Unit Conversion Troubleshooting: Identifying and Correcting Common Errors

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on troubleshooting unit conversions, highlighting three specific examples that yielded incorrect results. The first conversion from light years per minute to SI units was miscalculated, with confusion about the original SI units. The second conversion from carats per cubic parsec to SI units was incorrect due to a misunderstanding of the carat-to-kilogram conversion factor. The third conversion from furlongs per fortnight to SI units mistakenly used the conversion factor twice and misinterpreted the time frame. Overall, attention to detail in unit definitions and conversion factors is crucial for accurate results.
badtwistoffate
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
:devil:
I have 3 unit conversions and they are not coming out right... what am I doing wrong if you can spot it:
1)1.64ly/min to SI Units:
1ly/min=697.5W/m^2
1144.6W/m^2 but how do you get it with just the oringinal SI units...


2)2.3E27carats/parsec^3 to SI:
2.3E27carats/parsec^3 * (1kg/.0002carats) *( 1 parsec^3/2.938e49 m^3) = 3.91E-19 but is nothing like what google says !


3)642 furlongs per fortnight to SI:
642 furlongs/fortnight * (201.2m/1furlong)*(1/[24*60*60])*(201.2m/1furlong)=.107m/s?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wait, light years/min? That's a unit of velocity and W/m^2 is a unit of intensity.
 
langleys/min
 
You want the units to be basic SI-units? Well, Watt is J/s and Joule is Nm and Newton is kg m/s^2.

You calculated the second one wrong. I got 1.566*10^(-26) kg/m^3. Pay attention to what you do when you change units. Remember that 1 carat = 0.0002 kg, not 1kg = 0.0002 carat.
 
badtwistoffate said:
642 furlongs per fortnight to SI:
642 furlongs/fortnight * (201.2m/1furlong)*(1/[24*60*60])*(201.2m/1furlong)=.107m/s?

That's just one day, not a fortnight.

And why twice 201.2m/1 furlong?
 
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