"Phil L" wrote in message
. uk...


... you were going all around the houses working out cubic feet and
finding out masses, volumes ... when all you needed to do was ask the
people who make them:
http://www.marshalls.co.uk/select/pd...ard_paving.pdf

Still, it's always better to use a hundred words where only half a dozen
are needed eh?

Well, you've added to the noise, wasting your finger power :-)

We all do it, it all adds to the body of knowledge.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...



Oh come on Michael! It's all fun, isn't it?

....

Yup !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....

And we're all human, therefore
fallible.

Even I have been known to make mistakes ... as is frequently pointed out
:-)

....

Although not in this case, at least not by me.

You're perfecty entitled to call 2" thick pieces of concrete blocks,
if you so choose to do.

My previous post was merely intended to explain where I'd made
the mistake, in not properly reading and comprehending your
question.

I don't normally go in for typo, vocabulary, or spelling flames
myself, which I regard as childishness-on-stilts. And which I
therefore treat accordingly.

Yup !!!!!!!!!!!!!!




michael adams

....


Mary


michael adams

"Phil L" wrote in message
. uk...
michael adams wrote:
"Phil L" wrote in message


8 cubic feet is...and a two foot by two
foot flag, 2 inches thick is exactly 43Kg, I lift them all day,
every day.

...

Brawn plus brains then. I am impressed!

I doubt you have ever been impressed in your life.


What with the strong arms from lifting all these flags, and the
highly tuned cardio-vascular system from doing all these laps
of honour, you must truly be at the peak of condition.

I don't need laps of honour, you were going all around the houses working
out cubic feet and finding out masses, volumes and all the other crap when
all you needed to do was ask the people who make them:

http://www.marshalls.co.uk/select/pd...ard_paving.pdf

Still, it's always better to use a hundred words where only half a dozen
are
needed eh?


Until Janet posted it was fairly evident, that along with Nick I'd
mistaken 2" to mean 2ft.

As I acknowledged.

If you can point me to the website of a manufacturer of 2ft deep paving
slabs which I could have used instead, then I'd be most grateful. (44)

michael adams (46)


....

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"shazzbat" writes:
|
| So for high precision science, what's the difference between an
American
| pound and a British pound?

I doubt that there is a single American pound, any more than there
is a single African one.

However, in the USA, a pound is a derivation of an Imperial pound and,
in the UK, a pound is a metric pound. Since about 1950.

So you're saying there are 2 pounds to the Kg, and not 2.2 then? That's a
bit more difference than " for practical purposes, not at all" You're not as
sure as you were earlier are you?

Steve

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"shazzbat" writes:
|
| So for high precision science, what's the difference between an
American
| pound and a British pound?

I doubt that there is a single American pound, any more than there
is a single African one.

However, in the USA, a pound is a derivation of an Imperial pound and,
in the UK, a pound is a metric pound. Since about 1950.

So you're saying there are 2 pounds to the Kg, and not 2.2 then? That's a
bit more difference than " for practical purposes, not at all" You're not
as
sure as you were earlier are you?

Steve

They're now exactly the same. And have been since 1959
And all are defined by their metric equivalent.

quote

The pound (avoirdupois) or international pound, abbreviation "lb"
or sometimes # in the United States, is the mass unit defined as
exactly 0.45359237 kilograms (or 453.59237 grams). This definition
has been in effect since a 1959 agreement among the national standards
laboratories of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Fed...doc59-5442.pdf


/quote

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pound


michael adams

....

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| They're now exactly the same. And have been since 1959
| And all are defined by their metric equivalent.
|
| The pound (avoirdupois) or international pound, abbreviation "lb"
| or sometimes # in the United States, is the mass unit defined as
| exactly 0.45359237 kilograms (or 453.59237 grams). This definition
| has been in effect since a 1959 agreement among the national standards
| laboratories of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
| South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
|
| http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Fed...doc59-5442.pdf

I stand corrected. I didn't realise that the USA had signed up :-)

I am, of course, old enough to have been taught using the previous
units - but I defy anyone to produce an experiment that could be
carried out in a school that could tell the difference between an
Imperial and a metric pound or foot :-)

