on 3/25/2002 11:59 AM, Duncan Bath at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> W*s is bare, naked SI;  joules is a tag of convenience

I don't know what "bare naked" means in this context (I DO know what "bare
naked" means in other contexts!) but Duncan seems to contrast it with "a
unit of convenience". Thus, I conclude that Duncan means that the
watt-second (and probably the watt) is somehow better, more preferable, more
fundamental, more pure SI, or something than the joule.

ALL names for derived units are names of convenience. The watt is a
convenient name for the derived unit joule per second. Similarly, the joule
is a convenient name for the derived newton-metre.  I'm not sure I
understand why Duncan thinks one is more "bare naked SI" than the other.

All SI units are derived units except the 7 base units: metre, kilogram,
second, ampere, kelvin, candela and mole. The derived units are combinations
of the base units and/or other derived units. The metre per second is a
derived unit that does not have a special name. The joule per second is a
derived unit that has a special name: the watt.

While it doesn't really matter which is defined first, the joule is normally
defined first as a newton-metre, with the watt being defined later as a
joule per second. Both are pure SI. Both are convenient. I'm not sure why
either would be called "bare naked".

The watt is also equal to a volt-ampere but that is not it's original
definition. The watt is originally defined as a joule per second. Since the
volt (V) is a joule per coulomb (J/C) and the coulomb (C) is defined as an
ampere-second (A�s), it is easy to show that the volt-ampere equals the
watt:
1 V�A = (1 J/C)�(1 A) = (1 J/A�s)�(1 A) = 1 J�s = 1 W

(In proper SI, multiplication of units is shown by the raised dot. The
raised dot generated by my computer is shown here
between the letters X and Y:
   X�Y
If this does not transmit properly to your computer, please note that
whatever symbol is between my X and Y in the example, should be a raised dot
there and in all other parts of this message.)

Regards, Bill Hooper
college physics teacher (retired), USA (Florida)

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Do It Easy, Do It Metric!
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Reply via email to