Talk:Foot-pound (energy)

message: I'm sure this needs to be Wiki-fied, but this formula is much, much harder to find with a Google search than it ought to be, so lets put it here as this is the best home for it I can think of.--Solidpoint 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballistics calculation added 

message: It appears some folks do not want this calculation here. Someone put it here and I maintain it along with the rest of the article. The idea and concept of foot-pound force is mostly an archaic one now. It seems only to lend its self to small arms ballistics. But since foot-pound force falls strictly with the category of “Customary units in the United States”, I am opposed to any removal of information set forth within this article at this time.Greg Glover 03:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballistics calculation discussed

message: I have reverted all recent changes.  They were all for the worse.
This one is flat wrong--we want force, not mass;
this one is ungrammatical;
these add incorrect/cryptic statements about the origins of energy and torque, and put horsepower under the heading Torque, which is wrong.
Greg, you seem to think that I revert you for fun, or competition, or something.  That's not true at all.  I just don't want false information in the article. I have spent quite a while trying to explain torque and energy to you, but you seem impervious to reason.  As long as you continue to add stuff that's wrong, I will continue to take it out.  It's not personal.Rracecarr (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting good faith edits by greg glover 

message: Umm.  Mile-stones, right?  Are we having a unitspoofer here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giese (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversion deleted as is an incorrect use for mile stone.Greg Glover (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mile-stone 

message: Two values that were called “exact” forms in this version of the article are not. The value was given as 1.3558179483314004 (and a decimal multiple of it). Carried out to a  precision of 100 digits, the value is 1.355817948331400399999999900459473744029708329461580973429590812884271144866943359375. It will appear to be equivalent to a certain number of digits to 15 to 17 digits on most computers that simply rely upon double-precision math, which is built into most microprocessors’ math libraries. I’ve corrected this. Greg L (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg, I'm not sure where you get your value but I do get  N·m exactly. If a foot is , a pound is  and standard gravity is , this is what we get ... exactly ... or should we not be using the CGPM value for g? JIMp talk·cont 05:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  “exactly” 

message: To whom it may concern, I will start foot noting as much as I can. I do not want any one to think this is my own original work. Also, thanks to Hqb I can also use Worthington as a foot note. If you look over on the Pound force page, I have put in a few foot notes already. Greg Glover (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Foot Notes and Referances

message: The first stanza of this article states that Foot-Pound force is, “energy transferred on applying a force of 1 pound-force (lbf) through a displacement of 1 foot (ft). ”
So why is torque, dot product and cross produce a part of this article????????????? Greg Glover (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Force multiplied by displacement is work, not energy. Force multiplied by an orthogonal distance is torque or moment. I dunno what the big deal is but clearly some people who are involved in these articles shouldn't be. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Question!!!