This ("joules") had to do with considerations such as dimensional analysis
of a formula or, even dealing with an expression where there are litres in
some places and m^3 in others. How 'coherrent' is it?
D.
-----Original Message-----
From: James R. Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 26, 2002 12:59
Subject: [USMA:19078] Re: watt seconds ??
>> >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
The watt is defined in terms of length, mass and
>> time (m2.kg/s3). The same is true of the joule (m2.kg/s2)
>
> It's a moot point, Joe. Energy is energy and power is power.
Not at issue.
D.
>
> For didactic purposes or for definition one may choose to start with
>mechanical and then show that they apply in electrical situations or
>vice versa. Classical physics courses start with mechanical, but that's
>based on historical reasons as well as the likelihood that students find
>mechanics easier to start with.
newton*metre
D.
>
> People have worked hard to show the equivalence among mechanical,
>electrostatic, and magnetic units. Let's not migrate back to three
>separate metric systems.
Heavens, NO!
D.
>
>Jim
>
>--
>Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
>James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
>10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
>
