[HN Gopher] It is impossible to exceed the weight limit for a sm... ___________________________________________________________________ It is impossible to exceed the weight limit for a small USPS flat rate box Author : MVorlm Score : 119 points Date : 2022-04-21 22:35 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | radicality wrote: | Semi related - a few months ago, while not fully sober, I was | aimlessly browsing through Amazon and ended up owning a set of | two 1.5inch cubes - one aluminium, one tungsten. | | It's kind of a silly purchase considering it's a lot of money for | 2 metal cubes, but it's honestly very impressive just how heavy | that small cube is - both objectively, and when compared to the | aluminium cube. Also makes for a great talking point when having | guests over. | chiph wrote: | When I heard that the crypto millionaires were buying Tungsten | cubes for fun, I checked into the prices. Amazon lists a 1.5" | cube (weighs 1 kg) at $199 and a 4" cube (that weighs 18.9 kg | [0]) at $3499. There's no way I'm spending that, but I will | admit to wanting to experience their density for myself. | | [0] free Prime shipping for the win | akvadrako wrote: | Tungsten doesn't seem especially heavy; it's a little less | than gold. | valbaca wrote: | right, just buy 1kg of gold instead | postalrat wrote: | And much heavier than lead. | mminer237 wrote: | It's not the heaviest thing in the world, but it's probably | the heaviest thing a person could buy a practical cube of. | The main metals heavier than lead are gold, iridium, | mercury, platinum, tungsten, and uranium. | | Uranium is a comparable price and density to tungsten, but | buying iridium is gonna be at least 50x the price for | something 10% denser. | idiotsecant wrote: | Uranium at it's elemental density is a comparable price | to tungsten?? | russellbeattie wrote: | I looked it up because I hadn't heard of the crypto bro | thing. OMG. You can apparently get them from tungsten.com for | only $2999 according to GQ. | | https://www.gq.com/story/tungesten-cubes-what-is-going-on | Ekaros wrote: | I wish I was a millionaire. I could fulfil my wish of owning | replica of IPK that is small cylinder of Platinum-Iridium | weighting very very close to kilogram. | tyingq wrote: | On the other end of the spectrum is lightweight, but bulky stuff. | I sold things like this for a time, some time ago. Would get a | fair amount of grief from customers who would use the simpler | UPS/Fedex calculators on the weight only and complain that I | padding shipping prices. But UPS and Fedex charge "dimensional | weight" for these types of shipments, and you have to use a more | complicated formula. | bombcar wrote: | The flat rate envelope used to be a bit cheaper than that small | box - and the small box fits inside the envelope with a bit of | work - no tape! | TMWNN wrote: | The USPS 1096L box | (<https://store.usps.com/store/product/shipping- | supplies/prior...>) fits perfectly inside the USPS padded flat | rate envelope (<https://store.usps.com/store/product/shipping- | supplies/prior...>). Great for giving an item slightly more | protection. | TheJoeMan wrote: | I once purchased lead weights online, and they came packed | tessellated in a flat rate box. Shipper definitely got their | money's worth. | radicality wrote: | Out of curiosity, what kind of weights were they? I was under | the impression that it has been phased out of many uses because | of high toxicity (including via skin absorption when handling | it) | AceyMan wrote: | I'm a tennis racquet tech (side gig) and we use spools of Pb | tape for weight and balance tuning of frames. It's uncoated, | so following installation I (a) scrub my hands down with a | brush and dish detergent and (b) shellac the tape where it is | on the customer frame with two coats of clear nail polish. | | They make rubber adhesive strips with four or five wee bits | of tungsten in them, but they are too expensive for general | use, nor do they offer the precision you get from a | continuous length of lead tape. They are also too thick to | install on the handle pallet under the grip, which is no | problem with lead tape since it's about 0.3 mm thick (rough | guess, I haven't actually mic'ed it). | walrus01 wrote: | people buy bulk lead for sailboat keels and such all the | time, you just have to handle it properly. | aix1 wrote: | Lead weights continue to be widely used in diving: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_weighting_system | (there's a section on materials and toxicity). | halfdan wrote: | They are, but as a diver I will never touch them unless | they look in proper shape and are the types wrapped in some | other material. Some fishy dive centers will have the old | style raw lead blocks.. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | You breath TEL whenever you go near an airport. That's a | far more pressing concern than incidental exposure | through contact. If that's your threshold you may as well | isolate from zinc and copper too. | postalrat wrote: | Your risking your live going under water but are afraid | of some lead? | travisporter wrote: | Exactly what I was thinking. Bet they're iron, about 70% less | dense and a good supplement for your blood cells. https://www | .wolframalpha.com/input?i=densiy+of+iron%2Fdensit... | Doxin wrote: | Does lead actually absorb through the skin? I always heard | the main pathway was getting lead dust on your hands and then | eating/inhaling that. | a9h74j wrote: | On Earth. | Hamcha wrote: | Depends how you measure it. Any X kg/lbs of matter here on | earth is still that same X kg/lbs everywhere in the universe. | Assuming the scale being used to weight is correctly calibrated | to whatever planet it's in, it would still show up as the same | amount of kg/lbs. | grog454 wrote: | "a teaspoon of neutron star material would weigh around a | billion tonnes." | | https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/n/neutron+star#:~:text=. | ... | droopyEyelids wrote: | It would be impossible to put neutron star material inside | a cardboard box, and the original post was talking about | possibility. | ben_w wrote: | If I remember