I'm using euro cents as weights in my weighted vest.
When I started doing this I didn't want to afford dedicated weights as it seemed like a waste of money, but I had many cents saved up from my childhood, which I started to use instead.
I have roughly 15kg in euro cents in my vest and I'm regularly talking walks with it.
To get one kilo you need 435 cents and it turns out that in Germany you can also "buy" coins "for free" at the "Bundesbank", that is, you can exchange actual money for weights without any fees. You give 4 euros and 35 cents and you get a kilo. Once you need the money back, you can also sell those coins back to them for free.
I don't mean to argue that it's just gimmick and any sane person would just use sand, but to be completely fair, sand is much less dense than steel, so if the coins pack well it does make a better weight.
I do also suspect that there must be some product that must be more cost effective than coins but denser than sand, but cannot think of it right away. I mean, scrap steel is a couple of cents per kg.
Sometimes sand + water is used for ballast. Depends on your use case, if your heavy thing is moving around then the sloshing won't be ideal, but if it's just sitting somewhere static then it can work.
eg; weighing down the corners of a beach tent, pegs won't grip in the sand so instead tie plastic bags onto the guy ropes and fill them with sand and water.
Olympic weight plates for barbells. They're widely used, so competition has brought the cost down, and they're easily available in useful increments. I currently see 4x 10lbs for <$50 on Amazon. That works out to 2,53 Euro per kg. So cheaper than euro cents. They may not have the exact shape you need.
The scrap steel probably didn't cost cents per kg when it was sold for its original purpose. You are paying for a useful shape.
A professional equivalent of weighted vests are ballistic plate carriers. Real ballistic plates can be fragile and expensive, so options for exercising in (or milsim games in airsoft etc.) include expired (and failed to re-certify) real ballistic plates, made for purpose training plates... or plate shaped sandbags!
Could you explain more? I do not understand how you can buy coins for free by paying coins for “weights” (what are these weights? What are they made from?). Also, what is the use for this? To check of your coins are real? Calibrate your coin scale?
I guess OP means you don't need to buy above or sell below its value when "buying" or "selling" a metric shitton of small coins (like you would for gold for instance).
15 kilograms sounds excessive though, I bet the bank clerks hate that trick ;)
Banks usually stock pre-counted rolls of coins, and it's not much hassle to count out several of those. Though I guess 15 kg is probably going to be several dozen.
Excuse the nerdy nitpick, I get the point but technically as far as "actual" money goes that's the coins. Electronic entries in bank ledgers are not legal tender.
One can of course go further and question if banknotes and coins should be called actually money. Today the nominal value is completely disconnected from what the metal is really worth, it's not like with gold coins back in the day. And once collective belief in the value is lost fiat money quickly becomes worthless. Zimbabwe and Venezuela are recent examples.
Have to correct your nitpick. What you're talking about is currency not money. Not being legal tender doesn't mean it's not money. The majority of money sits as electronic entries in each country's central bank. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency.asp#:~:text=Th....
True. I'm talking about private bank books, the kind of "electronic money" regular people use, which I assume is what the comment above referred to. Since only financial institutions have access to central bank accounts.
It's a vest that you can fill with stuff to increase the intensity of a workout.
There was a time in my life when my legs started hurting and shaking from muscle atrophy because I was programming too much and moving too little.
I was looking for a way to fix that issue and I didn't want to waste time going to a gym, so I started talking walks with a weighted vest. Walking is nice because you can think while walking and with a weighted vest you don't have to walk for hours for it to have a useful effect on your body.
For information, the current research shows that the intensity of the exercise is much less important than the duration. So if you did so little exercise that you get muscle atrophy, a weighted vest isn't going to do much for you.
Anyone who has actually done both low-intensity exercise, e.g. walking, and high-intensity, e.g. heavy compound lifts, will tell you that statement needs a lot of additional caveats.
You’re gonna need to provide a source to that. For caloric burning? Sure, I’d agree. For cardiovascular health? Eh, the answer lies in the middle. For strength and muscle building? No, quite the opposite really. At some point the intensity of an exercise is so low it provides no meaningful muscle stimulus.
It's a way to increase the risk of injury to your knees and ankles and strain your back and shoulders while taking walks, and in general make walking more unpleasant.
If you're injuring yourself by walking around with a few extra kilos then you are so, so hilariously out of shape that any advice you can give is competely disregardable.
The risk of injury while walking in a weighted vest is not much higher than walking normally. A very high weight of vest is probably ill advised, but walking on a very flat/regular surface for long periods is far more damaging than walking with a little extra weight. Weighted bracelets/limb weights are dangerous though, and shouldn't be used unless you know what you're doing and take care not to move too quickly and put excess strain on joints.
How much weight on a weighted arm band is considered dangerous? I'm considering 500 gram bands for my arms, that's just about twice the weight of a cellular phone today.
Your body weight varies by more than that during the course of a normal day. Carrying 1kg should not increase any sort of risk of injury unless you exceptionally weak (as in, have trouble walking at all).
For the same reason, you probably won't see much benefit from such light weight over just walking a little faster or a little further.
It depends on what you're doing, but 500g shouldn't be dangerous as long as you wear the weights tightly bound so they don't bounce or slide. What you want to watch out for are anything that overextends or puts pressure on the joints - those movements can cause damage even unweighted and having weights just makes the danger worse.
I'd be worried about blisters/rashes/rubbing if the weights slide around. I use an exercise-bike like device and realised I was getting a blister on my hands from the constant motion of the grip.
Ehh, I've been doing fitness boxing and knockout home fitness (Nintendo switch) with 1.5 kg wrist/hand weights for ages now, no issues to speak off. I think he's taking about the 2-5kg weights, these are way more dangerous then you'd expect from wearing them. (I did that for a while, after getting slightly In shape - at least until I read up on it)
Strong recommendation for Nintendo switch for baseline fitness btw, these games are great for a 1-2 day 20 minutes workout/week for unfit office workers. Way better experience then the equivalent VR games.
I don't play too much VR these days, but enjoyed Beat Saber for "stationary movement", Gorn for beating up stuff and the VR ports of the original Serious Sam games for "run and shoot like a maniac".
Some people have no, zero, none understanding of sensible limits. "If X is good then more X must be better" applied to one or more aspects of their life. Hence protein in their diet, vitamin supplements, weight in a vest, and of course, infamously, having a presence on social media.
I went 0' 5' 10' 15, 20kg over 3 years after an embolism.
N=1 (rather like yourself: or you spoke to/ read about people that don't quite understand 'pacing'.
Do you/ them struggle with 1 bag of shopping? I make three or more light(er)trips.
I have to ask, how do you not sound like ~6500 coins jingling together as you walk? I notice when I have like 10 coins in a backpack. Do you wrap bundles of coins in cellophane or something?
I remember back when I used physical coins, banks used to wrap them in paper rolls with known quantities in them. So you could get a $10 roll of ten $1 coins or whatever.
The decathlon weight 500g pakets of sand)jacket is about €20.
How easy is it to make your jacket 10kg? Are the coins easily removable? Do you have straps to keep the weight 'tight'?
It's very easy. I'm using the cheapest weighted vest that I could find and it came with blue bags that I've just filled with coins. You don't really need straps to make the weights tight because the money just kind of spreads inside of the bag and doesn't move at all once it's there.
It's on my todo list to 3d print some containers to replace the bags with actual "money rolls" so that I can remove them more easily.
Maybe you've already considered and decided paper wouldn't work, or maybe you want the fun of working with a 3D printer, but my initial thought:
Would it not be simple to create rolls of coins by simply wrapping a sheet of paper round a stack of them, once or twice around, a little bit of sellotape to hold the paper in place, including folding it over at both ends and taping there too? I'd imagine an A4 sheet would be more than enough for each stack of coins, cutting off what isn't needed, and since you wouldn't care about them being beautiful you wouldn't even need fresh paper and could just use paper that would otherwise go into recycling/trash (letters received, junk mail, etc.)
edit: I did a quick search which both confirmed people have made coin rolls using simple paper, and also that it's highly likely banks will offer pre-made paper holders for the various coin sizes that you can just ask for and get for free (with the bank assuming you'll be bringing them back full of coins - you could either ask for as many as you need, or just one per size and use it as a template for making more from plain paper like this guy does: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AvsOkp_WPxY )
That's a very good point. I wonder about the durability of a paper based solution, but 3d printed rolls might also be suboptimal in that regard. This needs some experimentation.
