Re: poundal vs. poundee

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 10:53 AM 10/18/99 -0400, Michael Edmiston wrote:
> Actually, I think a poundal is a force.
> The poundal is then the force that will give a one pound-mass mass an
> acceleration of one foot-per-second-squared.

That puts you in good company, e.g. with
  Random House Dictionary of the English Language
  http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictP.html
  http://www.fau.edu/divdept/engineer/people/campbell/noteseml3100.htm

But the notion in my previous posting (poundal=mass) is not a mere
hallucination;  see e.g.
  http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/courses/w3002/physical.html
which comes down pretty hard on the poundal=mass side.  It also happens to
agree with my recollection of high-school physics, for what that's worth.

> I don't believe we have a single word for a mass that weighs one pound,
> just like we don't have a word for a mass that weighs one newton.
>
> I believe we call a mass with a standard weight of one pound by the
> name one "pound-mass."

1) That term is ugly.
2) There is no consensus that poundal=mass, so we can't use that.
3) Most physicists are throughly addicted to the notion that pound=force.
4) Maybe a little creativity will help.  How about
        poundee

That is, if you have a mass of one poundee and apply a force of one pound,
then the poundee accelerates at 9.8 m/s/s.  In particular, an ordinary
one-pound loaf of bread has a mass of one poundee.


______________________________________________________________
copyright (C) 1999 John S. Denker             jsd@monmouth.com