![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Specific gravity page were merged into Relative density on 4 February 2020 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
See the current discussion at Talk:Relative density regarding merging. Vsmith ( talk) 00:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: As of October 2010, the article content for specific gravity has been moved to the article relative density; until specific gravity is reinstated as a separate article, discussion comments should be added to the discussion page for relative density instead of this discussion page. (copied from that discussion page:)
:The content from specific gravity has been merged into this article, and some distinctions have been made to try and point out the subtle differences between the terms. That is that SG has a reference density as water, while relative density is more general. Please feel free to expand on this. + mwtoews 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[Please remove or move this header-comment if/when [issue is resolved.]
I am not a scientist, but i believe the density of water should be 1000kg/m3, not 1000kg/m-3 as stated on this page. hopefully someone more qualified will edit the page so that readers are not confused. apologies if i'm wrong -- i checked other web pages. Ejj357 ( talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)ejj357
1000 kg·m−3 is what is in the article. The '.' kindoff refers to * so its really 1000kg*m−3 which would read 1000kg per cubic meter. ie: its correct, nothing wrong with it. Thx for the headsup!-- Venny85 Venny85 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Both the "density" and "relative density" articles use kg/m3, not kg·m−3. For consistency, we should consider using the same style. -- TimAgen ( talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I figured the relation would be best located next to initial sentence of the entry. Sorry about that.
I see exactly where your coming from, in many cases most references commonly state water's reference density as being "exactly" 1000 kg/m3 (I see that too often). When your dealing with 4 to 5 signifigant figures, I agree with you for sure. Over the years I've seen many times where specific gravity is used in formulations for calculating the mass of solute from mass percent and specific gravity, sure it is fine when for a reasonable approximation, but in the instance of diluting a concentrated acid for instance, it is strongly recommended instead of using a volume of acid that it is measured by mass. And in the article of relative density, it is clearly a "relative" density, not true density and the relative reference material must be striclty adhered to. Most assume that water is the same all over the globe (isotopic composition), most do not take that into account, you see where I'm coming from? But in any case as long as the refernces are made clear than sure it is ok depending on how deep they wanna go. Anyways have nice day and thanks for talking because everyones input is important because they do like to change the rules on us and can lead to many differentiating opinions, which is what helps us tomorrow and so on.
I changed denser back to heavier because heavier is a concept that is easier to understand and because both statements are equally true. So why was it changed back to denser with the statement "density not weight"? Thanks. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead in needs to be more vauge. Gases usually have a refence substance of air at 20oC (293.15 K, 68oF) and 1 atm. I started to change it, but wasn't sure I wasn't sure how to divide it up yet. As the leadin is too specific, its hard to change without breaking the article without making an overhaul. Pirate Argh!!1! 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a citation is needed and I am looking for one. There is also a mention of SG x 1000 in the Baumé scale article and this is linked to Gravity (alcoholic beverage) but I can find no mention of SG x 1000 in that article. Biscuittin ( talk) 09:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why [the page specific gravity] was set as a redirect, but it shouldn't have been. It's linked to on a large portion (if not most) of the pages for various substances, since their specific gravity is listed instead of, not in addition to, their measured/calculated density- Chakradragon ( talk) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the relation betwn Volume, SG & Weight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.177.133 ( talk) 08:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The formula for true specific gravity must express symbolically the definition stated in the previous paragraph. It would be more convenient to re-use in a third line some of the mathematical steps to show that true specific gravity can be computed from different properties. I will be bold and do it. George Rodney Maruri Game ( talk) 20:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Examples are given in three styles. It does not say what the base substance is (and it apparently changes from air to water part-way through). OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 13:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Specific gravity page were merged into Relative density on 4 February 2020 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
See the current discussion at Talk:Relative density regarding merging. Vsmith ( talk) 00:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: As of October 2010, the article content for specific gravity has been moved to the article relative density; until specific gravity is reinstated as a separate article, discussion comments should be added to the discussion page for relative density instead of this discussion page. (copied from that discussion page:)
:The content from specific gravity has been merged into this article, and some distinctions have been made to try and point out the subtle differences between the terms. That is that SG has a reference density as water, while relative density is more general. Please feel free to expand on this. + mwtoews 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[Please remove or move this header-comment if/when [issue is resolved.]
I am not a scientist, but i believe the density of water should be 1000kg/m3, not 1000kg/m-3 as stated on this page. hopefully someone more qualified will edit the page so that readers are not confused. apologies if i'm wrong -- i checked other web pages. Ejj357 ( talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)ejj357
1000 kg·m−3 is what is in the article. The '.' kindoff refers to * so its really 1000kg*m−3 which would read 1000kg per cubic meter. ie: its correct, nothing wrong with it. Thx for the headsup!-- Venny85 Venny85 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Both the "density" and "relative density" articles use kg/m3, not kg·m−3. For consistency, we should consider using the same style. -- TimAgen ( talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I figured the relation would be best located next to initial sentence of the entry. Sorry about that.
I see exactly where your coming from, in many cases most references commonly state water's reference density as being "exactly" 1000 kg/m3 (I see that too often). When your dealing with 4 to 5 signifigant figures, I agree with you for sure. Over the years I've seen many times where specific gravity is used in formulations for calculating the mass of solute from mass percent and specific gravity, sure it is fine when for a reasonable approximation, but in the instance of diluting a concentrated acid for instance, it is strongly recommended instead of using a volume of acid that it is measured by mass. And in the article of relative density, it is clearly a "relative" density, not true density and the relative reference material must be striclty adhered to. Most assume that water is the same all over the globe (isotopic composition), most do not take that into account, you see where I'm coming from? But in any case as long as the refernces are made clear than sure it is ok depending on how deep they wanna go. Anyways have nice day and thanks for talking because everyones input is important because they do like to change the rules on us and can lead to many differentiating opinions, which is what helps us tomorrow and so on.
I changed denser back to heavier because heavier is a concept that is easier to understand and because both statements are equally true. So why was it changed back to denser with the statement "density not weight"? Thanks. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead in needs to be more vauge. Gases usually have a refence substance of air at 20oC (293.15 K, 68oF) and 1 atm. I started to change it, but wasn't sure I wasn't sure how to divide it up yet. As the leadin is too specific, its hard to change without breaking the article without making an overhaul. Pirate Argh!!1! 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a citation is needed and I am looking for one. There is also a mention of SG x 1000 in the Baumé scale article and this is linked to Gravity (alcoholic beverage) but I can find no mention of SG x 1000 in that article. Biscuittin ( talk) 09:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why [the page specific gravity] was set as a redirect, but it shouldn't have been. It's linked to on a large portion (if not most) of the pages for various substances, since their specific gravity is listed instead of, not in addition to, their measured/calculated density- Chakradragon ( talk) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the relation betwn Volume, SG & Weight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.177.133 ( talk) 08:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The formula for true specific gravity must express symbolically the definition stated in the previous paragraph. It would be more convenient to re-use in a third line some of the mathematical steps to show that true specific gravity can be computed from different properties. I will be bold and do it. George Rodney Maruri Game ( talk) 20:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Examples are given in three styles. It does not say what the base substance is (and it apparently changes from air to water part-way through). OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 13:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)