[10 Ringer']

Okay, so at least the concensus in 1970s America was that switching over to the metric system was just too difficult, but why bullet and casing measurements are made in grains is beyond me. I was wondering if someone would explain 1) what a grain is actually equivilant to in an understandable measure -metric or English system- and 2) a little bit of history as to where "grains" comes from and why we use it instead of something as precise for small weight measurements as metric? Thanks.

[Nightcrawler]

I'd like to know how many grains are in an ounce. I can never remember.

I'm willing to bet that the unit of measurement came from, like, grains of rice, or wheat, or something.

[Hkmp5sd]

1 grain is 0.0648 grams

OR

1 gram is 15.43 grains

OR

1 ounce is 437.5 grains

OR

1 grain is 0.00228 ounces

OR

1 pound is 7000 grains

[Kruzr]

"The grain was the earliest unit of mass and is the smallest unit in the apothecary, avoirdupois, Tower, and Troy systems. The early unit was a grain of wheat or barleycorn used to weigh the precious metals silver and gold. Larger units preserved in stone standards were developed that were used as both units of mass and of monetary currency."

7000 grains to the pound in Avoirdupois.......which is what we use.
437.5 grains per ounce in Avoirdupois (16 oz/lb.)

5760 grains to the pound in the Troy system.
480 grains per Troy ounce. (12 oz./lb.)

[CWL]

The basic unit of weight in the British system is the grain - based on the weight of a grain of barley (but note that money was based on the grain of wheat - and that three grains of barley weigh the same as four of wheat). This grain is the troy grain - there is no other weight of the same name.

Quote taken from here:

http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html

[telomerase]

...measure in drams, a unit even more peculiar than grains.

Anyway if you're on the Internet you can find conversion charts easily enough.

[Archie]

It's the handiest size unit for bullets and powder charges.

For instance, 3 grains of Bullseye is 0.1943967 grams or 0.0068571 ounces. 50 grains of 4895 is 3.2399455 grams or 0.1142857 ounces.

Bullets aren't as bad. 230 grain bullet is 14.9037493 grams or 0.5257143 ounces.

With grains, one can deal in whole units (well, down to tenths at times) instead of .0007815 somethings.

[Standing Wolf]

...the concensus in 1970s America was that switching over to the metric system was just too difficult...

It wasn't too difficult: it was just stupid.

[M67]

With grains, one can deal in whole units (well, down to tenths at times) instead of .0007815 somethings. This from a country that thinks 19/27 of an inch is a convenient measurement. :)
Archie, if 3 grains is better than 0.1943967 grams, then surely 1 gram must also be better than 15,432099 grains?
It wasn't too difficult: it was just stupid. In every other country on the face of the earth schoolchildren learn how use the metric system before they are 8. In the US, rocket scientists smash a probe into a million pieces on the surface of Mars because they couldn't figure out how to divide and multiply by ten... There is only one possible explanation, the system is stupid. :D

Actually, the metric system is probably the only good ting ever to come out of France. The fact that presumably intelligent people like 10 Ringer and Nightcrawler, who can both spel and tipe, have to ask how many grains there are in an ounce, says quite a bit about the English system, and why even the English have converted.

The metric system is neither difficult nor stupid. All you have to do is figure out how to move the decimal point. But there is of course the argument to end all discussion: "Not invented here". And if God had intended Americans to use the metric system, He would have given them 10 fingers... no flames please, I'm just paraphrasing one of the moderators on this very forum. I won't mention names in case she doesn't want to be confronted with such statements from her past. :p

[C.R.Sam]

What Archie said....Grains are handier for small masses or weights.

Shotshells have long been loaded by weight of powder, in grains. With the loads often expressed in Drams equivalant. Drams a bulk measure from the old days of using calibrated scoops of black powder.

The rocket failed not because of an inability to use base ten but by virtue of some specs being written with inch measurement and others written with metric measurement. And the discrepency not being noted during producton.

Base ten , metric , is good.
Base six, in many cases is more natural and far older but rarely used except in precise navigation. Degrees, minutes, seconds etc.

Sam

[Oracle]

Grains are used in measuring powder, bullets, etc. probably because that's how it's been done for a long time, and we just continue to use the same system, on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle.

