B How is tangential velocity measured in m/s when it’s r * w?

Click For Summary
Tangential velocity is derived from the equation v = r * ω, where v represents tangential velocity in meters per second (m/s), r is the radius in meters, and ω is angular velocity in radians per second (rad/s). The confusion arises from the dimensional analysis of radians, which are considered dimensionless because they represent the ratio of arc length to radius. This means that when multiplying r (meters) by ω (radians per second), the radians effectively cancel out, resulting in a dimension of m/s for tangential velocity. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding how angular measurements are treated in physics, emphasizing that radians do not contribute additional dimensions. Therefore, tangential velocity can be accurately expressed in standard SI units of m/s.
  • #31
A.T. said:
You can use a different ratio.
That is true but, as you know, π will still be a factor in there somewhere. If you re-examine Euler's identity then you will see that π is locked to e and no one mentions radii or diameters.
Good luck with any attempts to design a protractor which will deal conveniently with radian measure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
1739106124434.png


I don’t see any issues …….
 
  • #33
Orodruin said:
View attachment 357050

I don’t see any issues …….
That's fine as far as it goes but there are two problems. The scale has fractions, which would make life inconvenient. Also, for rotations (revs) beyond a full turn, your machinist / handyman would have to add multiples of π and that would mean getting familiar with a scale that's not decimal - like everything else we deal with. (I don't include the nonsense of fractional drill and nut sizes, which are just as ridiculous)

PS Draw a dot somewhere on the edge of your image and say, instantly, what the radian value would be. Alternatively imagine a special scale (perhaps decimal) that your average user would take to effortlessly. Not too had to make one with CAD software, I imagine. :wink:

Edit. I am an 'old dog' so it may be more difficult for me but a design tech lesson might be hard to deliver even to young dogs.
 
  • #34
sophiecentaur said:
The scale has fractions, which would make life inconvenient
So does your regular protractor. Only they are all fractions of 360, which you then multiply by 360.
sophiecentaur said:
have to add multiples of
… which is not really any harder than adding multiples of 360.
 
  • #35
sophiecentaur said:
PS Draw a dot somewhere on the edge of your image and say, instantly, what the radian value would be. Alternatively imagine a special scale (perhaps decimal) that your average user would take to effortlessly. Not too had to make one with CAD software, I imagine. :wink:
If you use ##\tau## instead of ##\pi##, the scale is effectively just fractions of a complete turn.
 
  • #36
Ibix said:
If you use ##\tau## instead of ##\pi##, the scale is effectively just fractions of a complete turn.
Shocker! 😱
 
  • #37
Ibix said:
If you use ##\tau## instead of ##\pi##, the scale is effectively just fractions of a complete turn.
That's the literal interpretation of the situation but it's a bnit standing up in a hammock for no reason. Where else in Engineering life do we find that fractions fit in well with our lives. So basically we could divide the circle (or the semicircle) into 100 divisions. Then you could use your calculator. But would anyone be better off than when using 360 degrees? And the factors of 360 make it convenient for mental sums (and making model clocks?)
 
  • #38
sophiecentaur said:
That's the literal interpretation of the situation but it's a bnit standing up in a hammock for no reason. Where else in Engineering life do we find that fractions fit in well with our lives. So basically we could divide the circle (or the semicircle) into 100 divisions. Then you could use your calculator. But would anyone be better off than when using 360 degrees? And the factors of 360 make it convenient for mental sums (and making model clocks?)
Again, nothing stops you from dividing the full circle in multiples of ##\pi/90## or ##\pi/180## radians.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #39
That's a great idea. Even I could cope with that one.
 
  • #40
sophiecentaur said:
The scale has fractions, which would make life inconvenient.
Yes, that's the reason for using 360, which has a lot of integer divisors.

But if one can live with fractions to avoid degree conversions, the sensible choice would be to use the fraction of a full circle (radians as multiples of τ). In fact, that is exactly how children learn to understand fractions:

1000_F_468327550_G8vXsrjMCHWtBnT0aQcx820v4XaHgNSO.jpg


What never made sense to me is using the fraction of a half the circle (radians as multiples of π).
 
  • #41
1739136750069.png

🎼🎶When the 🌖 hits your 👁️ like a big 🍕 ##\pi##, that’s amore 🎵
 
  • #42
A.T. said:
But if one can live with fractions to avoid degree conversions,
People cannot deal with fractions as easily as you and I can. There is a tale that customers thought that 1/3 pounder burgers were smaller than 1/4 pounder burgers so the competition gave up on that advertising idea
A.T. said:
In fact, that is exactly how children learn to understand fractions:
Children may well manage to 'accept the idea' of fractions - or at least say they do. But they use decimals on their calculator as soon as possible. Don't overestimate people just because you find something easy.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
19K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K