Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Drela) Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1997.2470@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Syiad.Al-Duri@t-online.de (Syiad T. Al-Duri) writes: > Stephen H. Westin wrote in sci.aeronautics.airliners: > > email@example.com (David Lesher) writes: > >> Err... I was always an SI type, but is that a viable unit for the > >> test? I was looking for energy, not torque. > > > Absolutely. Pounds-feet is torque; foot-pounds is energy. > > > Energy is equivalent to work: a given force exerted over a given > > distance. Hence foot-pounds. > > There's no difference between Torque and Energy. That's why they have the > same dimension, force multiplied by distance. Units alone to not constitute a physical concept. Energy is a dot product and Torque is a cross product. They are not the same thing. I would even argue that they have different units conceptually, since Torque has the units of Energy/radian, not just Energy. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory"