Chronology
Current Month
Current Thread
Current Date
[Year List]
[Month List (current year)]
[
Date Index
] [
Thread Index
]
[
Thread Prev
] [
Thread Next
]
[
Date Prev
] [
Date Next
]
Re: [Phys-l] force or mass
From
: "Rauber, Joel" <
Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU
>
Date
: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:39:54 -0600
|In circumstances where there may otherwise be
| ambiguity, the symbols "lbf" and "lbm" and the terms
| "pounds-force" and "pounds-mass" can be used to distinguish.
|
The above is how my Civil Engineering Colleagues refer to these entities.
References
:
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
curtis osterhoudt <flutzpah@yahoo.com>
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
Joseph Bellina <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
"Mariam Dittmann" <mariam.dittmann@bainbridge.edu>
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
"Paul Lulai" <plulai@stanthony.k12.mn.us>
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
"Rick Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
Robert Yeend <ryeend@sbcglobal.net>
Re: [Phys-l] STUDY SUGGESTS NO CHILD LAW MAY BE DUMBING DOWNSTUDENTS
From:
Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Re: [Phys-l] force or mass
From:
"Richard Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>
Prev by Date:
Re: [Phys-l] force or mass
Next by Date:
Re: [Phys-l] Pound mass or weight?
Previous by thread:
Re: [Phys-l] force or mass
Next by thread:
Re: [Phys-l] force or mass
Index(es):
Date
Thread