I think I have water in my refrigerant. No, I tell a lie, it's coffee. Carte Noíre...
No, it's late on a Friday night and you've just got back from the pub (or is it me who just got back from the pub?).I must be being brain washed. BH is starting to make sense!. Nice one BH, even I understand that.
As, at present, there is no such unit of lightness and your suggestion of the Wally is brilliant and could change science forever. Nearly as good as E=MC squared. I wish you all the luck in the world trying to convince those who set the SI units for official recognition of the Wally? This would certainly alleviate the problem that 'three times lighter' poses. So presumably the Wally is the inverse of the Kg? As you say, the models will be most inpressed by having a mass of 0.02Wa. I have assumed the abbreviation Wa, as W is already in use.Suppose we were to define lightness as being the inverse of weight,
I did my calculation in mixed units. Started off with 8stone x 14 /2.2 =50.909. Round down to 50 then convert to Wallys. But I suppose my rounding down is the equivalent to your 'a smidge low' or should it be a smidge high?PS: Well done on your conversion factor 0.02Wa = 1SM, I think that's about right (or perhaps just a smidge low).
I do try, considering the title of the topic, and the pedants present, but I thought that I was being a smart ass using 'Mass' not weight and now feel extremely embarrased at my incorrect useage of mass when referring to lightness. Nearly as bad as three times lighter.PPS: Well done on your correct usage of "assume".
G represents conductance not the units of conductance. If you ask how do we get the symbol G for conductance, it is probably in the same way we get:No R=V/I. And how do we get G from Siemen for conductivity anyway?