Re: poundal vs. poundee

[Richard Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

The CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics (1981-82 edition--last time I was
willing to put out hard cash) gives the conversions for slugs to be 14.5939
kilograms and 32.1740 Pounds (avdp).  These fundamentally agree with the way
I've always instructed on this.  The get the mass in the English system from
m = Weight/g  =  X pounds/32 ft/s^2 with the unit being a slug.

The poundal's conversions are given as:

13825.00 dynes
14.09808 grams
0.0310810 Pounds (avdp.)

Of course in both cases the handy CRC mixes mass and force conversions.  ;-(

Have these changed in more recent versions of the CRC?

Rick


----- Original Message -----
From: John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: poundal vs. poundee


> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Leigh Palmer wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid Michael wins again. Daniell (1894) refers to the
> > poundal as being synonymous with the "British unit of force".
> > That's the way I remember it from high school, but I'm glad
> > it's dead!
>
> Me too!  This definition would require 32 pounds for a single slug.  When
> I was growing up it took at least a few slugs to constitute a pound(ing).
>
> John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
> Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm