Wouldn't explosive force be in terms of an energy yield -- GJ or TJ -- and an expression of the energy yield per second -- GJ/s or TJ/s?
Of course, in practice, we know the baseline standard is in tons (FFU) or metric tons (or tonnes) of TNT. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of kilopascal >Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 15:11 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:25122] Re: metric bombs > > >2003-03-13 > >Terry, > >I don't think the 21 000 pounds was a measure of its explosive >force, but of >its weight. This just goes to show you that with FFU, you really >don't know >what the number is attempting to describe by the units. If the numbers had >been kilograms, then we know for sure it is the bombs mass they are >referring to. If it is newtons, then we know it is the explosive force. > >John > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, 2003-03-13 07:14 >Subject: [USMA:25113] Re: metric bombs > > >I noted the text in the following USAF web page. >www.afsoc.af.mil/panews/conventional_bomb.htm > >I know that 21000 lb does not convert exactly to 10 Mg. That confused me a >little but perhaps explosive force is not exact. However, your suggestion >about different 'tons' is plausible. Who knows what the engineers and >scientists actually specify... > >I note that the values given (in either unit system) for the BLU-82 daisy >cutter bomb also vary widely. I understand that there are different >versions. > >-- >Terry Simpson >Human Factors Consultant >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.connected-systems.com >Phone: +44 7850 511794 > > >> Of kilopascal >> How did you discover the 21 000 lb bomb is actually the same as a 10 Mg >> bomb >> from the articles you posted? There was nothing in either article that >> states the 21 000 lb bomb is really 10 Mg. a 22 000 lb bomb is a 10 Mg >> bomb >> and a 21 000 lb bomb is a 9.5 Mg bomb. >> >> Also, for the 7.5 ton mentioned in the second article was more >than likely >> to mean 7 Mg bomb. As the ton mentioned is most likely the short ton of >> 907 >> kg. >> >> >> From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, 2003-03-12 17:15 >> Subject: [USMA:25108] metric bombs >> >> >> > I thought that there was something odd about a 21000 lb bomb. I now >> discover >> > that it is actually a 10 Mg bomb. >> > >> > www.afsoc.af.mil/panews/conventional_bomb.htm >> > >> > >> > There is also some suggestion that the previous 15000 lb bomb was >> actually >> > 7.5 Mg. >> > >> > www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=moab.htm >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Terry Simpson >> > Human Factors Consultant >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > www.connected-systems.com >> > Phone: +44 7850 511794 >> > >> > >
