calling all engineers

[Ann in Houston]

This question bugs me every time I double check my gallon calculations.
First, as I understand it, the conversion factor for cubic feet to gallons
is cf x 7.5 (7.5 gallons in each square foot). Isn't that right? My very
math-savvy father says it is, and I have seen it in print. Now, what I
don't understand is this: A five gallon water jug is much bigger than one
square foot. You could set a 12 inch square block right down in to one of
those, if it was open at the big end. How can this factor be correct? I
just can't wrap my brain around it. Help me, please. If you are a lurker,
and you can explain it to me, feel free to email me. Or, just come up out
of lurkdom - we'd all love to meet you.

Thanks,

Ann

[Derek Broughton]

Ann in Houston wrote:

> A five gallon water jug is much bigger than one
> square foot.

You mean, "cubic" foot. And it isn't. I just did a rough calculation
(using a sheet of 8.5"x11" paper to measure a 5gal jug because i didn't
have a ruler or tape measure).

The jug is 10" in diameter and 14" tall. The volume of a cube is
Length*height*width=1728 cubic inches for a 1' cube. The volume of a
cylinder is Pi*Radius*Radius*height= Pi*5*5*14=1100 cubic inches. Not
surprisingly; smaller than a 12" cube. :-)
--
derek

[Ann in Houston]

"Derek Broughton" > wrote in message
...
> Ann in Houston wrote:
>
> > A five gallon water jug is much bigger than one
> > square foot.
>
> You mean, "cubic" foot.
oops! sorry - I did mean cubic.

snip

>
> The jug is 10" in diameter and 14" tall. The volume of a cube is
> Length*height*width=1728 cubic inches for a 1' cube. The volume of a
> cylinder is Pi*Radius*Radius*height= Pi*5*5*14=1100 cubic inches. Not
> surprisingly; smaller than a 12" cube. :-)
> --
> derek

Well, okay. I can't argue the facts since you went to the trouble to measure
it. It sure seemed close, though. I know that the water bottle also is
sort of cone shaped at the bottom. Do your calculations treat the bottle as
a full cylinder, or did you stop at the top of the neck? That could make a
real difference too. Thanks for being intrigued enough to check it out.

[Stephen M. Henning]

Here is another one:

1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition.
2) One kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
3) A quart is 2 pounds.

4) Hence, a liter is 1.1 quarts.

Conversion charts say that a liter is 1.0566882607957349 quarts. Why
the difference?









The above includes many approximations. The real values are.

1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition at 4C and 1 atmosphere
of pressure. But at 20C a liter of water is 0.9982 kilograms.
2) One kilogram is 2.2046 pounds.
3) A quart is 2 pounds approximately. Actually at 4C a quart of water
is 2.086 pounds. At 20C a quart of water is 2.082 pounds.

4) Hence, at 4C a liter is 1.0567 quarts and at 20C a liter is 1.0567
quarts. So the common measures we take for granted are about 5 % off.

[Andy Hill]

"Stephen M. Henning" > wrote:
>3) A quart is 2 pounds approximately. Actually at 4C a quart of water
>is 2.086 pounds. At 20C a quart of water is 2.082 pounds.
>
But "A pint's 1.04 pounds the world around" just doesn't have the same ring to
it :-)

[Crashj]

On or about Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:03 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> wrote something like:

>This question bugs me every time I double check my gallon calculations.
<>
> How can this factor be correct?

You play the lottery, don't you?
--
Crashj

[Andy Hill]

Crashj > wrote:
>On or about Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:03 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> wrote something like:
>
>>This question bugs me every time I double check my gallon calculations.
><>
>> How can this factor be correct?
>
>You play the lottery, don't you?
>
That was uncalled for.

[Ann in Houston]

"Crashj" > wrote in message
...
> On or about Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:03 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> > wrote something like:
>
> >This question bugs me every time I double check my gallon calculations.
> <>
> > How can this factor be correct?
>
> You play the lottery, don't you?
> --
> Crashj

Why? Because I'm stubborn? or math challenged? I accept the factor as
correct, but I was wishing I could picture it better. And, no, my very math
competent husband is the designated lottery player in the house. I get too
disappointed and its just too stupid.

[Derek Broughton]

Ann in Houston wrote:

>> The jug is 10" in diameter and 14" tall. The volume of a cube is
>> Length*height*width=1728 cubic inches for a 1' cube. The volume of a
>> cylinder is Pi*Radius*Radius*height= Pi*5*5*14=1100 cubic inches. Not
>> surprisingly; smaller than a 12" cube. :-)

>
> Well, okay. I can't argue the facts since you went to the trouble to
> measure
> it. It sure seemed close, though. I know that the water bottle also is
> sort of cone shaped at the bottom. Do your calculations treat the bottle
> as
> a full cylinder, or did you stop at the top of the neck? That could make
> a real difference too. Thanks for being intrigued enough to check it out.

