Talk:Poundal

The article talks about how pdls remain constant and relevant outside of Earth's gravity in contrast to the method for scaling g and scaling the mass quantity(slugs). However, the mass rescaling should also be relevant under differing gravitational accelerations. The accelerations involved in the definition is 1 ft/s^2, which doesn't change based on g. I think this may apply to rescaling g as well, but not sure. I think the discrepancy comes from defining 1 lb-f in terms of lb-mass, rather than defining it in terms of slug-ft/s^2. Are there any objections to me working on this in the future? ArkianNWM (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your fixing things you should fix the engineering equations in the box graph. the units work out to units of mass not force. Dorminton (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the heading for Engineering and Gravitational has been transposed. I tried to fix this but was not able, as I don't understand how to find the GrvEngAbs box. As you can see; Grv = Gravitational, Eng = Engineering and Abs = Absolute Greg Glover (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern,

I have removed the GravEngAbs box. I believe when it is corrected then it should be put back in. However, anyone may revert this deletion if they wish. Then there sould be more discussion. Greg Glover (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"and is from the specialized subsystem of English absolute (a coherent system)."

English absolute what? What specialized subsystem? Gwideman (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be "the force necessary to accelerate 1 pound-mass by 1 foot per second per second"? The way it's written presently I read as "the force necessary to steadily increase the acceleration of a 1-pound-mass-object until it's 1 foot per second per second", which is, of course, wrong. You could (if perversely inclined) keep the 'to' by rewriting it as "the force necessary to steadily accelerate 1 pound-mass to 1 foot per second over the course of 1 second". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Mardle (talk • contribs) 05:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This barely historical unit is not notable by itself. The only reference we seem to have says engineers don't even use it.

• Cardarelli, François (2003), "The Foot–Pound–Second (FPS) System", Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures: Their SI Equivalences and Origins, Springer, pp. 54–55,
  ISBN 978-1-85233-682-0
  .

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]