Talk:Pound per square inch

Archives

1

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Conversion of units#Pressure or mechanical stress|Conversion of units: Pressure or mechanical stress]] The anchor (Pressure or mechanical stress) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Improper move

This is a messed-up, improperly plural, copy and paste move, with most of the history left behind at Pound-force per square inch. See the revision history. Gene Nygaard 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you want about leaving the history/discussion behind, but this is obviously the correct name for the page. "Pounds per square inch" gets 1,650,000 Google hits. "Pound-force per square inch" gets 969. That is a factor of about 1700. Ever heard of a landslide? Rracecarr 03:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right that it should be pound per square inch not pounds per square inch. But pound-force doesn't belong. Rracecarr 03:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs enough so that it shouldn't have been moved without discussion. And in any case, it should have been properly moved with the move button, not by copy and paste. That improper move, besides leaving behind the history mentioned above, also left behind a talk page and its history at Talk:Pound-force per square inch, and that talk page doesn't discuss any such move either. Gene Nygaard 10:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added after requested mass move related to singular/plural under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds per square inch also includes a different and distinct unit which is not and should not be included in this article. Those lb/in² (for which lbf/in² is wrong and inappropriate), use the normal pounds as units of mass, not the pounds-force used in the units of pressure or stress which are the subject of this article.

Those other "pounds per square inch" which don't belong in this article are used, for example, in ballistic coefficient. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone source this "pound-force per square inch" business? Pounds are a unit of force. You wouldn't say "newton-force per square meter". The newton is a unit of force. "Force" is redundant. Who says "pound-force"? Robert K S (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the english engineering system of units force and mass are both measured in lbs therefore pound-mass (lbm) and pound-force (lbf) are used to distinguish between the two. Also, a correction is required on this page. KSI is kilo pounds per square inch but KIP is kilo pounds.

I agree, the sentence about kip is wrong, additionally though, KSI is kip per square inch, a kip is a unit of force = 1000 lb. I think the terminology altogether should be clarified to kip per square inch, since a kip is much more common than is kilo-pound(I know kip is just an abbreviation for kilo-pound, but you rarely hear kilo-pound)98.245.222.145 (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how those towing the "pound-force" and "pound-mass" line on Wikipedia continue to blather on about how they are right but when asked to produce relaible sources they come up empty. There are numerous sources that use lb as force, including the Federal Aviation Regulations (administered by the FAA), Shigley, and various aerospace engineering texts. Can anyone break the mould and actually provide a source for the origin of the pound-force or pound-mass? I've heard a lot of garbage about some NIST declaration, but all that tells you is how to convert from metric/SI (kg) to imperial (lb), and such things are usually declared for trade regulation purposes. It doesn't define anything physical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined Terms: psia, psid, and psig

The article begins well enough describing PSI, but then in the Magnitude section it uses terms like psia, psid, and psig which are never defined... what are these???Hydradix (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler pressure conversions

In the English speaking world, steam locomotive boiler pressures are normally expressed as x lb/in². In Europe, they are normally expressed as x kg/cm². Question is, how do you convert one to the other? Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enter "5 kg per square cm in psi" into google

Errors

Gauge pressure is not relative to a standard or fixed atmospheric condition. It is relative to the surrounding atmosphere. A gas cylinder with the same absolute pressure would have different gauge pressures at sea level than at a higher altitude since the corresponding atmospheric pressures would be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.102.50 (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kg/cm^2

user:217.207.165.251 asked

Anyone able to give this in (K)g/cm^2?

Firstly it's not possible to do exactly this. kg is a unit of mass (not weight), pressure requires units of force. These have long been confused, but the SI system tries to be a little stricter in their use. So the nearest SI equivalent to this would be kgf/cm² using the kilogram-force unit (weight) rather than the kilogram.

Then there's already the convenient unit of the technical atmosphere, which is equal to 1 kgf/cm² (it's also within a few % of the usual standard atmosphere). This is in the article's conversion table already, maybe it just needs some clearer captioning?

