Unit Conversion Help: A Simple Way to Make Sense of Confusing Conversions

AI Thread Summary
Unit conversion can be simplified using dimensional analysis, which involves using equalities to cancel out units until the desired measurement is achieved. For example, to convert 120 km/hr to m/s, start by recognizing that 1 km equals 1000 m. By multiplying the speed by the appropriate conversion factors—1000 m/1 km, 1 h/60 min, and 1 min/60 s—you can systematically convert the units. This method allows for a clear step-by-step approach to conversions, making it easier to understand. Dimensional analysis is a valuable tool for anyone struggling with unit conversions.
EvanVi
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
i know this is a basic question but i need some assistance abut unit conversions. i want to know how to convert something like, say, 120km/hr to m/s but the way my teacher explains it is too confusing. i just want to know is there a simpler way to convert somthing like that easliy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You want to use dimensional analysis. The basic idea behind dimensional analysis is that you use equalities until you get the units you want. Let's take your example then

1km = 1000m

so divide by either 1000m or 1km depending on the situation, so you get an equality of 1. In this case we want kilometers on the bottom (denominator) so it cancels the kilometers up top (numerator).

1000m/1km = 1

so now we go the kilometer per hour equation and multiply it by 1 i.e. our equality

1\frac{km}{h} * \frac{1000m}{1km} = \frac{1000m}{h}

Then you just continue on down the line

1\frac{km}{h} * \frac{1000m}{km} * \frac{1h}{60min} * \frac{1min}{60s} = \frac{1000 m}{3600s}

Make sense?

EDIT:
There are probably a lot of threads like this that can give you some examples, but I know of another because I thought it was kind of cool what the guy was looking for once I understood his question.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=177566&highlight=dimensional+analysis
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top