Understanding Rotational Energy of a Fan Impeller

Thread starter Turv
Start date Aug 15, 2009
Tags

Energy Rotational Rotational energy

AI Thread Summary

The discussion focuses on calculating the rotational energy of a fan impeller using the formula RE = 1/2Iw^2. An impeller with an inertia of 50 kg m² spinning at 1440 rpm results in an energy of 568,405 J. The question arises about converting this energy into kilowatt-hours (kWh). To convert joules to kWh, the figure should indeed be divided by 3,600,000 J. Understanding these conversions is crucial for energy efficiency calculations.

Aug 15, 2009

Turv

Hi,

I'm trying to understand the rotational energy of a fan impeller.

I understand RE = 1/2Iw^2

So therefore an impellor with an inertia of 50 kg m^2 spinning at 1440 rpm

= 568405 J

my question is does this figure need to be divided by 3600000 J to give Kw hours?

Physics news on Phys.org

Aug 15, 2009

Naty1

Correct: 1KWH equals 3.6 x 10⁶ joules

Thread 'Inclined treadmills and Galilean Invariance'

This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/

View full post »

Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'

Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...

View full post »

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...

View full post »