Bergman
New member
Can anyone tell me how many foot-pounds there are in a Newton-meter.
Should be able to work it out but its been a bad day and my brain hurts.
Should be able to work it out but its been a bad day and my brain hurts.
sillimeters and things
- Thread starter Bergman
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
VicS
Well-known member
From Kaye and Laby, Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants.
1 lbf ft = 1.35582 N m
The reciprocal is 1 N m = 0.737562 lbf ft
You can verify at Kaye and Laby online if you wish.
(Note foot pounds is incorrect. Pounds-force foot is the unit of torque. A foot pound, or more correctly a foot pound-force, is a unit of energy or work and is equal to 1.35582 joules. Sorry now your brain hurts even more)
1 lbf ft = 1.35582 N m
The reciprocal is 1 N m = 0.737562 lbf ft
You can verify at Kaye and Laby online if you wish.
(Note foot pounds is incorrect. Pounds-force foot is the unit of torque. A foot pound, or more correctly a foot pound-force, is a unit of energy or work and is equal to 1.35582 joules. Sorry now your brain hurts even more)
reeac
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
From Kaye and Laby, Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants.
1 lbf ft = 1.35582 N m
The reciprocal is 1 N m = 0.737562 lbf ft
You can verify at Kaye and Laby online if you wish.
(Note foot pounds is incorrect. Pounds-force foot is the unit of torque. A foot pound, or more correctly a foot pound-force, is a unit of energy or work and is equal to 1.35582 joules. Sorry now your brain hurts even more)
[/ QUOTE ]
Nice to hear that Kaye & Laby are still going strong. I haven't thought about them for nearly 50 years now.
From Kaye and Laby, Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants.
1 lbf ft = 1.35582 N m
The reciprocal is 1 N m = 0.737562 lbf ft
You can verify at Kaye and Laby online if you wish.
(Note foot pounds is incorrect. Pounds-force foot is the unit of torque. A foot pound, or more correctly a foot pound-force, is a unit of energy or work and is equal to 1.35582 joules. Sorry now your brain hurts even more)
[/ QUOTE ]
Nice to hear that Kaye & Laby are still going strong. I haven't thought about them for nearly 50 years now.
Bergman
New member
Thanks Vic
Now in no pain at all
I can remove and replace my injectors with a clear conscience.
Now in no pain at all
I can remove and replace my injectors with a clear conscience.
VicS
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Nice to hear that Kaye & Laby are still going strong
[/ QUOTE ] I doubt if the Drs Kaye and Laby are still around. The first edition of their book was published in 1911 so I guess they are both now in the great laboratory in the sky.
Revisions have been prepared by an editorial committee for some time. Mine is a 1978 edition but it is now all on the National Physical Laboratory website so I guess it will continue to be one of the major sources of data for some time to come.
It would be nice to find the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (The "Rubber Book") on line as well. Mine is the same age as my K&L.
Nice to hear that Kaye & Laby are still going strong
[/ QUOTE ] I doubt if the Drs Kaye and Laby are still around. The first edition of their book was published in 1911 so I guess they are both now in the great laboratory in the sky.
Revisions have been prepared by an editorial committee for some time. Mine is a 1978 edition but it is now all on the National Physical Laboratory website so I guess it will continue to be one of the major sources of data for some time to come.
It would be nice to find the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (The "Rubber Book") on line as well. Mine is the same age as my K&L.
Rowana
Two steps lower than the ships' cat
Came upon my Knott's 4-figure mathematical tables (1955 edition), the other day while looking for something else.
In this era of programable calculators, my Daughter couldn't believe how we used to do things.
I've still got my slide rule as well as my very first calculator. It only had 4 functions, and used to EAT batteries.
In this era of programable calculators, my Daughter couldn't believe how we used to do things.
I've still got my slide rule as well as my very first calculator. It only had 4 functions, and used to EAT batteries.
raquet
New member
If you have the Google search box in your internet browser just type '1 foot pound in newton meter', click and you get the answer. It seems to have a very wide range of conversions available as well as performing calculations (5+2*7 or whatever).
tobble
New member
Hmm, doens't seem to work on Ft Lb's, but normally you can type conversions into google and it will tell you straight off, e.g. type "1 mile in meters" or "1012 mbar in Pa" a very useful feature...
raquet
New member
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, doens't seem to work on Ft Lb's, but normally you can type conversions into google and it will tell you straight off, e.g. type "1 mile in meters" or "1012 mbar in Pa" a very useful feature...
