MTOM Vs MTOW
Only the ones that still use millibars instead of hectopascal's. :roll eyes:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If I can remember my schoolboy physics: Mass & Weight are equal unless we relocate to somewhere where gravity is different from 9.8 m/s/s.
Chief Tardis Technician
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western Australia S31.715 E115.737
Age: 71
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mass will remain constant, however the weight can change between places due to slightly different accelleartion due gravity.
The difference is minuscule, unless you are talking of huge items.
for example, an item that weighed 9.803 Tonne in New York would, would weigh 8.800 tonne in Denver. A difference of 3 grammes.
The difference is minuscule, unless you are talking of huge items.
for example, an item that weighed 9.803 Tonne in New York would, would weigh 8.800 tonne in Denver. A difference of 3 grammes.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mass v Weight
I believe 'MASS' is the SI unit so strictly speaking is scientifically correct whereas WEIGHT is in common usage and has no scientific standing.
G.
G.
#6 "..... an item that weighed 9.803 Tonne in New York would, would weigh 8.800 tonne in Denver. A difference of 3 grammes."
I worked in tons, cwt, lbs, oz. in my school days, but I didn't realize that basic subtraction had changed too.
I worked in tons, cwt, lbs, oz. in my school days, but I didn't realize that basic subtraction had changed too.
It was quite obviously a typo. Calm down.
I believe 'MASS' is the SI unit so strictly speaking is scientifically correct whereas WEIGHT is in common usage and has no scientific standing.
G.
G.
I've got a feeling that the pedant who insisted on the change has screwed up though. When working out moments for C of G calculations, I think you should be using force x distance so in pedant land, you should go back to multiplying Newton x arm rather than kg x arm.
Anyhow, far more importantly, the Scotland v Australia match is about to start,time to open another beer. Sad to see you out Ireland, good luck Scotland.
Cheers
Tees
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tees
Looks like Australia had the MASS and Scotland couldn't bear the weight - what a match though - pity the ref screwed up. There will be ructions about that.
G.
G.
Well, it all depends whether you buy your fish by mass or force Hugh. As 76 fan points out, if you are paying by the kg you are better off buying your fish at the equator than the poles 
Cheers
TeeS
Cheers
TeeS
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...also the velocity: the contemporary IRS accelerometers detect the lower 'weight' at 500 KTAS and 35K' alt. I'm sure if you bought fish in that situation, you would save .00000001 of a 'p' or .0000000075 of a 'c' (approx).
TOD
TOD
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When one works with kg, one works with mass.
When one works with pounds, one works with weight.
When one works with tonnes, one works with mass.
When one works with tons, one works with weight.
All very simple. If one is using imperial units and wishes to work with mass, one must utilize the humble slug.
An engineering professor in one's dark past felt in an ideal world the gravitational constant would be '1'. That would speed up all engineering calculations. Then some fool pointed out that gravity varies and the class was forced to shake of their ennui to discuss.
When one works with pounds, one works with weight.
When one works with tonnes, one works with mass.
When one works with tons, one works with weight.
All very simple. If one is using imperial units and wishes to work with mass, one must utilize the humble slug.
An engineering professor in one's dark past felt in an ideal world the gravitational constant would be '1'. That would speed up all engineering calculations. Then some fool pointed out that gravity varies and the class was forced to shake of their ennui to discuss.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
I do not think we should put too much weight behind the use of mass. For instance, if I went to Mass in an RC Church would I weight more or less than if it were an Anglican church?
Weighting up all the options and issues, I think we should be using "Mass" because it is easier to spell and takes less keyboard characters to write meaning electronic files would weight less when mass is used throughout.
Mass is also better when used in an emotive sense. For instance, many people enjoyed the sci-fi "B" movie the "Quatermass" but would they have even gone to see a film called "Quaterweigh"?
Also what would happen to the word "Massive Jugs" if replaced with "Weightive Mammaries" ?
Weighting up all the options and issues, I think we should be using "Mass" because it is easier to spell and takes less keyboard characters to write meaning electronic files would weight less when mass is used throughout.
Mass is also better when used in an emotive sense. For instance, many people enjoyed the sci-fi "B" movie the "Quatermass" but would they have even gone to see a film called "Quaterweigh"?
Also what would happen to the word "Massive Jugs" if replaced with "Weightive Mammaries" ?