Talk:Pound (force)

message: Will you guys stop this edit warring and find a cite to settle the matter? edit, revert... It's not like this is a matter of opinion or anything. --Yath 07:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I already said, PatrickandBrenda means gc, not G.  That's not the correct engineering definition for a slug anyway.  So whatever.. -Fnlayson 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pound vs. slug 

message: The acceleration due to gravity is given to an absurd number of decimal places, given that it varies from place to place.  In fact, this article generally uses too many significant digits.  Even when your numbers are exact (or of arbitrary precision), it just looks bad.
Also, pound-force is the common unit, not pound-mass.  Sure, you can generally get away without making a distinction, which is why some people get confused, but ask any scientist or engineer, and they will tell you that "pound"--unqualified--means pound-force.  If you don't believe me,   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.154.178 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a standard value for g, which may or may not be close to the actual g where you are. Thus the pound(force) is the pound(mass) times the representative standard g, and divides by the value of such standard g, with its units removed.  If one does physics in US units, one normally (though rarely) uses the slug-foot-second units.  On the other hand, chemical engineering is done with pound(force), pound(mass), and the special constant gc to fix things. On the third hand, one could use (and I forget who does) a pound(mass)-foot-second unit system, such that force is in pound-feet/second squared. Gah4 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceleration due to gravity

message: Whom ever redirected FPS here has made a grave mistake. The pound force is only found in two of the three subsystems. The system is called the Foot-Pound-Second System or FPS.
Worthington from Great Britain (http://www.archive.org/stream/dynamicsofrotati00wortiala#page/8/mode/2up) gives two of the subsystems as,  Gravitational or Engineer’s and Absolute. Obert from the United States gives the three subsystems as Technical, Engineering, and Absolute.
It is clear to me that the Foot-Pound-Second System should have its own page. A disclaimer could be made until someone finds a reference.
Further, I think this is why someone tampered with the GravEngAbs box. The three systems are, if deduced by both Worthington and Obert and applied here at Wikipedia as:
* dFt = Gravitational or (Engineer’s and Technical) System
* mdFt = Engineering System
* mdt = Absolute System
:m is missing from the Gravitational System because it is equal to the slug.
:F is missing from the Absolute System because it is equal to the poundal. 
Otherwise:
:m = mass {pound mass(1lbm)}
:d = distance {foot (1ft)}
:F = Force {Pound force (1lbf)}
:t = time {second (1s)}
Greg Glover (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FPS

message: This table could perform a valuable service in helping readers gain traction on how these various units relate. Instead, I found it tremendously confusing because the cells on the col=row diagonal, don't make sense.
According to the row and column headers, these cells should all be occupied by the number '1'. Instead, they are occupied by a specification of the row quantity in terms of mass units (and not according to the force units in the column headers).
That information could indeed be quite useful, but I urge that it be placed in a separate column "Relationship to mass units" or some such. If it is added, please spell out the values of gn so that the relationship is clear.
Of particular significance for this article: 1 lbF, which is here shown as gn * (1 lb) (with only the link to tell us that this is lbM) should also be spelled out as: 32.174 lbM-ft/s^2. Similarly 1 kp = gn 1 kg should be spelled out as 9.8.. kg m/s^2
Hope that this achieves some consensus and can be implemented. Gwideman (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing "Conversion to other units" table 

message: Traditionally, a pound force was used in engineering, other than in strength of materials or in dynamics, but as per Hooke's Law (F = kx) -- the strength of a spring was listed in the catalog specifications as force per length (expanded or compressed). This is why the official re-definition of pound as limited to a unit of mass for trade purposes is lacking. A spring catalog is of course used for trade. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Springing into the conversation 

message: When I read about a rocket, for example Space X's proposed Raptor, producing "380,000 pounds of thrust",  Is a "pound of thrust" the same as a pound (force)? 
Either way, why is pound of thrust a red link? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A pound of thrust is a colloquial synonym of a pound-force. It could re-direct to this page, which could be improved by mentioning this synonym. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. See the section above. It doesn't make sense for jet or rocket engine thrust to be specified in either pounds(mass) or kilograms. Gah4 (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pounds of thrust 

message: The first paragraph of the article is problematic. In actual practice, the term "pound" and the abbreviation "lb" are used both for "pound mass (lbm)" and "pound force (lbf)." Both are correct. Where the meaning of "lb" isn't clear from context and the habits of the particular technical community, using "lbm" or "lbf" is not a bad idea. What is incorrect is the suggestion that the unqualified unit "pound (lb)" specifically means "lb mass" and not even to mention the qualified abbreviation, "lbm." In the past some authority may have defined it that way but in fact both conventions are popular. 2601:14F:4500:46A0:223:7DFF:FEC4:2D73 (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on unqualified "pound" 

message: The conversions can live in their own entry at the end. The article is about pound-force, from the foot-pound-second system. There are many other articles that need this cleanup too. 38.92.150.242 (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. I reverted your edit because it introduced an error in the value of standard gravity, which is defined in SI units (9.80665 m/s). Please make or propose changes incrementally so each one can be assessed on its merits. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a full cleanup to not be based from SI units