What Is the Correct Unit for Mean Square Velocity?

AI Thread Summary
The correct unit for mean square velocity is m²/s², as it represents the average of the squares of given velocities. The confusion arises because root-mean-square (RMS) velocity, which is often referenced, has the unit m/s. Velocity itself is measured in m/s, while acceleration is in m/s². A book stating the unit of mean square velocity as m/s may contain a typo or could be referring to RMS velocity instead. Clarifying these distinctions is essential for accurate understanding in physics discussions.
HUMERA.S
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
hi...
we know the unit of velocity is m/s2
and
while calculating the mean square velocity we find the average(or mean) of the 'squares' of the given velocities.
then the unit of MEAN SQUARE VELOCITY should be 'm2/s4'
then how come its unit is also m/s2 and not m2/s4 ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i think that it's m/s.
 
HUMERA.S said:
hi...
we know the unit of velocity is m/s2
and
while calculating the mean square velocity we find the average(or mean) of the 'squares' of the given velocities.
then the unit of MEAN SQUARE VELOCITY should be 'm2/s4'
then how come its unit is also m/s2 and not m2/s4 ?

The unit of velocity is m/s. m/s2 is for acceleration.
The unit of the mean of square velocity is m2/s2, but we ususally speak about root-mean-square (RMS) velocity or speed - and it is m/s.

ehild
 
ehild said:
The unit of velocity is m/s. m/s2 is for acceleration.
The unit of the mean of square velocity is m2/s2

OOOPS..! yeah sorry i made a mistake .:redface: the unit for velocity is m/s..

but is the unit of mean square velocity really m2/s2 ?
(i mean, i just want to confirm. because in my book the unit of mean square velocity is given as m/s...:confused:... so the book must be wrong .)
 
Mean square velocity is the average of the squared velocity. If it is square velocity , the unit is m2/s2. It can be a typo in your book, or they meant root-mean square velocity.

ehild
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top