I'd imagine that if paper alone wasn't strong enough for long term use, using sellotape to cover the entire roll such that the whole thing has a layer of tape on top of the layer of paper would make them pretty durable and add very little time and cost to it. (But I've not done anything like this, so my guessing could be bullshit - happy experimenting!)
Anecdote from the days switching to the Euro with respect to weights: When I was working at a restaurant with high thoughput at the end of the '90s and early '00 we first had a giant coin sorting machine. That thing was innacurate (hello Egyptian coins of same sizes as ours) due to only measuring size and being not that accurate. Bank notes were counted by hand.
After the introduction of the Euro, all coins were counted in standard sized cups which also fit in the cashiers trays so no swapping needed, the error rate reduced to near zero (at counting, difference between amount on bag and what the bank told us was in it). Also, the machine was 500 grams instead of half a small room.
The same was applied to bank notes, as they also have a standard weight due to standerdized size and production method. This reduced the error rate even further as counting is difficult as it turns out if you want to do it at scale. It also made the task way faster. Theoretically the machine could count the notes in one go, but it mostly reported "error check notes" messages if you did that. Things like thick tape (for repair when the bank note was damaged) was enough to throw it off in some cases.
Those were interesting times, with people buying a 25ct item with a 250 note to not go to the bank to exchange old for new currency. (Fyi, you do not have to legally accept that as the due dilligence needed with high notes would outweigh the cost of the item).
Other anecdote: Also a lot of 50 euro fake notes showed up within months after introduction, easilly cought as they lit up like a freshly washed white shirt under UV light.
I built a computer vision device that used the top-down area of a penny as a calibration standard. Coins are useful, easy-to-get items that have relatively tight manufacturing tolerances.
Ever since coin clipping got out of hand in the 1700s most coins feature milled edges or edge inscriptions. They make the edges more resistant to wear and make any wear easy to spot.
Of course there's a limit to the precision you can get from coins, but considering the scale of their production and the account of handling they see they are surprisingly good
Our area measurement application did not require that tight a tolerance (we were estimating yield on broken material). If I needed that tight a tolerance, I could have gotten proof coins from the mint, or potentially switched to using a real calibration standard like a gauge block.
I have often, though I suspect not enough to make a significant difference to someone who is already OK with the slight variance between un-worn coins.
Depends on what your tolerances are. If you only need to be within a mm a coin is going to beat that by an order of magnitude.
We use a pack of cigarettes as a gauge for one of the jobs we do. Quick, (not so) cheap, and readily available. May have to standardize on a vape though in the near future.
Soviet coins (at least post 1961) were designed explicitly with this application in mind.
1, 2, 3, and 5 kopeck coins weighed their value in grams. They could also be used to estimate lengths; 1 kopeck was 15 mm in diameter and 5 kopeck was 25 mm.
At one point, I worked out that US dimes, quarters, and half dollars all weigh $20/lb (iirc), which made the task of counting my accumulated change a lot easier.
That's because that was the price of silver. The mint was for many centuries a way to get your precious metals divided into units of standardized weights that were stamped to certify their authenticity, thus facilitating commerce, though frequently rulers succumbed to the temptation of "debasing" them by diluting the precious metals with so-called "base" (in the sense of "low", "contemptible") metals such as tin, lead, and zinc.
So quarters weren't worth 25¢ because the government said so; they were worth 25¢ because they were made out of 25¢ worth of silver.
That's the same reason "peso" means "weight" and the "shekel" and "pound" take their name from units of weight.
This ended in 01965 in the USA, followed by the end of the gold standard, since which the dollar has lost 96% of its value relative to the precious metals that used to define it. The consensus among economists is that this is a good thing because it prevents deflation. I'm not sure.
