Difficulty working with SI and derived SI conversions

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpatryluk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difficulty Si
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of understanding SI and derived units in physics, particularly in the context of fluid resistance equations. Participants highlight the difficulty of intuitively grasping the meaning of units like N x s/m and N x s^2/m^2, which represent constants in equations for low and high-speed fluid resistance. It is noted that while seeking conceptual significance in units is beneficial, sometimes it is more practical to treat them as algebraic symbols for dimensional consistency. Examples are provided to illustrate how derived units can be complex yet essential for verifying equations. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of both intuition and mathematical treatment in mastering derived units.
mpatryluk
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
The physics textbook I'm working with doesn't seem to give me the required background for working with and understanding SI and derived units. Here is an example of something i am struggling with:

In studying fluid resistance, the book starts by displaying 2 equations.

1 is for fluid resistance when the object is at low speed and is f = kv (5.7)
The other is for when the object is at high speed and is f = Dv^2 (5.8)

In this case with the constants k and D my book has this to say:

You should verify that the units of the constant k in Eq. (5.7) are N x s/m or kg/s and that the units of the constant D in Eq. (5.8) are N x s^2/m^2 or kg/m

So the problem I'm having is that i see one of the two SI derived units (in bold) and i try to make sense of it intuitively. Like how a velocity = m/s, i can clearly imagine that it is the amount of metres traveled in a given length of time. But I have no idea where to start for intuition for these.

My thought process
For N x s/m, I read that as "Newton seconds per metre". So fiirstly, Newton-seconds: that's the amount of seconds for which a Newton force is applied? And then i try to conceptualize dividing that along a metre and i can't conceptualize it. Is it the quantity of Newton-seconds that "pass" in the travel of an object through one metre of fluid?
Edit: I thought i read that it was called dynamic viscosity, but on second inspection that would be m^2

Anyway, my general issue as evidenced above is my lack of certainty about how i should treat derived units: whether i should try to visualize them intuitively or what. Also which resources i could use to gain practice and understanding with working with these units.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mpatryluk said:
i should try to visualize them intuitively or what.
You can try, but it's not important. The units of constants are defined to make the equations work dimensionally.

- k tells you how many Newtons force increase per 1m/s velocity increase

- D tells you how many Newtons force increase per 1m^2/s^2 squared velocity increase (per area of a square with v as side length)
 
Sorry if this seems like a patronising remark, but what a well-posed question, and what an excellent answer!

I think that looking for a the conceptual significance of units is good, but you've got to know when to give up and just treat a unit as a product of algebraic symbols! An example would be the unit of G in Newton's law of gravitation:
|\textbf F| = \frac{GMm}{r^2}.
If we leave the unit as \text{N} \ \text{m}^{2} \ \text{kg}^{-2} it retains a manifest meaning. But if we express it in SI base units as \text{kg}^{-1} \ \text{m}{^3} \ \text{s}^{-2} it's just a product of symbols. Still useful for checking homogeneity of units, of course.

Another nice example is \mu_0. Its SI units are N A-2. You have to think about why m (metre) doesn't appear in the unit. I sometimes provocatively pronounce the unit "Newton per square ampère", but I suspect that's not relevant.
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top