This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Would anyone care to provide some evidence to back up the claim that "Some people, as a matter of convenience, have opted to use a gramatical contraction of these units that is outside of the traditional SI vernacular. Instead of saying newton-metre, these people will, in casual conversation, refer to torque in units of the "newtre"."?
If there is no significant use of this sort, I will delete it. Gene Nygaard 03:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The latter looks right to me. Which is it? — Michael Z. 2005-10-13 18:29 Z
While the article is correct (as far as I know, anyway), I feel the "joule" paragraph is confusing and makes it almost seem as if there is some relationship between a newton metre and a joule, other than the dimension. Specifically, the sentence about the "normal" vs. "colinear" arm sounds like maybe a newton metre is a joule except measured in a different direction.
It seems to me that the article should just state something like "although a joule can also be (or maybe "is often"?) expressed in units of newton metres, it is an unrelated unit of measure". Kwh033 04:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agreed. So I've made changes along those lines. I thought the key thing missing was the differentiation between what the meter term represents in the calculation for joules and torque. Its very different, for joules it represents a distant moved or displacement but for torque it represents a distance from the fulcrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.184.25 ( talk) 05:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-2/2-2-2.html makes clear, a Joule, like any unit, can be correctly algebraically expressed in many different ways (one of which is newton-meter) and you should express it in the way that makes it clearest what you're talking about. Even if you're only talking about torque, says this source, in some contexts you want to say joule (or joule per radian), and other times you want to say newton-meter. This would make a nice little section in the joule article: You say that there's lots of ways to write a joule, and in the context of torque it's often written newton-meter, and in the context of circuits sometimes you would write it as coulomb-volt, and for gravitational potential energy it might be clearest to talk about kg m^2/s^2, and when you're running an appliance maybe watt-second is best. Having a separate article for each of these endless synonyms is silly. (Some of the synonyms, like this article, should be turned into redirects to joule.)
What do other people think? :-) -- Steve ( talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
J/rad is commonly widely used [1]. Voproshatel ( talk) 14:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be mN, meter x Newton because of how you take the cross product of the radius of the wrench or whatever and the force applied to it? Banaticus ( talk) 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Article states:
This is written as if "newton metre" were a synonym of "torque", and "joule" a synonym of "energy". They're not. They're units. The fact that work is a scalar while torque is a vector is a difference between work and torque, not a difference between a newton metre and a joule. It's entirely possible to have a scalar with units of newton metres, for example the magnitude of the torque vector. Also, the first sentence is a faulty comparison; for work, the so-called "distance" is the displacement of the point to which you're applying force, and for torque, it's a vector between the axis about which you're measuring torque and the point to which you're applying force, and anyway they're usually neither co-linear nor normal to the force. If no one objects, I plan to delete and rewrite this. -- Steve ( talk) 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
obviously newtons are weight (well force but in this context weight) and kilograms are mass. These only apply at nominal standard for gravity at the earth's surface-- hence essentially G (9.801...) in the equations. Should this somehow be added (without being too wordy)? I would suggest somehow without precocity referring to G (9.80665...) and then using it in the equations. This is only a mean value for G (but usually good enough). SimonTrew ( talk) 00:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask the question: So if I push a box with an applied force of one Newton, for a distance of one meter, what do you call it? I call it a Newton-Meter, and it is indeed an amount of Energy/Work (force x distance) and not a torque (force applied at a distance). To say Newton-Meter is a unit of torque is only true if it is indeed referring to torque. I suggest you change the first line to read the Newton-Meter can be either a unit of torque or a unit of work/energy. Then point out this article discusses torque and dissambiguate to an article that discusses energy. Same goes for foot-pound.
By the way, elsewhere in WikiP, you will find a conversion from Newton-meters to Joules, and this is referring to energy, not torque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefffisch ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Lets say I want to tighten a bolt with 20N. That is roughly the same as applying a force of 20N and the end of my wrench, which is one meter long. Let's say now, that my wrench is only 0.5 meters long. How much pressure should then be applied at the end of it. 40N? 80.162.194.33 ( talk) 21:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just removed a paragraph about the relationship between torque and work (again). In my view, it does not belong here. It is important to draw attention to the fact that torque and energy are different physical quantities even though the unit "newton meter" is sometimes used for each. That does not mean it's appropriate in a stub-length article to describe ways in which one might crop up in the calculation of the other. It's as if, in a short article on the unit of length "foot", there was a paragraph explaining how you could describe a human foot using this unit: the width of the ball of the foot and the heel, the length from heel to toe, etc. It's a completely random and unnecessary example, which is only there because the name happens to be the same. Rracecarr ( talk) 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty much responsibly for both the second major paragraph and the 3rd one you don't like. It is indeed intended to be there to improve the clarity of distinction between torque and energy by showing how one is just a component of the other. Your proposed alternative significantly complicates the matter for a layman reader. Its the fact most people don't really know what a scalar or vector product is that led to all the confusion in the first place. I agree the article needs to flow better but its addition or restructuring of material that needs to happen, not outright removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.246.110 ( talk) 03:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The various items in the conversion table were inconsistent with each other, expressed to different numbers of decimal places, and not consistently linked. I cleaned up the table by ensuring the proper use of "≈" as opposed to "=", calcing all factors to 8 digits, using the same syntax for and equivalents for the english units, adding the definitions of a couple of constants to help show how the conversion factors were derived, and added more links to the appropriate wiki articles. Compare version 2015-09-27T19:54:16 with previous to see changes. Gcronau ( talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This article contains the statement:
"This usage is discouraged by the SI authority, since it can lead to confusion as to whether a given quantity expressed in newton metres is a torque or a quantity of energy."
With "this usage" referring to newton-metre being used as a synonym for Work/Energy/Joules. The article for "Work (Physics)" contains a nearly verbatim copy of the above statement. And while I can find about 1500 hits on Google for claims that the SI authority "discourages" this usage, they mostly appear to be just cut and pastes from these 2 Wiki articles. All I was able to find on the main SI website at http://www.bipm.org was the document "si_brochure_8_en.pdf", which contains the following text:
"In practice, with certain quantities, preference is given to the use of certain special unit names, or combinations of unit names, to facilitate the distinction between different quantities having the same dimension. When using this freedom, one may recall the process by which the quantity is defined. For example, the quantity torque may be thought of as the cross product of force and distance, suggesting the unit newton metre, or it may be thought of as energy per angle, suggesting the unit joule per radian...
The above is the only reference to "torque" in the entire document and a combined search of the terms: "newton-metre", "joule", and "torque" on the BIPM website only turned up references to the above document. Now, I see torque being used as an "example"(the above quoted section carried on and cited a few more "examples"). I also see the phrases "may be thought of" and "suggesting", but what I don't see are things like "must be used", and more pointedly, the use of the word "discouraged". Or any text implying that they discourage said use. I have attached a "Citation Needed" tag to the above statement. Does anyone have access to any (other)text from SI/BIPM that actually states that the newton-metre usage for Joules/Work is discouraged? If so, please chime in. I am going to add this same block of text to the talk page for "Work (Physics)" to get more eyes on the issue. Gcronau ( talk) 19:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As above. 210.162.143.223 ( talk) 06:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
In the context of circles, angles and rotation, units of length are either tangential or\rm radial. Let there be two new units that replace good old (meters): (tangential meters) and (radial meters). The unit of a is the conversion or ratio between these two units.
Angular frequency in this context should be , not . Formulation of the relationship of and is a little more clear if you add s or s like this: . Doesn't really matter for this question use instead of or .
So the units are . Notice the use of radial meters.
Additional related information is
[1]
[2].
Voproshatel (
talk)
08:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
References
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Would anyone care to provide some evidence to back up the claim that "Some people, as a matter of convenience, have opted to use a gramatical contraction of these units that is outside of the traditional SI vernacular. Instead of saying newton-metre, these people will, in casual conversation, refer to torque in units of the "newtre"."?
If there is no significant use of this sort, I will delete it. Gene Nygaard 03:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The latter looks right to me. Which is it? — Michael Z. 2005-10-13 18:29 Z
While the article is correct (as far as I know, anyway), I feel the "joule" paragraph is confusing and makes it almost seem as if there is some relationship between a newton metre and a joule, other than the dimension. Specifically, the sentence about the "normal" vs. "colinear" arm sounds like maybe a newton metre is a joule except measured in a different direction.
It seems to me that the article should just state something like "although a joule can also be (or maybe "is often"?) expressed in units of newton metres, it is an unrelated unit of measure". Kwh033 04:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agreed. So I've made changes along those lines. I thought the key thing missing was the differentiation between what the meter term represents in the calculation for joules and torque. Its very different, for joules it represents a distant moved or displacement but for torque it represents a distance from the fulcrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.184.25 ( talk) 05:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-2/2-2-2.html makes clear, a Joule, like any unit, can be correctly algebraically expressed in many different ways (one of which is newton-meter) and you should express it in the way that makes it clearest what you're talking about. Even if you're only talking about torque, says this source, in some contexts you want to say joule (or joule per radian), and other times you want to say newton-meter. This would make a nice little section in the joule article: You say that there's lots of ways to write a joule, and in the context of torque it's often written newton-meter, and in the context of circuits sometimes you would write it as coulomb-volt, and for gravitational potential energy it might be clearest to talk about kg m^2/s^2, and when you're running an appliance maybe watt-second is best. Having a separate article for each of these endless synonyms is silly. (Some of the synonyms, like this article, should be turned into redirects to joule.)