[Kobun]

And if God had intended Americans to use the metric system, He would have given them 10 fingers...
HAHAHA
This board is getting funnier every day!
Why watch TV when you can read all the stuff you guys come up with! :p

[Majic]

The difficulty in changing over to the metric system in USA failed because of all the conversions needed to make the change. The system itself is simple, but converting required numerous factors to be used to address all of the different units of measure.

[Parker Dean]

IMO, the real reason that the US failed to convert to the metric system is that no one here wanted it. The whole episode felt like it was being rammed down our throats whether we liked it or not. So much so that sentiments against changing were expressed in much the same manner "cold dead hands" is now.

[Nightcrawler]

Bluntly.

What difference does it make whether or not our road signs are in miles or kilometers?

Scientists and such use metric units for measure. So does the military (except in things like demolitions calculations, in which case the entire doctrine was done in imperial units, and converting to metric would be more trouble than it's worth).

Basically, converting to the metric system would be more trouble than it's worth. The expense of replacing every road sign in the country alone would be staggering.

If Europe is mad that we won't fall in and be just like them...well, so much the better. :D

And, frankly, grains IS more convenient for bullet weights, and the entire doctrine and study of developing cartridge loadings in the US is based on imperial units. Again, converting would be more trouble than it's worth.

And 230 grains is a lot easier to use than 14.9037493 grams.

[WheelMan]

How about 149 decigrams? Is that better? ;)

[Dave P]

Okay, so at least the concensus in 1970s America was that switching over to the metric system was just too difficult


So why are my kids still struggling with this alien concept in school??:fire:

[M67]

If Europe is mad that we won't fall in and be just like them...well, so much the better. Sorry to disappoint you, Nightcrawler. We couldn't care less. Don't confuse "I care" with "I enjoy yankin' your chain". :D

And 230 grains is a lot easier to use than 14.9037493 grams. Except that a "metric" 230-grainer would weigh 15 grams.
If you want to figure out the muzzle energy of a 230 grain bullet, you first have to find out that 230 grains is the same as 0.032857143 pounds. 15 grams is the same as 0.015 kg.

But you are right, it makes no difference which units we use, as long as we are all on the same page. The trouble arises if different measurements are mixed up, as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory did. Yes, Sam, I know what happened, I just tried to be sarcastic.

Because I read American literature on the subject and use a mix of American made and European made reloading supplies and equipment, I actually use a mix of English and metric measurements myself. I live in a country that has been metric for more than 130 years and never used the English system in the first place. I still know how many grains there are to the pound and how many inches to the foot - and I know how to convert that to units that actually has some meaning in the real world.

There are remnants of several systems for counting and measuring still in use today:
Base five - the way we count by making four lines with a diagonal for every fifth.
Base twelve - dozen.
Base twenty - score. In Danish and French they still count using 20 as an "assisting" base number.
Base sixty - the clock, the circle, a five thousand year old heritage from the Babylonians.
Base two, base sixteen - computer nerd stuff without a historical connection that I know of.

I'm sure there are lots of other examples. And when it comes to people, some are of course just base. :p

[BrokenPaw]

This thread reminds me of a footnote in Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett's Good Omens, which is a marvelous book if you actually have a sense of humour: NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:
Two Farthings = One Ha'penny. Two Ha'pennies = One Penny. Three Pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and One Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.
The British resisted decimalised currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated.Just my 0.0079365079365079365079365079365079 guinea.
-BP

[Penforhire]

The same argument that grains are convenient because of whole number use makes an even better argument for milligrams (mg), a unit I often use at work. I say boycott grains!

Too bad America hasn't been able to go metric. SI units really do make more sense.

[STW]

The basic unit of weight in the British system is the grain - based on the weight of a grain of barley

As an aside, shoe sizes are based on the length of a grain of barley, suggesting that barley must have been a lot more important than it is now.
(It just occurred to me that beer drinkers may think barley mighty important even today.):barf:

[Nightcrawler]

There IS a lot of American tradition involved, too, and like I said, we're all on the same page anyways, so it really doesn't matter what units our roads are measured in.

Can you imagine a bunch of American bikers talking about how fast their Harleys will go [snooty oxford accent]"zero to one hundred kilometres per hour"[/snooty oxford accent]?

Just doesn't seem RIGHT.

