Why is torque sometimes reported in kg m, instead of the usual N m?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
On various websites I see torque expressed as $rm kg: m$, but I was always thought that torque is $rm N:m$ or $rm kg: m^2/s^2$. These are clearly not the same, so why are they called the same, and when do I use one or the other?
mass torque units dimensional-analysis weight
edited Jan 20 at 17:23
Emilio Pisanty
83k22201415
asked Jan 10 at 23:17
sparposparpo
285
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
On various websites I see torque expressed as $rm kg: m$, but I was always thought that torque is $rm N:m$ or $rm kg: m^2/s^2$. These are clearly not the same, so why are they called the same, and when do I use one or the other?
mass torque units dimensional-analysis weight
edited Jan 20 at 17:23
Emilio Pisanty
83k22201415
asked Jan 10 at 23:17
sparposparpo
285
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
Don’t trust websites for introductory physics help. There’s a lot of crap and noise out there. The one you were always taught is perfectly right!
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Jan 10 at 23:21
$begingroup$
@knzhou I see this unit of torque kg/m , in the details of electric motors. They always give the torque of an electric motor in kg/m. Do they just call it "torque" but mean something else?
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:30
$begingroup$
@knzhou Actually "kg/m" was probably just a mistake on this website, they probably meant kg*m.
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:37
$begingroup$
It has any number of units, since there are any number of unit systems. In cgs it has unit $dyne cdot cm$. If you stick to a single unit system you cannot go wrong. My advise is mksi, so $Nm$.
$endgroup$
– my2cts
Jan 10 at 23:40
$begingroup$
@sparpo, kg is a unit of mass, and N is a unit of force. kg-m is NOT a unit of torque. This usage no doubt comes from the usage of ft-lb in the English system, but what most people don't realize is that there are pounds-force and pounds-mass, and the two units differ by a factor of 32.2.
$endgroup$
– David White
Jan 10 at 23:54
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
On various websites I see torque expressed as $rm kg: m$, but I was always thought that torque is $rm N:m$ or $rm kg: m^2/s^2$. These are clearly not the same, so why are they called the same, and when do I use one or the other?
mass torque units dimensional-analysis weight
edited Jan 20 at 17:23
Emilio Pisanty
83k22201415
asked Jan 10 at 23:17
sparposparpo
285
$endgroup$
On various websites I see torque expressed as $rm kg: m$, but I was always thought that torque is $rm N:m$ or $rm kg: m^2/s^2$. These are clearly not the same, so why are they called the same, and when do I use one or the other?
mass torque units dimensional-analysis weight
mass torque units dimensional-analysis weight
edited Jan 20 at 17:23
Emilio Pisanty
83k22201415
asked Jan 10 at 23:17
sparposparpo
285
edited Jan 20 at 17:23
Emilio Pisanty
83k22201415
asked Jan 10 at 23:17
sparposparpo
285
edited Jan 20 at 17:23
Emilio Pisanty
83k22201415
edited Jan 20 at 17:23
Emilio Pisanty
83k22201415
edited Jan 20 at 17:23
Emilio Pisanty
83k22201415
83k22201415
asked Jan 10 at 23:17
sparposparpo
285
asked Jan 10 at 23:17
sparposparpo
285
asked Jan 10 at 23:17
sparposparpo
285
285
8
$begingroup$
Don’t trust websites for introductory physics help. There’s a lot of crap and noise out there. The one you were always taught is perfectly right!
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Jan 10 at 23:21
$begingroup$
@knzhou I see this unit of torque kg/m , in the details of electric motors. They always give the torque of an electric motor in kg/m. Do they just call it "torque" but mean something else?
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:30
$begingroup$
@knzhou Actually "kg/m" was probably just a mistake on this website, they probably meant kg*m.
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:37
$begingroup$
It has any number of units, since there are any number of unit systems. In cgs it has unit $dyne cdot cm$. If you stick to a single unit system you cannot go wrong. My advise is mksi, so $Nm$.
$endgroup$
– my2cts
Jan 10 at 23:40
$begingroup$
@sparpo, kg is a unit of mass, and N is a unit of force. kg-m is NOT a unit of torque. This usage no doubt comes from the usage of ft-lb in the English system, but what most people don't realize is that there are pounds-force and pounds-mass, and the two units differ by a factor of 32.2.
$endgroup$
– David White
Jan 10 at 23:54
|
show 2 more comments
8
$begingroup$
Don’t trust websites for introductory physics help. There’s a lot of crap and noise out there. The one you were always taught is perfectly right!
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Jan 10 at 23:21
$begingroup$
@knzhou I see this unit of torque kg/m , in the details of electric motors. They always give the torque of an electric motor in kg/m. Do they just call it "torque" but mean something else?
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:30
$begingroup$
@knzhou Actually "kg/m" was probably just a mistake on this website, they probably meant kg*m.
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:37
$begingroup$
It has any number of units, since there are any number of unit systems. In cgs it has unit $dyne cdot cm$. If you stick to a single unit system you cannot go wrong. My advise is mksi, so $Nm$.
$endgroup$
– my2cts
Jan 10 at 23:40
$begingroup$
@sparpo, kg is a unit of mass, and N is a unit of force. kg-m is NOT a unit of torque. This usage no doubt comes from the usage of ft-lb in the English system, but what most people don't realize is that there are pounds-force and pounds-mass, and the two units differ by a factor of 32.2.
$endgroup$
– David White
Jan 10 at 23:54
8
8
$begingroup$
Don’t trust websites for introductory physics help. There’s a lot of crap and noise out there. The one you were always taught is perfectly right!
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Jan 10 at 23:21
$begingroup$
Don’t trust websites for introductory physics help. There’s a lot of crap and noise out there. The one you were always taught is perfectly right!
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Jan 10 at 23:21
$begingroup$
@knzhou I see this unit of torque kg/m , in the details of electric motors. They always give the torque of an electric motor in kg/m. Do they just call it "torque" but mean something else?
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:30
$begingroup$
@knzhou I see this unit of torque kg/m , in the details of electric motors. They always give the torque of an electric motor in kg/m. Do they just call it "torque" but mean something else?
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:30
$begingroup$
@knzhou Actually "kg/m" was probably just a mistake on this website, they probably meant kg*m.
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:37
$begingroup$
@knzhou Actually "kg/m" was probably just a mistake on this website, they probably meant kg*m.
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:37
$begingroup$
It has any number of units, since there are any number of unit systems. In cgs it has unit $dyne cdot cm$. If you stick to a single unit system you cannot go wrong. My advise is mksi, so $Nm$.
$endgroup$
– my2cts
Jan 10 at 23:40
$begingroup$
It has any number of units, since there are any number of unit systems. In cgs it has unit $dyne cdot cm$. If you stick to a single unit system you cannot go wrong. My advise is mksi, so $Nm$.
$endgroup$
– my2cts
Jan 10 at 23:40
$begingroup$
@sparpo, kg is a unit of mass, and N is a unit of force. kg-m is NOT a unit of torque. This usage no doubt comes from the usage of ft-lb in the English system, but what most people don't realize is that there are pounds-force and pounds-mass, and the two units differ by a factor of 32.2.
$endgroup$
– David White
Jan 10 at 23:54
$begingroup$
@sparpo, kg is a unit of mass, and N is a unit of force. kg-m is NOT a unit of torque. This usage no doubt comes from the usage of ft-lb in the English system, but what most people don't realize is that there are pounds-force and pounds-mass, and the two units differ by a factor of 32.2.
$endgroup$
– David White
Jan 10 at 23:54
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Those other sources were probably referring to kilogram-force instead of Newtons. Given the constant conversion between mass and weight on Earth (i.e., $g = 9.8,textrmm/s^2$), mass and weight units are often used interchangeably in non-scientific contexts. So, torque can be expressed in kgf-m, where 1 kgf is the weight of 1 kg on Earth's surface. Notice that this is a multiplication, not a division. Units of kgf/m would be completely incorrect.
answered Jan 10 at 23:28
Mark HMark H
12.3k22441
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yes, and in particular it is strictly speaking wrong - though commonly done, and moreover this shows exactly why you shouldn't do it - to write the unit kgf as "kg".
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 3:41
3
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer Nah, it's fine in the right context. As long as your audience understands, anything works. Though I do get more annoyed at particle physicists who set $c=1$. The equation $E^2 = m^2 + p^2$ makes me twitch due to the loss of units.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jan 11 at 4:08
1
$begingroup$
The problem is there are then two units with the same symbol and yet quite different meanings, and they are likely to be in rather close proximity with each other if not coming together. That's a recipe for confusion. Moreover when I say "wrong" I mean with regard to the standards that define the meaning of the symbol $mathrmkg$. That's why I said "strictly speaking", i.e. according to rigorous application of the standards.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:29
2
$begingroup$
And yes, you don't have to follow standards, but if your usages are not strongly set apart enough, you are creating a recipe for confusion with more standard usages. Especially if your non-standard usages blur together lines that should otherwise be there - e.g. force is not mass.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
And with something like torque where mass enters in in a significant way, there is strong potential for contact between the two and that (depending on what kind of measurements you're given) may lead to improper unit arithmetic which is a mistake and definitely wrong by the rules of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The non SI unit is often written as 1 kg-m and is equal to 9.8 N m.
In such a case the 1 kg refers to the unit 1 kg force which is the weight of one kilogram.
Another unit is the Imperial (and US) unit the pound-foot which is equal to approximately 1.36 N m.
Here the unit of force is the pound force.
answered Jan 10 at 23:31
FarcherFarcher
48.9k338100
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well I think both of the Units are right. But its not kgm it should be kgf-m.
Torque means - - - > F×R. ..
Hence it has units of Force times distance.
N-m is one of the units where N is unit of Force and m is distance.. While in
Kgf-m Kgf is unit of force and m is distance as Usual.
answered Jan 11 at 8:35
Anubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSIAnubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSI
19511
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f453425%2fwhy-is-torque-sometimes-reported-in-kg-m-instead-of-the-usual-n-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Those other sources were probably referring to kilogram-force instead of Newtons. Given the constant conversion between mass and weight on Earth (i.e., $g = 9.8,textrmm/s^2$), mass and weight units are often used interchangeably in non-scientific contexts. So, torque can be expressed in kgf-m, where 1 kgf is the weight of 1 kg on Earth's surface. Notice that this is a multiplication, not a division. Units of kgf/m would be completely incorrect.
answered Jan 10 at 23:28
Mark HMark H
12.3k22441
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yes, and in particular it is strictly speaking wrong - though commonly done, and moreover this shows exactly why you shouldn't do it - to write the unit kgf as "kg".
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 3:41
3
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer Nah, it's fine in the right context. As long as your audience understands, anything works. Though I do get more annoyed at particle physicists who set $c=1$. The equation $E^2 = m^2 + p^2$ makes me twitch due to the loss of units.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jan 11 at 4:08
1
$begingroup$
The problem is there are then two units with the same symbol and yet quite different meanings, and they are likely to be in rather close proximity with each other if not coming together. That's a recipe for confusion. Moreover when I say "wrong" I mean with regard to the standards that define the meaning of the symbol $mathrmkg$. That's why I said "strictly speaking", i.e. according to rigorous application of the standards.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:29
2
$begingroup$
And yes, you don't have to follow standards, but if your usages are not strongly set apart enough, you are creating a recipe for confusion with more standard usages. Especially if your non-standard usages blur together lines that should otherwise be there - e.g. force is not mass.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
And with something like torque where mass enters in in a significant way, there is strong potential for contact between the two and that (depending on what kind of measurements you're given) may lead to improper unit arithmetic which is a mistake and definitely wrong by the rules of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Those other sources were probably referring to kilogram-force instead of Newtons. Given the constant conversion between mass and weight on Earth (i.e., $g = 9.8,textrmm/s^2$), mass and weight units are often used interchangeably in non-scientific contexts. So, torque can be expressed in kgf-m, where 1 kgf is the weight of 1 kg on Earth's surface. Notice that this is a multiplication, not a division. Units of kgf/m would be completely incorrect.
answered Jan 10 at 23:28
Mark HMark H
12.3k22441
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yes, and in particular it is strictly speaking wrong - though commonly done, and moreover this shows exactly why you shouldn't do it - to write the unit kgf as "kg".
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 3:41
3
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer Nah, it's fine in the right context. As long as your audience understands, anything works. Though I do get more annoyed at particle physicists who set $c=1$. The equation $E^2 = m^2 + p^2$ makes me twitch due to the loss of units.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jan 11 at 4:08
1
$begingroup$
The problem is there are then two units with the same symbol and yet quite different meanings, and they are likely to be in rather close proximity with each other if not coming together. That's a recipe for confusion. Moreover when I say "wrong" I mean with regard to the standards that define the meaning of the symbol $mathrmkg$. That's why I said "strictly speaking", i.e. according to rigorous application of the standards.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:29
2
$begingroup$
And yes, you don't have to follow standards, but if your usages are not strongly set apart enough, you are creating a recipe for confusion with more standard usages. Especially if your non-standard usages blur together lines that should otherwise be there - e.g. force is not mass.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
And with something like torque where mass enters in in a significant way, there is strong potential for contact between the two and that (depending on what kind of measurements you're given) may lead to improper unit arithmetic which is a mistake and definitely wrong by the rules of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Those other sources were probably referring to kilogram-force instead of Newtons. Given the constant conversion between mass and weight on Earth (i.e., $g = 9.8,textrmm/s^2$), mass and weight units are often used interchangeably in non-scientific contexts. So, torque can be expressed in kgf-m, where 1 kgf is the weight of 1 kg on Earth's surface. Notice that this is a multiplication, not a division. Units of kgf/m would be completely incorrect.
answered Jan 10 at 23:28
Mark HMark H
12.3k22441
$endgroup$
Those other sources were probably referring to kilogram-force instead of Newtons. Given the constant conversion between mass and weight on Earth (i.e., $g = 9.8,textrmm/s^2$), mass and weight units are often used interchangeably in non-scientific contexts. So, torque can be expressed in kgf-m, where 1 kgf is the weight of 1 kg on Earth's surface. Notice that this is a multiplication, not a division. Units of kgf/m would be completely incorrect.
answered Jan 10 at 23:28
Mark HMark H
12.3k22441
edited Jan 11 at 8:02
answered Jan 10 at 23:28
Mark HMark H
12.3k22441
answered Jan 10 at 23:28
Mark HMark H
12.3k22441
answered Jan 10 at 23:28
Mark HMark H
12.3k22441
12.3k22441
1
$begingroup$
Yes, and in particular it is strictly speaking wrong - though commonly done, and moreover this shows exactly why you shouldn't do it - to write the unit kgf as "kg".
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 3:41
3
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer Nah, it's fine in the right context. As long as your audience understands, anything works. Though I do get more annoyed at particle physicists who set $c=1$. The equation $E^2 = m^2 + p^2$ makes me twitch due to the loss of units.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jan 11 at 4:08
1
$begingroup$
The problem is there are then two units with the same symbol and yet quite different meanings, and they are likely to be in rather close proximity with each other if not coming together. That's a recipe for confusion. Moreover when I say "wrong" I mean with regard to the standards that define the meaning of the symbol $mathrmkg$. That's why I said "strictly speaking", i.e. according to rigorous application of the standards.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:29
2
$begingroup$
And yes, you don't have to follow standards, but if your usages are not strongly set apart enough, you are creating a recipe for confusion with more standard usages. Especially if your non-standard usages blur together lines that should otherwise be there - e.g. force is not mass.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
And with something like torque where mass enters in in a significant way, there is strong potential for contact between the two and that (depending on what kind of measurements you're given) may lead to improper unit arithmetic which is a mistake and definitely wrong by the rules of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:33
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Yes, and in particular it is strictly speaking wrong - though commonly done, and moreover this shows exactly why you shouldn't do it - to write the unit kgf as "kg".
