![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The “exact” form in this version of the article is not exactly that value. The value was given as 1.3558179483314004. Carried out to a precision of 100 digits, the value is 1.355817948331400399999999900459473744029708329461580973429590812884271144866943359375. It will appear to be equivalent to a certain number of digits to 15 to 17 digits on most computers that simply rely upon double-precision math, which is built into most microprocessors’ math libraries. However, it won’t repeat for many tens of thousands of digits. I’ve corrected this. Greg L ( talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I rated this as 'Top' importance - a must-have for a print encyclopedia. This helps the article get into projects like the Wikipedia CD for kids. As far as I can see, all commonly used units of measure should be in print encyclopedias - they are in most of the sizeable ones I have seen. Anyone who picks up a spanner or a wrench in the English-speaking world should be aware of the pound-foot, even if they don't know much about it: they will see it and the Nm mentioned in the glovebox handbook of every car.
I disagree with the reassessment as 'low importance'.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 12:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the assessment of this article as there is no credible citation as to the existence of the word “pound force”. Because “pound force” appears in media adds to sell cars or automobile owner’s manual does not mean it is a legitimate word demanding the attention of Wikipidia. Greg Glover ( talk) 16:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this should be high-importance as well. However, I don't think I'm an expert, but if I cite a bunch of math textbooks, you guys can edit it. 199.17.228.129 ( talk) 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Um, nevermind, I thought this was the only article on torque, and I also forgot to login earlier... Cammy169 ( talk) 16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please cite the origins of pound foot. I see no citations or wikilinks.
I do not see this word in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary and it does not appear as a unit of measure within English units, Imperial units or United States customary units.
If no credible citations can be made I move to have this artical removed from Wikipidia. Greg Glover ( talk) 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Greg Glover has suggested moving this page to Foot-pound (torque). Yes, no, maybe so? Rracecarr ( talk) 20:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to say that NIST does consider a "pound-force foot" (lbf-ft) to be a unit of measure for moment of force (reference sp811 on the use of SI Units). I agree, though, that the term is not as good as "foot pound." And the same NIST publication also lists "foot pound-force" as a unit, so I think we can stick with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.129.74 ( talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This was removed on the grounds of original research [1]
A direct reading of a primary source as I did is not original research in the meaning we normally use at Wikipedia. I simply found a reliable source in the US motor industry that used the name 'foot-pound' to publish the torque of an engine. I am not claiming that the Duke of Oxford wrote Shakespeare plays. I think that if you delete something on the grounds of no citation, you need to hold a reasonable doubt of its accuracy. If you really think it is untrue, then by all means delete it but please put your case here. The "NOR" principle is for dispute resolution, but I don't think that we have a dispute here, as everyone who edits this article is aware that the term ft-lb torque is used occasionally, even though we haven't read a linguistic analysis of where it might be used in a textbook or other secondary or tertiary source.
Just in case they help the discussion, I have found a couple of uses outside the immediate context of the US auto industry:
Also these workshop books are in the context of the US motor industry:
Please restore at least the part of the sentence that reads "The alternate name foot-pound (ft-lb or ft-lbf) is also used to refer to this unit;" though I think the 'for example' clause is also justified.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it.
"lbf" (sometimes with f as a subscript) is a well-known symbol for pound force. Today's edit summary [8] suggests it is somehow improper or incorrect in the context of this article, and I am not sure why.
I took a quick confirmatory look with a search engine and found these. We can of course allow that publishers may get it wrong too, but I would like to understand why.
Brake torque, τ, is the product of a moment arm and corresponding brake force or, τ=rf N⋅m (ft⋅lbf)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |vol=
ignored (|volume=
suggested) (
help)T = applied torque, N·m (in.·lbf),
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 20:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying to find a source to explain the proper handling of English pronunciation with regard to the plurality of this particular term, which is very frequently spoken and written as "pound-feet." I'm hoping we could add a section to the main article clarifying the proper usage given that this term in particular is so frequently pluralized from pound-foot into pound-feet. I suspect foot->feet is not correct, however, even if it is, the inconsistency I observe begs clarification for those who care to lean the strictly correct usage (strict as opposed to "accepted to due to frequent usage over time").
In English it would be cumbersome to pluralize the pounds part, so that's not very common. With that said, is it grammatically proper to do it that way? Maybe we're supposed to be saying one-pound-foot and two-pounds-feet (pluralizing both)?
There are eight permutations of the phrase and I expect exactly two to be correct (one for singular, one for plural):
In terms of relevance, I think my question bears discussion here on Wikipedia (hopefully consensus via citation). When removing Wiki from results, the #1 reference for either phrase is this blog post where, notably, the very first comment touches on my question here (how to properly pluralize?): https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/foot-pounds-and-pound-feet-whats-the-difference/
thoughts? I'm a total wiki noob trying to add to the discussion and value of the ecosystem here in this talk... proactive apologies if I'm doing it wrong!
Dsuchter ( talk) 14:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The “exact” form in this version of the article is not exactly that value. The value was given as 1.3558179483314004. Carried out to a precision of 100 digits, the value is 1.355817948331400399999999900459473744029708329461580973429590812884271144866943359375. It will appear to be equivalent to a certain number of digits to 15 to 17 digits on most computers that simply rely upon double-precision math, which is built into most microprocessors’ math libraries. However, it won’t repeat for many tens of thousands of digits. I’ve corrected this. Greg L ( talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I rated this as 'Top' importance - a must-have for a print encyclopedia. This helps the article get into projects like the Wikipedia CD for kids. As far as I can see, all commonly used units of measure should be in print encyclopedias - they are in most of the sizeable ones I have seen. Anyone who picks up a spanner or a wrench in the English-speaking world should be aware of the pound-foot, even if they don't know much about it: they will see it and the Nm mentioned in the glovebox handbook of every car.
I disagree with the reassessment as 'low importance'.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 12:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the assessment of this article as there is no credible citation as to the existence of the word “pound force”. Because “pound force” appears in media adds to sell cars or automobile owner’s manual does not mean it is a legitimate word demanding the attention of Wikipidia. Greg Glover ( talk) 16:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this should be high-importance as well. However, I don't think I'm an expert, but if I cite a bunch of math textbooks, you guys can edit it. 199.17.228.129 ( talk) 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Um, nevermind, I thought this was the only article on torque, and I also forgot to login earlier... Cammy169 ( talk) 16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please cite the origins of pound foot. I see no citations or wikilinks.
I do not see this word in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary and it does not appear as a unit of measure within English units, Imperial units or United States customary units.
If no credible citations can be made I move to have this artical removed from Wikipidia. Greg Glover ( talk) 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Greg Glover has suggested moving this page to Foot-pound (torque). Yes, no, maybe so? Rracecarr ( talk) 20:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to say that NIST does consider a "pound-force foot" (lbf-ft) to be a unit of measure for moment of force (reference sp811 on the use of SI Units). I agree, though, that the term is not as good as "foot pound." And the same NIST publication also lists "foot pound-force" as a unit, so I think we can stick with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.129.74 ( talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This was removed on the grounds of original research [1]
A direct reading of a primary source as I did is not original research in the meaning we normally use at Wikipedia. I simply found a reliable source in the US motor industry that used the name 'foot-pound' to publish the torque of an engine. I am not claiming that the Duke of Oxford wrote Shakespeare plays. I think that if you delete something on the grounds of no citation, you need to hold a reasonable doubt of its accuracy. If you really think it is untrue, then by all means delete it but please put your case here. The "NOR" principle is for dispute resolution, but I don't think that we have a dispute here, as everyone who edits this article is aware that the term ft-lb torque is used occasionally, even though we haven't read a linguistic analysis of where it might be used in a textbook or other secondary or tertiary source.
Just in case they help the discussion, I have found a couple of uses outside the immediate context of the US auto industry:
Also these workshop books are in the context of the US motor industry:
Please restore at least the part of the sentence that reads "The alternate name foot-pound (ft-lb or ft-lbf) is also used to refer to this unit;" though I think the 'for example' clause is also justified.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it.
"lbf" (sometimes with f as a subscript) is a well-known symbol for pound force. Today's edit summary [8] suggests it is somehow improper or incorrect in the context of this article, and I am not sure why.
I took a quick confirmatory look with a search engine and found these. We can of course allow that publishers may get it wrong too, but I would like to understand why.
Brake torque, τ, is the product of a moment arm and corresponding brake force or, τ=rf N⋅m (ft⋅lbf)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |vol=
ignored (|volume=
suggested) (
help)T = applied torque, N·m (in.·lbf),
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 20:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying to find a source to explain the proper handling of English pronunciation with regard to the plurality of this particular term, which is very frequently spoken and written as "pound-feet." I'm hoping we could add a section to the main article clarifying the proper usage given that this term in particular is so frequently pluralized from pound-foot into pound-feet. I suspect foot->feet is not correct, however, even if it is, the inconsistency I observe begs clarification for those who care to lean the strictly correct usage (strict as opposed to "accepted to due to frequent usage over time").
In English it would be cumbersome to pluralize the pounds part, so that's not very common. With that said, is it grammatically proper to do it that way? Maybe we're supposed to be saying one-pound-foot and two-pounds-feet (pluralizing both)?
There are eight permutations of the phrase and I expect exactly two to be correct (one for singular, one for plural):
In terms of relevance, I think my question bears discussion here on Wikipedia (hopefully consensus via citation). When removing Wiki from results, the #1 reference for either phrase is this blog post where, notably, the very first comment touches on my question here (how to properly pluralize?): https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/foot-pounds-and-pound-feet-whats-the-difference/
thoughts? I'm a total wiki noob trying to add to the discussion and value of the ecosystem here in this talk... proactive apologies if I'm doing it wrong!
Dsuchter ( talk) 14:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)