Off topic, but may I ask why you use a leading zero when writing the year? (01965 rather than 1965)
You're not the only person I've seen do it on this site, and I can't recall ever seeing it not on this site, so I'm wondering if its because you're in the habit (or wanting to be in the habit) for some technical thing you do like working on a database that needs years in that format, or if there's some reason you feel that its better to write them that way in prose?
If you dig into this person’s posting history and also if you read regularly on HN for a couple years you will notice that it is actually this very user that deliberately uses the 0 prefixed 5 digit year numbers, and also goes out of their way to include year numbers into their posts to make people ask this question.
It's a Long Now Foundation concept [0]. The idea is to encourage people to think on a more civilizational time scale, and avoid another 'millenium bug' problem in ~7095 years.
Note that the names for the first three coins are all units of subdivision. "Quarter" and "half" most obviously, dime comes from the Latin decima, meaning "one tenth". The equivalent Roman coin was the denarius.
"Nickel" and "penny" break that pattern, with the first referencing the composition of the coin (originally called a "half-dime"), and penny is a measure of weight, varying by locale. The British penny is 1/240 of a Tower pound (later decimalised to 1/100 in the 1960s), whilst an American pennyweight (used for example in reference to nails) is 1/1000th of a pound.
Maybe this was so obvious the author did not write it down, but you can also use this to measure accurately weight of objects below 10 g.
First you make the stacks for 15.0, 15.5, .. 17.5, 18.0. Preferrably using tiny amounts of superglue.
Then you put one stack on one side of the scales, and the other stack on the other side, and you have accurate weights for 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0.
You can make some of these combinations more efficiently, but the more coins you use in total, the better accuracy you get as manufacturing variations average out (up to a certain point of course).
It is a bit more cumbersome to make a quarter gram, but you can make one stack of {5x 0.01, 2x 0.02, 1x 0.1, 1x 0.2} for a weight of 27.46 g, and one stack of {2x 0.02, 3x 0.05, 1x 0.01, 1x 0.2,} giving 27.72 g, for a difference of 0.26 g.
As others have mentioned, using Lego is a nice way to make high precision scales. Take a 1x16 Lego Technic brick with holes and balance it on a thick needle through the middle hole. Needle support can be built from other bricks. Use thin sewing thread and some bricks to hang some 6x8 plates from each end.
Google tells me a 1p coin weighs 0.1257 oz, so nearly exactly 1/8 oz.
I knew someone who got caught by the metropolitan police with a fairly ordinary amount of weed (which probably wouldn't have attracted anything more than a warning), but also with a set of weights. I think he got a suspended sentence in the end. Using coins and something innocuous which could be used as a balance would seem to make sense.
Metric only has an advantage for precision measurements that have to be operated on arbitrarily, not for dividing things. You're usually dividing things in halves, far less often into thirds and even more rarely into fifths. 1/8 oz is an ounce that has been divided in half three times. Or you can think of it as a pound that has been divided in half seven times.
I guess it depends on what kind of accuracy you're aiming for. The density/weight of water changes depending on temperature, salinity, pressure, impurities and probably other factors.
So if you're either deep into a volcano or on the top of a cold mountain and need 0.001g precision, you might want to find an alternative way :)
I think the volcano might be useful - we could use the heat to steam distill the water, then on our trip up the mountain we could take a quick stop at sea level to conduct our measurements.
For the USA, an unworn 5 cent nickel weighs 5 grams. When I was testing one of those tiny portable scales that are battery operated, I would use 1, 2, and 3 nickels to determine if it was close to being accurate.
Ah, good! A few years ago, I picked up a "pocket scale" in a legit head shop. I had intended to weigh out doses of Kratom powder I'd picked up there, too. (The Kratom turned out to be nasty stuff, but the scale works fine, even for weighing postal mail.)
I was considering picking up some accurate weights for calibrating the scale properly, but if nickels will work, I could probably figure out how to procure some nickels instead. Right now, I have a roll of quarters and zero nickels in the house. I was using one to open up my electric candles, but it went missing, so I'm using a dime instead.
Indeed. Calibrating scales with nickels is a well-known trick in certain circles, including, but not limited to, organic chemistry labs. It won't do for analytic weighing, but for sanity-checking a scale before weighing out reagents, it does the trick.
