Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> Apptech wrote:
>   
>>> Zik Saleeba wrote:
>>>       
>>>> providing approximately 6kg of thrust.
>>>>         
>>> Not likely since Kg is not a measure of force.
>>>       
>> PICy picky :-).
>> While that is strictly true, there are many exceptions to
>> such general usage that allow such nominally "lazy"
>> statements to be made in polite and even informed company.
>>     
>
> Made yes, and hanging someone for making such statements would be out of 
> bounds, but criticism is certainly justified. IM(H?)O criticizing such 
> criticism is [self-censorship kicks in].
>   
I dunno, in terms of giving a ball park figure that's understandable Kg 
force seems pretty good to me.
First thing I do when judging the "force" of something in that size 
region is mentally divide by 10 to get kilograms and compare that to 
cartons of milk. (which works out to a buttload of thrust for a model 
sized contraption, its gonna be zippy)

If the OP was making a post about the physics of something then I'd 
expect to see it in newtons.

> Glimpse from my 6-y old son trying to understand our sometimes confusing 
> world: kilo is a synonym for 1000, as in km. but it is also a synonym 
> for 1000g. He is (rightly?) blaming the world for being illogical. He is 
> in for an interesting life.
>
>   
The Kilo Gram is an odd unit of measurement, it is actually 1000 grams, 
but it "works" better than measuring everything in grams.


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist