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:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top