What do other people think? :-) -- Steve ( talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
J/rad is commonly widely used [1]. Voproshatel ( talk) 14:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be mN, meter x Newton because of how you take the cross product of the radius of the wrench or whatever and the force applied to it? Banaticus ( talk) 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Article states:
This is written as if "newton metre" were a synonym of "torque", and "joule" a synonym of "energy". They're not. They're units. The fact that work is a scalar while torque is a vector is a difference between work and torque, not a difference between a newton metre and a joule. It's entirely possible to have a scalar with units of newton metres, for example the magnitude of the torque vector. Also, the first sentence is a faulty comparison; for work, the so-called "distance" is the displacement of the point to which you're applying force, and for torque, it's a vector between the axis about which you're measuring torque and the point to which you're applying force, and anyway they're usually neither co-linear nor normal to the force. If no one objects, I plan to delete and rewrite this. -- Steve ( talk) 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
obviously newtons are weight (well force but in this context weight) and kilograms are mass. These only apply at nominal standard for gravity at the earth's surface-- hence essentially G (9.801...) in the equations. Should this somehow be added (without being too wordy)? I would suggest somehow without precocity referring to G (9.80665...) and then using it in the equations. This is only a mean value for G (but usually good enough). SimonTrew ( talk) 00:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask the question: So if I push a box with an applied force of one Newton, for a distance of one meter, what do you call it? I call it a Newton-Meter, and it is indeed an amount of Energy/Work (force x distance) and not a torque (force applied at a distance). To say Newton-Meter is a unit of torque is only true if it is indeed referring to torque. I suggest you change the first line to read the Newton-Meter can be either a unit of torque or a unit of work/energy. Then point out this article discusses torque and dissambiguate to an article that discusses energy. Same goes for foot-pound.
By the way, elsewhere in WikiP, you will find a conversion from Newton-meters to Joules, and this is referring to energy, not torque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefffisch ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Lets say I want to tighten a bolt with 20N. That is roughly the same as applying a force of 20N and the end of my wrench, which is one meter long. Let's say now, that my wrench is only 0.5 meters long. How much pressure should then be applied at the end of it. 40N? 80.162.194.33 ( talk) 21:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just removed a paragraph about the relationship between torque and work (again). In my view, it does not belong here. It is important to draw attention to the fact that torque and energy are different physical quantities even though the unit "newton meter" is sometimes used for each. That does not mean it's appropriate in a stub-length article to describe ways in which one might crop up in the calculation of the other. It's as if, in a short article on the unit of length "foot", there was a paragraph explaining how you could describe a human foot using this unit: the width of the ball of the foot and the heel, the length from heel to toe, etc. It's a completely random and unnecessary example, which is only there because the name happens to be the same. Rracecarr ( talk) 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty much responsibly for both the second major paragraph and the 3rd one you don't like. It is indeed intended to be there to improve the clarity of distinction between torque and energy by showing how one is just a component of the other. Your proposed alternative significantly complicates the matter for a layman reader. Its the fact most people don't really know what a scalar or vector product is that led to all the confusion in the first place. I agree the article needs to flow better but its addition or restructuring of material that needs to happen, not outright removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.246.110 ( talk) 03:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The various items in the conversion table were inconsistent with each other, expressed to different numbers of decimal places, and not consistently linked. I cleaned up the table by ensuring the proper use of "≈" as opposed to "=", calcing all factors to 8 digits, using the same syntax for and equivalents for the english units, adding the definitions of a couple of constants to help show how the conversion factors were derived, and added more links to the appropriate wiki articles. Compare version 2015-09-27T19:54:16 with previous to see changes. Gcronau ( talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This article contains the statement:
"This usage is discouraged by the SI authority, since it can lead to confusion as to whether a given quantity expressed in newton metres is a torque or a quantity of energy."
With "this usage" referring to newton-metre being used as a synonym for Work/Energy/Joules. The article for "Work (Physics)" contains a nearly verbatim copy of the above statement. And while I can find about 1500 hits on Google for claims that the SI authority "discourages" this usage, they mostly appear to be just cut and pastes from these 2 Wiki articles. All I was able to find on the main SI website at http://www.bipm.org was the document "si_brochure_8_en.pdf", which contains the following text:
"In practice, with certain quantities, preference is given to the use of certain special unit names, or combinations of unit names, to facilitate the distinction between different quantities having the same dimension. When using this freedom, one may recall the process by which the quantity is defined. For example, the quantity torque may be thought of as the cross product of force and distance, suggesting the unit newton metre, or it may be thought of as energy per angle, suggesting the unit joule per radian...
The above is the only reference to "torque" in the entire document and a combined search of the terms: "newton-metre", "joule", and "torque" on the BIPM website only turned up references to the above document. Now, I see torque being used as an "example"(the above quoted section carried on and cited a few more "examples"). I also see the phrases "may be thought of" and "suggesting", but what I don't see are things like "must be used", and more pointedly, the use of the word "discouraged". Or any text implying that they discourage said use. I have attached a "Citation Needed" tag to the above statement. Does anyone have access to any (other)text from SI/BIPM that actually states that the newton-metre usage for Joules/Work is discouraged? If so, please chime in. I am going to add this same block of text to the talk page for "Work (Physics)" to get more eyes on the issue. Gcronau ( talk) 19:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As above. 210.162.143.223 ( talk) 06:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
In the context of circles, angles and rotation, units of length are either tangential or\rm radial. Let there be two new units that replace good old (meters): (tangential meters) and (radial meters). The unit of a is the conversion or ratio between these two units.
Angular frequency in this context should be , not . Formulation of the relationship of and is a little more clear if you add s or s like this: . Doesn't really matter for this question use instead of or .
So the units are . Notice the use of radial meters.
Additional related information is
[1]
[2].
Voproshatel (
talk)
08:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
References