I'm looking around at spring and some are kg/mm and some are lbs/inch. Could somebody please tell me how to covert back and forth between the two so I can make some comparisons..

(I'll brush up on my math later)

Thanks...

 

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=100441

Will

 

Multiplying kgmm by 56 should get you close enough

 

or if you want to be a nerdy engineer like me multiply by:

56.0071120142 that is exact

 

Yeah, what they said


[Modified by cheezemaster, 12:18 PM 1/29/2002]

 

thanks

 

1kg = 2.2lbs

1kgmm = 55.88 lbin

 

Okay, math lesson:

1kg/mm * 25.4mm/1in * 2.2lb/1kg = 55.88 lb/in

 

Or, for those who need more precision:

1kg/mm * 25.4mm/1in * 2.20462262184878lb/1kg = 55.997414594959012 lb/in

 

 

would all the decimals after the 55 be accurate (irrelevant?) b/c the inch>mm conversion only has three significant numbers. *shrugs*

yshi - who ain not math genius

 

you are correct sir.
the minimum sig value owns

 

If thats the case then it should be 56. 55.88 rounds up to 56!

CB

 

<U>Metric to Non-Metric:</U>
Millimeters x .03937 = Inches
http://anduin.eldar.org/~ben/convert/kgram_lb.html Cool program...enter in and it automatically calculates for you.

 

Yes - because they defined an inch as exactly 25.4 mm. IOW it's 25.40000000000000... mm.

That was officially decreed in the Weights and Measures Act of 1963. For more background and history of units of measuring length, click here.



[Modified by nsxtcjr, 4:22 PM 1/29/2002]

 

Actually, wouldnt it be 60 since the lowest value is 1

 

No - because they defined 1 as exactly 1. IOW it's 1.00000000000000000...

 

But 0s to the right arent significant

 

Spoken like a true left-wing radical!

However, if the number is exact, then the zeros to the right are significant.

 

But if the number is meant to be exact wouldnt it be written with all the
0s intact??

 

lol - i've opened up a can of worms w/ this significant # chitls