Mass vs Mass as a Force (Weight)

In summary, the conversation discusses the difference between mass and weight and the use of different units to measure them. It is explained that mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, while weight is a measure of the force exerted on an object by gravity. The conversation also mentions the use of different units, such as Kg, g, mg, and Mg, to describe weight and the confusion surrounding their use. It is mentioned that the SI committee is responsible for deciding on these units. The conversation also touches on the use of balance scales and spring scales to measure weight and how they are calibrated. Finally, the conversation raises the question of how we know the mass of an object and whether it is based on Earth's gravity.
  • #141
weirdoguy said:
Can you provide a reference to physics textbook which calls mass "weight"?
Perhaps you should query everybody who is defending the use of “weight” to mean mass.

I have been arguing this whole time to drop that silly convention because it results in threads like this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
pbuk said:
...you assert that weight is used inconsistently in science...
That is not at all what I am asserting.

I have, and still do, asserted that “weight” is used inconsistently which leads to these threads. The fact that everybody keeps making straw men up about what I am asserting is further proof why language should strive for parity.

Instead of just coining better words, people want to hold on to old terms that require constant modification which creates extra levels of unnecessary cognition.

It is what it is, but it is also illogical.
 
  • #143
A Mass is a mass and a force is a force. That's it. I also don't understand, why this is an issue worth of 142 postings either.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes rsk, symbolipoint, Digcoal and 4 others
  • #144
pbuk said:
you assert that weight is used inconsistently in science
Digcoal said:
That is not at all what I am asserting.

So what field of study were you referring to here:
Digcoal said:
Weigh and weight and weightless are all used differently within the same field of study.

And why did you not answer this question directly, but instead with a reference to an equation used in science?
pbuk said:
What field of study are you talking about?
Digcoal said:
The one that relates them in the same equation: F = m • a

weight (force) = weight (mass) • acceleration (gravity)

Do you realize that you are not communicating clearly?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Digcoal and weirdoguy
  • #145
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
  • Haha
Likes Digcoal
  • #146
After thread banning @Digcoal this thread is reopened in case the OP @LT72884 has any follow-up questions. OP hasn't posted since page 1 of the thread, but that may be because of the non-helpful direction Digcoal took the thread.
 
  • Love
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Motore, weirdoguy and Digcoal
  • #147
Mister T said:
The pound used in the USA is officially defined as 0.453 592 37 kg. As such, it is a unit of mass.
Dale said:
Yes, I agree. The mistaken belief that the pound is a unit of force comes directly from the engineering community

I would like to see some citations for this. In particular the definition of pound as a unit of mass.
My reading of the history is that the Mendenhall Order of 1893 simply codified the conventions of an earlier congressional act of 1866. Said earlier act listed in a table the equivalence of a kg and a liter of densest water and 2.2046 avoirdupois pounds as a standardization. Where does the official definition as mass come from...I can't find it.
 
  • Like
Likes Digcoal
  • #148
hutchphd said:
I would like to see some citations for this. In particular the definition of pound as a unit of mass.
My reading of the history is that the Mendenhall Order of 1893 simply codified the conventions of an earlier congressional act of 1866. Said earlier act listed in a table the equivalence of a kg and a liter of densest water and 2.2046 avoirdupois pounds as a standardization. Where does the official definition as mass come from...I can't find it.
See the last paragraph of section 1 here: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/calibrations/95-1-90.pdf

This has been the official definition of the pound since 1959. This Wikipedia article covers the history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_yard_and_pound and here is the official announcement from 1959 https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/frn-59-5442-1959.pdf
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes vanhees71, pbuk, Motore and 1 other person
  • #149
Dale said:
See the last paragraph of section 1 here:
Thanks @Dale I knew you would point me right.
I do note that the language in https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/calibrations/95-1-90.pdf
carefully qualifies this definition as the "U S Customary System of units for legal metrology" in addition to the SI units. This is significant because
a "legal metrology device" refers to a weighing or measuring device that is used to determine a quantity on which a charge is based for goods or service.

I think that allows us to not worry about it at all for scientific purposes and to never write that equivalence using a mathematical symbol (i.e. the equal sign). Very interesting..

.
 
  • #150
hutchphd said:
I think that allows us to not worry about it at all for scientific purposes
I agree with you there. The only point is that if you do decide to think about it in a scientific context then you should realize that the unqualified lb is a synonym for lbm not for lbf. But there certainly is no scientific need to use lb at all.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, pbuk and jbriggs444
  • #151
Digcoal said:
Are you now denying that “weight” is NOT used to denote mass in some cases and gravitationally induced force in others?

