Weighing efficiency...?
826746
It's not completely to do with the weighting efficiency itself.  It depends how large your actual sample size is. If you only had 3 people in the sample then it wouldn't be very reliable regardless of the weighting; if you have 3 million people in the sample then it'd still probably be as reliable as you could hope for even with the heaviest weighting.\n\nI think (I'm not sure of this, but fairly sure) that your effective sample size is your achieved sample size multiplied by the weighting efficiency, so multiply your sample size by 0.58\n\nEg. if you had 1,000 in your sample, then your results have an effective sample size of 580, so your answers would be as reliable as if you'd asked 580 people, so use this base size in significance tests rather than the full 1,000.  ("reliability" in this case would rely on the % confidence you want to rely on, the actual percentages that you're comparing, and the effective sample sizes of the groups you're comparing).
859844
The previous answerer has the right idea but the wrong details.\n\nThe four parts should weigh 1, 3, 9 and 27 pounds.  The logic is that the desired weight is written in "balanced ternary" notation, where the values of the digit positions are 1, 3, 9, 27, 81, . . . (that's "ternary"), but the allowed digit values instead of being 0, 1, 2 (that's regular ternary) are -1, 0, 1 (that's balanced ternary).  Then the digit values for any desired total weight written down in balanced ternary tell you whether the weight for that column is to go in one pan, go in the other pan, or stay on the floor.
213586
Lazy gal!!!calculate it once more..
201594
This is an 'empirical question'.  That means you can perform a test (experiment) to determine the answer.  Do the test.  Weigh yourself. Take a one hour bath.  Dry off.  Weigh yourself again.  Be sure not to get your hair wet because you can't dry that off quickly.\n\nLimitations may include the accuracy and reproducibility of your scale and its ability to measure very small changes.\n\nTry it!\nGood luck.
581911
You only need to perform ONE weighing.\n\nFirst: take 1 match from the first box, 2 matches from the 2nd box, 3 matches from the 3rd box, ..., and 10 matches from the last box.\n\nWeigh the 55 selected matches. If the matches are all 10 grams, the total weight will be 550 grams. However, this is not true because some of them weigh 9 grams. For each 9-gram match, the total weight will go down by 1 gram.\n\nSo if the total weight is 549 grams, then the first box has the 9-gram matches.\n\nIf the total weight is 548 grams, then the 2nd box has the 9-gram matches.\n\n...\n\nIf the total weight is 540 grams, then the 10th box has the 9-gram matches.\n\nThus: Given this setup, the nth box has the 9-gram matches where n = (550g - total weight)
820019
Efficiency is always output work over input work. The 600 lbf. load is irrelevant.
53062
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/weight/index.html
302252
You are looking for the amount of work done by the bicycle.\nWe know this value will be less than 5.4X10^3 J because energy is always lost when using a machine.\nIn addition, the answer is equal to the efficiency (62%) times the amount of work the cyclist does. \n(I wouldn't be right if I did your whole homework problem so I'll stop here)
764703
in google type in " omline currency convertor" guaranteed you will find loads. also works for whatever type of conversion your looking for g-KG, oz=Lb etc...
710153
Usually psi (pounds per square inch).\n\nAloha
722267
damned metric system. :)
239996
Work done = force x distance moved by object i thinkin a straight line ,so ithink some conversion maybe needed.
767726
The previous responder brings up excellent points, particularly about the method relying on how good the analyst is.  This is highly true!   However I would add, that gravimetric methods are typically more ACCURATE for the following reasons:\n\n1.  Errors associated with volume measurement (loss in transfer, parallax, spillage, over-titration, etc.) are reduced in gravimetric measurements.  In most gravimetric measurements, you WEIGH a final product, which either IS the compound of interest, or is stoichiometrically related to it.\n\n2.  Gravimetric methods are less sensitive to temperature than volumetric methods.\n\n3.  While BOTH types of methods are subject to sample loss, gravimetic methods are less so.  (Note:  This is less true if the analyst is a clutz.   Goes very well with the previous poster's comment!)\n\n4.  A mass is easier to reproducibly determine than a concentration.   (Any day of the week!)\n\n5.  A mass is easier to STANDARDIZE than a concentration.  Again there are errors associated with both, we concede, but mass is generally easier to deal with.  \n\n6.  You will more likely encounter limits (of sensitivity) in volume measurements than you will in  mass measurements, depending on how your lab is equipped.  \n\nThese are a few thoughts, I'm sure there are others.
242685
Your fuel cannot be considered to be efficient or inefficient.  Only the process via which the energy is extracted from it.  The equation for efficiency is as follows:\n\nefficiency = 100*(Useful energy out)/(Energy in)\n\nThe units are Joules for the energy and the efficiency is given as a percentage.  For energy in you would put how much potential energy the fuel contained and for useful energy out you would put how much of the potential energy was converted to a useful form (for example a power station converts the chemical potential energy in coal into electrical energy).\n\nFor example 1kg of a certain fuel may contain 100kJ of chemical potential energy.  If you now have a generator that converts this chemical potential energy into 50kJ of electrical energy and 50kJ of heat energy (wasted energy in this case).  You would say that the generator is 50% efficient as half of the chemical potential energy the fuel had was converted into a useful form.
342000
you have to be more specific then that. To get weight one would use triplebeam balance, electronic scale, spring scale, or any other type of scale I guess.
276611
I remember being told that a gram is approx the weight of a paperclip.  So unless you are weighing very small, light things I'd go w/kilogram.
1015451
Power = work done per unit of time.\n\nP=W/T