But, of course, if you WANT to use the metric system, knock yourself out. Your car's speedometer almost certainly has kilometers on it, and you can measure your reloading stuff in milligrams and your muzzle energy in joules if you want. No one's stopping you.

But, I think in miles. So I use miles. *Shrug*

[Oleg Volk]

After 14.5 years in the US, I still think in metric units...

[Archie]

But so do I.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With grains, one can deal in whole units (well, down to tenths at times) instead of .0007815 somethings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This from a country that thinks 19/27 of an inch is a convenient measurement.Hey! The barrel on my revolver is 2 7/19 inches! Show a little respect.

Archie, if 3 grains is better than 0.1943967 grams, then surely 1 gram must also be better than 15,432099 grains?I prefer using significant figures without exponents. So, FOR THIS PARTICULAR TASK, I prefer 3 grains to 194 x 10^-3 grams. Perhaps as Penforhire suggested, milligrams would be suitable.
There are many of us US types who would be aghast at dumping 194 units of Bullseye into a 38 Special casing, but we would adapt. Eventually.

The metric system is neither difficult nor stupid. All you have to do is figure out how to move the decimal point.M, I have to agree with you about the ease of the metric system. I used to be an embarkation NCO and dealt with size of boxes and vehicles and such relative to the size of openings and storage areas.
I can well attest to the difficulty of determining the volume of a room that is "X feet, x inches by Y feet, y inches by Z feet, z inches". (I converted to decimal feet.) It would be so much easier in meters.

Actually, the bruhaha in the 70s was rather late; Thomas Jefferson suggested we switch to metric at the time of the American Revolution. Our revolutionaries could deal with getting rid of King George, but balked at dumping the inch.

There is a problem of conversion. All the reloading data (manuals) I have is listed in english units. Most show case diagrams in both systems. (Okay, the Norma bullets have gram weights as well.) My scale is calibrated in grains, and will convert to grams.
There is the difficulty of mechanics' tools. Most American cars are made in english units. I think that is slowly changing, but it won't be done with a magic wand.
People also are slow to change because the english system is "familiar". Most folks really don't know how much a pound weighs, but they think they do. Most folks can estimate a foot of lenth and come within 10-15 %. No one uses rods or furlongs anymore, except for horse race enthusiasts.

Finally. I agree the metric system is superior. However, I refuse to trade my 45 ACP for an 11.48 SMP (Standardised Metric Pistol)!

[Bruce H]

The only place grains are still used for measure in in firearms as far as I can tell. How is this a bad thing? We have our own unit of measure that we all comprehend. Very few are at a loss when hearing the term. Why complicate something that can be very dangerous if not followed properly?

[telomerase]

>If you want to figure out the muzzle energy of a 230 grain bullet, you first have to find out that 230 grains is the same as 0.032857143 pounds.

Which won't do you any good. Pounds are a unit of FORCE, not MASS. The English-system unit of mass is the slug.

And if you're a European laughing at the dumb Americans who don't know that you can't use pounds to measure mass, go read your European tires... most of them say "kg/cm2"... which is trying to use a mass unit to measure a force.

I don't know what the moral of all this is, except that if education were private most people would know elementary physics by the time they were 12. I feel the years I was incarcerated in the American publik skools would have been better spent breaking rocks.

[BunsenH]

<in my best condecending teacher voice> Children lets not forget our significant digits.

230 grain is NOT equal to 14.9037493 gram unless that 230 grain was measuered acurately as 230.000000 grain. That's not very likely. 230 grain as actually more like 14.9 gram or if you prefer 149 decigram. So the rediculous strings of worthless digits are just that, rediculous.

230 grain is 14.9g.
115 grain is 7.45g.
147 grain is 9.53g.
158 grain is 10.2g.

Each is three digits to remember. Not too tough.

Significant Figures Rant Off.

Grains are used for bullet weights. It's just that way historically so as long as everyone that matters agrees, we don't really need to change.

[Mike Irwin]

I have a couple of European references that show weights in grams.

The one closest at hand is Jean Huon's "Military Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridges".

Shows bullet and cartridge weights in grams.

Once you remember that gr. means grams, you're on the money.

[Mike Irwin]

"And if you're a European laughing at the dumb Americans who don't know that you can't use pounds to measure mass, go read your European tires... most of them say "kg/cm2"... which is trying to use a mass unit to measure a force."

