Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 255 posts

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#91

Post by m463 »

andersco wrote: post #58
perihelions wrote: post #57

An implosion-type nuclear weapon can compress matter to some multiple of the density of osmium. This isn't useful for USPS box packaging; I just think it's neat. edit: Also, inertial confinement fusion plasmas go up to about 1,000 g/cm³, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/5.0008231 ( "Unified first-principles equations of state of deuterium-tritium mixtures in the global inertial confinement fusion region" )

Thanks for that tip. I am about to ship an implosion-type nuclear device and my first thought was if I could use a USPS flat rate box.

Be careful, the shipping rules are tricky.

For example, you need to compress the implosion-type nuclear device with another implosion-type nuclear device first to get it to fit in the box.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#92

Post by ceeplusplus »

paxys wrote: post #88
jmyeet wrote: post #78

What many may not realize is that there's a thriving industry in sending passengers on planes for the sole purpose of them taking things from A to B. Years ago, you could get discounted flights to Europe where you couldn't check in any luggage. Why? That allowance was taken up by documents for various clients. This was usually quicker than any courier services at the time. I've had friends who worked in the oil and g…

This is more due to safety and security requirements of the package than the economics or shipping itself. FedEx and UPS will be very happy to ship you something for a steep discount without any assumed liability, but there would be no takers for it. Providing a trusted chain of custody for the package all the way from point A to B is the real value add.

I don't know about that... shipping heavy and/or large stuff becomes very expensive even without insurance (= no assumed liability). Big shippers get big discounts from UPS and FedEx so as the little guy you get screwed by price discrimination. Airlines are a much more competitive market.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#93

Post by mananaysiempre »

paxys wrote: post #88
jmyeet wrote: post #78

What many may not realize is that there's a thriving industry in sending passengers on planes for the sole purpose of them taking things from A to B. Years ago, you could get discounted flights to Europe where you couldn't check in any luggage. Why? That allowance was taken up by documents for various clients. This was usually quicker than any courier services at the time. I've had friends who worked in the oil and g…

This is more due to safety and security requirements of the package than the economics or shipping itself. FedEx and UPS will be very happy to ship you something for a steep discount without any assumed liability, but there would be no takers for it. Providing a trusted chain of custody for the package all the way from point A to B is the real value add.

Well, “pay a dude to carry it onto and off a plane” is also a chain of custody arrangement of sorts, you just wouldn’t normally expect it to be cheaper than a company specializing in such.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#94

Post by anonymousiam »

Couldn't read the Twitter post with NoScript, and didn't want to turn it off, but I verified the claim. Forgive me for working in cubic inches, but those are the unit measures specified on the USPS web page: https://store.usps.com/store/product/shipping-supplies/prior...

So the volume of the box is 82.6669921875 cubic inches. Assuming we're shipping a block of Tungsten at 0.7 lb/in^3, then our shipment would weigh 57.86689453125 lbs, which is less than 83% of the maximum allowed weight of 70lbs.

I wonder how closely my results agree with the Twitter post...

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#95

Post by perihelions »

radicality wrote: post #6

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…

Related thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28318754 ("My Tungsten Cube", 330 comments)

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#96

Post by jedberg »

jmyeet wrote: post #78

What many may not realize is that there's a thriving industry in sending passengers on planes for the sole purpose of them taking things from A to B. Years ago, you could get discounted flights to Europe where you couldn't check in any luggage. Why? That allowance was taken up by documents for various clients. This was usually quicker than any courier services at the time. I've had friends who worked in the oil and g…

Back in 2000, our SF based company had a server in a datacenter in the UK die. The quickest and cheapest way to fix it was to have our IT guy take a replacement server in a suitcase and fly to the UK to replace it.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#97

Post by perihelions »

giantg2 wrote: post #77
chiph wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have a part off an aircraft (nobody seems to know what part or what aircraft). I imagine it's partially tungsten since it's not much bigger than a 4x4 cube and has to weigh close to 50lbs.

Err, that could be depleted uranium.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0321/ML032180089.pdf

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#98

Post by myself248 »

jmyeet wrote: post #78

What many may not realize is that there's a thriving industry in sending passengers on planes for the sole purpose of them taking things from A to B. Years ago, you could get discounted flights to Europe where you couldn't check in any luggage. Why? That allowance was taken up by documents for various clients. This was usually quicker than any courier services at the time. I've had friends who worked in the oil and g…

Some years back, there was a "can't happen" problem with a telephone switch, such that the problem had "contaminated" the running databases on both processor cards, and the system was no longer capable of recovering itself. It needed a new card, and it needed it yesterday.

The manufacturer scrambled it down to the local airport, where they bought it a passenger ticket on the next plane out. While it was in the air, they arranged for an express courier in the destination city to pick it up from the airport and break the speed limit all the way to the phone office. Whereupon the driver asked the recipient which driveway to use because "the one that looks like the main entrance doesn't look like it's meant for truck traffic".

Truck? What?

Evidently the courier service heard the declared value of the shipment and just assumed it must be enormous, so they sent a semi. This enormous truck had picked it up and had been hurtling down the road, empty, with a pizza-box-sized parcel on the floor of the cab, where it would be safer.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#99

Post by krallja »

anonymousiam wrote: post #94

Couldn't read the Twitter post with NoScript, and didn't want to turn it off, but I verified the claim. Forgive me for working in cubic inches, but those are the unit measures specified on the USPS web page: https://store.usps.com/store/product/shipping-supplies/prior... So the volume of the box is 82.6669921875 cubic inches. Assuming we're shipping a block of Tungsten at 0.7 lb/in^3, then our shipment would weigh 57…

« It is physically impossible to exceed the 70-pound domestic weight limit for a small flat rate box.

The interior dimensions (8 5/8" x 5 3/8" x 1 5/8") are ~75.333 in^3.

If you filled the box with pure osmium, the densest substance known to man, it would weigh ~61.48 lbs.»

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#100

Post by meinersbur »

krallja wrote: post #99
anonymousiam wrote: post #94

Couldn't read the Twitter post with NoScript, and didn't want to turn it off, but I verified the claim. Forgive me for working in cubic inches, but those are the unit measures specified on the USPS web page: https://store.usps.com/store/product/shipping-supplies/prior... So the volume of the box is 82.6669921875 cubic inches. Assuming we're shipping a block of Tungsten at 0.7 lb/in^3, then our shipment would weigh 57…

« It is physically impossible to exceed the 70-pound domestic weight limit for a small flat rate box. The interior dimensions (8 5/8" x 5 3/8" x 1 5/8") are ~75.333 in^3. If you filled the box with pure osmium, the densest substance known to man, it would weigh ~61.48 lbs.»

Followup Tweets:

Should have said densest substance on Earth. Fill it with neutron star and you’ll be approx. 30 trillion kg overweight.

Had to post this correction before @neiltyson popped in with an "Actually..."

I don't have anything to plug, so just try to be a little bit better than normal if you happen to think of it, but don't make a big deal out of it--no one's asking you to be a saint.

Post reply on HN