Probably not significantly. It would make it too hard to build machines that accept all euro coin variants, yet reject cheaper non-euro coins of similar proportions.
Any additive/subtractive method at that scale for coin faces sounds like a huge waste of time and effort compared to just pressing the design, but also not a coin expert.
Striking/pressing with a shaped die is the traditional process, not least because the material itself used to be the store of value rather than the provenance of the mint— The coin shape was really there to certify how much gold/silver it contained and that the government had been paid whatever tax (seignorage) was owed on the ore.
Now that we’ve lived in a fiat-currency world for decades, it’s possible that new processes are being used as the concerns are different— anti-counterfeiting measures are more important than anti-shaving ones now, for instance.
I think it's worth noting the currency term 'peso' for the money used in a lot of former spanish colonies, directly translated, means 'weight'. For example there's a famous mexican singer of recent who goes by 'peso pluma' and it means featherweight, like the boxing classification, not as much to do with money
I was thinking, since the post mentions not being able to get exactly 10g. But you can get 15g/25g exactly, so you're at 10g net by putting them on either side of the scale.
The US uses the metric system, just with very non-standard units. All of the fundamental customary units are defined precisely in SI terms.
The precise five gram weight of the nickel was deliberate, but dates to the Civil War, a time when the US had no intention at all of moving to the metric system. It's rumored that a gram or two of weight was added to the coin on the premise that "five cents five grams" was a nice round number, but actually due to lobbying by moneyed interests who owned a nickel mine, so they could sell more nickel to the government.
Whilst exploring what money is, I had the realisation that almost all units of currency are either measures of weight (pound, livre, peso, shekel, penny), divisions of same (denarius, quarter), of quality or its representation (real, crown, dollar, florin. zloty, yen, yuan), or are descriptive of the state in which they're used (bolivar, afgani, euro), though that last is arguably a form of the second.
That is, traditional specie coin currency is standardised for quantity and quality, or at least is initially. Most states have found a need to devalue specie coin, and virtually any state with a sufficiently advanced financial system and institutional trust either settles on a fiat currency or adopts another country's fiat currency as its own standard. kragen is making a similar point here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41895405>.
For the latter, see the U.S. dollar which is either the or an officially accepted currency: Turks and Caicos and British Virgin Islands (both British overseas territories); Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba (all Dutch municipalities); the independent states of Ecuador, El Salvador, Timor-Leste, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands; and quasi-official or widespread use in the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Bermuda, Myanmar, Cambodia, Cayman Islands, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, and Zimbabwe.
I've developed the view that seignorage, that is, the exchange value in excess of specie value of coinage, is effectively a measure of trust in a currency system, and that fiat currency in paper or even more so as ledger entries (written or electronic) express an extraordinary level of trust in a currency, the more so if that currency is widely accepted internationally.
Another interpretation is that money in a given economic region is the most widely accepted commodity, that is to say, the exchange medium which is accepted preferentially to any other. This need not be a conventional currency (e.g., commodity or symbolic exchange of shells, hides, cattle, cigarettes, alcohol, laundry detergent, etc.), or the official currency of a region (though legal sanction and sanction of discharge of debt go a long way to establishing a currency within a given region). Multiple currencies may trade simultaneously, possibly in slightly differing contexts, and through much of history there has been at least some distinction between retail trade (often copper), wholesale (silver), and capital / government financing (gold). Adam Smith discusses this at great length in Wealth of Nations. Multi-metallic systems often involve variable exchange rates between different classes of money, and I've mused that this might be something worth reintroducing to modern financial systems.
When I started doing this I didn't want to afford dedicated weights as it seemed like a waste of money, but I had many cents saved up from my childhood, which I started to use instead.
I have roughly 15kg in euro cents in my vest and I'm regularly talking walks with it.
To get one kilo you need 435 cents and it turns out that in Germany you can also "buy" coins "for free" at the "Bundesbank", that is, you can exchange actual money for weights without any fees. You give 4 euros and 35 cents and you get a kilo. Once you need the money back, you can also sell those coins back to them for free.
reply