_______________________________________________
Done my bit for the BBS: http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....-being-a-mod-… now I’m a game-keeper turned poacher.
Chairman Emley Moor F.T.C. 2023 - Misfits champ, HFT extreme champ, NEFTA hunter champ, Midlands Hunter champ, UKAHFT champ.
https://sites.google.com/site/emleymoorftc/contact-us
Join the Free Speech Union
''All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to glaze over and resume scrolling''.
www.shebbearshooters.co.uk. Ask for Rich and try the coffee
A ftlb can also be a measure of torque .
Can't say I've ever seen it used in a technical document with either a dot or dash so either ftlb or fpe for me, depending on the context.
Always looking for any cheap, interesting, knackered "project" guns. Thanks, JB.
I think that the accepted convention is to use the term lb-ft when referring to torque. Mathematically ft-lb is the same as lb-ft (whether torque or energy) so the distinction is only a matter of convention.
Anyway the best measurement for airgun energy is electron volts.
12 ft-lbf = 101 548,211,235,480,000,000 eV
For context, the CERN Large Hadron Collider produces a mere 13,000,000,000,000 eV which means that my Tx200 is a little less than eight million times more powerful than the most powerful particle collider on earth (and physically much more compact).
True freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes or do foolish things and bear the consequences.
TANSTAAFL
Thank you Turnup et al, as notwithstanding the light hearted banter bit in the middle (a MUST have interlude for the survival of any such weighty and thoughtful thread ), the science and maths that has been offered throughout, here, has been both fascinating and compelling, and all greatly appreciated, too.
_______________________________________________
Done my bit for the BBS: http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....-being-a-mod-… now I’m a game-keeper turned poacher.
Kinetic energy is measured as force times distance, so I would go for ft.lbf
Of course the metric equivalent is Newton meters Nm better known as Joules.
The Imperial measure, you might think would be foot poundals, ft.pdl that being the Imperial measure of force.
But, shootists don't like what you might expect, the weigh things in grains ffs. So they measure force as lbf.
Working out a value for the lbf is tricky because it requires a gravity well to convert mass to force. You have to drop weights and use Newton's wonderful f=ma equation.
To get the magic 450240 divisor you need a gravitational acceleration of 32.16 ft/s/s so it is not Greenwich
True. That's because torque is a measure of energy and (unsurprisingly) has the same dimensions.
For clarification, energy is written as Ft・Lbf and torque as Lbf-Ft but the units are still the same (although I've always considered the different formatting more confusing than clarifying).
E.g., energy is simply 'work done' and 'Power' is 'work done per unit time' = Ft・Lbf/s and the rotational equivalent is Power = 2𝜋.n.t where n = revs/unit time and t = torque. Since '2', '𝜋' and 'revs' are dimensionless quantities, we're left with Ft・Lbf/s again.
Clear as mud.
The value for 'Standard Gravity' is 32.174 Ft/s² which makes the magic number 32.174 * 2 * 7000 = 450436.
Definitely not Greenwich. Paris maybe?
George
Last edited by GPConway; 23-10-2017 at 08:08 PM.
Torque is a measure of energy - this has troubled me for a long time. I get your explanation above and this is fine for a moving system (rotational energy), however torque can be static:
Imagine a spanner on a nut and a weight on the spanner tending to either do it up or undo it (it makes no difference) but insufficient to turn the nut. There is a continuously applied and measurable torque on the nut but nothing is moving - where now is the energy?
True freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes or do foolish things and bear the consequences.
TANSTAAFL