Telo,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that based on the same principle used to measure atmospheric pressure? X number of inches of mercury can be translated directly to atmospheric pressure in pounds per square inch, correct?

It's been such a long time since high school sciences... My head hurts. Must be an increase in cranial pressure. Or would it be mass?

BLAM!

Ouch. Cerebral blowout!

[BrokenPaw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that based on the same principle used to measure atmospheric pressure? X number of inches of mercury can be translated directly to atmospheric pressure in pounds per square inch, correct? Mike, you can use inches of mercury - to - psi comparison because both are using weight (versus mass) measurements. A column of mercury of a given height under normal earth gravity will weigh a given amount, and if you divide that weight over the surface area of the cross section of the column, you get a pounds-per-square-inch value.

You can't use kg/cm2, because kilograms are a unit of mass, not weight. A kilogram of lead on the moon is still a kilogram of lead (even though it weighs different amounts on the earth and on the moon). A pound is a unit of force (and thus, mass times acceleration). 1 pound is equal to a given amount of mass under 1G of acceleration (32.2ft/sec2), or, equivalently, less mass under greater acceleration( higher gravity), or more mass under lower acceleration (such as on the moon).

The metric unit of force is the newton, which equals 1kg (m/s2), or one kilogram of mass accelerated at 1 meter per second squared. If the tires were to be marked properly, they'd have to be marked in N/cm2, not kg.

Or they could be marked in psi, the way all right-thinking folks do it. :D

-BP, weighing in

[WheelMan]

kg/cm^2 is a just as valid a unit as psi or N/cm^2, instead of measuring pressure it measures "area density" which is a perfectly fine unit to describe the amount of air in a tire provided you have a tire gauge that reads such units. Of course you still don't need one as long as your car stays on earth because kg/cm^2 and N/cm^2 are equivalent in all but name due to the gravitational constant.

[Mike Irwin]

Broken,

Now wait one second...

A pound of lead on the moon would also weigh a pound.

It seems to me that a pound can be both a measure of mass and a unit of force. The pound is a unit that's doing double duty by being two measures at the same time...

[BrokenPaw]

Mike,

The moon has roughly the 1/6 the gravity of earth. If you took a chunk of lead that weighed 1 pound on earth, and put it on the moon, it would still have the same mass (about 1/32 slug), but you could lift it straight up using only 1/6 pound of force.

"Weight" is just the amount of force required to counteract gravity. So on the moon, an item will weigh 1/6 that of what it does on earth. And in space, free from significant gravity wells, an object becomes "weightless", but still retains its mass (and therefore the force required to accelerate it).

By definition, the "pound" is a unit of force, only, and the "slug" is the corresponding unit of mass. A slug of material, under earth gravity, weighs 32.2 pounds (approximately).

-BP (starting to feel bad about Thread Drift)

[C.R.Sam]

Trivia
My copy of Les Pistolets, Les Revolvers et Leurs Munitions, 1957....refers to bullet weights in grains.

Sam

[uglymofo]

You guys are 'way too serious....

The basic unit of weight in the British system is the grain - based on the weight of a grain of barley (but note that money was based on the grain of wheat - and that three grains of barley weigh the same as four of wheat). This grain is the troy grain - there is no other weight of the same name.

Quote taken from here:

http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html


CWL's damn close to the mark, but his source erred. As Skunk and I (and anyone with our eyes) know from "mother country" culture and legend, gunpowder was invented in China, and the easiest, convenient, unit of weight was rice .:D Some Englishman translated the idiogram incorrectly, and changed the meaning from 'rice' to 'grain'...and there you have it. :D

Of course, the English are guilty of many errors akin to this, and I recount another:

An English archeology expert was leading a guided tour through the Oxford museum, commenting about different artifacts as the group studied each display in turn. He came to a stone tablet, and started to discuss it.

"Here we see a stone tablet from China. This tablet was unearthed during the recent excavations at the old Christian missionary site in Beijing. As you can see, there are four pictures carved on this one tablet. The first picture on the left is a depiction of a young woman. Motherhood was revered in ancient China. The second panel from the left is a picture of a donkey. Farming and agriculture were critical to Chinese society. The third panel shows a shovel. Farming tools were highly prized in ancient times. Lastly, in the right panel, is a magnificent rendering of Jesus in prayer or contemplation. "

A tourist interrupted, "You've got it all wrong! That's not what this is at all. As we all know, Chinese is based on hieroglyphics or pictographs , and as with most Asian cultures, this is meant to be read from right to left. In fact, this is just a note. It says, "Sweet Jesus, dig the @ss on that babe!"

