly 43Kg, I lift them all day,
> every day.

....

Brawn plus brains then. I am impressed!

What with the strong arms from lifting all these flags, and the
highly tuned cardio-vascular system from doing all these laps
of honour, you must truly be at the peak of condition.


michael adams

....


>
>

"michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:4g0bdmF1l9np4U1 [at] individual.net...
>


Oh come on Michael! It's all fun, isn't it? And we're all human, therefore
fallible.

Even I have been known to make mistakes ... as is frequently pointed out :-)

Mary
>
>
> michael adams

In article <e7erqs$sf0$1 [at] news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"shazzbat" <shazzbat [at] spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> So for high precision science, what's the difference between an American
|> pound and a British pound?

I doubt that there is a single American pound, any more than there
is a single African one.

However, in the USA, a pound is a derivation of an Imperial pound and,
in the UK, a pound is a metric pound. Since about 1950.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

michael adams wrote:
> "Phil L" <neverchecked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
>> 8 cubic feet is...and a two foot by two
>> foot flag, 2 inches thick is exactly 43Kg, I lift them all day,
>> every day.
>
> ...
>
> Brawn plus brains then. I am impressed!

I doubt you have ever been impressed in your life.

>
> What with the strong arms from lifting all these flags, and the
> highly tuned cardio-vascular system from doing all these laps
> of honour, you must truly be at the peak of condition.

I don't need laps of honour, you were going all around the houses working
out cubic feet and finding out masses, volumes and all the other crap when
all you needed to do was ask the people who make them:
http://www.marshalls.co.uk/select/pdf_xls/paving/concrete/pr od_info_standard_paving.pdf

Still, it's always better to use a hundred words where only half a dozen are
needed eh?

"Phil L" <neverchecked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jfDmg.90153$wl.21789 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> ... you were going all around the houses working out cubic feet and
> finding out masses, volumes ... when all you needed to do was ask the
> people who make them:
> http://www.marshalls.co.uk/select/pdf_xls/paving/concrete/pr od_info_standard_paving.pdf
>
> Still, it's always better to use a hundred words where only half a dozen
> are needed eh?

Well, you've added to the noise, wasting your finger power :-)

We all do it, it all adds to the body of knowledge.

Mary
>
>

"Phil L" <neverchecked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jfDmg.90153$wl.21789 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> michael adams wrote:
> > "Phil L" <neverchecked [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
> >> 8 cubic feet is...and a two foot by two
> >> foot flag, 2 inches thick is exactly 43Kg, I lift them all day,
> >> every day.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Brawn plus brains then. I am impressed!
>
> I doubt you have ever been impressed in your life.
>
> >
> > What with the strong arms from lifting all these flags, and the
> > highly tuned cardio-vascular system from doing all these laps
> > of honour, you must truly be at the peak of condition.
>
> I don't need laps of honour, you were going all around the houses working
> out cubic feet and finding out masses, volumes and all the other crap when
> all you needed to do was ask the people who make them:
>
http://www.marshalls.co.uk/select/pdf_xls/paving/concrete/pr od_info_standard_paving.pdf
>
> Still, it's always better to use a hundred words where only half a dozen
are
> needed eh?


Until Janet posted it was fairly evident, that along with Nick I'd
mistaken 2" to mean 2ft.

As I acknowledged.

If you can point me to the website of a manufacturer of 2ft deep paving
slabs which I could have used instead, then I'd be most grateful. (44)

michael adams (46)


....



>
>

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:449af932$0$905$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net...
>
> "michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:4g0bdmF1l9np4U1 [at] individual.net...
> >
>
>
> Oh come on Michael! It's all fun, isn't it?

....

Yup !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....

> And we're all human, therefore
> fallible.
>
> Even I have been known to make mistakes ... as is frequently pointed out
:-)

....

Although not in this case, at least not by me.

You're perfecty entitled to call 2" thick pieces of concrete blocks,
if you so choose to do.

My previous post was merely intended to explain where I'd made
the mistake, in not properly reading and comprehending your
question.

I don't normally go in for typo, vocabulary, or spelling flames
myself, which I regard as childishness-on-stilts. And which I
therefore treat accordingly.

Yup !!!!!!!!!!!!!!




michael adams

....

>
> Mary
> >
> >
> > michael adams
>
>

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e7eufv$iis$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <e7erqs$sf0$1 [at] news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "shazzbat" <shazzbat [at] spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> |>
> |> So for high precision science, what's the difference between an
> American
> |> pound and a British pound?
>
> I doubt that there is a single American pound, any more than there
> is a single African one.
>
> However, in the USA, a pound is a derivation of an Imperial pound and,
> in the UK, a pound is a metric pound. Since about 1950.
>
So you're saying there are 2 pounds to the Kg, and not 2.2 then? That's a
bit more difference than " for practical purposes, not at all" You're not as
sure as you were earlier are you?

Steve

"shazzbat" <shazzbat [at] spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e7f273$jjj$1 [at] news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:e7eufv$iis$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > In article <e7erqs$sf0$1 [at] news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "shazzbat" <shazzbat [at] spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> > |>
> > |> So for high precision science, what's the difference between an
> > American
> > |> pound and a British pound?
> >
> > I doubt that there is a single American pound, any more than there
> > is a single African one.
> >
> > However, in the USA, a pound is a derivation of an Imperial pound and,
> > in the UK, a pound is a metric pound. Since about 1950.
> >
> So you're saying there are 2 pounds to the Kg, and not 2.2 then? That's a
> bit more difference than " for practical purposes, not at all" You're not
as
> sure as you were earlier are you?
>
> Steve

They're now exactly the same. And have been since 1959
And all are defined by their metric equivalent.

<quote>

The pound (avoirdupois) or international pound, abbreviation "lb"
or sometimes # in the United States, is the mass unit defined as
exactly 0.45359237 kilograms (or 453.59237 grams). This definition
has been in effect since a 1959 agreement among the national standards
laboratories of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.

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


</quote>

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pound


michael adams

....

>
>
>

In article <4g0h6oF1lepvmU1 [at] individual.net>,
"michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> writes:
|>
|> They're now exactly the same. And have been since 1959
|> And all are defined by their metric equivalent.
|>
|> The pound (avoirdupois) or international pound, abbreviation "lb"
|> or sometimes # in the United States, is the mass unit defined as
|> exactly 0.45359237 kilograms (or 453.59237 grams). This definition
|> has been in effect since a 1959 agreement among the national standards
|> laboratories of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
|> South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
|>
|> http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pd f

I stand corrected. I didn't realise that the USA had signed up :-)

I am, of course, old enough to have been taught using the previous
units - but I defy anyone to produce an experiment that could be
carried out in a school that could tell the difference between an
Imperial and a metric pound or foot :-)

Or, indeed, any of the dozen or so seconds that we have had since
1950 ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e7f52i$1lu$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <4g0h6oF1lepvmU1 [at] individual.net>,
> "michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> writes:
> |>
> |> They're now exactly the same. And have been since 1959
> |> And all are defined by their metric equivalent.
> |>
> |> The pound (avoirdupois) or international pound, abbreviation "lb"
> |> or sometimes # in the United States, is the mass unit defined as
> |> exactly 0.45359237 kilograms (or 453.59237 grams). This definition
> |> has been in effect since a 1959 agreement among the national standards
> |> laboratories of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
> |> South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
> |>
> |> http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pd f
>
> I stand corrected. I didn't realise that the USA had signed up :-)
>
> I am, of course, old enough to have been taught using the previous
> units - but I defy anyone to produce an experiment that could be
> carried out in a school that could tell the difference between an
> Imperial and a metric pound or foot :-)


Indeed.

I didn't know any of this before this evening, but apparently

"The 1878 definition in the U.K. defined pound as a mass, but having a
very slightly smaller value (equal to approximately 0.453592338 kg)
than it does now."

As against 0.45359237.

Which pencil and paper suggests is 0.000000032 of a gram difference.


Watching the footie the other night, as you do, I was flabbergasted
to hear Sam Allerdyce the blunt Bolton Manager, refer to one of
the players on the pitch as being only 1.7 metres tall. Something
like that anyway. Yer Wah???? Get out the tape measure Mother !

So it's strapping 1.9 metrers now as well I suppose.



michael adams

....


>
> Or, indeed, any of the dozen or so seconds that we have had since
> 1950 ....
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.