1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Are g or kg ever a proper unit for weight? A = YES

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by NoMoShocks, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. NoMoShocks

    NoMoShocks Electrical Engineer

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    1,292
    81
    11
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    I have been Goggling, and not found a definitive answer to this question.

    Are grams or kilograms ever proper to use as units of weight. Most web results I have found clearly identify these as units of mass, but then there is also a plethora of conversion charts between Kg and pounds that imply they can be used for weight as well.

    I realize there seems to be a common convention to use g. and Kg as units of weight here on Earth, but is it really proper if you start talking about weights of objects in other places in the universe?

    Last night, my daughter in 8th grade asked me for some tutoring on a science worksheet titled Fundamentals of Earth Science, Mass, Weight and Gravity, Copyright © Glencoe/McGraw Hill.

    Two of the questions bothered me:
    6. On Earth, an astronaut weighs 60 Kg. How much will she weigh on the moon?
    7. The gravity on Jupiter is 2 – ½ times that of Earth. How much would the 60 Kg astronaut weigh if she could land on Jupiter?

    Knowing that Kg is an SI unit of Mass, and Newton is an SI unit of weight, I went to the narrative above these questions to look for a description of gravitational constants to review with my daughter. All that I found were these very general statements:

    “The weight of an object is a measure of the amount of force with which gravity is pulling on an object.â€

    “The mass of an object is the same everywhere. But the weight changes if the force of gravity changes.â€

    There was not any quantitative explanation of the relationship between units of mass and weight or gravitational constants.

    I can understand Glencoe/McGraw Hill wanting to start with simpler concepts, and I can understand them wanting to continue with reinforcing the SI system of units, but I cannot understand reinforcing incorrect concepts that will need to be unlearned later.

    Although it may be a common convention here on Earth to refer to weights in Kg, as soon as they start bringing weight on the Moon and Jupiter into the questions, they need to introduce Newtons.

    An alternative could have been to use pounds, since the gravitational constant on Earth is unity, and then it might have been legitimate to introduce separate units for pounds mass, pounds weight, Kg and Newtons in a later more advanced lesson.

    I found it impossible to coach my daughter to enter the answers I believe they were expecting, that a 60 Kg astronaut would weigh 10 Kg on the moon because the force of gravity is 1/6 that of the earth and the astronaut would weigh 150 Kg on Jupiter because the gravity of Jupiter is 2.5 times that of the Earth..

    I asked my daughter teacher about this and the response I got was this:
    I think you are correct. Glencoe/McGraw Hill wants to start with simple concepts while introducing differences between mass and weight. The purpose of this worksheet is to distinguish between mass and weight and how gravity influences that. For now we are using grams and kilograms as a unit of mass and/or weight. Later this year we will also learn about Newtons as a unit of weight (and/or force). The metric system, and the concepts of mass, weight and gravity are difficult topics for most students. As science and math teachers we have found that kids digest complex information in short sequential steps. These concepts will be developed and built upon later in more advanced lessons.

    I can understand taking baby steps, but I still am having problems accepting the idea of teaching something that is wrong as a stepping stone to teaching the correct concepts.

    What does everyone else think? Should I get a life instead?
     
  2. NoMoShocks

    NoMoShocks Electrical Engineer

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    1,292
    81
    11
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    I have been Goggling, and not found a definitive answer to this question.

    Are grams or kilograms ever proper to use as units of weight. Most web results I have found clearly identify these as units of mass, but then there is also a plethora of conversion charts between Kg and pounds that imply they can be used for weight as well.

    I realize there seems to be a common convention to use g. and Kg as units of weight here on Earth, but is it really proper if you start talking about weights of objects in other places in the universe?

    Last night, my daughter in 8th grade asked me for some tutoring on a science worksheet titled Fundamentals of Earth Science, Mass, Weight and Gravity, Copyright © Glencoe/McGraw Hill.

    Two of the questions bothered me:
    6. On Earth, an astronaut weighs 60 Kg. How much will she weigh on the moon?
    7. The gravity on Jupiter is 2 – ½ times that of Earth. How much would the 60 Kg astronaut weigh if she could land on Jupiter?

    Knowing that Kg is an SI unit of Mass, and Newton is an SI unit of weight, I went to the narrative above these questions to look for a description of gravitational constants to review with my daughter. All that I found were these very general statements:

    “The weight of an object is a measure of the amount of force with which gravity is pulling on an object.â€

    “The mass of an object is the same everywhere. But the weight changes if the force of gravity changes.â€

    There was not any quantitative explanation of the relationship between units of mass and weight or gravitational constants.

    I can understand Glencoe/McGraw Hill wanting to start with simpler concepts, and I can understand them wanting to continue with reinforcing the SI system of units, but I cannot understand reinforcing incorrect concepts that will need to be unlearned later.

    Although it may be a common convention here on Earth to refer to weights in Kg, as soon as they start bringing weight on the Moon and Jupiter into the questions, they need to introduce Newtons.

    An alternative could have been to use pounds, since the gravitational constant on Earth is unity, and then it might have been legitimate to introduce separate units for pounds mass, pounds weight, Kg and Newtons in a later more advanced lesson.

    I found it impossible to coach my daughter to enter the answers I believe they were expecting, that a 60 Kg astronaut would weigh 10 Kg on the moon because the force of gravity is 1/6 that of the earth and the astronaut would weigh 150 Kg on Jupiter because the gravity of Jupiter is 2.5 times that of the Earth..

    I asked my daughter teacher about this and the response I got was this:
    I think you are correct. Glencoe/McGraw Hill wants to start with simple concepts while introducing differences between mass and weight. The purpose of this worksheet is to distinguish between mass and weight and how gravity influences that. For now we are using grams and kilograms as a unit of mass and/or weight. Later this year we will also learn about Newtons as a unit of weight (and/or force). The metric system, and the concepts of mass, weight and gravity are difficult topics for most students. As science and math teachers we have found that kids digest complex information in short sequential steps. These concepts will be developed and built upon later in more advanced lessons.

    I can understand taking baby steps, but I still am having problems accepting the idea of teaching something that is wrong as a stepping stone to teaching the correct concepts.

    What does everyone else think? Should I get a life instead?
     
  3. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    464
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    all my measures of "weight" are in mg or g at work. atomic weights are in g/mol so i calculate the number of g to add to my buffer solutions.

    physics was never my strong suit...
     
  4. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    464
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    all my measures of "weight" are in mg or g at work. atomic weights are in g/mol so i calculate the number of g to add to my buffer solutions.

    physics was never my strong suit...
     
  5. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
  6. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
  7. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,185
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    W=mg.

    Weight is the force of gravity so it is properly expressed in Newtons (N)

    Kilograms is actually a unit of mass.

    Kilogram-force is actually what people are using when they specify weight in Kilograms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
     
  8. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,185
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    W=mg.

    Weight is the force of gravity so it is properly expressed in Newtons (N)

    Kilograms is actually a unit of mass.

    Kilogram-force is actually what people are using when they specify weight in Kilograms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
     
  9. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,080
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    While I do not see any problem with taking baby steps I think your real issue with the actual question posed to your child. The lesson plan could have used different scenarios to explain mass, density, volume etc. and not run the risk of being confusing to the child later on in their studies. On the otherhand, it may not be so harmful considering some principles apply only to specific scenarios. Think the macro world vs the subatomic world (classical physics vs quantum mechanics). Kinda. I'm not a physicist so please excuse my courseness.

    So in essence, there are many cases where one may have to forget what they know about a particular subject and apply new principles when studying a different subject. For example. In biology we would define "Kinetic Energy" slightly different than a physicist would. We may define it as thermal energy as opposed to the energy of motion because it makes more sense when learning biology. Or we may define Potential Energy as stored energy or as chemical energy (bonds between molecules). So being able to develop flexibility with definitions depending on context is not a bad thing. :) Context is everything!

    Yes, Kg is used to measure weight very often if one considers weight the same as mass in general terms. Pull up nearly living organism on the web and it will list it's weight (mass) in Kg or appropriate prefix added to gram. To be very specific you may have to use kilogram-force but I don't know much about this so here is what Wiki says. lol

    Feel free to correct me in any of this. I'm still learning. :)
     
  10. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,080
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    While I do not see any problem with taking baby steps I think your real issue with the actual question posed to your child. The lesson plan could have used different scenarios to explain mass, density, volume etc. and not run the risk of being confusing to the child later on in their studies. On the otherhand, it may not be so harmful considering some principles apply only to specific scenarios. Think the macro world vs the subatomic world (classical physics vs quantum mechanics). Kinda. I'm not a physicist so please excuse my courseness.

    So in essence, there are many cases where one may have to forget what they know about a particular subject and apply new principles when studying a different subject. For example. In biology we would define "Kinetic Energy" slightly different than a physicist would. We may define it as thermal energy as opposed to the energy of motion because it makes more sense when learning biology. Or we may define Potential Energy as stored energy or as chemical energy (bonds between molecules). So being able to develop flexibility with definitions depending on context is not a bad thing. :) Context is everything!

    Yes, Kg is used to measure weight very often if one considers weight the same as mass in general terms. Pull up nearly living organism on the web and it will list it's weight (mass) in Kg or appropriate prefix added to gram. To be very specific you may have to use kilogram-force but I don't know much about this so here is what Wiki says. lol

    Feel free to correct me in any of this. I'm still learning. :)
     
  11. NoMoShocks

    NoMoShocks Electrical Engineer

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    1,292
    81
    11
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dogfriend @ Sep 12 2007, 08:37 PM) [snapback]511720[/snapback]</div>
    Thanks Dogfriend. Your Wikipeda reference answered my question. There really is a unit of measure called the Kilogram-force, which although it it not an official SI unit, is in wide use on Earth and often abbreviated to just Kg. with "force" implied same as in pound-force. Hence, the existance of the conversion tables that I found and Godiva refered to.

    So then, getting back to the questions that were bothering me, you could say that an astronaut who weighed 60 Kilograms-force on Earth would weigh 10 Kilograms-force on the moon, whith the understanding that the non-SI unit Kilograms-force is defined as the force exerted by 1 Kg-mass under the influence of the standard Earth gravity (1 kilogram-force = 9.81 Newtons)

    Kilogram-force
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    • Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search
    The unit kilogram-force (kgf, often just kg) or kilopond (kp) is defined as the force exerted by one kilogram of mass in standard Earth gravity. Although the gravitational pull of the Earth varies as a function of position on earth, it is here defined as exactly 9.80665 m/s². So one kilogram-force is by definition equal to 9.80665 newtons.[1]

    The kilogram-force has never been a part of the International System of Units (SI), which was introduced in 1960. The SI unit of force is the newton.

    Prior to this, the unit was widely used in much of the world; it is still in use for some purposes. The thrust of a rocket engine, for example, was measured in kilograms-force in 1940s Germany, in the Soviet Union (where it remained the primary unit for thrust in the Russian space program until at least the late 1980s), and it is still used today in China and sometimes by the European Space Agency.
     
  12. NoMoShocks

    NoMoShocks Electrical Engineer

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    1,292
    81
    11
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dogfriend @ Sep 12 2007, 08:37 PM) [snapback]511720[/snapback]</div>
    Thanks Dogfriend. Your Wikipeda reference answered my question. There really is a unit of measure called the Kilogram-force, which although it it not an official SI unit, is in wide use on Earth and often abbreviated to just Kg. with "force" implied same as in pound-force. Hence, the existance of the conversion tables that I found and Godiva refered to.

    So then, getting back to the questions that were bothering me, you could say that an astronaut who weighed 60 Kilograms-force on Earth would weigh 10 Kilograms-force on the moon, whith the understanding that the non-SI unit Kilograms-force is defined as the force exerted by 1 Kg-mass under the influence of the standard Earth gravity (1 kilogram-force = 9.81 Newtons)

    Kilogram-force
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    • Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search
    The unit kilogram-force (kgf, often just kg) or kilopond (kp) is defined as the force exerted by one kilogram of mass in standard Earth gravity. Although the gravitational pull of the Earth varies as a function of position on earth, it is here defined as exactly 9.80665 m/s². So one kilogram-force is by definition equal to 9.80665 newtons.[1]

    The kilogram-force has never been a part of the International System of Units (SI), which was introduced in 1960. The SI unit of force is the newton.

    Prior to this, the unit was widely used in much of the world; it is still in use for some purposes. The thrust of a rocket engine, for example, was measured in kilograms-force in 1940s Germany, in the Soviet Union (where it remained the primary unit for thrust in the Russian space program until at least the late 1980s), and it is still used today in China and sometimes by the European Space Agency.
     
  13. InfideNino

    InfideNino New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    44
    0
    0
    Just one addition: the correct abbreviations are "g" for gram and "kg" for kilogram. So, no capitals and no periods.
     
  14. InfideNino

    InfideNino New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    44
    0
    0
    Just one addition: the correct abbreviations are "g" for gram and "kg" for kilogram. So, no capitals and no periods.
     
  15. HolyPotato

    HolyPotato Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    92
    11
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NoMoShocks @ Sep 12 2007, 10:46 PM) [snapback]511697[/snapback]</div>
    It's an interesting question. On the one hand, I think if you burden students with too much rigor, then the overall concept may be lost (if you focus too much on the distinction of mass vs weight, they might not focus on the lesson at hand, that of different surface gravities of different planetary bodies). It might be a case of "perfection is the severe enemy of good enough".

    Better wording of the questions may have side-stepped that issue in this case, perhaps "what mass would she have to gain/lose to have the same weight on the moon as she did on earth?" And then when the topic of mass vs weight is covered, the question can be repeated to highlight the distinctions: What is her mass on the earth? Her weight? Her mass and weight on the moon?

    Interestingly, I don't personally have much of an issue with teaching something "wrong" (or simplified) as a stepping stone along the way. It's happened many times in my science education, as we come into cases where the old theory doesn't apply and we need a new one, or when as students our "sophistication" and background knowledge in other topics improves to appreciate the complexities of a new theory.

    My girlfriend, on the other hand, hates the idea of learning something just to find out it's wrong and needs to be relearned later. She stopped learning chemistry pretty much the day her high school chemistry teacher started introducing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom with its concentric shells of electrons, because he gave the caveat that "this isn't really the way the atom works, but it does help us explain valence and bonding... next year they'll tell you how it really works!" And she basically said "screw this, why waste a year learning something that's wrong?"
     
  16. HolyPotato

    HolyPotato Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    92
    11
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NoMoShocks @ Sep 12 2007, 10:46 PM) [snapback]511697[/snapback]</div>
    It's an interesting question. On the one hand, I think if you burden students with too much rigor, then the overall concept may be lost (if you focus too much on the distinction of mass vs weight, they might not focus on the lesson at hand, that of different surface gravities of different planetary bodies). It might be a case of "perfection is the severe enemy of good enough".

    Better wording of the questions may have side-stepped that issue in this case, perhaps "what mass would she have to gain/lose to have the same weight on the moon as she did on earth?" And then when the topic of mass vs weight is covered, the question can be repeated to highlight the distinctions: What is her mass on the earth? Her weight? Her mass and weight on the moon?

    Interestingly, I don't personally have much of an issue with teaching something "wrong" (or simplified) as a stepping stone along the way. It's happened many times in my science education, as we come into cases where the old theory doesn't apply and we need a new one, or when as students our "sophistication" and background knowledge in other topics improves to appreciate the complexities of a new theory.

    My girlfriend, on the other hand, hates the idea of learning something just to find out it's wrong and needs to be relearned later. She stopped learning chemistry pretty much the day her high school chemistry teacher started introducing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom with its concentric shells of electrons, because he gave the caveat that "this isn't really the way the atom works, but it does help us explain valence and bonding... next year they'll tell you how it really works!" And she basically said "screw this, why waste a year learning something that's wrong?"
     
  17. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    As I understand it, the strict definitions say mass and weight are two different things. Think of mass as the 'stuff', and gravity as the 'pull'. The mass doesn't change, but the pull does. And Newtons are obviously the force of apples falling on your head. :)
     
  18. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    As I understand it, the strict definitions say mass and weight are two different things. Think of mass as the 'stuff', and gravity as the 'pull'. The mass doesn't change, but the pull does. And Newtons are obviously the force of apples falling on your head. :)
     
  19. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Kilogram is an unit of mass. This is independent of gravity. Hence, mass measurement of an object does not change anywhere in the universe.

    Pounds (lbs), Newtons, and kilogram-force are units of weight (a force). Weight depends on gravity so weight measurements change depending on where you are in the universe.

    In practice we use kilogram and kilogram-force interchangeable because mass is most commonly determined on earth by weighing an object using a scale calibrated to earth's gravity. On earth, and on earth only, an object with a mass of 1 kilogram also weighs 1 kilogram-force.
     
  20. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Kilogram is an unit of mass. This is independent of gravity. Hence, mass measurement of an object does not change anywhere in the universe.

    Pounds (lbs), Newtons, and kilogram-force are units of weight (a force). Weight depends on gravity so weight measurements change depending on where you are in the universe.

    In practice we use kilogram and kilogram-force interchangeable because mass is most commonly determined on earth by weighing an object using a scale calibrated to earth's gravity. On earth, and on earth only, an object with a mass of 1 kilogram also weighs 1 kilogram-force.