Hunter Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 BTS,</p> I noticed in Reisberg that my US tanks had two different ground pressure values. The M4A3(75)W has 14.3 PSI (1.0 Kg/ccm). The heavier + version has listed 15.5 PSI (1.9Kg/ccm). </p> One of these conversions is wrong isn't it? I don't have a calculator on me, or I would tell you which :-Þ</p> I'm also a bit confused about the Kg/ccm measure. Shouldn't that be Kg/scm? or Kg/sm in SI units?</p> I know I'm getting really picky now </p> Bruce</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Id say that the ccm is metric Bruce. Its kilogram per cubic centimetre... [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 11-16-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Hmmm I am not sure which number you are having a problem with but the PSI ground presure numbers coincide with 4 different sources that I was able to locate in about 5 minutes of searching. Well truth be known one souce qouted 14.5 PSI so shoot me! I would assume that the Kilogram to cubic centimeter kg/ccm seems right as well but i will check on it some more. Anyone else with a better grasp of mathematics/measures wish to jump in? Madmatt out.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcarey Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Generally pressure is a force per unit area, so I would think that it would be M/A or Kg/scm. It is not readily apparrent to me what force per volume would be. As to the conversion, I was never any good with USCS units. Someone else will have to pick that one up. -Sorry - Bill Carey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Kg/ccm appears to be "mass", weight per volume. So 1.9 kg/ccm CAN yield "only" 15.5 PSI, if for example the tracks are wider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 For all you chaps stuck in a time warp, and still using Imperial measures, try: http://www.french-property.com/cgi-bin/ifp/convert.pl Regards Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Well, assuming that they were trying to show both English and Metric, then I think it should be 14.3 PSI (98.621 kPa) and 15.5 PSI (106.9 kPa). If I recall, Kg/ccm is a density measurement, so I'm not sure how that info is important. I'm pretty sure that Moon is right about it being possible that 15.5 PSI can equal 1.9kg/ccm, but since the last time I had to figure stuff like that out was in high school, I wouldn't have a clue off hand as to if that figure is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamup Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Don't _ever_ post on topics like this when a physicist is around. Sorry, nobody's gotten it right yet. The correct metric mass/area (which is not a pressure) is 1.09 kg/square cm. A 0 was dropped, and this should be easy to fix. If you really want all the gory details, read on - If the W weighs 35 tons = 70000 lb, and has a ground pressure of 14.3 psi, its footprint is 4900 square inches - about 34 square feet, which is reasonable. Converting these to metric, one gets 1.0 kg/cm squared, which is what is noted (ccm is a somewhat archaic notation for square centimeters, NOT cubic... the c's are both "centi". It's like p. for a page and pp. for several pages) BTW, don't even get me started on the fact that this is not a pressure... pounds (a force) and kilograms (a mass) do not measure the same thing, a metric pressure would be kg/m/s^2. Doing the same for the W+, assuming the same footprint, one gets 15.1 psi - close enough given the precision of the data provided. This then becomes 1.09 kg/cm^2, NOT 1.9. Someone dropped a 0. I would expect, since this is so simple, it can be fixed easily. [This message has been edited by Beamup (edited 11-16-99).] [This message has been edited by Beamup (edited 11-16-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Forget metric, Imperial all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 "Forget metric" Hehe, isnt that what that guy did who was trying to put that satellite into orbit around Mars? Didnt work for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Ouch. OUCH. My brain hurts. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted November 17, 1999 Author Share Posted November 17, 1999 Beamup,</p> Nice one.</p> That's it! I can't play this buggy and unrealistic game until they put that '0' back into the value.</p> grin.. </p> Bruce</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts