Or, this recent book about SI units, or this 2004 book on machine design, or this physics article, or many many others - Steve ( talk) 15:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Reply I did read the link you posted - in my view, the critical sentence was "This, however, is an algebraic freedom to be governed by common sense physical considerations in a given situation some forms may be more helpful than others." In the situation I had in mind (levers, balancing beams - all the sort of things that kids study in secondary school physics), the Nm form is both the most helpful, and the one commonly used. Djr32 ( talk) 11:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Reply If you haven't seen Joule/radian used as a unit of torque, you should read the link I posted. The change you propose would make the whole thing much less clear for non-expert readers. moment of a force), I've never seen Joule used in this context. What do other people think? :-) - Steve ( talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Reply Strongly disagree - The Nm is commonly used as the unit for torque (i.e. (Some of the synonyms, like this article, should be turned into redirects to joule.) Having a separate article for each of these endless synonyms is silly. This would make a nice little section in the joule article: You say that there's lots of ways to write a joule, and in the context of torque it's often written newton-meter, and in the context of circuits sometimes you would write it as coulomb-volt, and for gravitational potential energy it might be clearest to talk about kg m^2/s^2, and when you're running an appliance maybe watt-second is best. Even if you're only talking about torque, says this source, in some contexts you want to say joule (or joule per radian), and other times you want to say newton-meter. Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.184.25 ( talk) 05:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Reply Īs makes clear, a Joule, like any unit, can be correctly algebraically expressed in many different ways (one of which is newton-meter) and you should express it in the way that makes it clearest what you're talking about. Its very different, for joules it represents a distant moved or displacement but for torque it represents a distance from the fulcrum. I thought the key thing missing was the differentiation between what the meter term represents in the calculation for joules and torque. It seems to me that the article should just state something like "although a joule can also be (or maybe "is often"?) expressed in units of newton metres, it is an unrelated unit of measure". "colinear" arm sounds like maybe a newton metre is a joule except measured in a different direction. Specifically, the sentence about the "normal" vs. While the article is correct (as far as I know, anyway), I feel the "joule" paragraph is confusing and makes it almost seem as if there is some relationship between a newton metre and a joule, other than the dimension.
0 kommentar(er)
