| |
J.D. Forinash wrote:
>
> In article <GBLto5.JsI@lugnet.com>,
> Cary Clark <cary@corp.nospamwebtv.net> wrote:
> > a gold coin = 0.05602 g
> > flower petal = 0.06392 g
> > small antenna = 0.05744 g
> > 1x1 plate = 0.17583 g
> > 1x1 round plate = 0.10436 g
> > 1x8 brick = 3.06061 g
> > 1x8 technic brk = 2.89084 g
>
> Hm, looking at the picture I get to wondering. These numbers are pretty
> ridiculously small to even more ridiculously small precision.
it was also pretty ridiculous that we care about the lego in such a
geeky way. :)
> Would it not be more "correct" to measure more than one at the time and
> divide, perhaps then adding in an error factor based on weighing
> individual pieces? Noting that the difference between the small antenna
> and the gold coin is about 1 milligram, I can easily imagine a light
> coin and a heavy antenna making the numbers turn out backward....
yes. it would also be good to only use new parts and remove them from
their bag with forceps... = lots of work. this would make a god
article for the 'journal of improbable results' (1).
> (Note: An appropriate answer is very possibly, "Yes, but I don't have
> that much free time with the scale..." :) ) Or perhaps even "I don't
> own the seven million antenna it would take to get a reasonable
> reasonable measurement", I don't recall where you can assume
> you're not just looking at statistical noise...
Yes, but I don't have that much free time with the scale... :) My lab
is used by a bunch of grad students and faculty and it's occupied
ridiculously long hours of the day. I just happened to had to go back
and pick up a paper I left but I was checking email/lugnet and saw this
thread so since I was going back anyway... I figured what the heck.
This balance is also used to weigh things like ethidium bromide, a
neurotoxin used in gel electrophoresis, so I don't like to touch if if I
don't have to. All the parts I used in this test are soaking right
now. (The balance is also used to weigh seeds and plant parts)
I do have access to a balance that only has three decimal places instead
of five. Maybe I'll try what you have suggested.
-chris
1- i'm drafting this article in my spare time right now for this journal
regarding everyone's favorite wizard. it's going to be great. :)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: How much does LEGO Weigh?
|
| (...) Heh. :) (...) 3 should get you down into milligrams, which I suspect _ought_ to be sufficient for any purpose legomaniacs could have. It's not like we're trying to figure out the right number of 1x1 tiles needed to react with five pounds of (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-01, to lugnet.market.shipping, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: How much does LEGO Weigh?
|
| (...) Hm, looking at the picture I get to wondering. These numbers are pretty ridiculously small to even more ridiculously small precision. Would it not be more "correct" to measure more than one at the time and divide, perhaps then adding in an (...) (23 years ago, 11-Apr-01, to lugnet.market.shipping, lugnet.general)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
