Basic question about mass and weight

  • Thread starter Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Weight
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between mass and weight, emphasizing that a home scale measures weight but displays it in units of mass (kilograms). The scale is calibrated to show the mass that would produce the measured weight under Earth's gravity. If used in a different gravitational field, like Jupiter, the scale would inaccurately represent mass based on the local weight. It is crucial to understand the gravitational context and the calibration of the scale to avoid misinterpreting mass from weight. Overall, the scale indicates mass derived from weight, contingent on the gravitational field's strength.
fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
272
I'm confused about mass, weight and kilogram force. Not that I don't know what the 2 firsts are but here I give the example that is perturbating me.
Say a home scale gives my "weight" as 67kg. I know that a weight is a force and therefore should have units of force, like the Newton (N) and not the kilogram which is a unit of mass.
So what is giving me the scale? Is it my mass? Is it my weight but with the wrong units? Or is it my weight in kilogram force (unit is kgf if I recall well)? I'm not even sure that a force can be given in kilogram force, but I guess yes...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's your weight because it uses gravity to produce the number. And it's also the right units (67 kg = 670 N), at least if we allow particle physicists to use eV as a unit of mass!
 
Just to add to atyy's answer...a weigh scale measures weight. If it operates using a spring, then what is being measured is the displacement of the spring, which is directly proportional to the force pressing down upon it. The scale has simply been *calibrated* to show you what mass (in kg) ON EARTH would be required to provide that force and therefore that displacement. In summary, the scale is displaying the mass of an object having the measured weight ON EARTH.
 
For clarity, here's an example:

If you took your scale to Jupiter, where you weigh FAR more than you do on earth, the weigh scale would show you as having a much higher mass than your actual mass. That is because it would be displaying the mass an object would have to have in order to have such a large weight on earth. The labelling of the tick marks on the scale would be quite literally incorrect (for Jupiter), and this weigh scale would be useless as an instrument for determining mass by measuring weight.

MORAL: It's dangerous to infer mass from weight unless you know how strong the gravitational field you're in is.
 
Ok, so it measures weight but shows mass.
MORAL: It's dangerous to infer mass from weight unless you know how strong the gravitational field you're in is.
And you also need to know how is calibrated the spring into the scale, more precisely you need to know the value of g that it has been assigned to use for the conversion weight-mass.
That mean that if one day I have to play with E=mc^2, m would be what shows the scale.
Thanks to both.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Grams vs. Newtons: Why Do I See Weights Measured in Grams?
Replies
17
Views
10K
Mass vs Mass as a Force (Weight)
5
Replies
202
Views
12K
I Apparent Weight problem (falling beam)
Replies
2
Views
2K
B How Does Inclined Load Affect Weight Distribution When Moving a Cabinet?
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Mass of Backpack in Moving Elevator
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Will This Friction Clamp Hold the Weight?
Replies
10
Views
2K
B Calculate needed dimensions of table - Center of mass, levers etc
Replies
11
Views
2K
Difference between weight and mass?
Replies
29
Views
7K
B Non-physicist needs your help torquing a nut!
Replies
9
Views
1K
What is the relationship between mass and weight?
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top