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 3:41
3
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer Nah, it's fine in the right context. As long as your audience understands, anything works. Though I do get more annoyed at particle physicists who set $c=1$. The equation $E^2 = m^2 + p^2$ makes me twitch due to the loss of units.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jan 11 at 4:08
1
$begingroup$
The problem is there are then two units with the same symbol and yet quite different meanings, and they are likely to be in rather close proximity with each other if not coming together. That's a recipe for confusion. Moreover when I say "wrong" I mean with regard to the standards that define the meaning of the symbol $mathrmkg$. That's why I said "strictly speaking", i.e. according to rigorous application of the standards.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:29
2
$begingroup$
And yes, you don't have to follow standards, but if your usages are not strongly set apart enough, you are creating a recipe for confusion with more standard usages. Especially if your non-standard usages blur together lines that should otherwise be there - e.g. force is not mass.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:31
1
$begingroup$
And with something like torque where mass enters in in a significant way, there is strong potential for contact between the two and that (depending on what kind of measurements you're given) may lead to improper unit arithmetic which is a mistake and definitely wrong by the rules of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:33
1
1
$begingroup$
Yes, and in particular it is strictly speaking wrong - though commonly done, and moreover this shows exactly why you shouldn't do it - to write the unit kgf as "kg".
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 3:41
$begingroup$
Yes, and in particular it is strictly speaking wrong - though commonly done, and moreover this shows exactly why you shouldn't do it - to write the unit kgf as "kg".
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 3:41
3
3
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer Nah, it's fine in the right context. As long as your audience understands, anything works. Though I do get more annoyed at particle physicists who set $c=1$. The equation $E^2 = m^2 + p^2$ makes me twitch due to the loss of units.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jan 11 at 4:08
$begingroup$
@The_Sympathizer Nah, it's fine in the right context. As long as your audience understands, anything works. Though I do get more annoyed at particle physicists who set $c=1$. The equation $E^2 = m^2 + p^2$ makes me twitch due to the loss of units.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jan 11 at 4:08
1
1
$begingroup$
The problem is there are then two units with the same symbol and yet quite different meanings, and they are likely to be in rather close proximity with each other if not coming together. That's a recipe for confusion. Moreover when I say "wrong" I mean with regard to the standards that define the meaning of the symbol $mathrmkg$. That's why I said "strictly speaking", i.e. according to rigorous application of the standards.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:29
$begingroup$
The problem is there are then two units with the same symbol and yet quite different meanings, and they are likely to be in rather close proximity with each other if not coming together. That's a recipe for confusion. Moreover when I say "wrong" I mean with regard to the standards that define the meaning of the symbol $mathrmkg$. That's why I said "strictly speaking", i.e. according to rigorous application of the standards.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:29
2
2
$begingroup$
And yes, you don't have to follow standards, but if your usages are not strongly set apart enough, you are creating a recipe for confusion with more standard usages. Especially if your non-standard usages blur together lines that should otherwise be there - e.g. force is not mass.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:31
$begingroup$
And yes, you don't have to follow standards, but if your usages are not strongly set apart enough, you are creating a recipe for confusion with more standard usages. Especially if your non-standard usages blur together lines that should otherwise be there - e.g. force is not mass.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:31
1
1
$begingroup$
And with something like torque where mass enters in in a significant way, there is strong potential for contact between the two and that (depending on what kind of measurements you're given) may lead to improper unit arithmetic which is a mistake and definitely wrong by the rules of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:33
$begingroup$
And with something like torque where mass enters in in a significant way, there is strong potential for contact between the two and that (depending on what kind of measurements you're given) may lead to improper unit arithmetic which is a mistake and definitely wrong by the rules of mathematics.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Jan 11 at 5:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The non SI unit is often written as 1 kg-m and is equal to 9.8 N m.
In such a case the 1 kg refers to the unit 1 kg force which is the weight of one kilogram.
Another unit is the Imperial (and US) unit the pound-foot which is equal to approximately 1.36 N m.
Here the unit of force is the pound force.
answered Jan 10 at 23:31
FarcherFarcher
48.9k338100
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The non SI unit is often written as 1 kg-m and is equal to 9.8 N m.
In such a case the 1 kg refers to the unit 1 kg force which is the weight of one kilogram.
Another unit is the Imperial (and US) unit the pound-foot which is equal to approximately 1.36 N m.
Here the unit of force is the pound force.
answered Jan 10 at 23:31
FarcherFarcher
48.9k338100
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The non SI unit is often written as 1 kg-m and is equal to 9.8 N m.
In such a case the 1 kg refers to the unit 1 kg force which is the weight of one kilogram.
Another unit is the Imperial (and US) unit the pound-foot which is equal to approximately 1.36 N m.
Here the unit of force is the pound force.
answered Jan 10 at 23:31
FarcherFarcher
48.9k338100
$endgroup$
The non SI unit is often written as 1 kg-m and is equal to 9.8 N m.
In such a case the 1 kg refers to the unit 1 kg force which is the weight of one kilogram.
Another unit is the Imperial (and US) unit the pound-foot which is equal to approximately 1.36 N m.
Here the unit of force is the pound force.
answered Jan 10 at 23:31
FarcherFarcher
48.9k338100
answered Jan 10 at 23:31
FarcherFarcher
48.9k338100
answered Jan 10 at 23:31
FarcherFarcher
48.9k338100
answered Jan 10 at 23:31
FarcherFarcher
48.9k338100
48.9k338100
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well I think both of the Units are right. But its not kgm it should be kgf-m.
Torque means - - - > F×R. ..
Hence it has units of Force times distance.
N-m is one of the units where N is unit of Force and m is distance.. While in
Kgf-m Kgf is unit of force and m is distance as Usual.
answered Jan 11 at 8:35
Anubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSIAnubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSI
19511
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well I think both of the Units are right. But its not kgm it should be kgf-m.
Torque means - - - > F×R. ..
Hence it has units of Force times distance.
N-m is one of the units where N is unit of Force and m is distance.. While in
Kgf-m Kgf is unit of force and m is distance as Usual.
answered Jan 11 at 8:35
Anubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSIAnubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSI
19511
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well I think both of the Units are right. But its not kgm it should be kgf-m.
Torque means - - - > F×R. ..
Hence it has units of Force times distance.
N-m is one of the units where N is unit of Force and m is distance.. While in
Kgf-m Kgf is unit of force and m is distance as Usual.
answered Jan 11 at 8:35
Anubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSIAnubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSI
19511
$endgroup$
Well I think both of the Units are right. But its not kgm it should be kgf-m.
Torque means - - - > F×R. ..
Hence it has units of Force times distance.
N-m is one of the units where N is unit of Force and m is distance.. While in
Kgf-m Kgf is unit of force and m is distance as Usual.
answered Jan 11 at 8:35
Anubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSIAnubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSI
19511
answered Jan 11 at 8:35
Anubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSIAnubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSI
19511
answered Jan 11 at 8:35
Anubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSIAnubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSI
19511
answered Jan 11 at 8:35
Anubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSIAnubhav Srivastava- WASAYANSI
19511
19511
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f453425%2fwhy-is-torque-sometimes-reported-in-kg-m-instead-of-the-usual-n-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
$begingroup$
Don’t trust websites for introductory physics help. There’s a lot of crap and noise out there. The one you were always taught is perfectly right!
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Jan 10 at 23:21
$begingroup$
@knzhou I see this unit of torque kg/m , in the details of electric motors. They always give the torque of an electric motor in kg/m. Do they just call it "torque" but mean something else?
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:30
$begingroup$
@knzhou Actually "kg/m" was probably just a mistake on this website, they probably meant kg*m.
$endgroup$
– sparpo
Jan 10 at 23:37
$begingroup$
It has any number of units, since there are any number of unit systems. In cgs it has unit $dyne cdot cm$. If you stick to a single unit system you cannot go wrong. My advise is mksi, so $Nm$.
$endgroup$
– my2cts
Jan 10 at 23:40
$begingroup$
@sparpo, kg is a unit of mass, and N is a unit of force. kg-m is NOT a unit of torque. This usage no doubt comes from the usage of ft-lb in the English system, but what most people don't realize is that there are pounds-force and pounds-mass, and the two units differ by a factor of 32.2.
$endgroup$
– David White
Jan 10 at 23:54