Edit: But to answer your question more directly: 32 pounds-force = 1 pound-mass • 32ft/s^2
I have never ever seen "weight" used to denote "mass" in the context of Newton's laws, no. Not even by middle and high school students.

My students (age 12 upwards) arrive using weight when they mean mass, but most only need to be told once that the everyday use of the word "weight" to mean mass is incorrect in Physics. That said, I have the great fortune to be teaching in Europe and therefore free from your lbs mass and lbs weight nonsense.
 
  • Like
Likes Motore, vanhees71, dextercioby and 1 other person
  • #152
rsk said:
I have never ever seen "weight" used to denote "mass" in the context of Newton's laws, no. Not even by middle and high school students.

My students (age 12 upwards) arrive using weight when they mean mass, but most only need to be told once that the everyday use of the word "weight" to mean mass is incorrect in Physics. That said, I have the great fortune to be teaching in Europe and therefore free from your lbs mass and lbs weight nonsense.
The terms better used to disambiguate the pound are "pound mass" and "pound force".

The term "pound weight" to denote a unit of measurement is itself ambiguous and would never be used to disambiguate anything. I cannot remember ever having seen that phrase used in that sense.

The term "pound weight" to denote a reference weight with a mass of one pound would be common. e.g. "Can you hand me that (one) pound weight over there?"

The term "weight in pounds" is used fairly commonly, but does not carry with it an indication of whether the intended meaning is force or mass. e.g. "Please enter your weight in pounds".
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #153
jbriggs444 said:
The term "weight in pounds" is used fairly commonly, but does not carry with it an indication of whether the intended meaning is force or mass. e.g. "Please enter your weight in pounds".
Of course the intended meaning is mass: you don't enter a different number depending on whether you are in Miami or Denver!
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #154
pbuk said:
Of course the intended meaning is mass: you don't enter a different number depending on whether you are in Miami or Denver!
Personally, I agree that mass is intended. But the accuracy with which any given person knows their weight, the size of the noon meal or the elapsed time since the last bathroom break are all probably at least as important as the magnitude of local g. It doesn't matter force or mass is intended -- both are essentially the same number.
 
  • #155
Quester said:
Now I am confused, again! Are you telling me that 10 pounds of potatoes have a mass of 10 lbm? I thought I would have to divide the 10 pounds by 32+ to approximate the mass in lbm.
@Quester I've been away, so sorry if this has already been answered. The answer is this: If you push on a one lbm object with a force of 1 lbf, it accelerates at... 32 ft/sec2. You can test this, by hanging the 1 lbm object by a string, anywhere here on earth, and watch what happens when you cut the string.

This is different than the SI system which previous posters have described as "coherent." In SI units, if you push on a 1 kg mass with a force of 1 Newton, the object will accelerate at... 1 m/sec2.

That's really what is at the heart of all the confusion.
 
  • #156
gmax137 said:
That's really what is at the heart of all the confusion.
In the world of the future, in which we easily hop from planet to planet and space station, we would have no confusion. As it is, Earthbound objects of a given mass will all weight the same (unless you have very expensive scales) and we have grown up to be very sloppy about this. That's been the problem.
 
  • #157
sophiecentaur said:
(unless you have very expensive scales)
NO! You mean "unless you have poorly calibrated scales".

It may be that the mechanism of a weighing scale measures force but that mechinism is calibrated in order to measure mass.

You don't get more flour in a 2lb bag in Denver than you do in Miami.
 
  • #158
pbuk said:
NO! You mean "unless you have poorly calibrated scales"

Oh lord we are in the semantic morass once again.

I guess one needs to carefully differentiate a "scale" from a "balance" when in this semantic morass.
A scale usually contains a source of calibrated electrical force for comparison.
A balance compares the unknown mass to a known mass (multiplied by mechanical advantage or not).

I believe that @sophiecentaur was saying that new planetary wide inconsistencies would not arise on Mars (although, on second thought, the mountains are taller and radius is smaller...).
 
  • #159
hutchphd said:
Oh lord we are in the semantic morass once again.
This is only a morass if you are lost in it: the way out should be clear.

Yes a balance compares an unknown mass to a known mass.

If a calibrated scale measures 'electrical force' (whatever that is) then it compares the electrical force produced by an unknown mass to that produced by a known mass.

And no, there won't be any inconsistencies between properly calibrated scales on Mars and on Earth any more than there are between Denver and Miami.
 
  • #160
pbuk said:
If a calibrated scale measures 'electrical force' (whatever that is) then it compares the electrical force produced by an unknown mass to that produced by a known mass.
Its easier to use than a nuclear strong force.
I guess I should have used the word "spring". I was attempting to be general when clearly I needed to be pedestrian.

