Understanding Units of Work in Physics: A Brief Explanation

Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the relationship between units of work, force, and mass in physics. Work is correctly defined as the product of force and distance, with units expressed in Joules (kg·m²/s²). The confusion around foot-pounds (ft-lb) is addressed, confirming that it is dimensionally equivalent to Joules but uses different units (feet and pounds). Participants note the common misunderstanding of pounds as a measure of mass rather than force, leading to further clarification on the distinction between weight and mass. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding unit conversions and definitions in physics.
Mangoes
Messages
92
Reaction score
1
Hey there,

I'm in a math class and we're covering some applications to physics and although I completely understand the math behind it and am getting the correct answers, I'm a little iffy on how some of the units work.

Would anyone be kind enough to tell me whether or not my thought process here is correct? Since my book covers the theory behind the math, it doesn't really cover how the units work.

Work = Force*Distance
Force = Mass*Acceleration

Let's say that we measured mass in kg and acceleration in m/s^2.

F = (kg)(m/s^2) = Newton

Plugging this into work and taking distance to be measured in meters:

W = [(kg)(m/s^2)]*(m) = (kg)(m^2/s^2) = Joules

Is the above correct?

Also, my book uses notation I'm unfamiliar with (ft - lb) and calls it foot-pounds.

Would it be dimensionally equal to Joules but using feet and pounds instead?
That is, would it be equal to (lb)(ft^2/s^2)?

Thanks for any help.
I'm just concerned I'm not understanding this correctly and on a test I'll write units that don't mean what I actually mean to say.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The SI units are correct. For foot-pounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_(energy )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mangoes said:
Work = Force*Distance
Force = Mass*Acceleration

Let's say that we measured mass in kg and acceleration in m/s^2.

F = (kg)(m/s^2) = Newton

Plugging this into work and taking distance to be measured in meters:

W = [(kg)(m/s^2)]*(m) = (kg)(m^2/s^2) = Joules

Is the above correct?

It is correct. Work is force *distance, the unit is Newton-meter=kg*m^2/s^2 and it has the name "joule" (J)

Mangoes said:
Also, my book uses notation I'm unfamiliar with (ft - lb) and calls it foot-pounds.

Would it be dimensionally equal to Joules but using feet and pounds instead?
That is, would it be equal to (lb)(ft^2/s^2)?

Thanks for any help.
I'm just concerned I'm not understanding this correctly and on a test I'll write units that don't mean what I actually mean to say.

As far as I know, "Pound" is unit of weight and that is force. So you can measure work in ft-lb units (foot*pound) .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_(energy)

ehild
 
Oh wow, I'm being an idiot with the foot pounds thing.

Guess I'm too used to using pounds as a measure of mass in everyday life.

Thanks guys.
 
It is really very confusing. In the old times when I was at school, we used "kg " as unit of weight and the unit of work was m-kg. Later it was said the kg(weight) is the force the Earth attracts an 1 kg mass. The same happened to the pound, I guess.

See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

ehild
 
Last edited:
Technically, "kg" as a unit of force was named "kilogram-force" and denoted as "kgf". Of course everybody abbreviated that to just kilogram and kg, and confusion frequently ensued.
 
voko said:
Technically, "kg" as a unit of force was named "kilogram-force" and denoted as "kgf". Of course everybody abbreviated that to just kilogram and kg, and confusion frequently ensued.

kilogram-force is more logical then "kilogram-weight" (kilogramsúly) as it was used in Hungary (súly=weight). It was very confusing, as it is with the different meanings of "pound". I read it is force in the US? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/slug.html#c1

ehild
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
890
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
867
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K