How can mass be measured independently of gravity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the measurement of mass and weight, particularly in the context of the formula Mgh and its implications. Participants explore whether the formula incorporates gravity twice and how mass can be measured independently of gravitational effects. The conversation touches on theoretical and practical aspects of mass measurement, including the use of scales and the implications of different gravitational environments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the formula Mgh represents mass or weight, suggesting it may contain the acceleration due to gravity twice.
  • One participant asserts that the scales typically indicate mass, while another clarifies that true weight meters would display measurements in Newtons.
  • There is a discussion about the readings of scales on different celestial bodies, with one participant noting that mass remains constant while weight changes due to varying gravitational forces.
  • Some participants argue that simple scales measure force directly, which correlates to weight, and thus question the calibration of scales for mass versus weight.
  • A participant mentions the historical context of using kgm to denote mass and how this terminology can lead to confusion, especially in different measurement systems.
  • One participant proposes a mental exercise on measuring mass independently of gravity, suggesting methods like swinging a mass in a circle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether scales measure mass or weight, and there is no consensus on the implications of the formula Mgh. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best methods to measure mass independently of gravity.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding due to varying definitions of mass and weight, as well as the calibration of scales in different gravitational contexts. The conversation reflects a mix of historical terminology and modern scientific standards.

saddlestone-man
Messages
80
Reaction score
20
TL;DR
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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 ·
Replies
3
Views
960
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
16K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K