right, given that free neutrons aren't | stable and have a very short half life, it would be | explosively unwise even if it was physically possible. | tialaramex wrote: | This is why simple balances are such a brilliant idea despite | their simplicity. You don't need to calibrate to the local | conditions, if I have a 250g mass on one side, and I put | something on the other side and it balances, that's 250 | grams, done. Only the (often provided with the balance) | prototype masses need to be calibrated and that can be done | by experts far from your local environment. | | Until as recently as 2019 this approach - using a prototype - | was the only extant mass definition, the prototype kilogram | lived at a specialised laboratory and its clones were used | around the world to define mass (yes including the pound if | you're an American). | | [ Today instead the Planck constant is defined to be exactly | 6.62607015x10^-34 kg x m^2 per second and it's possible to | build devices such as a Kibble balance to estimate what the | kilogram is from knowing this definition, the better your | Kibble balance the better the estimate ] | a9h74j wrote: | Depends upon what you set out to measure. _lbs_ is | specifically a unit of force. _kg_ is specifically a unit of | mass. It is a category error to equate these as measures, | although (in many places) an everyday convention to do so _on | Earth_. | | IIRC the English unit for mass is the _slug_. If the tecnical | limit is 70lbs or so, that is must technically be read as | _lbs force_ -- aka force of gravity which varies with | location. | jrochkind1 wrote: | you could really take USPS for a ride by shipping something | to Venus! | zmgsabst wrote: | Wikipedia lists it as a unit of mass -- as defined by the | amount that exerts a certain force. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass) | | The pound unit of force is abbreviated 'lbf'. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force) | rzzzt wrote: | Kilopond or kilogram-force is the force with which a 1 kg | object is pushing on its base: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force | midasuni wrote: | I assume they were saying | | Densest material _on earth_ | | There are denser materials, but you would struggle to send | them via UPS | Blackthorn wrote: | That said, it sure wasn't fun for the mail person when they had | to deliver me those two boxes of lead ingots. | jotm wrote: | I got a pair of dumbbells once (30KG total) that were very | efficiently packed in one small box and felt kinda bad about | the guy | mikestew wrote: | I'll raise you a 114lb/52Kg battery (not USPS, though; FedEx, | IIRC): | | https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00RPOI7F4/ | | I, too, felt bad for the guy until I saw him toss it on his | shoulder like it was nothing, carried to the garage and | gently set it down. Not a big guy, either. :-) | athenot wrote: | The UPS person who delivered my full size punching bag was | not super thrilled. 100 lbs and 150cm tall odd shape. I | wish I was there when delivery happened as I was prepared | to tip them for the inconvenience. | postalrat wrote: | I ordered a couple 70 pound blocks of tungsten. They were each | double boxed and still somehow managed to slip through the | first box. Might have been both amusing and annoying to handle | those boxes. | leviathant wrote: | Not part of the USPS small box story, but I ordered a bundle of | steel plates that unfortunately fit through our mail slot on | our front door, and absolutely destroyed the ceramic tile floor | when the delivery person dropped them through that slot. | ortusdux wrote: | I have a 115lb shipment of small metal parts that needs to be | across the country before Wed. Both FedEx and UPS quoted me ~$750 | to ship it in a 12"x8"x8" OSB box via 2-day shipping. Fedex one | rate boxes have a weight limit of 50lbs. The small boxes are | $31/ea to ship. I just finished breaking the shipment up into 3 | parts. Heck, next day would be ~$300. | jeffbee wrote: | Negotiated FedEx and UPS rates are often 90% off the retail | price or better. If you can get the box sent from a shipper | that has a daily pickup from UPS and reimburse them, you may | save a great deal of money. | BenjiWiebe wrote: | Check UPS's new flat rate options for this. They call it | "Simple Rate". | treeman79 wrote: | https://www.deseret.com/2014/11/24/20553427/legend-of-vernal... | | One guy mailed a bank. One brick at a time. | PaulHoule wrote: | A laser fusion system can compress materials to a density higher | than Osmium but it doesn't stay that dense for very long. | macksd wrote: | Not the hardest part about fitting it into the box. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | "for those of you who have seen those firsthand" | | I feel old. | deepspace wrote: | Since I discovered the availability of anvils on Amazon, I have | always wondered about the economics of shipping them. | | Right now, I can order a 66lb "Happybuy" anvil for $153 with free | prime shipping. One assumes that the $153 includes the cost of | shipping it all the way from China in the first place. | | For comparison, a similarly sized anvil from a reputable local | dealer costs $949 plus tax and shipping at the lowest rate (UPS | standard) is $93. | nkurz wrote: | While the tweet is correct ("It is physically impossible to | exceed the 70-pound domestic weight limit for a small flat rate | box") the shortened title here which omits the word "small" is | very misleading. The USPS offers a variety of sizes of flat rate | boxes (https://www.usps.com/ship/priority-mail.htm#flatrate), all | of which have the same 70 lb weight limit. It's only the "small" | that cannot be overweight. The two mediums and the large can | exceed the limit with dense contents. Perhaps the title could be | changed to omit "physical" and add back "small"? | PainfullyNormal wrote: | dang wrote: | Ok, we've removed the (redundant, I suppose) word 'physically' | and squeezed in 'small' in the title above. | mc4ndr3 wrote: | Don't forget the packing peanuts. About a ton per cubic | centimeter of product. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-22 23:00 UTC)