[/ QUOTE ]ft lbs in meter kg works for me
Hmm, doens't seem to work on Ft Lb's, but normally you can type conversions into google and it will tell you straight off, e.g. type "1 mile in meters" or "1012 mbar in Pa" a very useful feature...
[/ QUOTE ]ft lbs in meter kg works for me
Rowana
Two steps lower than the ships' cat
Bergman
New member
Just tried it.
Not only did it give the answer but it completed the question, all I typed was foot pounds.
Incredible
I still have my old Faber slide rule - they seem to fetch silly money now on E-Bay but I'm keping mine.
Once started a slide rule users group in the days when every new computer came with its own user group, like the Spectrum users group(s).
I called it SLUG. It never really caught on.
Don't know why.
Not only did it give the answer but it completed the question, all I typed was foot pounds.
Incredible
I still have my old Faber slide rule - they seem to fetch silly money now on E-Bay but I'm keping mine.
Once started a slide rule users group in the days when every new computer came with its own user group, like the Spectrum users group(s).
I called it SLUG. It never really caught on.
Don't know why.
raquet
New member
[ QUOTE ]
Just tried it.
Not only did it give the answer but it completed the question, all I typed was foot pounds.
Incredible
I still have my old Faber slide rule - they seem to fetch silly money now on E-Bay but I'm keping mine.
Once started a slide rule users group in the days when every new computer came with its own user group, like the Spectrum users group(s).
I called it SLUG. It never really caught on.
Don't know why.
[/ QUOTE ]How about the Otis King? That was the slide-rule to have before Sinclair did his stuff.
Just tried it.
Not only did it give the answer but it completed the question, all I typed was foot pounds.
Incredible
I still have my old Faber slide rule - they seem to fetch silly money now on E-Bay but I'm keping mine.
Once started a slide rule users group in the days when every new computer came with its own user group, like the Spectrum users group(s).
I called it SLUG. It never really caught on.
Don't know why.
[/ QUOTE ]How about the Otis King? That was the slide-rule to have before Sinclair did his stuff.
Bergman
New member
Wonderful looking things, never owned one - they were far to good for me.
I once tried a circular slide rule but easily lost track of a long calculation - didn't know if I was coming or going.
We had one lecturer who had a sort of mechanical calculating engine. Looked a bit like a coffee mill, big handle on the top. He slid some knobs around the side and wound the handle and the answer came out in some windows somewhere. Never seen one like it since. He was very quick with it, would have taken on most people with an electronic machine.
Computers have taken all the fun out of these things, used to spend hours flogging through Smiths Charts with log tables and slide rule - do it now with one push of a key using a programme that is so valuable its free on the net.
I once tried a circular slide rule but easily lost track of a long calculation - didn't know if I was coming or going.
We had one lecturer who had a sort of mechanical calculating engine. Looked a bit like a coffee mill, big handle on the top. He slid some knobs around the side and wound the handle and the answer came out in some windows somewhere. Never seen one like it since. He was very quick with it, would have taken on most people with an electronic machine.
Computers have taken all the fun out of these things, used to spend hours flogging through Smiths Charts with log tables and slide rule - do it now with one push of a key using a programme that is so valuable its free on the net.
DaveS
Well-known member
Re: lbf ft and ft lbf
You are of course correct, and using a different order for the units of distance and force when referring to torque or energy makes perfect sense and avoids confusion (provided, of course, you can remember which is which /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif ).
This sensible convention does not seem to have been adopted by the metric (SI) system, however, with Nm being used for both. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif Anyone know why?
You are of course correct, and using a different order for the units of distance and force when referring to torque or energy makes perfect sense and avoids confusion (provided, of course, you can remember which is which /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif ).
This sensible convention does not seem to have been adopted by the metric (SI) system, however, with Nm being used for both. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif Anyone know why?
DaveS
Well-known member
IIRC the Americans used to have a unit of mass called the Slug, equivalent to about 32 lb...
Bergman
New member
The things that stir the memory.
There used to be slugs, most certainly and, I believe ergs as well.
Which brought to mind what must have been the most eccentric lecturer I have ever come across.
I was an Electrickery student but for reasons I never understood we had to do a course in Mechanical stuff.
It was delivered by a Cornishman who had an uncanny resemblance to Jasper Carrott - only this was before Jasper Carrott had ever been heard of.
