How can mass be measured independently of gravity?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between mass and weight, particularly in the context of the formula Mgh, which is often misinterpreted. Participants clarify that while scales may display mass in kilograms, they actually measure weight, which is influenced by gravity. When using scales on different celestial bodies, such as the Moon, the readings would differ due to varying gravitational forces, although the mass remains constant. The conversation also touches on the calibration of scales and the potential confusion surrounding units like kgm versus kg. Ultimately, the thread invites further exploration of methods to measure mass independently of gravity.
saddlestone-man
Messages
80
Reaction score
20
TL;DR Summary
Does the formula Mgh contain the acceleration due to gravity twice?
Hello

The formula Mgh is commonly accepted as the work done by raising a mass by a distance h, where M is defined as the mass of the object raised.

However, is this really the mass, or the weight, simply obtained by weighing the object? If it's the weight, then doesn't the equation effectively contain the acceleration due to gravity twice?

best regards ... Stef
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It's the mass of the object, not the weight.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Many thanks.

So to be clear, I would have to weight the object and then divide this by 9.8 to get the mass?
 
That's right.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Most balances are calibrated in kg, so they are indicating mass. A true weight meter would give a calibration in Newtons. In such a case it is correct to divide by 9.8, but otherwise not.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Ah OK, that's interesting, and confusing.

The scales I'm using are for weighing items to go into the post. They are giving a reading in kgm.

But surely if I used the scales on the Moon, then they would give a reading of 1/6 what it was on Earth, whereas the mass of the object would stay the same.
 
  • Like
Likes anorlunda
saddlestone-man said:
Ah OK, that's interesting, and confusing.

The scales I'm using are for weighing items to go into the post. They are giving a reading in kgm.

But surely if I used the scales on the Moon, then they would give a reading of 1/6 what it was on Earth, whereas the mass of the object would stay the same.
That's a problem that will have to be solved when there is a postal service to and from the Moon.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes tech99, russ_watters and berkeman
Very witty.

It avoids the question of whether the scales are measuring mass or weight.
 
saddlestone-man said:
It avoids the question of whether the scales are measuring mass or weight.
Since simple scales use compressing springs and displacement to measure the object, they are measuring force directly, no? So that would be a weight measurement (F=ma=kΔx). If the scale is used on the surface of the Earth, you can correlate that weight measurement with the associated mass and display whichever you want.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
saddlestone-man said:
... The scales I'm using are for weighing items to go into the post. They are giving a reading in kgm.
...
Your scale may show the kg symbol, rather than kgm.
That symbol means kilogram-force.
Please, see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force

postal2.jpg
 
  • #11
As far as I know, [kgm] is an old days way of writing [kg], because [lbf] (pound-force) can be confused with [lbm] (pound-mass) if one writes just [lb], due to the way "weight" and "mass" are mixed up in the English language. So scales would be marked with [lbm] to indicate it's already discounting gravity from the measurement, thus it's mass, and when converting to [kg], it was customary to write [kgm] (kilogram-mass, not kilogram-meter) to match the same thought process.

It's not normally used outside English speaking countries, as most of the world uses SI units, where [kg] is never spelled as [kgm], as that's an American-Anglo-Saxon thing. When SI users see [kg], they never think [kgf], thus [kgm] only muddle things up due to the default interpretation of "m" as meaning "meter", not "mass", whilst in Imperial units, "m" is mass, as "meter" is replaced by either [yd], [ft] or [in].
 
  • Informative
Likes PeroK
  • #12
saddlestone-man said:
Very witty.

It avoids the question of whether the scales are measuring mass or weight.
Witty, but correct. The direct answer is that they are calibrated for use on Earth's surface and if they are sent to the moon or even a mountain top they need to be recalibrated.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #13
saddlestone-man said:
Summary: Does the formula Mgh contain the acceleration due to gravity twice?

However, is this really the mass, or the weight, simply obtained by weighing the object? If it's the weight, then doesn't the equation effectively contain the acceleration due to gravity twice?
You might enjoy a mental exercise. How would you measure mass independent of gravity? Swinging a mass in a circle at the end of a string
comes to mind. What other ways can you think of?
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
724
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
Back
Top