It depends on what type of a scale you are using.
A spring scale will weigh both the pound and the kilogram at 1/6 of their value, but since the kilogram is a unit of mass and the pound is a unit of force or weight, it will weigh the pound correctly but it will be wrong when weighing the kilogram.
A balance beam scale on the other hand will indicate that the kilogram is a kilogram because it is comparing its weight against the weight of a known mass on the balance beam and it will also do the same with the pound. This scale will indicate the correct mass of the kilogram, but will give the wrong weight for the pound.
Also, a pendulum regulated clock will run slow by a factor of the square root of 1/6 or .408 on the moon. Filming something on the earth and playing it back at 40% actual speed slow motion would give a good indication of how walking, running, or jumping would appear in the moonās gravity.
Maybe I shouldnāt have spent $500 (donāt tell my wife) for my new welder. Should have just gotten a few packs of glue and stuck everything together. Naw, Iād rather weld.
I am still trying to wrap my mind around this. If you have a two pan
balance scale on the moon with 1 Kg on one side and the 2.2+ pounds that
would balance the scale on earth, would the scale balance or would the
pound side drop like a rock
No, the 1 Kg mass will still balance the 2.204 lb weight when you take them to the moon and put them on a pan balance. They both still have their original mass and they both only weigh 1/6 as much.
To simplify my original statement, a spring scale will indicate the correct weight but the wrong mass, while a balance beam scale will indicate the correct mass but the wrong weight when used on a planet other than the earth.
The Imperial unit of mass is named the slug. Itās defined as the amount of mass that would weigh one pound if weighed in 1 ft per second per second gravity. Since the earth has 32.2 ft per second per second gravity, a slug weighs 32.2 lb on the earth.
The weight of something depends on which planet you weigh it on, the mass of something is constant. Weight = mass X gravity.
Iāve never seen this discussed, but I think the explanation by texases makes sense. Changing the wheel diameter to metric and keeping both metric and imperial products in stock for a while would be a huge undertaking for the tire and wheel industries. On the other hand, changing the tire width to metric is just a matter of picking the nearest centimeter (or really the nearest centimeter-point-5), as this doesnāt need to be exact. As for the sidewall height, giving the aspect ratio is helpful, as that closely relates to the handling capabilities and ride comfort of the tire, allowing for easier comparisons when considering different wheel diameters.
They could just keep the current dimensions and just use metric units to measure them. Thus 195/60R 15 becomes 195/60R 381. Why reinvent the wheel? Itās not just tires where they chose not to āreinvent the wheelā. A Japanese manufactured roller chain on a Japanese manufactured motorcycle might be a 530 roller chain. The ā5ā in the number is the pitch of the chain, 5/8 of an inch and the ā3ā in the number is the width of the sprocket it runs on, 3/8 of an inch. But since the word āinchā is not anywhere on the chain size, nobody is the wiser that itās size is based on that evil Imperial system.
The military did the same thing with rifle calibers, they didnāt come up with totally new metric calibers, they just renamed existing perfectly good calibers and rifles with metric names. The .308 became the 7.62 and the .223 became the 5.56.
I think heat-resistant glue for bonding metals or bonding materials to metal was perfected for the Space Shuttle.
40% of the Space Shuttle fleet blew up.
I donāt find that reassuring.
Not to mention that our experience with these glues is less than 15 years old. What happens 20 years from now? Will the glue have degraded enough that the car literally starts falling apart? Welds donāt degrade, assuming theyāre protected by paint and arenāt being flexed. Thatās why we have '57 Chevys still extant. Gluesā¦ eh, who knows?
The Space Shuttle accidents had nothing to do with adhesives. The first one was because of a lunch when it was too cold for the rubber gaskets in the solid racket motors. The second one was because of ice falling off the side of the main booster and knocking insulation off the wing.
During the launch of STS-107, Columbiaās 28th mission, a piece of foam insulation broke off from the Space Shuttle external tank and struck the left wing of the orbiter.
We have 57 Chevyās still running around because enthusiasts love them and because GM made a bit less than 1.6 million of them that year.
And now unrestorable cars can be completely repaired with a brand new body shell ($17,150, from the firewall back, hoods, front fenders and radiator support extra) Plus nearly all the trim has been reproduced as well. You can basically build one from scratch if you choose a Belair Hardtop Coupe.
Compare that to the current best seller, the Toyota Camry, selling less than 500,000 per year. I donāt think THAT will ever be reproducedā¦
My point was more along the lines of ājust because it was developed for the Space Shuttle doesnāt mean itās good.ā As we found out, at least two other technologies developed for the Space Shuttle turned out to beā¦ uhmā¦ less than good.