[Mike Irwin]

Broken,

"By definition, the "pound" is a unit of force, only, and the "slug" is the corresponding unit of mass. A slug of material, under earth gravity, weighs 32.2 pounds (approximately)."

That's a FOOT-pound, isn't it?

This is the definitions I'm coming up with from American Heritage...

1. A unit of weight equal to 16 ounces...

2. A unit of apothecary weight...

3. A British unit of force equalt ot the weight of a standard one-pound mass where the local acceleration of gravity is 9.817 meters per second per second (is that a foot pound?)

4. The basic monetary unit of the UK... wait, that's completely out of the picture :)


No, apparently that ISN'T a foot pound...

Sigh.

OK, don't trouble yourself, Broken.

Thanks for the primer, but I just don't have enough of a grasp on the concepts of physics to really integrate this stuff. Maybe it's time I took an intro to physics class at the local CC.

The one thing I definitely know, though, is that when I weigh myself, whether pounds or kilograms, my a@@ has too much mass!

[Steve Smith]

A foot pound is a unit of energy, or work, being equal to the work done in
raising one pound avoirdupois against the force of gravity
the height of one foot.


The standard Avoirdupois pound of the United States is equivalent to the weight of 27.7015 cubic inches of distilled water at 62[deg] Fahrenheit, the barometer being at 30 inches, and the water weighed in the air with brass weights. In this system of weights 16 drams make 1 ounce, 16 ounces 1 pound, 25 pounds 1 quarter, 4 quarters 1 hundred weight, and 20 hundred weight 1 ton. The above pound contains 7,000 grains, or 453.54 grams, so that 1 pound avoirdupois is equivalent to 1 31-144 pounds troy. (See {Troy weight}.) Formerly, a hundred weight was reckoned at 112 pounds, the ton being 2,240 pounds (sometimes called a long ton).

[benewton]

My best take has always been to solve the problem in terms of the units given, and skip all conversions

Thus, with lasers, one works in nanometers...

But I think in feet and inches, equating meters to yards on the first pass, and so, after all these years, am not likely to "go metric", even though I do handle it when necessary.

So, leave grains at the loading bench when you depart, but keep the system: it works, and that's enough!

[benEzra]

Which won't do you any good. Pounds are a unit of FORCE, not MASS. The English-system unit of mass is the slug.
The standard Avoirdupois pound of the United States is equivalent to the weight of 27.7015 cubic inches of distilled water at 62[deg] Fahrenheit, the barometer being at 30 inches, and the water weighed in the air with brass weights.
Actually, you guys are thinking of the British Gravitational System, a system that is not the legal standard in the U.S. and never has been. The U.S. pound avoirdupois is defined as a unit of MASS equal to EXACTLY 0.45359237 kilogram, per the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau of Standards. The official U.S. pound has been defined in terms of the kilogram since 1893; before that, it was defined as the mass of a brass artifact kept in Washington. BTW, the U.S. foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meter.

The reason engineers liked to use slugs is that if you measure mass in pounds mass and force in pounds force ( = the force of 1 standard gravity on a mass of 1 U.S. pound), then Newton's law F=ma doesn't work out; you have to make it F=kma where k is a correction constant. (If you think that's weird, NASA used an even weirder set of units in the 1960s--the pound-force as the force measure, the inch as the length measure, and the "slinch" (slug-inch) as the mass measure, 1 slinch being equal to the mass that 1 pound force would accelerate at 1 inch per second (IIRC).

The fact is, we in the U.S. are far more metric than most people think. Ever bought a 2-quart bottle of soft drink, or a 1.38" camera, or a light bulb rated in foot-pounds?:D The military is already mostly metric, and most technical fields. Medicine has long since abandoned apothecaries' measure (grains, drams, minims) in favor of metric units, etc. The BTU is hanging on, but it'll eventually lose to joules. (And did you know that 98.6 Fahrenheit is just the American/English translation of 37 Celsius?)

