Register to reply

Dimensional analysis. Conversion factor confusion

Share this thread:
Edin_Dzeko
#1
Jun13-11, 05:50 PM
P: 223
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
How many centimeters are there in 3.25 miles?


2. Relevant equations
So basically, convert 3.25 mi to cm.


3. The attempt at a solution


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The teacher put the answer for this problem as 5.16 x 10^5 The teacher used:
(1609 m/1 mile)(100 cm/ 1 m) as her conversion factor. Why / how is mine wrong? I used the metric prefixes system to get my conversion factor numbers.

****(This was done with MS Paint so please disregard the 3rd grader hand writing.)
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Fungus deadly to AIDS patients found to grow on trees
Canola genome sequence reveals evolutionary 'love triangle'
Scientists uncover clues to role of magnetism in iron-based superconductors
berkeman
#2
Jun13-11, 06:01 PM
Mentor
berkeman's Avatar
P: 40,947
Quote Quote by Edin_Dzeko View Post
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
How many centimeters are there in 3.25 miles?


2. Relevant equations
So basically, convert 3.25 mi to cm.


3. The attempt at a solution


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The teacher put the answer for this problem as 5.16 x 10^5 The teacher used:
(1609 m/1 mile)(100 cm/ 1 m) as her conversion factor. Why / how is mine wrong? I used the metric prefixes system to get my conversion factor numbers.

****(This was done with MS Paint so please disregard the 3rd grader hand writing.)
You have a misplaced decimal point in your answer, but that could be left over from Paint.

Still, I don't know why the teacher's answer isn't 5.23*10^5cm...
SteamKing
#3
Jun14-11, 03:11 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 6,474
Hint: 1 m = 100 cm

Borek
#4
Jun14-11, 05:12 PM
Admin
Borek's Avatar
P: 23,536
Dimensional analysis. Conversion factor confusion

Quote Quote by SteamKing View Post
Hint: 1 m = 100 cm
That's equivalent to 1cm = 0.01m, both give perfectly valid conversion factors.

5.23x105 cm it is, there is a mistake in the given answer.

Even google agrees.
Edin_Dzeko
#5
Jun14-11, 05:34 PM
P: 223
Okay. Thanks guys. This clears it up.

Here's an exact copy and paste of what the teacher's response was:

3.25 miles (1609 m/1 mile)(100 cm/ 1 m) = 5.16 X 10^5 cm

So my conversion factor wasn't off. I guess it might have been a mistake.
SteamKing
#6
Jun14-11, 08:08 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 6,474
The larger point is, by using the conversion 1 cm / 0.01 m in the calculation, the poster multiplied 5229.25 m by 1 cm / 0.01 m. The poster then cancelled the 'm' units and neglected to apply the factor '0.01' in the denominator of the conversion factor. If the poster had used the conversion factor 1 m = 100 cm, it should have been readily apparent that the magnitude of the result in cm should be greater than the measurement in m.
berkeman
#7
Jun14-11, 08:53 PM
Mentor
berkeman's Avatar
P: 40,947
Quote Quote by Edin_Dzeko View Post
Okay. Thanks guys. This clears it up.

Here's an exact copy and paste of what the teacher's response was:

3.25 miles (1609 m/1 mile)(100 cm/ 1 m) = 5.16 X 10^5 cm

So my conversion factor wasn't off. I guess it might have been a mistake.
Looks like your teacher accidentally did 3.21 miles instead of 3.25 miles.

Did you move the decimal point in your answer in time to get full credit?
Borek
#8
Jun15-11, 02:13 AM
Admin
Borek's Avatar
P: 23,536
Quote Quote by SteamKing View Post
The larger point is, by using the conversion 1 cm / 0.01 m in the calculation, the poster multiplied 5229.25 m by 1 cm / 0.01 m. The poster then cancelled the 'm' units and neglected to apply the factor '0.01' in the denominator of the conversion factor. If the poster had used the conversion factor 1 m = 100 cm, it should have been readily apparent that the magnitude of the result in cm should be greater than the measurement in m.
It doesn't hold water, seems to me it is as easy to forget to divide by 0.01 as it is to forget to multiply by 100. If you have enough experience in both cases it is obvious there is something wrong with the final result order of magnitude. If you lack the experience - you will not see it no matter how long you look.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Integrating factor confusion Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
Conversion Factor Precalculus Mathematics Homework 1
Torque conversion factor General Engineering 3
Principal Component Analysis vs Factor Analysis vs regression Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 1
Integrating factor confusion Introductory Physics Homework 6