Or, indeed, any of the dozen or so seconds that we have had since
1950 ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| They're now exactly the same. And have been since 1959
| And all are defined by their metric equivalent.
|
| The pound (avoirdupois) or international pound, abbreviation "lb"
| or sometimes # in the United States, is the mass unit defined as
| exactly 0.45359237 kilograms (or 453.59237 grams). This definition
| has been in effect since a 1959 agreement among the national standards
| laboratories of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
| South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
|
| http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Fed...doc59-5442.pdf

I stand corrected. I didn't realise that the USA had signed up :-)

I am, of course, old enough to have been taught using the previous
units - but I defy anyone to produce an experiment that could be
carried out in a school that could tell the difference between an
Imperial and a metric pound or foot :-)


Indeed.

I didn't know any of this before this evening, but apparently

"The 1878 definition in the U.K. defined pound as a mass, but having a
very slightly smaller value (equal to approximately 0.453592338 kg)
than it does now."

As against 0.45359237.

Which pencil and paper suggests is 0.000000032 of a gram difference.


Watching the footie the other night, as you do, I was flabbergasted
to hear Sam Allerdyce the blunt Bolton Manager, refer to one of
the players on the pitch as being only 1.7 metres tall. Something
like that anyway. Yer Wah???? Get out the tape measure Mother !

So it's strapping 1.9 metrers now as well I suppose.



michael adams

....



Or, indeed, any of the dozen or so seconds that we have had since
1950 ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Following up to "Mary Fisher" :

95 lbs is a tad less than Spouse estimated, which is good. He said about 1
cwt - 8 st - 112 lbs.


I took a sort of average concrete - the stuff slabs are made from may be
more. Going by the range of densities posted on that site, I'd say that his
guess is very possible.
--
Tim C.

In article ,
Tim C. writes:
| Following up to "Mary Fisher" :
|
| 95 lbs is a tad less than Spouse estimated, which is good. He said about 1
| cwt - 8 st - 112 lbs.
|
| I took a sort of average concrete - the stuff slabs are made from may be
| more.

It is, but only marginally. 95 pounds is about right.

| Going by the range of densities posted on that site, I'd say that his
| guess is very possible.

Yup. As I posted, the specific density is likely to be in the range 2-3,
because silica (as in sand) is about 2.6-2.7. Approaching 3 will be
only for steel-reinforced concrete, and the lower range only for concrete
with air gaps in it. Lightweight concrete-like aggregates (slag blocks
etc.) will often be below 2, perhaps a lot below it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:


LOL! At what point does a slab become a block?

Er.... in your very first post in the thread.

I'll rephrase that!

At what point does the interpretation of a 'slab' differ from that of a
'block'?

:-)

Mary

Janet

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


I am, of course, old enough to have been taught using the previous
units - but I defy anyone to produce an experiment that could be
carried out in a school that could tell the difference between an
Imperial and a metric pound or foot :-)

Or, indeed, any of the dozen or so seconds that we have had since
1950 ....

I still work in ells ...

Mary

"michael adams" wrote in message
...


You're perfecty entitled to call 2" thick pieces of concrete blocks,
if you so choose to do.

Why, thank you kindly, sir :-)


... childishness-on-stilts.

I like that expressions. I'll use it. If I remember ...

Mary

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Phil L" wrote in message
....

If you can point me to the website of a manufacturer of 2ft deep paving
slabs which I could have used instead, then I'd be most grateful. (44)

michael adams (46)


You're all so young!

Or is that the number of slabs/blocks/anything between you need?

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Phil L" wrote in message
...

If you can point me to the website of a manufacturer of 2ft deep paving
slabs which I could have used instead, then I'd be most grateful. (44)

michael adams (46)


You're all so young!

Or is that the number of slabs/blocks/anything between you need?

Mary


That's the number of words in the post, as I was formerly
accused of using "hundreds of words".

Childishness-on-stilts ? Moi ?


michael adams (24)

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:


LOL! At what point does a slab become a block?

Er.... in your very first post in the thread.

I'll rephrase that!

At what point does the interpretation of a 'slab' differ from that of a
'block'?

:-)

Mary

Same as with some people. Depends on how thick they are.
Let's complicate things and introduce the term slabette.