What is the purpose of two units of mass in the Imperial system?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisbroward
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the use of two units of mass in the Imperial system: pound-mass (lb-m) and slug. Participants highlight that while slugs simplify force calculations (1 slug * 1 ft/s² = 1 lbf), the duality of units can lead to misunderstandings, particularly in engineering and physics contexts. The conversation emphasizes the historical roots of these units and the preference for SI units among scientists, suggesting that familiarity with both systems is essential for students and professionals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Imperial units, specifically pound-mass (lb-m) and slug.
  • Basic knowledge of force calculations in physics (e.g., Newton's second law).
  • Familiarity with SI units and their applications in scientific contexts.
  • Awareness of historical context regarding measurement systems and their evolution.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the differences between Imperial and SI units, focusing on mass and force.
  • Learn about the historical development of measurement systems, including the Weights and Measures Act of 1824.
  • Explore conversion techniques and tools for various measurement units used in science and engineering.
  • Investigate the implications of using different measurement systems in engineering design and physics problems.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics and engineering students, educators, and professionals who navigate between Imperial and SI units in their work. It provides insights into the historical context and practical applications of these measurement systems.

chrisbroward
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
What's even the point of putting lb-m in most loading or force problems? Why can't we just stick to one unit.
I'll see pound-mass (lb-m) & slug.
I'm an undergrad student and always confuse between the two at times. It seems to me slug is a lot easier to use at times (given its easy conversion into force for most problems) (i.e 1 slug * 1 ft/s^2 = 1 lbf)

What's even the point of putting lb-m in most loading or force problems? Why can't we just stick to one unit.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The SI system manages to avoid most of those basic problems. I realise that comment doesn't help you but having a word that stands for both mass and force is confusing.

The problem goes right back to Galileo when people hadn't found the distinction between Mass, Weight, Momentum and Energy. Your two quoted terms / units in the question are used because of the general ignorance about this many hundred years old problem.

Basically, I'd say you have to avoid getting cross about this and just be bi-lingual about it. Avoid taking up a career where Imperial Units rule (if you can). :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint, DaveE, difalcojr and 1 other person
Real scientists use SI.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc and Frabjous
Baluncore said:
Real scientists use SI.
Can't say I use much SI besides in my Physics I & II

In most of the classes related to engineering & design. It's almost exclusively in British Units. kip, psi, psf, lbf*in, mile, yard, etc.
 
chrisbroward said:
Can't say I use much SI besides in my Physics I & II

In most of the classes related to engineering & design. It's almost exclusively in British Units. kip, psi, psf, lbf*in, mile, yard, etc.
Then you are probably in the USA, not Britain or the EU.
Those are US customary units.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, Astronuc and Lnewqban
When I finished my physics bachelors, I went to do my masters in engineering. I thought the units were funny - things like gallons per minute. But you know what? They all work just fine. I admit: pounds mass, pounds force, and where to put the 32.2 are confusing. Well, they are confusing until you figure out what's going on.

Baluncore said:
Real scientists use SI.
Well, I think that's overstating things. I still see "MeV" used a lot, for example. And how about the cosmology / GR guys? from thread https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-about-the-big-ben-paradox.1057911/post-6973643: (emphasis added)
Dale said:
I wanted to add the actual GR math. The outcome of this is exactly as everyone who has any experience in GR said. Indeed, from first principles it could be no other way. But I had time yesterday to play around with this. All equations are using geometrized units where c=G=1.

We start with the weak field metric in cylindrical coordinates: ...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc, DaveE and difalcojr
chrisbroward said:
TL;DR Summary: What's even the point of putting lb-m in most loading or force problems? Why can't we just stick to one unit.
I suggest you start amassing many conversion sheets for all the different units used in all the many different sciences. Start a 'units' folder, you'll need conversions for future problem solving too. It will grow. Measurement units can be very confusing.

I like an old 1974 book, "The World of Measurements" by H. Arthur Klein. He examines and explains your question well. Out of print, but there are probably others, newer, that also explain the unit measurements, some history, and conversions needed to get to other measurement systems.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213 and Lnewqban
difalcojr said:
I suggest you start amassing many conversion sheets for all the different units used in all the many different sciences.
That would require a lot of dedication. There is a wide choice of websites with conversions between almost all units known to man. As you say, there are a number of books that discuss the history of unit and measurements but don't think in terms of reading them from cover to cover.

The OP should realise that the point in using multiple units is to reconcile the results of different paths through history. People can be very resistant to change and old habits die hard.
chrisbroward said:
It's almost exclusively in British Units.
They are not "British Units". The name is "Imperial" because, with the exception of the weights of babies and quantity of beer (oh yes - and mph), you can live your life in the UK without touching feet and inches. It's amazing that the US left the Empire hundreds of year ago but they are still in love with 17/64", thou's and Farenheit. Such hard work. Just look at what's used by NASA, Bell Labs and JPL; that's the way to go.

In school, I went through fps then cgi then mks but came to rest in SI. Bliss
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213 and difalcojr
  • #10
chrisbroward said:
In most of the classes related to engineering & design. It's almost exclusively in British Units. kip, psi, psf, lbf*in, mile, yard, etc.
sophiecentaur said:
They are not "British Units". The name is "Imperial" because, with the exception of the weights of babies and quantity of beer (oh yes - and mph), you can live your life in the UK without touching feet and inches.
It's even worse than that, the US does not use Imperial units for volumes - US liquid pints, quarts and gallons are all smaller than the Imperial units with the same names, but US fl oz are larger! And that doesn't even cover the US dry pints, quarts and gallons!

The correct term is "US customary units".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213, PeterDonis and difalcojr
  • #11
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213, diogenesNY and difalcojr
  • #12
sophiecentaur said:
They are not "British Units".
What about the BTU? :smile:
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: diogenesNY and sophiecentaur
  • #13
Wiki the weights and measures act of 1824.

Just which empire does anyone think the "imperial" moniker refers to?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
  • #14
My high school teacher had a 19th century algebra book and would now and again give us problems out of it, One involved converting Danish ells to French ells to Swedish ells etc. Back in the day, it was importtamt to convert between these differing national standards.

Now with SI, things are less...um...ellish.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213, Astronuc, sophiecentaur and 1 other person
  • #15
1980:
20240129_175739.jpg

2024:
20240129_175827.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and difalcojr
  • #16
If I had to start again an undergraduate physics, engineering or other science course of studies, I would want, first thing, an introduction course in metrology. First thing. An overall view of all the different units would be very helpful in further studies. An overview would be very useful to avoid questions like that valid question posed in this thread.
The book I mentioned above even could be a course textbook, it is just that good. Encyclopedic, informative, fun. I went to school when only hand calculators were in use, no computers, so I photocopied many conversion charts. Haliday/Resnick physics texts had good conversion charts in the appendixes.
 
  • #17
difalcojr said:
. I went to school when only hand calculators were in use, no computers, so I photocopied many conversion charts.
You need to 'get some time in' my boy. A book of four figure log tables was all we had and copying by hand was the only thing available. Godfrey and Siddons Twelfth Edition (a cherished Christmas present) was my source of that sort of info. The units in there were not suitable for today, of course.

Eee it were tough in them days.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213, difalcojr and gmax137
  • #18
gmax137 said:
Wiki the weights and measures act of 1824.

Just which empire does anyone think the "imperial" moniker refers to?
The British Empire really did rule the waves and most of the units, although the French had the kilogram first. But they were busy cutting people's heads off at the time. (I happen to be in the middle of 'A tale of two cities' at present. Dickens doesn't mention anything about Physical Units apart from quarts of madeira etc..
 
  • #19
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, but now we have SI.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc
  • #20
Baluncore said:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, but now we have SI.
Please Sir, I want some more.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213 and Baluncore
  • #21
And to complete this discussion:

us_survey_foot.png


Subway refuses to answer my questions about whether it's an International Footlong or a US Survey Footlong. A milligram of sandwich is at stake!
 
  • Haha
  • Love
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213, Ranger Mike, Astronuc and 2 others
  • #22
Yes, absolutely, and why not also blame the ones who were at the start of the units problems?
The cubit wasn't good enough. Nooooo, they had to have a "royal" cubit.
 
  • #23
chrisbroward said:
TL;DR Summary: What's even the point of putting lb-m in most loading or force problems? Why can't we just stick to one unit.

I'm an undergrad student and always confuse between the two at times. It seems to me slug is a lot easier to use at times (given its easy conversion into force for most problems) (i.e 1 slug * 1 ft/s^2 = 1 lbf)
Oh boy are we really complaining of imperial units of mass? Wait until you see how many units of magnetic field there are in cgs units. I can only wonder what kind of abomination would have come from the imperial units if it had electromagnetic units.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: difalcojr
  • #24
jack action said:
And to complete this discussion:
Very timely, but Randall would probably appreciate a link: https://xkcd.com/2888/
 
  • #25
difalcojr said:
I suggest you start amassing many conversion sheets for all the different units
google. That's the one thing is does nearly perfectly.
 
  • #26
DaveE said:
google. That's the one thing is does nearly perfectly.
What is the current exchange rate between the USD and the brass razoo?
 
  • #27
chrisbroward said:
TL;DR Summary: What's even the point of putting lb-m in most loading or force problems? Why can't we just stick to one unit.
1707066660941.jpeg

Physics/engineering undergraduate student's starter kit for the physical sciences. 1976 style. :smile:
Except for the slide rule and U.S. math tables (also a 12th edition; 5 figure tables!) 17/64th scale ruler.
SI units were in full use then, too, but complete globalization to SI can never happen, as you all point out.
Texas Instruments and HP calculators were great tools, especially the programmable ones.
The change from slide rule to calculator (handheld computer) was just revolutionary.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: morrobay and Lnewqban
  • #29
difalcojr said:
View attachment 339767
Physics/engineering undergraduate student's starter kit for the physical sciences. 1976 style. :smile:
Except for the slide rule and U.S. math tables (also a 12th edition; 5 figure tables!) 17/64th scale ruler.
SI units were in full use then, too, but complete globalization to SI can never happen, as you all point out.
Texas Instruments and HP calculators were great tools, especially the programmable ones.
The change from slide rule to calculator (handheld computer) was just revolutionary.
I've still use my photon powered calculator from 1975 or so. It looks exactly the same as it did then.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: difalcojr
  • #30
Hornbein said:
I've still use my photon powered calculator from 1975 or so.
Do you have room for it in your pocket, plus the Garmin GPS, the cell phone and the 1MB digital camera?
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: difalcojr

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
21K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K