can't believe I'm logging in after ALL this time for one thing only because I finally came up with what I was trying to convey.
Wikipedia describes the initial concept best, if you can't grasp what is being explained you'll never understand that ft * lbs =/= ft per lbs
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Torque has dimensions of force TIMES distance [newtons=force; meters=distance]. Official SI literature suggests using the unit newton metre (N·m) or the unit joule per radian. The unit newton metre is properly denoted N·m or N m. This avoids ambiguity—for example, mN is the symbol for millinewton.
The joule, which is the SI unit for energy or work, is dimensionally equivalent to a newton metre, but it is not used for torque. Energy and torque are entirely different concepts, so the practice of using different unit names for them helps avoid mistakes and misunderstandings. The dimensional equivalence of these units, of course, is not simply a coincidence: A torque of 1 N·m applied through a full revolution will require an energy of exactly 2π joules (2pi=radians/revolution). Mathematically,
E= τ θ
where E is the energy, τ is magnitude of the torque, and θ is the angle moved (in radians). This equation motivates the alternate unit name joules per radian.
Other non-SI units of torque include "pound-force-feet" [I believe this is where the confusion lies as some people might mishear "force" as "per"], "foot-pounds-force", "inch-pounds-force", "ounce-force-inches", and "metre-kilograms-force". For all these units, the word "force" is often left out, for example abbreviating "pound-force-foot" to simply "pound-foot". (In this case, it would be implicit that the "pound" is pound-force and not pound-mass.)
now, the Newton*meters is clearly defined as torque, there should be ZERO argument
so now to foot*lbs (which are quite obvious foot=distance, pounds=force; see wikipedia quote torque = force TIMES
1 newton = ~.225lbs
2.54cm = 1inch = .0254m * 12inches = .3048m = 1ft
so .3048Nm=.225ft-lbs or 1Nm = ~.738ft-lbs or 1ft-lb = 1.356 Nm
look up the conversions (ft-lbs to Nm
; Nm to ft-lbs
), they're close enough, I rounded 'newtons to pounds' to the 3rd decimal, thus all calculations, if rounded to 3rd decimal, match.
Originally Posted by legendvr
That's not what I meant...
Pounds can be a measure or mass or a measure of force.
my argument on that is that pounds is only a unit of mass because of ignorance and resilience to change. the only reason it is widely accepted is because nobody cares to change their weight (lbs) in accordance to distance from sea level. as someone put perfectly, its foolish for a company to brand something X lbs for Denver and Y lbs for Hawaii, its forced into everyone's brains so early into education that 1lb = .454kg that not many will see it otherwise.