RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
I am sure that Sir Isaac Newton would give you a slap round the head, and a serious talking to, if he were still around.
You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Weight is a force and the unit is Newtons.You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Shame you didn't know this.
Newton knew a thing or two about force.
Mass's SI unit is kg, but mass is NOT the same as weight.
Look it up in a physics book.
Ironic that you are attempting to insult someone else from such a weak knowledge position.
Edited by 911hope on Friday 31st March 22:55
911hope said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I am sure that Sir Isaac Newton would give you a slap round the head, and a serious talking to, if he were still around.
You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Weight is a force and the unit is Newtons.You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
Shame you didn't know this.
Not helped by the fact that we get on scales and annnounce our weight in ‘kg’, go figure! (What it means is that you can assume your mass in kg from the measured weight assuming the scales are correctly calibrated for the strength of gravity where you live - another reason not to buy scales from eBay!
)Edited by starsky67 on Friday 31st March 23:54
911hope said:
Weight is a force and the unit is Newtons.
Shame you didn't know this.
Newton knew a thing or two about force.
Mass's SI unit is kg, but mass is NOT the same as weight.
Look it up in a physics book.
Ironic that you are attempting to insult someone else from such a weak knowledge position.
Nah - slugs and poundals are the way forward...Shame you didn't know this.
Newton knew a thing or two about force.
Mass's SI unit is kg, but mass is NOT the same as weight.
Look it up in a physics book.
Ironic that you are attempting to insult someone else from such a weak knowledge position.
wiki said:
English units require re-scaling of either force or mass to eliminate a numerical proportionality constant in the equation F = ma. The poundal represents one choice, which is to rescale units of force. Since a pound of force (pound force) accelerates a pound of mass (pound mass) at 32.174 049 ft/s2 (9.80665 m/s2; the acceleration of gravity, g), we can scale down the unit of force to compensate, giving us one that accelerates 1 pound mass at 1 ft/s2 rather than at 32.174 049 ft/s2; and that is the poundal, which is approximately 1⁄32 pound force.
starsky67 said:
To be fair to him (I can hardly believe I’m saying this…) a lot of people are confused about the difference between mass (kg) and weight (mass x local gravitational constant) which is measured in Newtons.
Not helped by the fact that we get on scales and annnounce our weight in ‘kg’, go figure! (What it means is that you can assume your mass in kg from the measured weight assuming the scales are correctly calibrated for the strength of gravity where you live - another reason not to buy scales from eBay!)
Gravitational constant is, by definition, constant anywhere in the universe.Not helped by the fact that we get on scales and annnounce our weight in ‘kg’, go figure! (What it means is that you can assume your mass in kg from the measured weight assuming the scales are correctly calibrated for the strength of gravity where you live - another reason not to buy scales from eBay!
)Standard gravity is what we experience on earth, I guess that's what you meant.
On some planet somewhere in the universe, their standard gravity might be 1.
I'm going with that to explain why our friend interchanges mass and weight.
GT9 said:
Gravitational constant is, by definition, constant anywhere in the universe.
Standard gravity is what we experience on earth, I guess that's what you meant.
On some planet somewhere in the universe, their standard gravity might be 1.
I'm going with that to explain why our friend interchanges mass and weight.
Too sombre for the morning of April 1st...Standard gravity is what we experience on earth, I guess that's what you meant.
On some planet somewhere in the universe, their standard gravity might be 1.
I'm going with that to explain why our friend interchanges mass and weight.
GT9 said:
starsky67 said:
To be fair to him (I can hardly believe I’m saying this…) a lot of people are confused about the difference between mass (kg) and weight (mass x local gravitational constant) which is measured in Newtons.
Not helped by the fact that we get on scales and annnounce our weight in ‘kg’, go figure! (What it means is that you can assume your mass in kg from the measured weight assuming the scales are correctly calibrated for the strength of gravity where you live - another reason not to buy scales from eBay!)
Gravitational constant is, by definition, constant anywhere in the universe.Not helped by the fact that we get on scales and annnounce our weight in ‘kg’, go figure! (What it means is that you can assume your mass in kg from the measured weight assuming the scales are correctly calibrated for the strength of gravity where you live - another reason not to buy scales from eBay!
)Standard gravity is what we experience on earth, I guess that's what you meant.
On some planet somewhere in the universe, their standard gravity might be 1.
I'm going with that to explain why our friend interchanges mass and weight.
