PF~ conversion please
 

755 grams is how many ounces and pounds???

How about 75 grams too?

755 grams is 26.6288 oz is 1 pound 10.6288 oz

75 grams is 2.6525 oz

or just figure 26 1/2 oz and 2 1/2 oz

755 gram = 1.66 pound

75 gram = 0.165 pound

Thanks!!!!

Might I inquire as why you need this conversion info? :huh:

It's the weight my tumor was. I was skipping that part cause it's not very sexy.

:yikes: That was a rapid weight loss program then...

That remains to be seen. Currently I look like

You said you want to do what? ;)

26 oz would be about the weight of an average hardcover novel...think of not carrying that around now...

Yes but it was a damn good book while I was reading it ;)

I first read that as 'hardcore' novel. :D

Well we know where his ^^^ mind is

Think we should welcome him as part of the gang? :p

You got me, my wife always told me size didn't matter.

Yep! 755 gr (750=3/4 of 1000) is just over 1-1/2 lbs.

Sorry to be so late in finding this. You know how I love to play with your …………. numbers. YES! Numbers! That’s what I was thinking. :rolleyes:



Converting our clunky system to the thought-out one the rest of the world uses isn’t too hard if you don’t want it to be. (We know anybody can make anything not work if they don’t want it to)

A few of our randomly unrelated measuring units can make for easy ‘head conversion’ if you have just one mentally connected to each measurement class of their very workable ten base system. In the case of weight, our lb. is just over ½ kg.

[kilogram = 1000 (kilo) grams. That’s about 2-1/4 of our lb to 1 kg. So for head numbers, you can buy lunch meat or chocolate buy just halving what you would normally get. “½ kilo” of bologna is just over 1 lb. The weekly supply of 5 lbs of chocolate is a little less than 2-1/2 kilos and sounds less hoggish.]

As I read this thread, I had a good suspicion what we were converting. A pound and a half of a eating thing growing inside you that didn’t come OEM and won’t jump out, is a BIG thing. I’m just so happy you didn’t have one with poison seeds.


And I'm so glad you’re back with us early. :D

(As for any ironies reports of me starting to hang up mandatory panty exchange signs, please disregard them. I’m sure it was a case of mistaken identity. ) :wish:

Truly better out than in.

PF, your system isn't as random as it may seem.

It was an attempt (influenced by the metric French system) to rationalise weights and volumes.

An fluid ounce of water weighs one ounce.

A pint of water weighs one pound, as opposed to the Imperial where a pint is 20oz.

Where this became important was where you didn't have precision volume measing equipment, but you could accurately weigh an ounce and a pound.

Once you established the volume of water, you could mark the container, empty the water, fill it with the other liquid to be measured and have an accurate measure.

The first measure had to be water because water was the standard, and nothing else quite weighs the same, so a pound of wine or whisky would volume slightly less than the water, but oil slightly more.

Logic from another era.

your varying shades of a cool blue color with cute flippers?
and freckles, right?

Of course back then we didn't know about density. The person who got a "pound "of sand really got their "money's" worth. :p

No flippers but a zipper. Not only blue but black as well and well I believe you know about the freckles.

It sure was ethnocentric logic in the face of complete superiority from another era that we STILL haven’t gotten past in the US. :banghead:


Too bad the link to universality and availability of water stopped with that one hook into measurement classes. We have water that solidifies at 32 degrees, not 0, (because zero F was the coldest spot in Fahrenheit’s lab) and that vaporizes at 212, not 100.

It’s a good thing the concept of density was derived by someone using the metric system or we might well have the density of 1 being equal to the size of an acorn a chipmunk could pack into it cheek divided by 16. :sad:

I always thought that density was measured by IQ points

I thought density was a way to evaluate politicians?

You know, dense, denser, densest.

:)

NO. Not good for politicians. You can’t use exponential values and the probability for that requirement is far greater than 1 to 1. :banghead:

Oh.









:D

PF,

Yes, but 100F was supposed to be the ambient temperature of that most perfect of creations, the human body.

I should get a degree in thermal trivia.

Did you know that you can say 40 below zero and not need to specify the scale?

And he got that wrong too. :roflmao:




You can say it, but if it’s on the Kelvin, Rankine or Reaumur scale there is a difference. :sad:





lmao :D

this site might help.

http://www.convert-me.com/en/