Hope this helps Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude

I think that it would be a good idea to make clear whether the word "bike" in the sentence "Bike tire overpressure (common): Pg = 65 psi" refers to a motorcycle or a bicycle. 82.181.76.251 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

"1 psi equals 6,894.757 Pa," Is it 6,894757 Pa, or 6894.757 Pa? Bo Jacoby (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:ORDINAL. The comma is commonly used here in the US to delimit the numerals. Wizard191 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________

1 Pa = 100.000 bar

1 bar = ~14,5 PSI

100.000/14,5 = 6896,551

then :1 PSI = ~6896,551 Pa

not 6894 187.65.130.221 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the "~14,5 PSI" in your post.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error?

If 1 psi = 6.894757 kpa (or 6.895 * 10³ pa), then it should not be shortened (as in the table) to 1 psi = 6.894 * 10³ pa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.145.229 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wizard191 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this sentance read.

Full SCBA Self Contained Breathing Apparatus for toxic atmospheres Full SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) for toxic atmospheres

SCBA stands for self contained breathing apparatus so its saying the same thing twice like it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.1.161 (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 09 December 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds per square inch → Pound per square inch – Article title should be in singular form per WP:AT and WP:PLURAL. Quest for Truth (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note a similar request at Talk:Kilometres per hour. — AjaxSmack 01:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose; I think the spirit of WP:PLURAL allows for exceptions in cases like this. Red Slash 00:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should this case be an exception vis-à-vis 95% of the other units in categories such as SI derived units, Imperial units, and Customary units of measurement in the U.S.? — AjaxSmack 01:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; Wikipedia naming conventions cannot override real-world naming standards, which in this case uniformly are "pounds". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What of centimetre of water or inch of mercury? — AjaxSmack 01:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those units are not "usually unpacked" from their abbreviated or shortened forms. PSI is unpacked to "Pounds per square inch" all the time in standard engineering and industrial usage, and almost never as "pound" singular. Any practicing engineer or industrial worker dealing with material strengths, pressure, etc. will be very familiar with this. If you google "pound per square inch" almost without exception all the results are plural. Again - We cannot override real-world naming standards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inch of mercury could be moved to Inches of mercury if we want to be consistent. I don't see any reason the grammar rules would differ. Ngram if you're curious. Ditto centimetre of water. Garamond Lethet c 05:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is that a rhetorical point or are your serious? I'm not necessarily for consistency for consistency's sake and believe WP:PLURAL allows for exceptions, so if you feel that inches of mercury is a more appropriate title, would you support a move of that article and ones like it? I'm interested in the discussion here and no strong preference either way. — AjaxSmack 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "In Standard English, [the use of the plural] crucially depends on whether the phrase is prenominal or not. Prenominally, the phrase will not show plural marking, while elsewhere it will have the normal plural marking, as appropriate."[1] In other words, the unit is the pound per square inch, but pounds per square inch is the better name for the article. The source isn't reliable, but it's the most on-point I can find after a quick search. I'll see what else I can find. Garamond Lethet c 04:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedia rules shouldn't trump correct English grammar. The plural form is used unless the actual expression is a value of one unit or less (or fewer, depending.) If this is a real conflict, the Wikipedia rule needs to change to allow this. htom (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is similar to the last guideline on WP:PLURAL#Exceptions in reference to The Beatles: in common English usage, it is normally almost always plural unless the phase refers to only one unit or individual. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Red Slash, htom, etc.; the current plural form is common usage. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Oppose changing something well used and well recognized to something weird and confusing. No one says "pound per square inch", and the awkward distinction suggests something different is meant. If WP:AT or WP:PLURAL support this, then they would be wrong. Fortunately, they don't. "pounds per square inch" is singular. "Per square inch" is not a qualifier of "pound(s)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Ok, how about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? Starting the discussion appealing to a ruleset seems to be getting rather common around here, but let the record show that as long as people use psi, the article is correctly named and practical reasoning can prevail. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only about the policies and guidelines. It is also a matter of consistency. The titles of many articles on units are in singular form, for example it is foot per second but not feet per second. I am just raising up the issue and hope that we can discuss about it. --Quest for Truth (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to moving foot per second to feet per second. Garamond Lethet c 16:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I – "feet per second" seems preferable. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 11#RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?. --Quest for Truth (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Garamond Lethet c 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting English (or American, or any of the other derivative languages) to be consistent ... not going to happen. There's a huge pile of rules, and "Be consistent" is not one of them. I understand the desire for consistency, but there is no Committee of Proper (no, Correct) English (no, American) to set such things. In a century or three, doubtless the rules will change. Again. As they have before. htom (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the consistency of the English language. I mean the article titles should be consistent. While we say "feet" and "pounds" more than "foot" and "pound" (see foot vs feet and pound vs pounds) as the values are usually greater than one, the article titles are in singular, i.e. foot (unit) and pound (force). So the same should apply to other units like this one. --Quest for Truth (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat the idiomatically dead horse, but the comment from htom that you were immediately replying to had this gem, "'Be[ing] consistent' is not one of [the rules of Wikipedia]." Your mission is to see consistency in Wikipedia, while years or decades of practical and consistent use... be damned? The rules ... which are non-existent in this case ... are not intended to generally cause article titles to go against convention or practice. While on the subject, I wonder if you would be so kind to go offer your input to the Burma article, and post a few times that you wish to change the title of it to Myanmar. I am sure your input there will be appreciated, because after all, we should consistently call countries by their official, actual name, not some pretender name.

I think htom is correct. You are inventing a rule or a convention here, or you are giving undue weight to internal consistency of Wikipedia. I can guarantee that editors and publishers of major reference works always like to have internal consistency. They do so at their own peril if there is a historical or legitimate reason not to be so rigid. Try doing something like using "Jehovah" instead of "LORD" in the 1901 American Standard Version. Consistent, yes; hated and controversial, yes. What about the ancient King James Version? Do you think those translators were unwise to use words other than "Jehovah"? Its 1611 preface had specifically mentioned the fact that it would be detrimental to consistently use the same English word for every translation of a Hebrew word. They devoted lots of type space on the topic, indicating that word choice consistency was a hot topic four hundred years ago. See https://archive.org/details/prefaceofthetran467smit and quoted here:

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places, (for there be some words that be not of the same sense every where,) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, &c. thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?

[...] "We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever; we might be taxed peradventure with St. James's words, namely, To be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts. Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling; and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation instead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their azymes, tunike, rational, holocausts, prepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood." (Quote from "The Translators to the Reader", Original Preface found in 1611 Authorized Version, modernized spellings.)

So I close in saying that Wikipedia should be consistent of course, but it must give ear to the idiosyncratic inconsistencies of the real world. Rules on word choice are "superstitious" if not based on logic; otherwise, "we be in bondage to them." If we suffer from "scrupulosity" or we resort to "obscurity," we will be in danger of not "being understood." Be thou admonished, gentle Reader. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pounds per square inch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110801114928/http://www.uasinc.com:80/InfoGlossaryP.aspx to http://www.uasinc.com/InfoGlossaryP.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the title should be 'Pound per square inch'

