Gene Nygaard wrote:

"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<q-idnRyibI3_l22iRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...

"Paul R. Mays" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:QL-dnSmkTOveInKi4p2dnA@giganews.com...

"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
news:df336888.0312280617.3f0e25d6@posting.google.com...

<snip>

I see Paul Mays remains as confused as ever.  "Weight" in this context
is mass.  One clue is that not everybody measures this "weight" in
pounds; those who don't invariably measure it in kilograms, never in
newtons.  The second is that 1 lb = 0.45359237 kg, exactly, by
definition.

I see that Gene continues to have reading comprehension issues.....

Since you *declared* that you were using the term "pound" to refer to
weight, i don't see a problem with your statement.

But the point is that "weight" is an ambiguous term.

"Declaring" it to be force due to gravity, even if he had done so
clearly, wouldn't change the fact that using a force measurement in
this context would be abnormal.  That isn't what we are interested in
for calculations of recoil effects.  Those aren't the units normally
used for this purpose by anybody who deals with these measurements.

Since Gene missed that obvious point, I suggest he clean the foreign
substances off his monitor so he can read the entire text of the post.

<snip>

That's being the case I added a little smiley face to show
a point of comic relief.....

I had dropped him into my killfile long ago for the simple reason that his
rantings were repetitious and no longer funny.

Another clue is that the "weight" of the bullet and the powder in this
situation is also measured in units of mass, in either troy grains or
in drams.  And the troy "units of weight," unlike their avoirdupois
cousins and unlike grams and kilograms, have never spawned a unit of
force of the same name; they are always units of mass.

And Gene builds another straw man.  I do not recall you discussing the
weight or the mass of the powder or the bullets.

No, you just need to be smart enough to know why we would be
interested in the "weight" of a target rifle of this type.

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

    3.4.1.4 The use of the same name for units of force
  and mass causes confusion.  When the non-SI units are
  used, a distinction should be made between force and
  mass, for example, lbf to denote force in gravimetric
  engineering units and lb for mass.

And since you *did* specify weight units, this reference is moot.

Troy ounces are units of weight.  They are never, however, units of
force.

Weight is an ambiguous word.  Declaring it to be units of weight
doesn't tell us anything about whether it is mass or force.

The reference is not moot; had he used lbf, it would have been clear
that he intended his pounds to be units of force--and it would make it
clear that he was using silly units, inappropriate for his purpose.

I built a gadget, that by placing a few ounces
of finger pressure I put little holes in paper
at 50 Yards...   If it works and it looks good
all the details are secondary.......

Now I expect him to try to take you to task for "ounces of finger pressure."

Those are ounces force, yes.  They should be identified as such and
use "ozf" to distinguish them from the normal ounces as units of mass,
and also in this case from the various fluid ounces as well, a problem
we don't have with pounds.

To use ounces mass for this purpose would be as abnormal and incorrect
as using pounds force for the weight of the rifle.

Gene Nygaard

have you ever discharged a firearm?

holog