I treated it as an exact cylinder - if I wanted to figure out the difference
due to curvature, I'd actually have emptied the contents into a proper
measuring container, as otherwise I'd have to take into account the
curvature on the bottom, the tapering on the top, the size of the neck (at
least, the one I used had some water in the neck), and the thickness of the
plastic (which looks like it probably isn't even uniform). It's a lot
easier to make assumptions :-) (besides which, since I couldn't get an
exact measurement, it was all rough anyway). In fact, either our water
supplier is cheating us, or the jug is actually a little bigger than my
calculation, because it should really be about 1150 cu.in. for a 5 (US)
gallon container.
--
derek

[Ann in Houston]

> Ann in Houston wrote:
>
Do your calculations treat the bottle
> > as
> > a full cylinder, or did you stop at the top of the neck? That could
make
> > a real difference too. Thanks for being intrigued enough to check it
out.
>
> I treated it as an exact cylinder - if I wanted to figure out the
difference
> due to curvature, I'd actually have emptied the contents into a proper
> measuring container, as otherwise I'd have to take into account the
> curvature on the bottom, the tapering on the top, the size of the neck (at
> least, the one I used had some water in the neck), and the thickness of
the
> plastic (which looks like it probably isn't even uniform). It's a lot
> easier to make assumptions :-) (besides which, since I couldn't get an
> exact measurement, it was all rough anyway). In fact, either our water
> supplier is cheating us, or the jug is actually a little bigger than my
> calculation, because it should really be about 1150 cu.in. for a 5 (US)
> gallon container.
> --
> derek

I certainly wouldn't have bothered to figure out the neck and all. The real
question was whether or not 12 cubic inches could hold 7.5 gallons. I
appreciate you doing it the way you did.

[Ann in Houston]

"Andy Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Crashj > wrote:
> >On or about Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:03 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> > wrote something like:
> >
> >>This question bugs me every time I double check my gallon calculations.
> ><>
> >> How can this factor be correct?
> >
> >You play the lottery, don't you?
> >
> That was uncalled for.

I thought it sounded snide, but I had no reason not to give him the benefit
of the doubt. And anyway, I don't play the lottery, although a lot of people
do, who know better, but figure ten bucks every two months is no worse than
most people's vices.

[Andy Hill]

"Ann in Houston" > wrote:
>I certainly wouldn't have bothered to figure out the neck and all. The real
>question was whether or not 12 cubic inches could hold 7.5 gallons. I
>appreciate you doing it the way you did.
>
<nitpick on>
It's 1728 cubic inches (12*12*12 - a cube 12 inches in all three dimensions),
not 12 cubic inches.
<nitpick off>

Now, anyone want to talk about koi or something? ;-)

[Ann in Houston]

"Snooze" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>
> 1 cubic foot is 7.48065 gallons. So 7.5 is a close enough estimate for our
> needs. I think you misunderstand what 1 cubic foot is. Picture a box that
is
> 1 foot wide, 1 foot deep and 1 foot high. That is 1 cubic foot.
>
> You can also think of 1 cubic foot as a box that is 12 inches wide, 12
> inches deep and 12 inches high. That would give you 1728 cubic inches.
> Because a water jug is not a perfect cylinder, with out making tedious
> measurements and calculations, it would be difficult to calculate the
exact
> volume on paper.
>
Ok, guys, I know that not all newsreaders perform equally, so I won't
belabor the "read the thread" point, but we have established that I typed
one thing while I was thinking another. Derek smoothly pointed out, just in
case I was actually confused, that I must have meant "cubic", even though I
typed "square". And, in my answer, I confirmed that I did indeed understand
the difference. So, please no more assumptions that I am one power short of
volume measurement. Also, I realize now, that 12 cubic inches can refer to
a single row of 12 cubes of one cubic inch each. My mistake was to cube
the 12 in my head, but not in my typing. Sorry for the sloppy description
of my thought processes. The whole point I was trying to make and clarify
for myself is that if you took seven and a half gallon jugs and poured them
into a container, they would fill a "lot" of space, and that "box" that is
12 inches in each direction didn't seem, in my mind, to be big enough to
hold it all. Does this not resonate with anyone, here? I have had several
people react in disbelief when they were present as I was working out the
volume of possible pond configurations, and they heard for the first time
how many gallons of water were in a cubic foot.

> Perhaps an easy way to satisfy your curiosity, would be to take a 1 cubic
> foot box, fill it with rice, then slowly pour the rice from the box into
the
> 5 gallon jug. You will see that when the jug is full, you still have about
> 1/3rd the rice still in the box. I hope that this was able to improve your
> mental image.
>
If I knew where to get a water-tight box like that, I would try it, just to
see. I don't want to go get a bunch of rice or sand. I have plenty of
water. I do appreciate your understanding that this is just a curiosity
issue on my part. I think crash thought I wasn't willing to use the
conversion factor because it was hard for me to picture in my head.



>
> PS before engineers were able to calculate the volume of awkward shapes,
> such as the interior of a car on a computer, one of the techniques they
> used, was to pour foam peanuts in from a hole in the roof, and keep track
of
> how many bags of foam peanuts it took to fill the inside. Otherwise they
had
> to make estimates by making many measurements and calculations of smaller
> chunks of the car, and adding up all those chunks.

Can't resist: was each bag of peanuts shaped like a cubic foot? Still,
that's pretty interesting. I wonder what they did before we had foam
peanuts. Rice would be hard to clean out of a car.

[Ann in Houston]

I think they do some rounding off. The 7.5 number I mentioned earlier is an
approximation. I think people doing sensitive measurements use a different
chart.
"Stephen M. Henning" > wrote in message
...
> Here is another one:
>
> 1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition.
> 2) One kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
> 3) A quart is 2 pounds.
>
> 4) Hence, a liter is 1.1 quarts.
>
> Conversion charts say that a liter is 1.0566882607957349 quarts. Why
> the difference?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The above includes many approximations. The real values are.
>
> 1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition at 4C and 1 atmosphere
> of pressure. But at 20C a liter of water is 0.9982 kilograms.
> 2) One kilogram is 2.2046 pounds.
> 3) A quart is 2 pounds approximately. Actually at 4C a quart of water
> is 2.086 pounds. At 20C a quart of water is 2.082 pounds.
>
> 4) Hence, at 4C a liter is 1.0567 quarts and at 20C a liter is 1.0567
> quarts. So the common measures we take for granted are about 5 % off.

[Crashj]

On or about Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:52:58 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> wrote something like:
<>
>I certainly wouldn't have bothered to figure out the neck and all. The real
>question was whether or not 12 cubic inches could hold 7.5 gallons.

Only if 231 cubic inches can hold one gallon.
--
Crashj

[Snooze]

"Ann in Houston" > wrote in message
. com...

[Snip]
> The whole point I was trying to make and clarify
> for myself is that if you took seven and a half gallon jugs and poured
them
> into a container, they would fill a "lot" of space, and that "box" that is
> 12 inches in each direction didn't seem, in my mind, to be big enough to
> hold it all. Does this not resonate with anyone, here? I have had
several
> people react in disbelief when they were present as I was working out the
> volume of possible pond configurations, and they heard for the first time
> how many gallons of water were in a cubic foot.
>

If I didn't know the conversions between 1 cubic foot and gallons, I bet I
would easily underestimate how many gallons are in 1 cubic foot. Most people
dont have the skills or mental aptitude to look at different shaped volumes
and estimate the the difference in volume. Not to mention, a cubic foot is
not a measurement that most people use on a regular basis, so you don't have
a good mental picture as to what it looks like.

[Snip]

> If I knew where to get a water-tight box like that, I would try it, just
to
> see. I don't want to go get a bunch of rice or sand. I have plenty of
> water. I do appreciate your understanding that this is just a curiosity
> issue on my part. I think crash thought I wasn't willing to use the
> conversion factor because it was hard for me to picture in my head.

Fill a 1 gallon milk jug with m&m's, do that 5 times, and you'll have a
lifetime supply of m&ms and your answer :) Around the holidays you can get 3
pound bags of m&ms, they're probably about 1/4 cubic foot.

> Can't resist: was each bag of peanuts shaped like a cubic foot? Still,
> that's pretty interesting. I wonder what they did before we had foam
> peanuts. Rice would be hard to clean out of a car.

The method depends on how important an accurate answer is. Before foam
peanuts, they could have used ping pong balls, tennis balls, baseballs. The
larger the ball, the less accurate your answer is. Shipping rooms buy foam
peanuts by the cubic yard all the time. How accurate the answer is depends
on the application.

Buy a yard of cloth from the fabric store, and the clerk will pull a pull
some cloth over a yard stick, and give you a few inches more. Measure the
clearance of the valves to an engine and you might be concerned with 1/100th
of an inch. Design a circuit on a computer chip, and you're concerned with
micrometer. Draw your company logo using individual atoms on a silicon
crystal using individual atoms and you're probably concerned with nanometers
or smaller.

Snooze

[Phisherman]

"Stephen M. Henning" wrote...
> Here is another one:
>
> 1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition.
> 2) One kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
> 3) A quart is 2 pounds.
>
> 4) Hence, a liter is 1.1 quarts.
>
> Conversion charts say that a liter is 1.0566882607957349 quarts. Why
> the difference?
>

Conversion from mass to force is not exact and depends on conditions.
The same holds true for volume and force (or volume and mass). Water
volume changes (slightly) when temperature changes. For most of us
two or three significant digits is good enough.

[Cichlidiot]

Derek Broughton > wrote:
> I treated it as an exact cylinder - if I wanted to figure out the difference
> due to curvature, I'd actually have emptied the contents into a proper
> measuring container, as otherwise I'd have to take into account the
> curvature on the bottom, the tapering on the top, the size of the neck (at
> least, the one I used had some water in the neck), and the thickness of the
> plastic (which looks like it probably isn't even uniform). It's a lot
> easier to make assumptions :-) (besides which, since I couldn't get an
> exact measurement, it was all rough anyway). In fact, either our water
> supplier is cheating us, or the jug is actually a little bigger than my
> calculation, because it should really be about 1150 cu.in. for a 5 (US)
> gallon container.

Assumptions make for easier math for sure, but with a little calculus and
angle measurements and the like you could calculate it precisely. I mean
if you wanted to take the time that is. No need for emptying and filling
or calibrated measurements of volume that way. Just a precise mathematical
description of your container and some number crunching. But for general
purposes particularly when it comes to fish, I agree, making assumptions
or rounding a bit usually is okay. Just don't make too big of assumptions
if dealing with something like medication.

As to the OP, if you are having trouble conceptualizing the cubic foot
holding 7.5g of water, look at a standard 5.5g and 10g aquarium. A 5.5g is
about 16" x 8" x 10" ~= 0.75 cubic feet. A 10g is 20" x 10" x 12" ~= 1.39
cubic feet. The reason the 5g water jug looks bigger than the 5.5g tank is
just dimensions. It's tall and narrow with a big dent for the handle (at
least with my water company), which gives the impression of being bigger
than a cubic foot. I seem to remember reading a study where humans thought
a tall, narrow item held more when compared to an equal volume sized
short, round item. I believe the study was related to overeating due to
underestimating the volume of what one was consuming, but not positive.

[Snooze]

"Cichlidiot" > wrote in message
...
> Assumptions make for easier math for sure, but with a little calculus and
> angle measurements and the like you could calculate it precisely. I mean
> if you wanted to take the time that is. No need for emptying and filling
> or calibrated measurements of volume that way. Just a precise mathematical
> description of your container and some number crunching. But for general
> purposes particularly when it comes to fish, I agree, making assumptions
> or rounding a bit usually is okay. Just don't make too big of assumptions
> if dealing with something like medication.

Sure you could use triple integrals to calculate the volume of an
irregularly shaped object, but the fact is those of us that took calculus
would probably have to crack open our text books to remember how, since it's
not a concept that is used frequently. Additionally according to the US
Census only 24.4% of America holds a bachelors or greater, and bear in mind
many degrees do not require exposure to higher levels of math.

Finally the original poster was not questioning the math or the conversion
ratios, but expressing difficulty in visualizing how a 5 gallon jug was less
than 1 cubic foot.

References:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP20&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_sse=on

[Cichlidiot]

Snooze > wrote:
> Sure you could use triple integrals to calculate the volume of an
> irregularly shaped object, but the fact is those of us that took calculus
> would probably have to crack open our text books to remember how, since it's
> not a concept that is used frequently. Additionally according to the US
> Census only 24.4% of America holds a bachelors or greater, and bear in mind
> many degrees do not require exposure to higher levels of math.

I'll admit that I am more mathematically inclined than most (after all, I
took calculus in high school, completed my AP test in 30 mins getting a 5
and took calculus 3/C for fun in college). However, there are computer
programs which aid those less mathematically inclined should they desire.
I was just pointing out that there are methods other than estimations or
pouring x volume amounts to calculate the exact volume. Calculations that
were probably behind the design of the 5g water bottle.

> Finally the original poster was not questioning the math or the conversion
> ratios, but expressing difficulty in visualizing how a 5 gallon jug was less
> than 1 cubic foot.

I believe I covered that in the second paragraph of my reply, which you
did not quote, when I explained the perceptual bias people have when
estimating the volume of tall, narrow containers compared to shorter
containers of equal volume. Even though I know otherwise, when I put my 5g
water bottle next to my 5.5g tank, the bottle "looks" bigger. It's just a
perceptual bias, perhaps related to other optical illusions regarding
size. I suppose what one can draw from this is that when in doubt, carry a
ruler, heh.

[Snooze]

"Cichlidiot" > wrote in message
...
> I'll admit that I am more mathematically inclined than most (after all, I
> took calculus in high school, completed my AP test in 30 mins getting a 5
> and took calculus 3/C for fun in college).

Wow! Bragging about high school AP scores, what do you think this is?
usenet? *sarcasm*

Snooze

[Cichlidiot]

Snooze > wrote:

> "Cichlidiot" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'll admit that I am more mathematically inclined than most (after all, I
>> took calculus in high school, completed my AP test in 30 mins getting a 5
>> and took calculus 3/C for fun in college).

> Wow! Bragging about high school AP scores, what do you think this is?
> usenet? *sarcasm*

It was merely a statement of fact intended to show I do recognize my math
skills are above average, particularly when it comes to calculus, not
bragging. To get a perfect score on the AP is not easy, but to do it in a
fraction of the allotted time means I take to calculus like our fish do to
water. No need to get sarcastic over it. I thought I had detected an edge
in your last reply, but this pretty much confirms it. Have I offended in
some manner or is this a general approach you take to those who are
comfortable with calculus? I suppose it's of little consequence as this
little corner of the thread is venturing far off course, but I do wish to
reassure that no malice, belittling or conceit was intended in my replies.
I know there are other scientifically and mathematically minded on the
group, so I pointed out that calculus could be used to determine the
volume of the container. A nice little mental exercise should anyone get
the urge to try it out.

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

>> You play the lottery, don't you? Crashj
>
>Ann replied: I get too disappointed and its just too stupid.

The lottery isn't stupid. What do you buy with that dollar, really? Not
much of a chance to win, but the hope, and we all need hope. The stupid
part is to spend more than a $1 each time, you see, if you're a believer,
if God/nature/the-powers-that-be, want you to win, you only need one
ticket. ;o) Therein, is how I justify my $1/play. ~ jan



~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Benign Vanilla]

"~ jan JJsPond.us" > wrote in message
...
> >> You play the lottery, don't you? Crashj
> >
> >Ann replied: I get too disappointed and its just too stupid.
>
> The lottery isn't stupid. What do you buy with that dollar, really? Not
> much of a chance to win, but the hope, and we all need hope. The stupid
> part is to spend more than a $1 each time, you see, if you're a believer,
> if God/nature/the-powers-that-be, want you to win, you only need one
> ticket. ;o) Therein, is how I justify my $1/play. ~ jan

I used to be very much pro-lottery, until I read this article on the
Fool.com. The stats are astounding,
http://www.fool.com/features/1998/sp980521lottery.htm.

BV.

[KenCo]

Ann in Houston wrote:
>
> I certainly wouldn't have bothered to figure out the neck and all. The real
> question was whether or not 12 cubic inches could hold 7.5 gallons. I
> appreciate you doing it the way you did.
>
>


231 cu in per gal, not 12 :)

12"x12"x12"= 1728 cu in = 1 cubic foot = 7.5 gal capacity.







--
http://www.kencofish.com Ken Arnold,
401-781-9642 cell 401-225-0556
Importer/Exporter of Goldfish,Koi,rare Predators
Shipping to legal states/countries only!
Permalon liners, Oase & Supreme Pondmaster pumps


$9.95 internet access https://sub.copper.net/promo/5339894.asp

Please Note: No trees or animals were harmed in the
sending of this contaminant free message We do concede
that a signicant number of electrons may have been
inconvenienced ;)

[KenCo]

~ jan JJsPond.us wrote:

>>>You play the lottery, don't you? Crashj
>>
>>Ann replied: I get too disappointed and its just too stupid.
>
>
> The lottery isn't stupid. What do you buy with that dollar, really? Not
> much of a chance to win, but the hope, and we all need hope. The stupid
> part is to spend more than a $1 each time, you see, if you're a believer,
> if God/nature/the-powers-that-be, want you to win, you only need one
> ticket. ;o) Therein, is how I justify my $1/play. ~ jan
>
>
>
> ~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


Joe; God, I pray every week that you will let
me hit the lottery.

God; Joe, I can do anything! But you have
to buy the damm ticket first!!!!!!









--
http://www.kencofish.com Ken Arnold,
401-781-9642 cell 401-225-0556
Importer/Exporter of Goldfish,Koi,rare Predators
Shipping to legal states/countries only!
Permalon liners, Oase & Supreme Pondmaster pumps


$9.95 internet access https://sub.copper.net/promo/5339894.asp

Please Note: No trees or animals were harmed in the
sending of this contaminant free message We do concede
that a signicant number of electrons may have been
inconvenienced ;)

[Benign Vanilla]

"KenCo" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
>
> Joe; God, I pray every week that you will let
> me hit the lottery.
>
> God; Joe, I can do anything! But you have
> to buy the damm ticket first!!!!!!
>

I tell my wife all of the time, "When we win lottery..." and she always
responds, "Are you going to start playing?"

LOL.

BV.

[Stephen Henning]

KenCo > wrote:

> Ann in Houston wrote:
> >
> > I certainly wouldn't have bothered to figure out the neck and all. The real
> > question was whether or not 12 cubic inches could hold 7.5 gallons. I
> > appreciate you doing it the way you did.
>
> 231 cu in per gal, not 12 :)
>
> 12"x12"x12"= 1728 cu in = 1 cubic foot = 7.5 gal capacity.

As Ken pointed out:

12 cubic inches is not a 12 inch cube. BIG difference.

12 cubic inches is a 2.29 inch cube.

A 12 inch cube is 1728 cubic inches.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

[Stephen Henning]

~ jan JJsPond.us > wrote:

> The lottery isn't stupid. What do you buy with that dollar, really? Not
> much of a chance to win, but the hope, and we all need hope. The stupid
> part is to spend more than a $1 each time, you see, if you're a believer,
> if God/nature/the-powers-that-be, want you to win, you only need one
> ticket. ;o) Therein, is how I justify my $1/play.

Being a believer in the lottery is real stupid. That's like the
minister that became very wealthy telling people that if they followed
him, God would give them Cadillacs. Well, he gave the minister
Cadillacs, but the people were just a little poorer.

If you want to spend a dollar to play a game each week that is your
choice. If you expect to win, that is stupid. I know I win $52 every
year in the lottery because I keep my dollars.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

[Cam]

Benign Vanilla wrote:

> I used to be very much pro-lottery, until I read this article on the
> Fool.com. The stats are astounding,
> http://www.fool.com/features/1998/sp980521lottery.htm.
>
> BV.

The odds of winning the grand prize of a 6/49 lottery are the same
whether you buy a ticket or not, give or take .0000000001

Cam

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:53:05 -0500, KenCo > wrote:

>Joe; God, I pray every week that you will let
> me hit the lottery.
>
>God; Joe, I can do anything! But you have
> to buy the damm ticket first!!!!!!

Exactly my point, but better said. ;o) ~ jan



~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Crashj]

On or about Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:56:44 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> wrote something like:
>"Andy Hill" > wrote in message
...
>> Crashj > wrote:
>> >On or about Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:03 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
>> > wrote something like:
Ann:
>> >>This question bugs me every time I double check my gallon calculations.
>> >> How can this factor be correct?
Crashj:
>> >You play the lottery, don't you?
>> >
Andy:
>> That was uncalled for.
>
Ann:
>I thought it sounded snide, but I had no reason not to give him the benefit
>of the doubt. And anyway, I don't play the lottery, although a lot of people
>do, who know better, but figure ten bucks every two months is no worse than
>most people's vices.

What I was leading up to was the sense of proportions. Without actual
objects in front of you it is difficult to get a feeling for volume
and weight numbers. I think that part has been beat to death in these
two threads, so enough said.
As for the lottery thing, a survey was conducted by Primerica, and
many people thought they had a better chance of winning the lottery
than of sucessfully planning and saving for retirement.
Their proportions are off. Roughly $200 a month savings in an IRA will
amout to over $1,000,000 when you retire. and everybody is allowed to
do it. The historical return on the Dow is 12% per year.
Your chance of winning Powerball is about 120,000,000 to one. About
four people win each year. More people than that die waiting in line
to buy the tickets.
By design the return on the lottery overall is only 50% since the
government takes half off the top.
Of course it is more fun to buy a ticket and dream about what might
happen than it is to say you saved another $200 towards a fabulous
retirement.
It is about proportions.
--
Crashj

[Crashj]

On or about Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:53:05 -0500, KenCo >
wrote something like:
<>
>Joe; God, I pray every week that you will let
> me hit the lottery.
>God; Joe, I can do anything! But you have
> to buy the damm ticket first!!!!!!
Little Boy: God, is it true that a million years is like a second to
You and a million dollars is like a penny to You?
God: Why, yes, it is true.
Little Boy: Well, then, can I have one of Your pennies?
God: Sure, just a second. . .
--
Crashj

[Crashj]

On or about Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:38:50 GMT, Phisherman
> wrote something like:

>"Stephen M. Henning" wrote...
>> Here is another one:
>>
>> 1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition.
>> 2) One kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
>> 3) A quart is 2 pounds.
>>
>> 4) Hence, a liter is 1.1 quarts.
>>
>> Conversion charts say that a liter is 1.0566882607957349 quarts. Why
>> the difference?
>>
>
>Conversion from mass to force is not exact

Conversion from mass to force is not possible. Weight is mass at the
acceleration of gravity. Force is what it takes to move the mass at a
certain acceleration. It's that whole kilogram, newton, pound, slug
thing.
[picky, picky, I know,
but the subject line is "Calling all engineers II"
--
Crashj

[tim chandler]

Also, 2) is approximate, it's actually closer to 2.20462262 lbs./kg, and
assertion 3) below is simply not correct, for water. A quart of water
weighs not 2 lbs. but 2.085...then if you divide 2.20462262 / 2.085 you get
1.05737296.

"Crashj" > wrote in message
...
> On or about Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:38:50 GMT, Phisherman
> > wrote something like:
>
> >"Stephen M. Henning" wrote...
> >> Here is another one:
> >>
> >> 1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition.
> >> 2) One kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
> >> 3) A quart is 2 pounds.
> >>
> >> 4) Hence, a liter is 1.1 quarts.
> >>
> >> Conversion charts say that a liter is 1.0566882607957349 quarts. Why
> >> the difference?
> >>
> >
> >Conversion from mass to force is not exact
>
> Conversion from mass to force is not possible. Weight is mass at the
> acceleration of gravity. Force is what it takes to move the mass at a
> certain acceleration. It's that whole kilogram, newton, pound, slug
> thing.
> [picky, picky, I know,
> but the subject line is "Calling all engineers II"
> --
> Crashj

[Gene Nygaard]

"Stephen M. Henning" > wrote in message >...
> Here is another one:
>
> 1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition.
> 2) One kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
> 3) A quart is 2 pounds.
>
> 4) Hence, a liter is 1.1 quarts.
>
> Conversion charts say that a liter is 1.0566882607957349 quarts. Why
> the difference?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The above includes many approximations. The real values are.

The REAL, real values are:
>
> 1) A liter of water is one kilogram by definition at 4C and 1 atmosphere
> of pressure. But at 20C a liter of water is 0.9982 kilograms.

That definition of the liter was abrogated in 1964, when the CGPM
finally came to their senses and got rid of this silly 1901 definition
which required a couple of generations of students to learn that a
milliliter was not exactly the same as a cubic centimeter (although
there were very, very few measurements in the real world where it made
any difference). They are the same today, of course.

A liter of pure water at maximum density at 101.325 kPa of atmospheric
pressure, at a temperature just under 4 °C, is 0.999972 kg. This is a
measured quantity, not a definition.

> 2) One kilogram is 2.2046 pounds.

1 lb = 0.45359237 kg
This common definition was adopted worldwide in 1959. It is exact.
Divide one by this number to get the number of pounds in a kilogram;
it isn't a terminating decimal fraction.

> 3) A quart is 2 pounds approximately. Actually at 4C a quart of water
> is 2.086 pounds. At 20C a quart of water is 2.082 pounds.

You need to specify a U.S. liquid quart.

An imperial quart of water is 2.500 lb, weighed in air with brass
weights at a temperature of 62 °F.

A U.S. dry quart of wheat (not water) is 15 oz advp, based on the
standard bulk density of wheat today. In earlier times, it was
considered to be the volume of 16 oz of wheat.

The U.S. liquid quart is 1/4 of Queen Anne's wine gallon. Guess
what--this isn't based on water!

A U.S. liquid quart of pure water at maximum density and standard
atmospheric pressure, using the current definitions of the yard and
the pound (the definition of the liter is irrelevant at this point) is
2.08629 lb.

> 4) Hence, at 4C a liter is 1.0567 quarts and at 20C a liter is 1.0567
> quarts. So the common measures we take for granted are about 5 % off.

Here's how to get the exact relationship between U.S. liquid quarts
and liters, using the current definitions. It doesn't involve mass
measurements at all.

1 in = 0.254 dm
1 U.S. liquid quart = 231/4 in^3 = (57.75 in^3)(0.254^3 dm^3/in^3)
= 0.946352946 dm^3 EXACTLY

1 dm^3 = 1 L EXACTLY. Therefore,

1 U.S. liquid quart = 0.946352946 liter, exactly.

1 L = 1/0.946352946 U.S. liquid quart, exactly, or about 1.056688209
L.

"We" don't take those approximations you mentioned for granted as
expressing exact relationships.

Gene Nygaard

[keith_nuttle]

wouldn't it be simpler, 1000g = 1kg = 1l?

Hal wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:03 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>This question bugs me every time I double check my gallon calculations.
>>First, as I understand it, the conversion factor for cubic feet to gallons
>>is cf x 7.5 (7.5 gallons in each square foot). Isn't that right? My very
>>math-savvy father says it is, and I have seen it in print. Now, what I
>>don't understand is this: A five gallon water jug is much bigger than one
>>square foot. You could set a 12 inch square block right down in to one of
>>those, if it was open at the big end. How can this factor be correct? I
>>just can't wrap my brain around it. Help me, please. If you are a lurker,
>>and you can explain it to me, feel free to email me. Or, just come up out
>>of lurkdom - we'd all love to meet you.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Ann
>>
>
> 7.480519 is actually the number of gallons in a cubic foot. This is a
> neat utility for making all kinds of conversions.
>
> http://www.joshmadison.com/software/convert/
>
> Regards,
>
> Hal

[Stephen Henning]

In article >,
keith_nuttle > wrote:

> wouldn't it be simpler, 1000g = 1kg = 1l?

This is not strictly true. If you follow this logic, then a quart is 2
pounds and since 1kg = 2.2 pounds, a liter is 1.1 quarts and it is not.

The truth is:

1 liter = 1.056718 quarts

The error comes from the assumption that the density of water doesn't
vary with temperature.

1kg = 1l only at 3.98C

3.98C is the triple point of water, a unique temperature.

at 20C 1kg = 1.001732 liters

at 3.98C 1 qt of water weighs 2.0867 pounds

at 20C 1 qt of water weighs 2.0825 pounds

Prior to boiling (212F) 1 qt of water weighs 2.0001 pounds.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
18,000 gallon (17'x 47'x 2-4') lily pond garden in Zone 6
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA

[John Bachman]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:27:35 GMT, keith_nuttle
> wrote:

>wouldn't it be simpler, 1000g = 1kg = 1l?

You have confused the measurements of volume and weight. 1000
milli-liters = 1 liter. 1000 grams = 1 kilogram.
>
>Hal wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:03 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This question bugs me every time I double check my gallon calculations.
>>>First, as I understand it, the conversion factor for cubic feet to gallons
>>>is cf x 7.5 (7.5 gallons in each square foot). Isn't that right? My very
>>>math-savvy father says it is, and I have seen it in print. Now, what I
>>>don't understand is this: A five gallon water jug is much bigger than one
>>>square foot. You could set a 12 inch square block right down in to one of
>>>those, if it was open at the big end. How can this factor be correct? I
>>>just can't wrap my brain around it. Help me, please. If you are a lurker,
>>>and you can explain it to me, feel free to email me. Or, just come up out
>>>of lurkdom - we'd all love to meet you.
>>>
>>
>> 7.480519 is actually the number of gallons in a cubic foot. This is a
>> neat utility for making all kinds of conversions.
>>

While it may seem that a 5 gallon jug is bigger than a cubic (not
square) foot it is not. A cubic foot is a one foot wide X one foot
deep X one foot high. That volume is in fact bigger than a 5 gallon
container.

If you cannot imagine it to be true, I suggest that you try it. Get a
5 gallon bucket - they are commonly available and fashion a 1 foot by
1 foot by 1 foot cube and see if it fits. You will find that it does
not by a considerable margin.

John
6 munce ago i coudn't even spel ingineer and now i are one!

[Yorkshire Pudding]

<Snipped>
>
>This is not strictly true. If you follow this logic, then a quart is 2
>pounds and since 1kg = 2.2 pounds, a liter is 1.1 quarts and it is not.
>
>
OK apart from the fact that a gallon weighs about 10 pounds and not 8,
therefore 1 quart is equal to approximately 2.5 pounds. Sorry to put
the cat amongst the pigeons ;)
P.S. By the way that's UK gallons, quarts and pounds

YP

[Stephen Henning]

Yorkshire Pudding <> wrote:

> >This is not strictly true. If you follow this logic, then a quart is 2
> >pounds and since 1kg = 2.2 pounds, a liter is 1.1 quarts and it is not.
> >
> >
> OK apart from the fact that a gallon weighs about 10 pounds and not 8,
> therefore 1 quart is equal to approximately 2.5 pounds. Sorry to put
> the cat amongst the pigeons ;)
> P.S. By the way that's UK gallons, quarts and pounds

Here we call them Imperial Gallons because our neighbors in Canada use
them also. But if I remember correctly, I bought petrol by the liter in
the UK in 2001. Strangely enough, a liter was about half a pound, the
100 pence pound you know.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

[Derek Broughton]

John Bachman wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:27:35 GMT, keith_nuttle
> > wrote:
>
>>wouldn't it be simpler, 1000g = 1kg = 1l?
>
> You have confused the measurements of volume and weight. 1000
> milli-liters = 1 liter. 1000 grams = 1 kilogram.
>>

Not really. For water, the figures are the same (within tolerances).

But Keith, this thread is TWO months old!
--
derek

[Stephen Henning]

Derek Broughton > wrote on Jan 17:

> John Bachman wrote on Jan 16:

> > > wrote on Jan 16:
> >>wouldn't it be simpler, 1000g = 1kg = 1l?

> > You have confused the measurements of volume and weight. 1000
> > milli-liters = 1 liter. 1000 grams = 1 kilogram.

> Not really. For water, the figures are the same.

1kg = 1l ONLY at the tripple point of water which is 3.98C. At room
temperature there is a .2% discrepancy. At the boiling point there is a
4.4% discrepancy since the water expands and liters don't.

So one could say that 1kg of water is approximately 1 liter in volume.

As John pointed out you can never say 1kg = 1l. It is like saying that
1 apple = 1 pear.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
18,000 gallon (17'x 47'x 2-4') lily pond garden in Zone 6
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA

[John Bachman]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:12:24 -0500, Stephen Henning >
wrote:

>Derek Broughton > wrote on Jan 17:
>
>> John Bachman wrote on Jan 16:
>
>> > > wrote on Jan 16:
>> >>wouldn't it be simpler, 1000g = 1kg = 1l?
>
>> > You have confused the measurements of volume and weight. 1000
>> > milli-liters = 1 liter. 1000 grams = 1 kilogram.
>
>> Not really. For water, the figures are the same.
>
>1kg = 1l ONLY at the tripple point of water which is 3.98C. At room
>temperature there is a .2% discrepancy. At the boiling point there is a
>4.4% discrepancy since the water expands and liters don't.
>
>So one could say that 1kg of water is approximately 1 liter in volume.
>
>As John pointed out you can never say 1kg = 1l. It is like saying that
>1 apple = 1 pear.

See what happens when you ask for engineers? You get buggered on the
details. While in the first approximation 1 liter of water has a mass
of 1 Kilogram it is not correct to say that 1 l = 1Kg.

Sorry that you asked?

John
The speed of light is 180,000 miles per second.
What is the speed of dark?
The speed of time is one second per second.

[Derek Broughton]

John Bachman wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:12:24 -0500, Stephen Henning >
> wrote:
>
>>Derek Broughton > wrote on Jan 17:
>>
>>> John Bachman wrote on Jan 16:
>>
>>> > > wrote on Jan 16:
>>> >>wouldn't it be simpler, 1000g = 1kg = 1l?
>>
>>> > You have confused the measurements of volume and weight. 1000
>>> > milli-liters = 1 liter. 1000 grams = 1 kilogram.
>>
>>> Not really. For water, the figures are the same.
>>
>>1kg = 1l ONLY at the tripple point of water which is 3.98C. At room
>>temperature there is a .2% discrepancy. At the boiling point there is a
>>4.4% discrepancy since the water expands and liters don't.
>>
>>So one could say that 1kg of water is approximately 1 liter in volume.
>>
>>As John pointed out you can never say 1kg = 1l. It is like saying that
>>1 apple = 1 pear.
>
> See what happens when you ask for engineers? You get buggered on the
> details. While in the first approximation 1 liter of water has a mass
> of 1 Kilogram it is not correct to say that 1 l = 1Kg.
>
> Sorry that you asked?
>

Hey, don't put that on me!! In the first place, I didn't ask. I only
complained at you guys being so picky (and Keith for reviving a thread that
had been dead for two months).

In the second, you have both snipped a vital part of the context. I said
"the figures are the same (within tolerances)." I stand by that. Only a
completely anal-retentive engineer would feel otherwise when we're talking
about a hobby pond (I do AR pretty well, but I'm reasonably certain that
_none_ of us have ever had a pond come even close to the boiling point -
even the guys who have ponds in Colorado). I consider it a deliberate
fraud that Stephen removed the parenthetical expression AND put a period
in.

And no, it isn't even close to saying that one apple = one pear.
--
derek