Why is this article entitled in the plural? It should be the singular 'Pound per square inch', like all other articles on units (foot, not feet; pound, not pounds; kilogram, not kilograms; second, not seconds). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLURAL suggests that the article title should be the singular. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLURAL suggests no such thing. It actually states Measurements involving two or more units (such as pounds per square inch or miles per hour) should usually have the first word in the plural, which is quite correct. The name of the unit is not subject to WP naming conventions anyway, they are defined and exist in their own right. In the case of pounds per square inch or miles per hour the variable unit is always plural because the value will be a multiple or fraction of this unit and the fixed unit is singular because it is always unity. 'Foot pounds' is singular because the value is the product of the two units and neither is fixed. Pounds per squares inches, or square inches per pound (which I have never seen but is feasible) would indicate how many square inches supports one pound. I have been an engineer for forty years and I have never seen the expression pound per square inch and it only comes up in Google in connection with WP. Please, if you have no background in physics units maybe leave it people who actually use them. E x nihil ^(talk) 01:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The singular of the unit is pound per square inch and the plural is pounds per square inch. For values greater than 1, the plural is used, thus 10 pounds per square inch; for values less than one, the singular is used, thus 0.1 pound per square inch.[2] This is not a case where the title only exists in the plural; numerous examples of the singular can be found: e.g. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 97th Edition, National Cancer Institute Thesaurus, NIST Guide to the SI, US Post Office, US Army Corps of Engineers, etc. If the consensus is WP:IAR, that's fine, but it is not consistent with WP:PLURAL. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Discussion continues at WT:PLURAL. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guan aco 07:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds per square inch → Pound per square inch – Unit name should be singular, not plural, per WP:PLURAL Rracecarr (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This move was soundly opposed in December 2003, see above. WP:PLURAL correctly states that measurements involving two or more units (such as pounds per square inch or miles per hour) should usually have the first word in the plural. The name of the unit is not subject to WP naming conventions anyway, they are defined and exist in their own right. In the case of pounds per square inch or miles per hour the plural indicates the variable unit as this will be a multiple or fraction of this unit and the singular denotes the fixed unit, which is always unity. If you make both singular there is no longer a reference point. Square inches per pound (which I have never seen but is feasible) would indicate how many square inches supports one pound. I have been an engineer for forty years and I have never seen the expression pound per square inch and it only comes up in Google in connection with WP. E x nihil ^(talk) 01:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre argument. When we say "the distance is ten metres", the unit is the metre, not the metres. If the speed is 10 ft/s, the unit is the foot per second. When we say the pressure is 10 kgf/cm² the unit is the kilogram-force per square centimeter. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unit is indeed metre, and it is defined that way and is indeed singular. There is no actual unit 'metres per second', it's just compounded from two SI units because it's useful to us. It's a relationship, the only way we know which of the two units is the variable is by which is plural and which unity. Try Googling 'pounds per square inch' vs 'pound per square inch'. Try asking your driver, what is your kilometre per hour?, he'll give you a funny look. Anyway, we went through all this in 2003 and the result was unanimous. E x nihil ^(talk) 08:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The correct question to the driver would be "What is your speed?" The answer might well be 10 feet per second but the unit is the foot per second. The decision in 2003 is irrelevant if incorrect reasoning was used. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that we need an authoritative source. I just looked in an old textbook and found metres per second but that is not a unit, just an equation. If somebody could point out a source outside of WP that actually defines either pound per square inch or pounds per square inch as a recognised unit then I would be happy to concede this. A pound is a unit, an inch is a unit but not the term. As it is we have 182 years of engineering experience in the office, nobody uses this term and the general consensus seems to be that if both terms of the equation are unity, then the result is meaningless. Maybe this is a cultural thing, perhaps this is something the USA does with its Imperial system or something. E x nihil ^(talk)

IEEE Std 260.1-2004^[1] defines candela per square inch (not candelas per square inch). pound-force per square inch (not pounds-force per square inch), ampere per meter (not amperes per meter), bit per second (not bits per second) and so on. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ IEEE Std 260.1-2004, IEEE Standard Letter Symbols for Units of Measurement (SI Units, Customary Inch-Pound Units, and Certain Other Units)