The force of gravity does vary, around 1.6m/s^2 on the moon for example. It also varies on the earth depending on where you live which is why scales are calibrated for the region they are sold in.
https://byjus.com/physics/value-of-g-on-moon/
https://www.nsf.gov/news/classroom/images/Gravity....
starsky67 said:
Apologies I mean the force of gravity (little g) rather than the gravitational constant itself (big G, which is of course, constant.)
The force of gravity does vary, around 1.6m/s^2 on the moon for example. It also varies on the earth depending on where you live which is why scales are calibrated for the region they are sold in.
It's acceleration due to gravity not force. That's why units are m/s^2 not kg.m/s^2 The force of gravity does vary, around 1.6m/s^2 on the moon for example. It also varies on the earth depending on where you live which is why scales are calibrated for the region they are sold in.
bigothunter said:
starsky67 said:
Apologies I mean the force of gravity (little g) rather than the gravitational constant itself (big G, which is of course, constant.)
The force of gravity does vary, around 1.6m/s^2 on the moon for example. It also varies on the earth depending on where you live which is why scales are calibrated for the region they are sold in.
It's acceleration due to gravity not force. That's why units are m/s^2 not kg.m/s^2 The force of gravity does vary, around 1.6m/s^2 on the moon for example. It also varies on the earth depending on where you live which is why scales are calibrated for the region they are sold in.
pheonix478 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I am sure that Sir Isaac Newton would give you a slap round the head, and a serious talking to, if he were still around.
You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
You still digging? This is a windup right? Did you pass GCSE science? If you did you should understand this topic.You must be seriously sad, if you find expressing weight in pounds rather than kilograms hilarious.
What `would' be hilarious is you going into a haulage company and saying you have a load of 1814.36 kilograms, but you are only going to pay them for moving 1360.77 kilograms.
Once they had finished laughing at you, they would ask you to be sensible, or to just FRO.
bigothunter said:
What percentage of ICE cars have their catalysts removed? Absolutely miniscule I suggest.
Perhaps this trend is more common in the US than UK?
Maybe do a search on PH for 'decatting'.Perhaps this trend is more common in the US than UK?
And while waiting
https://www.avontuning.co.uk/services/advanced-opt...
https://www.japspeed.co.uk/product/exhausts/exhaus...
Pan Pan Pan said:
And if you stop living in cloud fantasy land, you might understand that it takes more energy to move 1814.36 kilograms, than it does to move 1360.77 kilograms. Perhaps you believe that changing the power source from ICE to electric makes 453.59 kilograms `magically' disappear?
Try carrying 13 kg and cycling carrying 18kg over a flag 1km course.Which would be easier do you think?
It’s all about efficiency.
Pan Pan Pan said:
And if you stop living in cloud fantasy land, you might understand that it takes more energy to move 1814.36 kilograms, than it does to move 1360.77 kilograms. Perhaps you believe that changing the power source from ICE to electric makes 453.59 kilograms `magically' disappear?
You mention a mass increase of 33% between 2 cases, then ask if using an electric motor's well documented efficiency advantage over ICE ( about a factor of 3).Have a go at the sums, you will find that you defeat your own argument.
If you can't, try dividing 1.33 by 3.
What does that answer tell you?
Pan Pan Pan said:
And if you stop living in cloud fantasy land, you might understand that it takes more energy to move 1814.36 kilograms, than it does to move 1360.77 kilograms. Perhaps you believe that changing the power source from ICE to electric makes 453.59 kilograms `magically' disappear?
Simple question.Do you or do you not accept that kinetic energy is recoverable?
Pan Pan Pan said:
And if you stop living in cloud fantasy land, you might understand that it takes more energy to move 1814.36 kilograms, than it does to move 1360.77 kilograms. Perhaps you believe that changing the power source from ICE to electric makes 453.59 kilograms `magically' disappear?
And that’s why a light ICE goes further on a unit of energy than a heavy EV does. That’s right, isn’t it?
Pan Pan Pan said:
And if you stop living in cloud fantasy land, you might understand that it takes more energy to move 1814.36 kilograms, than it does to move 1360.77 kilograms. Perhaps you believe that changing the power source from ICE to electric makes 453.59 kilograms `magically' disappear?
This is a wind up. No one is this thick.pheonix478 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
And if you stop living in cloud fantasy land, you might understand that it takes more energy to move 1814.36 kilograms, than it does to move 1360.77 kilograms. Perhaps you believe that changing the power source from ICE to electric makes 453.59 kilograms `magically' disappear?
This is a wind up. No one is this thick.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff