Not to be a pain in the ass, but I'd normally think kg/m/s^2 = kg s^2 / m But I guess it does come down to the conventional order of operations. I guess you win. Gack. I personally hate when people describe accelerations as "meters per second per second" i.e. m/s/s, for the same reason. - Warren
Interesting note: In the "common" world, a bar has the unit "kg/cm^2". THis is referring to the weight of one kilogram per square centimeter. THis of course translates to only 98,010 N per square meter, but somewhere along the line, "g" got upgraded to 10 N/kg instead of 9.801 N/kg.
Uh.... no. 1 bar is defined to be 100 kilopascals. A pascal is one newton per square meter. One kilogram-force is g newtons. Therefore, one pascal is (1/g) kilogram-force per square meter. Therefore, one bar is 100,000/g kilograms-force per square meter. g is accepted to be 9.80665 m/s^2, so one bar is 10,197.1621298 kilograms-force per square meter. I have no idea where you got the idea that someone rounded g to 10 m/s^2, but it never happened. - Warren
I see your Schwartz is as big as mine. http://www.google.com/search?num=10...+decades+per+cubic+furlong&btnG=Google+Search - Warren
I used the Unix 'units' program, since I had a shell already open ... Code (Text): $ units 2084 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units You have: bar You want: horsepower-decade/furlong^3 * 3.4595574 / 0.28905432
That's not what I meant, really. In Europe, the unit of bar and kg/cm^2 is used interchangeably (not by scientists, but by people pumping their bike tires). I remember several times over the years hearing anecdotaly that the bar was based on the "kg/cm^2" but was then redefined to be essentially 10 N/cm^2 (actually 1,000,000 dynes per cm^2)to be scientifically correct. So g was not the one that was adjusted. It's the bar that was raised.