.
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk
  • #161
sophiecentaur said:
As it is, Earthbound objects of a given mass will all weight the same (unless you have very expensive scales) and we have grown up to be very sloppy about this. That's been the problem.

By very expensive do you mean $25?

The difference in g between Anchorage, Alaska and Bangkok, Thailand is nearly 0.5%.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes sophiecentaur and hutchphd
  • #162
They say the cost of living in Bangkok is less than Anchorage...must be true!
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #163
When someone asks me "How much do you weigh?", I am tempted to say "I weigh the same as a 105kg mass", but instead I give the short answer they are expecting - namely "I weigh 105 kilograms" They already know that means "I weigh as much as a 105 kg mass".

btw: in this country 1 lb is also a mass, and something that weighs 2.2 lb means something that weighs the same as a 2.2 lb mass.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #164
gmax137 said:
@Quester I've been away, so sorry if this has already been answered. The answer is this: If you push on a one lbm object with a force of 1 lbf, it accelerates at... 32 ft/sec2. You can test this, by hanging the 1 lbm object by a string, anywhere here on earth, and watch what happens when you cut the string.

This is different than the SI system which previous posters have described as "coherent." In SI units, if you push on a 1 kg mass with a force of 1 Newton, the object will accelerate at... 1 m/sec2.

That's really what is at the heart of all the confusion.
Thank you for addressing the question. However, your answer doesn't help me. No matter what the mass of the object, the object will accelerate at a rate of (about) 32 ft/sec2 if dropped in a vacuum (to remove the effect of air resistance on very low density objects) .

If f = ma, and in the imperial system, acceleration due to gravity is about 32 ft/sec2, then:

f = 32m

so the force required to accelerate any mass at the acceleration of gravity would be equal to 32 times that mass. Ergo, to use the equation f=ma properly, I should divide the weight of an object by 32. Is that correct?
 
  • #165
Quester said:
Thank you for addressing the question. However, your answer doesn't help me. No matter what the mass of the object, the object will accelerate at a rate of (about) 32 ft/sec2 if dropped in a vacuum (to remove the effect of air resistance on very low density objects) .

If f = ma, and in the imperial system, acceleration due to gravity is about 32 ft/sec2, then:

f = 32m

so the force required to accelerate any mass at the acceleration of gravity would be equal to 32 times that mass. Ergo, to use the equation f=ma properly, I should divide the weight of an object by 32. Is that correct?
If you are choosing to express force in pounds force, mass in pounds mass and acceleration in feet per second2 then yes, you will need a unit conversion factor in ##f=ma## so that the formula reads ##f=\frac{1}{32.17}ma##.

If you chose to express force in pounds force, mass in slugs and acceleration in feet per second2 then the unit conversion factor becomes 1 and can be ignored.

Similarly, if you choose to express force in poundals, mass in pounds mass and acceleration in feet per second2 then the unit conversion factor becomes 1 and can be ignored.

Or you could choose to express force in pounds force, mass in pounds mass and acceleration in gees. Again, the unit conversion factor would become 1 and could be ignored.

If you use a system of units that is not coherent (for the problem you are working) then you will have to insert unit conversion factors into your formulas.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71, Bystander, Dale and 1 other person
  • #166
jbriggs444 said:
If you use a system of units that is not coherent (for the problem you are working) then you will have to insert unit conversion factors into your formulas.
...and I am grateful you did it so that I didn't have to. Just reading that makes my head hurt... 😁
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and jbriggs444
  • #167
Quester said:
I should divide the weight of an object by 32. Is that correct?
Yes. But can you see why?

$$f = a~(\frac {ft} {sec^2})~m~(lbm) = a~m~ \frac {lbm ft} {sec^2}$$

so here we have a force f, in units of lbm-ft/sec^2 which is non-standard. if we want the units in pound-force (lbf) then we divide by 32. Why? 32 what? 32 lbm ft/lbf-sec^2 (which is equal to "1")

$$f = a~(\frac {ft} {sec^2})~m~(lbm) = a~m~ \frac {lbm ft} {sec^2}~\frac{lbf~ sec^2}{32~ lbm ~ft}=\frac{a~m}{32}~ lbf$$

They key thing is to write all of the units for each quantity, to help you keep track of what conversion factor you need to use.

Now recall that the acceleration a has a value (here on Earth) of 32 ft/sec^2. So you end up with

$$f = a~(\frac {ft} {sec^2})~m~(lbm) = a~m~ \frac {lbm ft} {sec^2}~\frac{lbf~ sec^2}{32~ lbm ~ft}=\frac{a~m}{32}~ lbf = 32~\frac{m}{32} = m~ lbf$$

Which just shows that a one-pound mass weighs one pound force, here on Earth.
 
  • #168
It really is about time to go to SI units, I think. No one could confuse kg with N and the working value of 10 for g makes in-head calculations a doddle.
In UK the only crazy unit we use is the mile. The pint is not metric of course but it’s only used when nobody cares (about anything).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #169
I bet you guys still measure horses in "hands" :).
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #170
gmax137 said:
I bet you guys still measure horses in "hands" :).
The only horse I own is 'about the right height' for cutting logs with my little chain saw. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes gmax137
  • #171
sophiecentaur said:
The pint is not metric of course but it’s only used when nobody cares (about anything).
I don't know - haven't you ever seen a Real Ale enthusiast getting short measure?
 
  • #172
jbriggs444 said:
If you use a system of units that is not coherent (for the problem you are working) then you will have to insert unit conversion factors into your formulas.
Excellent point. The SI is coherent for mechanics problems but not for electromagnetic problems. So if you want to understand what that means you can compare Newton’s laws with Maxwell’s equations with all of its conversion factors in SI.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes sophiecentaur, vanhees71, jbriggs444 and 1 other person
  • #173
PeterO said:
When someone asks me "How much do you weigh?", I am tempted to say "I weigh the same as a 105kg mass"
So, would that mean you'd be tempted to say you weigh the same as a helium balloon with a mass of 105kg?

... discuss ...
 
  • #174
cmb said:
So, would that mean you'd be tempted to say you weigh the same as a helium balloon with a mass of 105kg?

... discuss ...
Most standards organizations prefer to calibrate scales with brass weights rather than helium balloons.
 
  • Haha
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #175
jbriggs444 said:
Most standards organizations prefer to calibrate scales with brass weights rather than helium balloons.
So, the comment to be a bit more specific? One may be the same weight as a 105kg mass of brass?

Raises a subtle and interesting question though, actually, I think?

In the case of PeterO's 105kg (let's assume that is precisely his mass), he would only weight precisely the same as a 105kg mass if it also had the same volume as him, else his weight would differ by the additional (or lesser) mass of the air displaced by the difference in volumes, would it not?
 
<h2>1. What is the difference between mass and weight?</h2><p>Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, while weight is a measure of the force of gravity acting on an object. Mass is a constant property of an object, while weight can vary depending on the strength of gravity.</p><h2>2. How are mass and weight related?</h2><p>Mass and weight are related through the force of gravity. The weight of an object is equal to its mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s^2 on Earth). This means that as an object's mass increases, its weight will also increase.</p><h2>3. Is mass the same as force?</h2><p>No, mass and force are not the same. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, while force is a measure of the push or pull on an object. However, weight can be thought of as a type of force since it is the force of gravity acting on an object's mass.</p><h2>4. How is mass measured?</h2><p>Mass is typically measured using a balance or scale. The most common unit of mass is the kilogram (kg), but it can also be measured in grams (g) or other units such as pounds (lbs) or ounces (oz).</p><h2>5. Can an object have different masses but the same weight?</h2><p>Yes, an object can have different masses but the same weight if it is in a different gravitational environment. For example, an object that weighs 10 pounds on Earth would weigh less on the moon due to the moon's weaker gravitational pull. However, its mass would remain the same.</p>

1. What is the difference between mass and weight?

Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, while weight is a measure of the force of gravity acting on an object. Mass is a constant property of an object, while weight can vary depending on the strength of gravity.

2. How are mass and weight related?

Mass and weight are related through the force of gravity. The weight of an object is equal to its mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s^2 on Earth). This means that as an object's mass increases, its weight will also increase.

3. Is mass the same as force?

No, mass and force are not the same. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, while force is a measure of the push or pull on an object. However, weight can be thought of as a type of force since it is the force of gravity acting on an object's mass.

4. How is mass measured?

Mass is typically measured using a balance or scale. The most common unit of mass is the kilogram (kg), but it can also be measured in grams (g) or other units such as pounds (lbs) or ounces (oz).

5. Can an object have different masses but the same weight?

Yes, an object can have different masses but the same weight if it is in a different gravitational environment. For example, an object that weighs 10 pounds on Earth would weigh less on the moon due to the moon's weaker gravitational pull. However, its mass would remain the same.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
789
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Mechanics
Replies
10
Views
939
Replies
32
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
816
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Mechanics
Replies
27
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top