# TB vs TB Spacer?

LOL, you forgot weight = mass x acceleration of gravity?
You have now announced that NOTHING with mass has weight. Transportation engineers are now scrambling to capitalize on this theory, right?

Just as you cannot measure an aircraft's weight while it is flying/floating, you cannot measure the weight of helium while it is flying/floating. BUT, that does NOT mean it is weightless.

Well, thats two stupid answers. Gaseous helium has weight, since it has mass and will be accelerated by gravity once it is displaced by the heavier atmosphere.
As to no helium on the moon.....
http://www.yfiles.com/helium3.htm
They seem to thinmk there is one helluva lot of it there.

So a ship on the Atlantic is weightless, because the forces pushing it away from the ocean floor (earth) are greater than the gravity trying to pull it back.

Because the heavier portions of the atmosphere are displacing it. Sorta like I said right here:

The force of gravity is acting on the heavier air, just as it acts on the helium. Sorta like I said right here:

So a ball thrown through the air is weightless?

So they are lying when they refer to a ship so many tons?

Hint: nothing cancels the force of earths gravity except going out beyond the moon to get away from the earth.
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

away
it
ok no matter how a tried to keep from arguing these i just cant leave this one any longer....
"Helium is weightless on this planet because the forces pushing it away from the surface are greater than gravity trying to pull it back."
that's his statement right????
OK THEN!
go pick up a 75 lb bar bell.....the force you are excerting on the bar bell is exceeding that of gravity. YET your arms will get tired after holding the bar bell for a while......NOW! why would that be??? its weightless right?
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Helium
the
a
from
Yep
bell
the
That would be due to the fact that your muscles are exerting a force on the bar bell to counter the force of gravity.
......NOW! why would that be??? its weightless right?
In relation to the earth, yes it would but in relation to the person holding it up, not at all because the person holding it up would be supplying the force against gravity.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Pulling it down, actually... but as usual, why be precise?

Untrue... as evidenced by Gary's example of weighing a bottle with a vacuum drawn on it, vs. a bottle filled with helium. When full, the bottle is heavier. Amazing, given that helium has no weight.

Gravity has little grip on it at that altitude (because yes, the gravitational force decreases the further you get from the planet). That doesn't mean it's weightless.

The ONLY way to make something weightless is to ALLOW gravity to act on it... ie. freefall. At any other time, a mass will always have weight.

Then explain how the moon's surface has absorbed a large quantity of Helium (He3, to be specific).

Nope- blown away by a force that acts upon the mass moreso than the moon's gravity does. No different than the person flying through the air, propelled by the 200MPH winds from a hurricane. Are they weightless, too? Unless they're falling at 9.8m/sē, they aren't.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Wait, I thought that the solar winds were a largely magnetic or acted mostly on the earths magnetic field. As such, it would have little effect on the helium, unless of course, the helium had iron filings in it. But then, it would have weight, and would fall back to earth and be useless in ballons......
or something like that......
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

vacuum
Why don't you perform this test and let me know what the difference in the weight is. I bet that you will not be able to measure it. Now how much does a 1000 cubic feet of uncompressed helium weigh in lets say ounces?

light
anything
Like I said, how much does it weigh on the ground? I am not saying that it has no mass, but how much force does it put on the scale.

that
has
Incorrect. If it had weight, it will fall to the ground, without exception. Even when an airplane flies, it's wings are supplying a force that negates the force of gravity and keeps the plane in the air (IOW, makes it weightless). Does it eliminate the mass of the plane, of course not but remember, weight is a measurement of force, not mass.

it's
Helium
Because the gas is the second most abundent in the universe and crashes into it from the solar winds.

float
But weight is the force of gravity acting on the mass. If it blows away, then the force (weight) was overcome by another force and simply no longer is relavent.

Yep. They still have the same mass that they always had but if they are flying through the air, then they have no weight (relative to the ground)

9.8m/sē is a rate of acceleration and that will never happen as long as an atmosphere exists on the planet.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

By "uncompressed", I'm assuming you mean at normal atmospheric pressure and temperature...
11 pounds, 4 ounces. A liter of helium, at SCF temperature/pressure, weighs .1785g. You can do the math...
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

the
and
weighs
Are you talking in a vacuum or under normal atmospheric conditions (with air). Either way, it proves my initial point to DJ before it became the distorted mess it now is which mass and weight are not the same thing.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

pressure
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

No - it proves you were wrong. You claimed it would have no weight (remember? "I'll bet that you will not be able to measure it"). It can be measured... rather easily. Why? Because it has mass. Therefore, it weighs something.
In a vacuum, at 1 atmosphere, or at 10,000psi - doesn't matter. That MASS of helium (not volume, remember..) weighs 11.25lbs. here on earth. When contained in an environment, such that it's density is greater than the air around it, it stays on the ground. If allowed to expand such that it's density is less than the air around it, it floats upward. This has nothing to do with weight, because it weighs the same (because the mass is constant, and gravity is a constant). The fact that an object is bouyant does NOT mean it is weightless.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

be
No, it has mass but that doesn't mean that it has weight in a given enviornment. If you were to move an object to a place between the earth and the moon where the gravitational pull between the two bodies was equal, what would your mass that always has weight weigh? How about nothing. Did the mass drop to zero in this location, NOPE. Sorry Tom, but you are wrong.

But we do not live in a vacuum Tom. This planet has an atmosphere and its mass and density must be taken into account.

earth.
In a vacuum, yea, but we don't live in a vacuum. How much does it weigh out in the open as both a liquid and a gass?

the air

Yes, because then it has a weight (positive downward force).

Yes again, because its downward force (weight) is removed.

Wrong, it has everything to do with weight because weight is not mass. Weight is the measurable net downward force and if this force cannot be measured in a given enviornment, then it has no weight.

But mass and gravity are not the only players. You do know that, right? You must because you keep talking vacuum for the weight of helium.

If it is buoyant, then the downward force of gravity has been matched with an equal and opposite force. Remember that vector addition you were talking about. If the force is cancelled out, then the weight (for that environment must be zero) but hey, feel free to weigh a buoyant object while in its still in its buoyant state and let me know what it is.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Weight is the application of gravity to a mass. If there's mass, and there's gravity, there's weight. Plain and simple.

Apparently, some of us do... :)

What did I just say? I said, "at 0psi, at 14.7psi, or at 10,000psi - it doesn't matter"... a given mass will always weigh the same, regardless of it's volume, pressure, or temperature.
(Note, in order to not go off on all kinds of wild tangents, I'm deliberately ignoring the factor of acceleration here... for our purposes, all objects being discussed are assumed to be at a constant speed... could be zero, could be mach5 - but we're not going to introduce acceleration into the mix here.... things are complicated enough)

it's volume. Therefore, since mass is constant, and so is gravity (hang on again..... <THUNK>.... yep, still constant), it weighs the same.

No... it has greater density than it's surrounding gas... has nothing to do with weight. It still weighs the same.
Go back to the ice cube example.... why does an ice cube float in a glass of water? Is it weightless? Does gravity somehow stop acting on it because you put it in the glass? Why does the weight of that glass increase when you plop an ice cube in it? It's the exact same principle you're continuing ot argue, and it's absolutely rediculous.

Incredible.... you actually think the gas loses mass because it's allowed to expand...

See definition in previous post. Weight is the measure of the force of gravity exerted upon a given mass.

When it comes to weight, they absolutely are (well, again - setting acceleration aside - but we're not talking about objects in free-fall here). Gary first brought up the idea of a vacuum, to counter your claim that helium didn't weight anything. He suggested weighing a bottle with a vacuum drawn on it, then a bottle full of helium, and note the difference. This was also to dis-prove your assertion that helium had no weight.
The next person to bring up vacuum was YOU... you asked me how much 1000cu.ft. of helium would weigh... I told you 11.25lbs. You asked "in a vacuum, or at 14.7psi?" (as if that would make a difference... IT DOESN'T). I replied that it didn't matter... at 0psi, at 14.7psi, or at 10,000psi... the mass of 1000SCF of helium (and just so we're clear, that's a measure of the AMOUNT of gas that would fill 1000cu.ft. at 14.7psi and 60°F) would ALWAYS weigh 11.25lbs. here on good ol' planet Earth.

