1 cubic metre ?

Oct 15, 2004 59 Replies

The pedant in me always wants to answer that question by saying that the lead *probably* weighs more...

The logic being, that while "weight" is commonly confused with mass, it is strictly the force exerted by gravity on a given mass. The 500g is actually the mass. Which round these parts will have a weight of approx

5N. So if you take two lumps of stuff of differering density and sit them on a table, the more dense one will actually exert a slightly higher force due to gravity (i.e. weight) than the less dense one, due to its centre of gravity being closer to that of the Earths.

Another complication is how they're packed. If the feathers are compressed and formed into a shape with the same footprint as the lead - what then?

Or if the feathers are balanced - literally - against the lead?

Mary

I don't know if I'd call a part in 3 million per meter exceedingly small. I mean, with a bit of effort, it's not going to be that hard to build a balance that can take a 3 tons, with a sensitivity of 1g.

Then take two 3 ton weights, two lengths of rope, and let one rope be

1m longer than the other, and you've got a difference of a gram between the two pans.

No, the ropes need to be the same length or there is a weight difference anyway...just attach one weight at the end, and one 1, from the end...

That should read "1m" and not "1," of course.

indeed!

That was why I said probably...

Can you get tins of goat curry?

Locally it comes freshly cooked and hot - or at least I though it did ...

Mary

I meant to add that, but somehow missed it out.

IMO, exceedingly small to me means that I can't measure it without a couple of days effort (excluding phoning suppliers of specialist measurement equipment.)

Go on, make their day!

Mary

Take 5ml of aspirin solution and have a little lie down.

snip

And to return to D-I-Y: I was chuffed when I cut reliably cut off lengths of timber exceedingly close to +/- 0.25 mm of the required length. [Cutting off "n" exampled which are _close_ to each other is very easy : it's amazing, to me, how sensitive the human finger tips are when _feeling_ whether or not pieces of timber are aligned- no need to phone up specialist metrology suppliers - just watch Norm on Telly!]

Hang on, I used to be able to do this sort of stuff in my head .. < mutters "carry the four ^ 15 + the 7" >

.. erm ~ 4.76 × 10-15 f/f .. am I close ?

(Assuming a British Std hydrogen atom of course)

T i m

thanks to all who participated in this, what turned out to be, overly complicated thread...

I'm now confident I can lay the concrete floor with just 16 mixes, shouldn't take long with 3 of us.

LJ

"T i m" wrote | >25 angstroms per century in furlongs per fortnight | Hang on, I used to be able to do this sort of stuff in my head | .. < mutters "carry the four ^ 15 + the 7" >

| .. erm ~ 4.76 × 10-15 f/f .. am I close ? | (Assuming a British Std hydrogen atom of course)

Aren't we supposed to use new decimal harmonised hydrogen atoms now?

Owain

"It's easy to repeatably cut timber to length".

For _me_; it was a persoanl 'best' when I acquired the Triton table-saw thingy and aligned the blade/fence combination to _reliably_ cut timber to length. { I'd even learnt about kerf's ]

OK. I'm jealous ... :) BTW, with the panel cutting addition, the Triton table will cut (almost) any number of sticks.

I was referring to Norm, as that seems to be his general MO. :)

Wotchit, you'll be awarded a Nobel Prize.

Mary

Careful. Some here might think you mean 500 g of the stuff (or more !) and they'll never get up again.

Some days that seems like an okay solution ;)

Andrew

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required