Comment The articles miles per hour and kilometres per hour suffer from the same disease. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The nominator gives WP:PLURAL as the rationale, but WP:PLURAL actually advises the opposite, and it cites this article explicitly as an example when doing so – it says "Measurements involving two or more units (such as pounds per square inch or miles per hour) should usually have the first word in the plural." No reasoning has been given about why this article should be an exception to that. So unless we're going to change the guideline, we probably shouldn't do this. Perhaps we should rename foot per second and Kilogram-force per square centimeter. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A foot per second is a foot per second, always has been a foot per second, and always will be a foot per second. If a misguided guideline states something different the solution is to change the guidleline and not to say a foot per second from now on is a "feet per second". That would defy both simple logic and basic English grammar. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an equation, the idea is it's a measure of how much one unit varies against another. In this case the sq inch is fixed at unity and the pounds vary. I don't think pound(s) per square inch is actually a unit anyway. E x nihil ^(talk) 02:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dondervogel2 seems to have edited WP:PLURAL to remove this "exception", and I can only assume he did so as a result of you pointing this out. The reasoning given in the edit summary: "boldly removing a rule that has no basis in logic, English grammar, scientific standards practice, nor is followed on Wikipedia (revert if you must - but please read talk page and THINK first)". He also started a discussion on the talk page there, and linked it below. V2Blast (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having a uniform style is very worthwhile but language is not uniform and there are exceptions for every rule. The title "Pound per square inch" would be correct in some technical sense but would be silly for the vast majority of readers. At any rate, a consensus to change WP:PLURAL would be needed to rename this article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the singular is correct then it is not silly. And yes, of course the guideline should be changed. It is misguided and clearly does not represent consensus on Wikipedia as a whole. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that this is a broader issue than I realized at first. A substantial minority of articles about units with "per" in the middle have titles that are (I think improperly) plural. Here are a few that are singular:

And a few that are plural:

It seems to me that, even if it sounds "funny" in some cases, with very few exceptions the proper course is to use singular names, as in this table: SI derived unit#Examples of derived quantities and units Rracecarr (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started a discussion at WPPLURAL. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and to avoid duplication of effort, I propose continuing the discussion there, returning here once the issue is resolved at WP:PLURAL. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A Google Books search indicates that "pounds per square inch" outnumbers "pound per square inch" by more than ten to one. bd2412 T 17:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That reasoning seems flawed. Many units (and other things) crop up in plural form more often than in singular. For example, try your Google Books search for "sock" vs "socks". There are several times more hits for socks, but our article is called sock, as is appropriate. Scholarly definitions (not applications) of units use the singular form. So should Wikipedia. Rracecarr (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per COMMONNAME and common sense. The move arguments are not convincing and the oppose arguments are. There is simply not a compelling case to change, and without that, we shouldn't move. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be best to try to reach a consensus over in the discussion at WT:PLURAL and then come back to this RM. At the moment, we have parallel conversations happening. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. V2Blast (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should the title be "Pound per square inch" or "Pound-force per square inch"?

The guideline now clearly states that the article title should be in the singular, not plural, ostensibly requiring a move to Pound per square inch. However, to avoid having to change the title twice, let's consider first whether the correct name should be Pound-force per square inch. My own preference is the latter, on the grounds that the psi is a unit of pressure (force per unit area), not mass per unit area. Thoughts anyone? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Pound per square inch. It is possible to find references to support Pound-force per square inch, but they are rarer by about 3 orders of magnitude. I think articles should be titled according to the actual English name of the subject, even if that name seems inaccurate or ambiguous. When it comes to language, what is "correct" is ultimately determined by usage; while some very common usage can legitimately be categorized as erroneous, at some point, when 1 user in 1000 insists on sticking to the "correct" usage, it is that user, and not the other 999, who is in error--after all, the whole point of language is to facilitate communication between users. You could argue similarly that Foot-pound should be called Foot-pound-force, but no one has ever heard of "foot-pound-force" so that would be (according to me anyway) silly. Both these articles can and should contain a clarification in the first sentence or two that "pound" means "pound-force". When it comes to titles, we should go not with what the name should be, but what it is. Rracecarr (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the number of references that matter but their pedigree. The international standard IEEE 260.1^[1] lists the pound-force per square inch (not pound per square inch), with abbreviation psi and symbol lbf/in². I propose we follow this international standard. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ IEEE 260.1-2004, IEEE Standard Letter Symbols for Units of Measurement (SI Units, Customary Inch-Pound Units, and Certain Other Units)

Madonna's name is Madonna Louise Ciccone, but putting that title at the top of the article would cause unnecessary confusion. It's her real name, as can be verified by any number of reliable sources, but it's not the recognizable one. So, the article is (appropriately in my opinion) called Madonna (entertainer). No one wonders, when they arrive at the page, if they've come to the wrong place. The term "pound-force per square inch" is used essentially never (less than 1/1000 as often as "pound per square inch"). So, while it may be attractive pedantically to use the former as a title, it would be detrimental to the utility of the encyclopedia. Rracecarr (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pound-force per square inch and divert from pounds and pound per square inch, I opposed the change to pound per square inch but if it is to change it would be preferable to pin it to a recognised standard. I asked all the engineers in the office who were bemused by the singular pound per square inch and they were totally cool with pound-force per square inch and their blood pressures went down. I'm only an architect so I defer to them on these matters. E x nihil ^(talk) 08:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds per square inch, per COMMONNAME. We are here to communicate first, to be a definition second. We are not a standards body. Those who've sat on standards bodies will now how hard it is to communicate when your goal is to be rigorously defining first, and to communicate second.

All sensible engineering is done in metric units, let alone sciences. The only point in having psi here at all is to give a familiar and recognisable unit. Using pound-force is more accurate as a definition (which isn't something anyone cares about here), but it's also less clear to our readership. PSI is an anachronistic and obsolete unit - but it is not our role to try and fix or modernise it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Value of 1 psi

I looked at why the recently added convert gives a different value from that shown in the lead.

{{convert|1|psi|Pa|sigfig=7|abbr=on}} → 1 psi (6,894.757 Pa)

Convert defines the relevant units as shown below. That is followed by some calculations showing why the lead was displaying wrong and inconsistent values.

1 lbf  = 4.4482216152605 N
1 sqin = 0.00064516 m²
1 psi  = 4.4482216152605/0.00064516 = 6894.75729317 Pa

4.4482/(0.0254*0.0254)    ≈ 6894.7237894 → 6894.724
4.44822/(0.0254*0.0254)   ≈ 6894.7547895 → 6894.755
4.448222/(0.0254*0.0254)  ≈ 6894.7578895 → 6894.758
4.4482216/(0.0254*0.0254) ≈ 6894.7572695 → 6894.757

The correct value appears to be 6894.757, but achieving that requires 8 significant figures for the inputs, as shown in the last calculation. That seems excessive but it might be best, so I put it in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this. The difference seems to arise from an ambiguity in the definition of the pound-force. I was to taking this to be 1 lbf = 4.4482 N (the value stated by IEEE 260.1), while you are using the product of 1 lb with the international standard accelration due to gravity (g_std), resulting in a different value for lbf and therefore also for lbf/in^2. What is the basis for using g_std in the definition of lbf? Is there a national or international standard or legal agreement that supports this definition? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of an alternative definition for lbf but my knowledge could easily be outdated. Pound (force) has the 4.4482216152605 N value although of course that does not prove anything. I would be inclined to ask at WP:RD/S if no one here can clarify. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE 260.1 concerns standard letter symbols for units of measurement. It may kindly provide indicative approximate conversions to clarify which units are being discussed, but it does not purport to be the, or even a, definitive standard for conversions. BS 350:Part 1:1974 "Conversion Factors and Tables" was definitive for British standards. It gives 4.44822 as an approximation for the pound-force, noting that it is "in exact terms, 0.45359237 x 9.80665". It describes the lbf/ft2 as precisely 0.45359237 x 9.80665 / 0.3048^2 and the lbf/in2 as 144 lbf/ft2. It has been superseded by BS 350:2004 which is available from BSI for £262, but I doubt those values have changed. 92.19.24.9 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rv undiscussed move from Pounds per square inch to Pound per square inch

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pound per square inch → Pounds per square inch – RV undiscussed move, against COMMONNAME Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Objection to today's move

Just a note to record my strong objection to today's irrational move. This is the name of a unit of pressure. Like other units of pressure (pascal, bar, atmosphere, millimetre of mercury, inch of mercury, torr, etc) the name of the article be singular. There is no *logical* reason to use the plural. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME

It's not our job to impose logic on the world, we just record it how it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and the most widely used name for this unit is "pound per square inch", often abbreviated "psi". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the article begins "The pound per square inch is", not "The pounds per square inch is ...". What does that tell you about the name of the unit? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It tells me that you edited it a couple of days ago.

WP cannot be sourced from WP. It has to rely on external sources, and they use pounds, plural, per square inch. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I forgot I did that. It doesn't change my opinion that it's a logical edit though. Why don't you go ahead and ask me why I wrote it like that? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No wait. Those are not my words. I was simply reinstating the last stable version. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument that external sources use "pounds" as the name of a unit is nonsensical. The unit (of mass) is the avoirdupois pound and that's what reliable sources call it, often abbreviated as just "pound", but always in the singular. Just like "metres" is the plural of the name "metre". A simple rule of English grammar. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources say?

Pound per square inch (singular)

Rowlett's Dictionary of Units
Ladder Company Fireground Operations. By Steve Persson, Harold Richman
Management in the Fire Service. By Harry R. Carter, Erwin Rausch
Submarine Hydraulic Systems. By United States Navy
Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 5, Chapters 40-46. By Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett
Industrial engineering: a handbook of useful information for managers, engineers, superintendents, designers, draftsmen and other engaged in constructive work, Part 1

Pound-force per square inch (singular)

NIST
IEEE 260.1-2004
ASTM style manual
Elements of Oil and Gas Well Tubular Design. By P.D. Pattillo
Electrical Engineering Handbook. By Siemens
The Metal Databook
Conversion tables of units in science & engineering

Pounds per square inch (plural)

Example needed

Pounds-force per square inch (plural)

Example needed

Requested move 24 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:PLURAL (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds per square inch → Pound per square inch – all titles use singular 151.231.196.178 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to singular for the reason given. I would prefer a move to Pound-force per square inch, also singular, but I'll settle for Pound per square inch if that is where consensus lies. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons given in the two previous RMs on this talk page. See also Talk:Kilometres_per_hour/Archive_2#Requested_move, where a similar request was rejected. -- Calidum 13:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:PLURAL,
"Articles about measurement units, including compound units, should generally be singular (so "Foot per second" rather than "Feet per second"). For measurement units formed by combining an object or event with a unit ("Lines per inch" or "Flashes per minute"), the plural form may be acceptable if overwhelmingly favored in definitions of the unit by reliable sources."

There are no grounds for an exception here, as reliable sources define the unit 'pound per square inch' (or 'pound-force per square inch'), not the plural. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who discovered it

It is usefull to know and i need to know It because i need to write something in my school project 109.166.138.207 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions not displaying properly

Perhaps it's just an isolated incident, but the text in conversions is overlapped with source code. I'm not sure how to edit it. Edit: This also happened on the page for a Vacuum. I think it's something to do with my session.TophatGuy14 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ksi" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ksi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15 § Ksi until a consensus is reached. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] IEEE Std 260.1-2004, IEEE Standard Letter Symbols for Units of Measurement (SI Units, Customary Inch-Pound Units, and Certain Other Units)

[2] IEEE 260.1-2004, IEEE Standard Letter Symbols for Units of Measurement (SI Units, Customary Inch-Pound Units, and Certain Other Units)

[1]

[1]