Yep - I sure do. The net resultant vector doesn't mean the component vectors don't exist. And also again, just because something isn't exerting a force on a mechanical measuring device, does NOT mean gravity isn't still pulling on it. And, after all, that's what weight is. We just MEASURE it as a downward force, because it's convenient to do so.

You really are like an ostrich with it's head in the sand... "if I can't see them, then can't see me". For the umpteenth time, just because YOU personally can't measure an object's weight by placing it on your bathroom scale and reading it, does NOT mean the object isn't being affected by gravity. And THAT, not your bathroom scale reading, is the scientific definition of weight.... the amount of force exerted upon a given mass by gravity.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Tom Lawrence wrote:

You can't ignore acceleration. That's what g is after all!

I think there's some confusion over mass and volume (and density).
A ship would be pretty heavy, yet it [generally] floats on water. Not because it's lighter than the water, but because it weighs less than the volume of water it displaces. Same for a hot air balloon.
The ice cube and water example is a bit more complicated since water has a rather unusual property: It gets more dense as it cools (like most stuff), but then, just as it approaches freezing, it suddenly gets less dense!
Very unusual, but fortunate if you are a fish, since otherwise, rivers would freeze up in winter from the bottom up! There goes the ice fishing season!
SMH
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

I understand that... but what I don't want to get into is how a mass can ACTUALLY be considered weightless- that is, when it's acceleration is exactly that of gravity (ie. falling at 32ft/s2). I also don't want to get into the fact that an object's weight will INCREASE if it's accelerating in the opposite direction of gravity (ie. the shuttle pulling 4+g during liftoff... astronauts weighing 700lbs.). The principles being discussed here are all with the mass at 1g.
But see... now ya made me get into it! :)

And the vast majority of us understand that concept. TBone will claim that the ship is weightless because it's floating...

Well, yes - but it's an easy example to comprehend, and if one had a small kitchen scale, one that's easily reproducable. The fact is that the ice is slightly less dense than the water, therefore it floats, but adding an ice cube to a glass of water sitting on that scale causes the scale's reading to increase. Simply amazing, given how that ice cube is supposed to have no weight when it's floating :)
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

get
in
that
is
to
That is because it doesn't but the concept is simply beyond your grasp.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

True for a liquid and a solid... gas is different. From a basic definition of this state of matter, "Gases will expand to fill any container, regardless of it's size". Therefore, for a given volume of any container, the gas in the container has the exact same volume as that container. Always.

It absolutely would... see below.

You are aware that gas, at virtually ANY pressure, has space between the molocules of said gas? Again, from another section of the definition of gas: "Many of the properties of gases can be understood by considering the fact that only a small part of the volume of a gas is occupied by it's atoms or molocules, which are in rapid, random motion." Essentially, the gas molocules (or molocule, in your rediculous example) are constantly moving around, bouncing off each other, or the cylinder walls.
What you're getting hung up on, is you want to measure the volume of a gas as the "space" physically occupied by the molocules of that gas, and discount the "nothingness" between them. It doesn't work that way, for reasons stated above.

Wrong. It's 20cu.in. of gas at X psi. Again, to describe the AMOUNT of gas, you express it either in mass (grams), moles, or a COMBINATION of volume AND pressure. You can then freely convert between the various measurements. As a real-world example, an 80cu.ft. tank of argon is a measurement of the volume of that gas at standard temperature (32°F) and pressure (14.7psi)
What you're referring to, (the "X" cu.in. of gas compressed/decompressed...) is the measurement of a gas at STP (standard temperature and pressure). That's a measurement of MASS (again, because we know both volume and density).
Using the above, let's take my 80cu.ft. tank of argon again. 80 cu.ft. of argon (or any gas, since we're calculating moles, and not mass) at 32°F/14.7psi is 101 moles. Now, approximating the size of said tank (because I don't feel like going outside and measuring it), let's call it 6" in diameter and 36" tall. That's about 1018cu.in. 1018cu.in. of gas, at 70°F (room temp.), and 2200psi (again, a rough approximation, but that's about what my gauge reads when it's full), calculates out to 103.5 moles. Close enough...
So, you see... we can take 80 cubic feet of gas, and convert it's volume to .59cu.ft. (1100cu.in.), and have the exact same AMOUNT (moles). And why can we do that? Because the volume of a gas is always equal to the volume of that which contains it.
This is basic high-school chemistry.... nothing overly complex here.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

solid,
LOL, no it isn't. If they all have a mass, then the same rules apply.

Wrong. While a gas has a property unique to it that allows it to change size while maintaining the same mass, there are limits on this ability and the container can be too small for a set volume of gas to fit inside. And going the other way, a set amount of gas may expand to the size of a larger container but the container is not necessarily full by definition.

No, it may always change its size to the volume of the container, the amount or volume of gas remains the same. If you take 1 cu ft of gas and COMPRESS it into a 1 cu in container, you still have 1 cu ft of gas simply compressed into a smaller space.

not
Incorrect. The standard unit of measure says this in simply not true. A standard cubic foot of any gas has a specific mass and changing the size of the container does not change the mass of the gas within it.

a
the
atoms
Correct, but as you should also be aware, a standard cubic foot of any gas is an industry standard of measurement. This standard cubic foot takes the gas molecules and the space around them into account in the measurement which is indicated by the measurement being made at a specific temperature and pressure.

Actually Tom, that is you doing that. The nothingness as you put it, is taken into account with the unit of measure. By setting a pressure and temperature when making the standard measurement, you are removing the nothingness out to the equation and are only concerned with the mass of the molecules alone. Because of this, a standard cubic foot of any gas is nothing more than a measurement of the mass of the molecules contained in 1 cubic foot at specific conditions. Because of this, the space between them no longer has any meaning so if you increase the space between them (expand the gas) of reduce the space (compress the gas), the volume of gas as a quantity measure does not change.

gas
Really??? Do you have natural gas goint to your home? What is the meter maeasuing it in? I would bet that it is cubic feet, not moles or grams. I do find it funny that not to long ago you accuse me of only seeing things my way and here you are doing exactly the same damn thing. As they say, those in glass houses....

Exactly my point. Now unless the measurement of the inside of that tank has an actual volume of 80 cu ft (and that would be one huge tank), your example proves my point. If the tank has an actual internal volume of 2 or 3 cu ft and it is said to contain 80cu ft of the gas, then the volume of the container does not always equal the volume of gas contained within it... I rest my case. BTW, I do believe that a standard cubic foot is measured at (60°F) not (32°F) but I could be wrong.

compressed/decompressed...)
This is correct and a volume of any material is a measurement of the mass of the material which is very different than the volume of a container which is a measurement of space within the container.

We need go no further. Unless your container has a physical size of 80 cu ft, you have just demonstrated that the physical volume of a container has little to do with the volume of the gas that can be contained inside.

to
can
This is completely incorrect. The volume or mass of gas is what it is. You may compress or expand it to fit within a predefined space, but since the mass doesn't change, neither does it's volume. Remember, volume has very different meanings depending on what it is referring to. When used on a container, it is a measurement of area but when used on a material, whether solid, liquid, or gas, it is a measurement of quantity or mass of the material. And with a gas, unlike a liquid or a soild, it can change it's size and density to fit into whatever container but the mass remains the same, and if the mass remains the same.... so does its volume and your 80 cu ft tank of argon which is physically what size... proves my point.

I agree and am wondering why you are having such a hard time with it or are you just having a hard time with the definition of volume?
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Gas is compressable.... liquids and solids are not.

Alright - then explain to me what constitutes a "full" container of any gas? Is a CO2 tank "full" at 20psi? 200psi? 2000psi? Or is it not "full" until just before it bursts?

You're interchanging "amount" and "volume", and that's not correct. I can have the same amount of gas in a 20cu.in. container, or a 2 cu.in. container. It will just be at a higher pressure in the smaller container.

You're still not getting it.... unless you're talking about a measurement at STP, the term "1 cu.ft. of gas" is completely meaningless in terms of the amount of that gas.

Yes - at a specific temperature and pressure (in this case, 60°F and 14.7psi - different than STP). See, that's the whole problem here. You're always assuming that a volume of any gas, regardless of it's pressure, is measured AS IF that gas were at STP (or 60/14.7). What the rest of us (going WAY back to talking about the volume of air in an engine's cylinder) is that regardless of the pressure, the gas will have a volume equal to the size of the cylinder - just a simple measure of volume.

No - the standard cubic foot is a measure of the VOLUME of a gas at STP. A mole is a measurement of the AMOUNT of gas (counting the actual number of molocules). The two are completely separate and distinct measurements.

Sure it does - it defines the volume.

changing, inversely proportional to it's pressure. Textbook Boyle's Law...

.5cu.ft. container actually has a volume of 80cu.ft. Forget about pressures, forget about temperatures, forget about other definitions. That gas is PHYSICALLY occupying .5cu.ft. That is it's volume in that tank. Yes, if allowed to expand to a pressure of 14.7psi, and 60°F, it would THEN have a volume of 80cu.ft. So what? If allowed to expand to a pressure of 13.2psi, and 40°F, it would then have a larger volume.
Bottom line: a measure of volume is just that - a measure of the physical space that matter occupies, at the time of measure. A measure of a standard cubic foot is a short-hand measurement of MASS, because we're defining additional parameters (ie. temperature and pressure), along with volume.

Yes, you're correct there. STP, which is used in scientific circles, is indeed 32°F/14.7psi. I wasn't sure which standard was used on something like a welding tank, but you're probably right - they use the SCF standard.

NO!!! Dammit, Tom... a measurement of a VOLUME of a gas has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the measurement of it's MASS. You need the volume, pressure, AND temperature to measure it's mass. The same applies to any matter - a cubic inch of aluminum does not have the same mass as a cubic foot of lead. Why? Different densities.

No - it has EVERYTHING to do with the volume of the gas inside it. It has NOTHING to do with the volume of gas AT A CERTAIN TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE.... a qualifier that you seem to be hung up on at all times. And since you seem to think of volume of a measurement of mass (as seen above), I understand where the confusion is occurring.

Mass does not equal volume. Until you understand this, we're at an impass here.

Mass does not equal volume.

Absolutely - we are in complete agreement here.

Mass does not equal volume.

Mass does not equal volume. I'm not the one having the hard time here.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Big friggin snip!
Tom, think about what you are doing for a minute.
Roy
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Yep - and really clarifies your thinking on the matter. Again, you're thinking of a gas as a bunch of stationary molocules, and the space between the molocules shouldn't count when calculating it's volume. In reality, unless a gas is at absolute zero, it's molocules are constantly in motion, and by definition, the volume of said gas is the volume of the container that's holding it.

Nope - the same AMOUNT, mass, or moles, of gas - at different volumes, and therefore different pressures and/or temperatures.

Yes - but you seem to feel that SCF is a measure of volume (physical space ocupied), when it isn't - it's a measure of mass - the AMOUNT of gas that will occupy a cubic foot at a specific temperature and pressure. It's not a simple one-dimensional measurement. Volume is. Knowing the type of gas, if given the SCF, you can calculate the number of molocules of that gas. You can't do that with a volume measurement, because again, it's a single component, and varies based on the other two properties (pressure and temperature) of a gas.

Alrighty.... from a google search "define: volume"... first hit:
"the amount of 3-dimensional space occupied by an object; 'the gas expanded to twice it's original volume'" "Volume (also called capacity" is a quantification of how much space an object occupies" "The amount of space taken up by a substance or object"

Nope. I have a bottle of gas, 2cu.ft. in size. How much gas do I have? It's impossible to tell, because (here we go again... full freaking circle), "a gas will expand to fill it's container". The volume of that gas is 2cu.ft. Oh, it may be 250 SCF worth of gas, but I didn't tell you that (because that would be measuring it's quantity)... I measured it's volume (see definition above - the amount of 3D space occupied by an object, or in this case, a substance).

Well, as indicated earlier, SCF and STP are different standards (SCF at 60°F, and STP at 32°F), but aside from that, now you're finally correct.

Which is EXACTLY what we were originally talking about.... the container being the cylinder of an engine. You just agreed with myself and Max when we told you two days ago that you were incorrect. Back then, you claimed that the VOLUME of air in the cylinder was dependent on the amount of air that got into the cylinder.

Because SCF is not (just) a measure of volume. It's a hybrid measurement made up of three component measurements, those being volume, temperature, and pressure. In other words, it's a measure of mass.

Again - SCF is not a measure of volume alone. When that 80cu.ft. of gas is stored in a .59cu.ft. tank, it's VOLUME is .59cu.ft. It's MASS is 80SCF

Oh, so I'm wrong because I'm using the scientific term? Sorry, but we're talking about science here...

Definition 4 is a layman's use of the word "volume" to describe damn-near anything. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, in the relation to a given gas's temperature, pressure, mass, and physical space occupied at those various measurements. Heck, if we use definition #5, now we're talking about decibels.

Absolutely agreed - it's an easier concept to work with, and is, by it's very name, a "standard" in the various industries. But it is NOT justa measure of volume - as discussed above.

It all goes back to your original claim... that the VOLUME (not the SCF, not the mass, not the number of molocules... but the volume) of air in a cylinder was depedent on how much air was let in. Let's not lose sight of that.... that's what I, as well as others, pointed out as being incorrect. The VOLUME is always constant (well, of course the volume changes, as the piston moves, but we're assuming we're just talking about BDC here)... the density will vary depending on the efficiency of the intake manifold, the amount of time the valves are open, the overlap, etc. etc. - but the volume... the simple measurement of the space occupied by that air... is ALWAYS the volume of the cylinder containing it).

EXACTLY. Size (ie. volume) is variable... in other words, a gas will expand to fill it's container... it's volume will be that of it's container. Size=volume, mass=quantity. You want to try and interchange those... it's incorrect.

Nope... you're still confused. You can use the volume of the container (which IS the volume of the gas, when contained in said container), pressure, and temperature to calculate the MASS of the gas. Again, you think volume=amount, or volume=quantity. That's where you're tripping yourself.

Right - which is why the SCF is a measure of mass - NOT volume, which is variable based on the other two components (pressure/temperature). Just because the measure of a gas's volume is ambiguous, and not really meaningful without the other components, doesn't make it any less of a valid measurement. Just like knowing a torque measurement, without the associated RPM, isn't all that meaningful... doesn't mean the measurement of that torque is invalid.

No - it's volume is defined by the container holding it.

So what? Mass is the measure of the amount of matter. We all know that.

...who starred in a movie with Kevin Bacon.... what is this? Six degrees of definitions?? Mass and volume are only related when you know the density of a given material. As a gas's density is so easily changed, there's no correlation between the two. To a much smaller extent, the same is true of liquids and solids, as well. I have a 1cu.ft. chunk of steel. What's it's mass? you have no idea... because depending on whether it's at 0°F, or 1000°F, it's mass will be different. Taking the inverse of that, if I have a 1kg. cube of steel, it's volume will vary with it's temperature. Granted, not much, but the principle is the same.

That's the whole crux of the problem here, Tom... what "seems" to you to be correct.... isn't. Back to my steel example... are you going to claim that a cube of steel that measures 1.003"x1.003"x1.003" really has a volume of 1cu.in., and not 1.009cu.in., because it's hot? Volume isa measurement of space occupied... mass is a measure of molecular quantity. A 1kg. chunk of steel will measure 1kg. regardless of it's temperature. It's volume will not be constant. Volume does not equal mass.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

## Site Timeline

• ### First truck or vehicle at that

• - last updated thread in Dodge Trucks Forum
• ### Stretch Bolts

• Share To

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.