And yes, when calculating muzzle energies, I personally prefer joules.:)

[telomerase]

>U.S. pound avoirdupois is defined as a unit of MASS

Yes, Ben, for legal and commercial purposes there is a unit of mass called the "pound", which has nothing to do with the physics unit "pound" of force. Since you chose to throw a smoke bomb in front of the chalkboard, I'll leave it to you to come up with a cogent explanation of the difference between mass and force for those you have terminally confused.

[Mike Irwin]

"I'll leave it to you to come up with a cogent explanation of the difference between mass and force for those you have terminally confused."

Oh yeah, like you and everyone else has done a good job of UNconfusing us, Telo!

Oh, wait, that just means that I'm a dumba$$, doesn't it? :D

[C.R.Sam]

Q...What's a grain... why do we measure with it?

A...A small unit of measure......it is handy.

Sam

[BrokenPaw]

Benewton:My best take has always been to solve the problem in terms of the units given, and skip all conversions17.99885e12 furlongs per fortnight; it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
-BP

Just remember, pi seconds equals one nanocentury...

[Steve Smith]

benEzra, according to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology website, http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/h4401/appenc.pdf General Tables of Units of Measurements, Appendix C, Table "Units of Mass Not Less than Avoirdupois Ounces" one Avoirdupois Pound is equal to .45359237 Kilograms and is the standard for US mass and weight measurement.

[Duncan Idaho]

17.99885e12 furlongs per fortnight; it's not just a good idea, it's the law![SPIT TAKE] OMG! LMFAO![/SPIT TAKE]

[Mike Irwin]

How much is that in rods and chains?

[BrokenPaw]

How much is that in rods and chains?Chains is easy; a chain is just 0.1 Furlong. So it'd be 1.799885e13 chains per fortnight. Or 7.19954e13 rods. And, just to get it out of the way before someone asks:
1.9798735e14 fathoms per fortnight.
9.8993675e13 fathoms per se'ennight, if you prefer.

-BP

[M67]

Hey, I just realised something. Grain isn't measured in grains at all, it's measured in bushels, isn't it?

[Mal H]

Just remember, pi seconds equals one nanocentury...

Cool! I love little tidbits like that. :D

[benEzra]

Yes, Ben, for legal and commercial purposes there is a unit of mass called the "pound", which has nothing to do with the physics unit "pound" of force. Since you chose to throw a smoke bomb in front of the chalkboard, I'll leave it to you to come up with a cogent explanation of the difference between mass and force for those you have terminally confused.
That's easy. Mass is the invariant length of a particle's momentum four-vector. Weight is the three-dimensional manifestation of a particle's attempt to follow a geodesic through four-dimensional spacetime.:D

Actually, I'm not disputing that the pound force is commonly used in physics (in fact, it's the predominant use in most textbooks that use it at all). I'm just point out that it's a derived unit from the U.S. pound mass (which is in turn based on the kilogram) rather than a fundamental unit, and that using the pound as a mass measure is not at all incorrect, even in physics.

As far as mass vs. weight goes (for those confused), mass can be thought of as the amount of matter in an object (roughly speaking), and weight the force of gravity upon that matter. Since the earth's gravity is roughly constant (to a moderate fraction of a %) over the earth's surface, most people use them interchangeably for measuring stuff here at the earth's surface, where most of us live.

[telomerase]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/weight.htm

However, this does nothing to clear up the confusion of someone trying to do a simple kinetic-energy calculation in the English system. And I must say that it's really stupid to have two completely different units, for different entities, with the same name. So I was going to say something nice about the English system... but that's just because I didn't know enough about it (same principle applies to politicians; if you can say something good about them, you just haven't researched enough).

Anyway, if anyone is going to calculate bullet energies: just convert the mass and velocity of the bullet into metric units, get an answer in joules, then convert to calories, then to kilocalories. This will tell you that a chocolate bar has more energy than any civilian rifle bullet, even the "mighty" .50 Browning.

And that's why chocolate-control laws are necessary. Expect an Oprah special soon.

>Mass is the invariant length of a particle's momentum four-vector. Weight is the three-dimensional manifestation of a particle's attempt to follow a geodesic through four-dimensional spacetime.

Excellent!

[twoblink]

Kobun...

What's a TV?? I don't own one... I think it's a device filled with mindless dribble and anti-gun hollywooders..

[benEzra]

And that's why chocolate-control laws are necessary. Expect an Oprah special soon.
:D