Acceleration - unit conversion
Ok, I give one more. I think these may be to hard for many people.
K = (100 * 60 * 60 *60) / (2.54 * 12 *5280)
Since this is acceleration, the units will be a length per time * time
_____ per _____ * ____ * K = ______ per _____ * _____
and K = approx 134.21
This is a unit conversion I never used before, so I verified the answer here.
http://www.onlineconversion.com/index.htm
Labels: logic
posted by Ragknot at
9:27 PM
5 Comments:
Since the quantity in the denominator is length, and its first two terms are in units of cm/in and in/ft, the third must be in ft/<something>. The closest any unit listed comes to 5380 ft/<unit> is ft/mi, so I assume the term was intended to be 5280.
Since the quantity in the numerator is usually <time unit> squared, the value must be a square. Since it is not, the units must be a non-standard combo, and so must be units specifically defined for acceleration. Looking through the conversion factors for acceleration at the (kindly supplied) web site for conversion from metric units to mi/<something> quickly provides the answer.
Find it for yourself :)
the 5380 was my error
5280 feet = 1 mile
mile per hour*minute*K=meter per second^2
Anon:
I am not sure what you mean...
the numerator of K is
(100 * 60 * 60 *60)
the denominator of K is
(2.54 * 12 *5280)
You said the length was in the denominator.
Part of the conversion will be
1 mile / 5280 feet
and length units will be in both upper and lower part of the fraction.
Some of the units will cancel out.
But in the end, the units left on both side will be
Length / (time * time)
with the length in the numerator
with time * time in the denominator... That's the meaning of acceleration.
But time * time does not mean that the units are squared, as in sec^2
The denominator might be... and in this case it is.... on the right side..."hours*minutes".
The unit "hr*min" is very stange, and I have no idea what it would be used for. But I used it to show how the unit conversion logic work. Logically, it must be a "trick of the mind" for sure.
I am just proud that you figured it out, and noted that it seems illogical. I chose it because it seemed illogical, but it does show how unit conversion works.
I would like to see how it's used, if anyone can find it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home