Golden Train on Springfield Squidport

"AARONRTD;1579001" wrote:
The gold train would be wayyyy lighter.

A locomotive - an actual working locomotive and not just an object that looked like a locomotive - made of gold would require the same amount of metal that a locomotive made of steel would. So the one made of gold would weigh more.
2. When you're comparing the weight of 2 things you have to use a common weight system. So a pound of gold and a pound of feathers both weigh a pound - they just weigh that pound in which ever system of measurement you use.

"wadebear;1579018" wrote:

"AARONRTD;1579001" wrote:
The gold train would be wayyyy lighter.

A locomotive - an actual working locomotive and not just an object that looked like a locomotive - made of gold would require the same amount of metal that a locomotive made of steel would. So the one made of gold would weigh more.
2. When you're comparing the weight of 2 things you have to use a common weight system. So a pound of gold and a pound of feathers both weigh a pound - they just weigh that pound in which ever system of measurement you use.

1: A 1 inch cube (1x1x1) of steel lest say = 1lb (16oz)
So a 1 inch cube (1x1x1) of gold would be 1troy lb (12oz)
What you're saying is I need to rewrite 100's or 1000's of years of measurement systems just so as not to confuse you when asked a trick question.
But I'd be happy to by a pound of gold off you all (16oz) at the current market value of 1 pound of gold (12oz) heck I might splurge and get 2.

2. Next you'll say that the gold train has to be as strong as a steel train, so that would increase the overall size and weight and be heavier than the steel one (yeh you win the argument).

"AARONRTD;1579025" wrote:

"wadebear;1579018" wrote:

"AARONRTD;1579001" wrote:
The gold train would be wayyyy lighter.

A locomotive - an actual working locomotive and not just an object that looked like a locomotive - made of gold would require the same amount of metal that a locomotive made of steel would. So the one made of gold would weigh more.
2. When you're comparing the weight of 2 things you have to use a common weight system. So a pound of gold and a pound of feathers both weigh a pound - they just weigh that pound in which ever system of measurement you use.

1: A 1 inch cube (1x1x1) of steel lest say = 1lb (16oz)
So a 1 inch cube (1x1x1) of gold would be 1troy lb (12oz)
What you're saying is I need to rewrite 100's or 1000's of years of measurement systems just so as not to confuse you when asked a trick question.
But I'd be happy to by a pound of gold off you all (16oz) at the current market value of 1 pound of gold (12oz) heck I might splurge and get 2.

2. Next you'll say that the gold train has to be as strong as a steel train, so that would increase the overall size and weight and be heavier than the steel one (yeh you win the argument).

Great theory but just not correct, as 1 foot cubic of steel has a weight of 490 pound (0.2904 pounds per cubic inch) and a 1 foot cubic of gold has a weight of 1,206 pounds (slightly less than 0.7 pounds per cubic inch) these are at earth standard gravity

)

What the heck happened here, I go to bed and its gone intellectual....

"DaveF-2016;1579054" wrote:
What the heck happened here, I go to bed and its gone intellectual....

Lol. And my train's 24k so their all wrong :D JK
Edit: they are, they're, there, their...auto fill should be properly named auto dumb

"devilhunt1449;1579040" wrote:

"AARONRTD;1579025" wrote:

"wadebear;1579018" wrote:

"AARONRTD;1579001" wrote:
The gold train would be wayyyy lighter.

A locomotive - an actual working locomotive and not just an object that looked like a locomotive - made of gold would require the same amount of metal that a locomotive made of steel would. So the one made of gold would weigh more.
2. When you're comparing the weight of 2 things you have to use a common weight system. So a pound of gold and a pound of feathers both weigh a pound - they just weigh that pound in which ever system of measurement you use.

1: A 1 inch cube (1x1x1) of steel lest say = 1lb (16oz)
So a 1 inch cube (1x1x1) of gold would be 1troy lb (12oz)
What you're saying is I need to rewrite 100's or 1000's of years of measurement systems just so as not to confuse you when asked a trick question.
But I'd be happy to by a pound of gold off you all (16oz) at the current market value of 1 pound of gold (12oz) heck I might splurge and get 2.

2. Next you'll say that the gold train has to be as strong as a steel train, so that would increase the overall size and weight and be heavier than the steel one (yeh you win the argument).

Great theory but just not correct, as 1 foot cubic of steel has a weight of 490 pound (0.2904 pounds per cubic inch) and a 1 foot cubic of gold has a weight of 1,206 pounds (slightly less than 0.7 pounds per cubic inch) these are at earth standard gravity

)

Oh excuse me I miss spelled let's in "let's say" and I'll forgive your miss understanding of "let's say " (for the sake of argument and my lack of looking for factual accuracy) that x = 1lb.

But my mistake was taking (a pound for a Troy pound) weight only and and changing it to size :#
But......
We all know 16 ounces equal a pound. True in the avoirdupois system, but not in the troy. In the Troy system only 12 ounces equal a pound. So a pound of feathers weighs 453.59 grams approximately and a pound of gold weighs 373.24 approximately. So a pound of feathers weighs more then a pound of gold.

"DaveF-2016;1579054" wrote:
What the heck happened here, I go to bed and its gone intellectual....

I know right? It's all maths and engineering...I'm just a piano player for crying out loud!

"AARONRTD;1579001" wrote:

"sflowers330;1578909" wrote:

"AARONRTD;1578844" wrote:

"1pillform;1578653" wrote:

"wadebear;1578625" wrote:
Yeah, but how long is it going to support that amount of weight? >:)

Especially since its gold, even more weight because of that. If we're being realistic about it lol....realistically a scummy wooden sea port could never hold something like that on it. But I'm glad we can put it there. Except I don't have much of a port. lol....I guess I could just place 3 squares and place it in the middle of my ocean lol

A gold train would weigh less than a steel train.
What weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?



A: a pound of feathers.

Lol yes a pound is a pound.

However the gold train would be wayyyy heavier.

Density per m3 in KG:

Gold 19,320
Steel 7,850

A pound is 16oz the gold is weighed in Troys (1lb is 12oz)
Therefore
A pound of feathers 16oz is heavier the a pound of gold 12oz lol a pound is not a pound
The gold train would be wayyyy lighter.

Hilarious! True and I totally forgot that in my own calculations.
Higher education, once again, truly paying off! Lol

Well, I didn't want to get into this, but here goes...

Actually a pound of gold (or stones, or lead) weighs more than a pound of feathers. I learned this on day one from my university physics professor. No tricks about this pound vs. that pound, just the application of Archimedes' Principle.

A pound is a measure of mass, not weight. The pound is defined against the kg, and for the remainder of this discussion I'll switch to the metric system (sorry, I'm Canadian) which will also nullify the troy-pound issue. Mass is a measure of "the amount of stuff" (in kg or pounds) and always stays the same no matter where you are, but weight is the downward force exerted by gravity (measured in newtons) and changes with location. For example, if you had a 1kg of feathers in space, it would still be 1kg, although it would have no weight.
Measuring the actual weight of a kg of feathers on earth would require the conversion of 9.8N/kg, so 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons. The weight of a kg of gold would be 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons... so they're the same right? Well, yes but it doesn't account for the counteracting force of buoyancy. Archimedes' Principle basically describes buoyancy in a fluid environment. The more volume an object displaces, the greater the upward force would be. It's the reason things float in water - if this upwards force is stronger than the weight pulling things down, things will float in water. Although you don't think about it, air is also considered a fluid environment, we just don't see helium balloons often enough to think about it. Since feathers take up more volume, Archemedes' Principle states that the upward force is greater than something small and dense like gold. So the 9.8Newtons of weight in feathers would be offset more by its buoyancy than the gold, so the gold weighs more.
(It's difficult to visualize, but think about weighing the pound of gold and feathers on land (for the sake of this argument let's say you measured weight in a complete vacuum where the same mass actually means the same weight), then trying to do the same thing underwater. Your feathers would probably float or at the very least weigh a fraction of what they do on land. Your gold would show up "weighing" much more. The same thing happens on land, except to a lesser degree, but the earth's atmosphere still acts like a fluid, and the same buoyancy principles apply.)

"anaquarind;1579227" wrote:
Well, I didn't want to get into this, but here goes...

Actually a pound of gold (or stones, or lead) weighs more than a pound of feathers. I learned this on day one from my university physics professor. No tricks about this pound vs. that pound, just the application of Archimedes' Principle.

A pound is a measure of mass, not weight. The pound is defined against the kg, and for the remainder of this discussion I'll switch to the metric system (sorry, I'm Canadian) which will also nullify the troy-pound issue. Mass is a measure of "the amount of stuff" (in kg or pounds) and always stays the same no matter where you are, but weight is the downward force exerted by gravity (measured in newtons) and changes with location. For example, if you had a 1kg of feathers in space, it would still be 1kg, although it would have no weight.
Measuring the actual weight of a kg of feathers on earth would require the conversion of 9.8N/kg, so 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons. The weight of a kg of gold would be 1kgX9.8N/kg=9.8Newtons... so they're the same right? Well, yes but it doesn't account for the counteracting force of buoyancy. Archimedes' Principle basically describes buoyancy in a fluid environment. The more volume an object displaces, the greater the upward force would be. It's the reason things float in water - if this upwards force is stronger than the weight pulling things down, things will float in water. Although you don't think about it, air is also considered a fluid environment, we just don't see helium balloons often enough to think about it. Since feathers take up more volume, Archemedes' Principle states that the upward force is greater than something small and dense like gold. So the 9.8Newtons of weight in feathers would be offset more by its buoyancy than the gold, so the gold weighs more.
(It's difficult to visualize, but think about weighing the pound of gold and feathers on land (for the sake of this argument let's say you measured weight in a complete vacuum where the same mass actually means the same weight), then trying to do the same thing underwater. Your feathers would probably float or at the very least weigh a fraction of what they do on land. Your gold would show up "weighing" much more. The same thing happens on land, except to a lesser degree, but the earth's atmosphere still acts like a fluid, and the same buoyancy principles apply.)

I've got to know... what is your educational background? What type of work do you do for a living? I'm extremely impressed!