Newtons vs. Pounds: Why Do We Use Them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alyafey22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Newtons
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the relationship between Newtons and pounds, emphasizing that they are units of force from different measurement systems: Newtons from the metric (SI) system and pounds from the Imperial system. The Imperial system predates the metric system, which was developed to provide a more systematic approach to measurements. The equivalence of 1 pound to approximately 4.45 Newtons is not based on fundamental laws but rather historical conventions. The pound's origin is traced back to the weight of ancient silver coins, specifically linked to barley grains. Overall, the conversation highlights the historical context behind these units rather than a strict mathematical relationship.
alyafey22
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
2
it was really tough to me to understand the relationship between the Newtons and Pounds, not in mathematical term that lb=4.45 N , but I always find problems to understand why do people use it >>> and why Pound does equal approximately half of Newton << I mean what is the first to be found ?? Newtons or Pounds ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They come from two totally different unit systems. The Newton is the unit of force in the metric (a.k.a. SI) unit system. The pound is the unit of force in the British/Imperial/American (whatever you want to call it) system of units. The Imperial system came first. The metric system came later and it was an attempt to create a new unit system that defined things in a more systematic and useful way.

I don't know what you mean by "why Pound does equal approximately half of Newton." It doesn't. In fact, you just stated above that that 1 lb = 4.45 N.
 
Yeah I don't think there's some mathematical reason driven by fundamental laws that 1 lb = 4.45 N. Most likely some guy a few hundred years ago decided that the weight of his left shoe will be now called a "pound". Perhaps because his name was "Pound" or perhaps it had some other meaning at the time.

He was probably famous or smart or both, so people listened to him and there you have it, the pound was born.

Then later someone put the left shoe on a metric scale and it happened to weigh .45kg.
 
The pound weight can be traced back to the weight of ancient silver pennies needed to make a "moneyer's" pound. The weight of this original silver penny was in turn derived from even older Arabic silver coins which were specified to be minted at a weight of 45 full grown barley grains. So the pound weight was in fact 45*20*12 divide 2 (see note) = 5400 full grown barley grains.

Note. At some point the coin sizes were halved to conserve silver, hence the divide by two.
 
uart said:
The pound weight can be traced back to the weight of ancient silver pennies needed to make a "moneyer's" pound. The weight of this original silver penny was in turn derived from even older Arabic silver coins which were specified to be minted at a weight of 45 full grown barley grains. So the pound weight was in fact 45*20*12 divide 2 (see note) = 5400 full grown barley grains.

Note. At some point the coin sizes were halved to conserve silver, hence the divide by two.

thanks very much that was pretty convincing
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...
Back
Top