Difficulty working with SI and derived SI conversions

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mpatryluk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difficulty Si
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the challenges of understanding SI and derived units in physics, specifically in the context of fluid resistance equations. The equations f = kv (5.7) and f = Dv² (5.8) illustrate the constants k and D, with units of N·s/m (or kg/s) and N·s²/m² (or kg/m), respectively. Participants emphasize that while intuitive visualization of these units can be beneficial, it is often more practical to treat them as algebraic symbols for dimensional consistency. The conversation highlights the importance of recognizing the conceptual significance of units while also accepting their role in mathematical formulations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly fluid dynamics.
  • Familiarity with SI units and derived units.
  • Knowledge of dimensional analysis and its application in physics.
  • Basic algebra skills for manipulating equations and units.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of dimensional analysis in physics to enhance understanding of unit consistency.
  • Explore resources on fluid dynamics, focusing on the role of viscosity and resistance.
  • Learn about the significance of constants in physical equations, particularly in Newton's laws.
  • Investigate advanced topics in unit conversion and derived units, including practical applications in engineering.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and professionals in engineering fields who seek to deepen their understanding of SI and derived units, particularly in the context of fluid dynamics and mathematical modeling.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K