Quote:
Originally Posted by B+O
^
??
I'm talking about the Units used to understand torque.
I'm not talking about what car, has what horsepower/torque, where, and why. I'm pretty sure i've harped about torque long enough in my first thread...
Anyway, lbs/ft is not the same as lbs-ft is interpreted...
lbs-ft is interpreted as "Force times a distance acting on a fulcrum"...lbs/ft is "Force acting FROM a fulcrum to a standardized distance." that distance would be 1 foot...
So in effect, no Lbs-ft and Lbs/ft are not the same.
I said this already...that exact example is in the first post.
|
this was my only argument in the whole thread...lol. It's funny to see sap and you having the same argument.
I agree 100% with your first post and everything you have said, my only argument is the lbs/ft =/= lbs.ft (aka ft.lbs) its actually an exponential difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gothche
Huh, how stupid is this..... I know this post is very old, but I couldn't help it.
Kg is a weight and lbs is a weight, they are just different. Kg being the european version and lbs being the american.
|
and since I was quoted, I figured I'd give you an answer from myself even though it was already covered.
grams are a measure of mass, pounds is a measure of force. Force=Mass x Acceleration and since we assume all over the globe that earth's gravity applies a 9.8meters/(second^2) (terminal velocity in a vacuum I believe its called). the difference comes into affect when we measure ourselves in space. you will be the same Mass, unless you lose a limb or something, but you will be "weightless" meaning you will not be applying a force to anything, and thus 0 lbs.
say whatever you want about all the other crazy americanized measuring units (cups/gallons/feet/miles/etc) but americans sort of got it right with the whole weight issue, except when not on earth (which any american that didn't take physics class wouldn't know and actually be confused by this very conversation).