its actually nothing to do with conversion at all.
a joule is equal to (mass*distance^2)/time^2[seconds].
hp = kg*g[gravity](9.8m/s^2)*distance/seconds
now doing simple conversion to american (std) and you get
hp=lbs*g*ft/sec
or in poundsforce hp=lbf*ft/sec where lbf=lbs*9.8 m/s^2(gravity)
now rather than going in a discussion about this, just read wikipedia's defination of torque in relation to hp (since i have gotten the units to measure hp for you)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
sure guy okay
just so you know anytime a time unit is squared dealing with measurement it's in acceleration. if you're talking about acceleration that's one thing...
but like you said im not going to go into a discussion about this with you. it would be pointless and fruitless... I appreciate your effort though. goodday
"The order of "newton" and "metre" are mathematically interchangeable" - Wikipedia
"The BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) specifies that the order should be N·m not m·N[1]. When talking about feet, that is saying it should be lb. ft. not ft. lb.
One ft. lb. is one pound of force applied to a one foot lever, which is inherently one foot away from it's fulcrum.
Car 1: 1997 BMW 528i
Car 2: 1994 Accord Sedan EX
Car 3: 1987 Legend Coupe
iTrader Score: 5 reviews
because they are multiplied together, it doesnt matter the order in which they are put. it can be both lb.ft. as well as ft.lbs. or kg.ft. or ft.kg. or lb.m. or m.lbs. they are all interchangable.
because they are multiplied together, it doesnt matter the order in which they are put. it can be both lb.ft. as well as ft.lbs. or kg.ft. or ft.kg. or lb.m. or m.lbs. they are all interchangable.
okay, before you start trying to argue a point, i really need for you to understand the difference between weight and mass.
in your formulas you state that "lbs*g*ft/sec"
with you trying to make yourself sound smart you inadvertently made yourself look slightly uninformed. Do you realise that Lbs is a force, not a mass quantification?
meaning, lbs is a function of gravity and mass in english units. that force (FORCE mind you) is what acts on a fulcrum as Mikey said. this fulcrum is the operation distance of the given unit per distance force applied.
Or for you "it twists on the middle from that far away."
and that far away would be LBS PER FOOT! or LBS/FOOT
Car 1: 1997 BMW 528i
Car 2: 1994 Accord Sedan EX
Car 3: 1987 Legend Coupe
iTrader Score: 5 reviews
and i was quoting straight from wikipedia about the lb*g*ft/sec.
kg is a mass, lbs is a weight (being in constant acceleration you get weight from a mass). now whos the dumb one, the formula is always kg*g(gravitational force)*ft/sec, i just defined gravity as 9.8 in which you can formulate lbs from grams because we have the simple conversion for this. yes, i shouldve excluded gravity from the lb*ft/sec, but even still, it is STILL ft.lbs/sec, not lbs/ft. we would call it lbs/ft if thats what it really was, thats why we call it miles PER hour and not miles-hours, SEE HOW THAT WORKS!?!?!?!
and i was quoting straight from wikipedia about the lb*g*ft/sec.
kg is a mass, lbs is a weight (being in constant acceleration you get weight from a mass). now whos the dumb one, the formula is always kg*g(gravitational force)*ft/sec, i just defined gravity as 9.8 in which you can formulate lbs from grams because we have the simple conversion for this. yes, i shouldve excluded gravity from the lb*ft/sec, but even still, it is STILL ft.lbs/sec, not lbs/ft. we would call it lbs/ft if thats what it really was, thats why we call it miles PER hour and not miles-hours, SEE HOW THAT WORKS!?!?!?!
okay, one: I didn't call you dumb, thanks
two: you quoted a wrong formula and trusted to think you could disrespect me unwarranted and expect me to take you serious? okay even with what you're ranting about, in the function of torque application the distance for which you're using acceleration (i have no idea why) would only reduce to force applied even if no acceleration is seen and still have a torque application.
why are you bring 9.8meters per second into the equation of POUNDS operating on a lever at a certain distance. even if that fulcrum doesn't move...
basically what you're telling is that if the bolt, flywheel, wheel, whatever, doesn't turn, no torque is be applied to it. there is a force there operating on the object and that measurement force is from 1 foot and the force unit we're dealing with is pounds...at 1 foot there is this many pounds...just like for that one HOUR, that many miles have been covered.
wait i just realised you're trying to argue with me about a slash and a dot and the order when in actuality they are the same thing. You know to divide a fraction you multiply by the inverse right?
im going to let you have fun continue to "argue" i have no reason to debate with you
EDIT:
thanks mike for the extra back/info much apprciated.
just incase you have any more arguments to the contrary of what i said, im going to ask you to solve this problem...the answer will be at the bottom of the post, NO CHEATING!
at a pivot point, there is 500lbs of twisting force acting on a bolt. there is a rod attached to that bolt. at x feet, the weighted force acting on the rod at its farthest end from the pivot is 100 lbs. How long is the rod?
the answer is 5 ft. How do you come to 5 ft? well if you take a look at the problem 500lbs of twisting force is acting on that pivot/bolt. the function of the force applied to the fulcrum operates as a proportional increase along the levers length to the amount of force applied to the lever. in the case of these levers, as distance increases 2 fold, the force applied to the fulcrum is 2 fold. in this case we had 100 lbs acting on the rod/lever, the resultant force acting on the bolt is 500lbs.
you divide 100lbs by 500lbs/ft and get 5ft. for every 1 ft there was 100lbs of force applied. thereby, the resulant functioning force of the rod for torque multiplication would be 100 pound per foot, OR 100lbs/ft.
any more arguments from you will fall on def ears on my end.
Car 1: 1990 Legend LS sedan
Car 2: 2002 Dakota SLT QC
Car 3: 1998 Bandit 1200S
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Ikeray, it looks to me that you're being led astray by three different things:
Wikis are democratic. They are by the people, for the people. There is no professional or academic peer review requirement.
Don't mix units from differing measurement systems. When dealing with common units, use those units exclusively. Sprinkling SI units into the discussion just leads to headaches. Do any conversions after a final result is reached.
Don't forget that the unit "pound" means more than one thing. "Pound weight" and "pound force" are not necessarily interchangeable but sometimes are, depending upon the circumstances. In this circumstance, we're dealing with pounds FORCE, not pounds WEIGHT.
I'm looking at my CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 75th Edition at the moment. It clearly demonstrates the difference between lb/ft (kg/m in SI) and lbf*ft (Newton meter in SI). So does my Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbood.
__________________
Bruce in Houston
2007 Mazda MX-5 Touring
2002 Dodge Dakota QC tow beast, stock!
1998 Suzuki Bandit 1200S w/ $tuff
1994 Nissan Sentra SE-R w/ $tuff converting to ITA
1990 Acura Legend LS sedan leaving the stable
Car 1: 1990 Legend LS sedan
Car 2: 2002 Dakota SLT QC
Car 3: 1998 Bandit 1200S
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
Our frontier forefathers had a difficult time of things, we honor that difficulty today by keeping gallons, pounds and miles.
__________________
Bruce in Houston
2007 Mazda MX-5 Touring
2002 Dodge Dakota QC tow beast, stock!
1998 Suzuki Bandit 1200S w/ $tuff
1994 Nissan Sentra SE-R w/ $tuff converting to ITA
1990 Acura Legend LS sedan leaving the stable
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
1998 Honda Integra Type-R
Linear Mode