His first lecture - he shambled into the room in a shiny suit worn over a heavy wooly pullover, Wrote the word "friction" on the board (we still had blackboards then) and stood back and admired his handiwork.
Having decided it met with his approval he turned and surveyed the students for what seemed like an age. Eventually he spoke
"Gentlemen" - he said - "You must always remember, whatever your future careers may be and wherever life may take you, that without friction there is no pleasure whatsoever in sex"
He then left the room and didn't reappear for the next half hour.
One of life's genuine loonies - the people who make life worth living.
There used to be slugs, most certainly and, I believe ergs as well.
Which brought to mind what must have been the most eccentric lecturer I have ever come across.
I was an Electrickery student but for reasons I never understood we had to do a course in Mechanical stuff.
It was delivered by a Cornishman who had an uncanny resemblance to Jasper Carrott - only this was before Jasper Carrott had ever been heard of.
His first lecture - he shambled into the room in a shiny suit worn over a heavy wooly pullover, Wrote the word "friction" on the board (we still had blackboards then) and stood back and admired his handiwork.
Having decided it met with his approval he turned and surveyed the students for what seemed like an age. Eventually he spoke
"Gentlemen" - he said - "You must always remember, whatever your future careers may be and wherever life may take you, that without friction there is no pleasure whatsoever in sex"
He then left the room and didn't reappear for the next half hour.
One of life's genuine loonies - the people who make life worth living.
VicS
Well-known member
Re: lbf ft and ft lbf
[ QUOTE ]
sensible convention does not seem to have been adopted by the metric (SI) system, however, with Nm being used for both
[/ QUOTE ]
Well thats not quite right. While the SI unit of torque is the newton metre (N m) the unit of energy, work or heat is the joule (J). Ok it is true that joules are the product of newtons and metres ie N m, but the confusion with torque should not arise if energy etc is given in joules.
The SI units that take a bit of explaining are mass, in kilograms, and weight, in newtons, it being incorrect to say that something, a bag of sugar for example, weighs 1kg. We should say that it weighs 9.8 N (at least it does on the surface of the Earth) or that its mass is 1kg. The trouble is that everybody knows that a bag of of sugar "weighs" 1kg and nobody knows what a newton is!
FWIW a newton is about the weight of a small apple! Most people know the association between Newton and apples, not mention that a Newton Wonder is a variety of apple!
[ QUOTE ]
sensible convention does not seem to have been adopted by the metric (SI) system, however, with Nm being used for both
[/ QUOTE ]
Well thats not quite right. While the SI unit of torque is the newton metre (N m) the unit of energy, work or heat is the joule (J). Ok it is true that joules are the product of newtons and metres ie N m, but the confusion with torque should not arise if energy etc is given in joules.
The SI units that take a bit of explaining are mass, in kilograms, and weight, in newtons, it being incorrect to say that something, a bag of sugar for example, weighs 1kg. We should say that it weighs 9.8 N (at least it does on the surface of the Earth) or that its mass is 1kg. The trouble is that everybody knows that a bag of of sugar "weighs" 1kg and nobody knows what a newton is!
FWIW a newton is about the weight of a small apple! Most people know the association between Newton and apples, not mention that a Newton Wonder is a variety of apple!
huldah
Member
Re: lbf ft and ft lbf
I sounds as if Bergman's calculator was the barrel type. Very popular in the 1950s.
At that time the Monroe manual calculators were retailing at over £100.00! I used to travel the southwest of UK repairing them. Calculators were far from reliable, and it was quite common to have a second call out, when you got back from a 400 mile round trip.
All done in a 5 cwt van limited to 30 miles per hour because it was a goods vehicle. The police used to hide behind hedges to catch you. No motorways and huge queues of slow moving holiday makers.
Happy days.
Philip
I sounds as if Bergman's calculator was the barrel type. Very popular in the 1950s.
At that time the Monroe manual calculators were retailing at over £100.00! I used to travel the southwest of UK repairing them. Calculators were far from reliable, and it was quite common to have a second call out, when you got back from a 400 mile round trip.
All done in a 5 cwt van limited to 30 miles per hour because it was a goods vehicle. The police used to hide behind hedges to catch you. No motorways and huge queues of slow moving holiday makers.
Happy days.
Philip
huldah
Member
Re: lbf ft and ft lbf
Just remembered, I still have a barrel type calculator.
Philip
Just remembered, I still have a barrel type calculator.
Philip