Anyone can help me?

I would like to transform into kN*m

I guess you have to fix the units before the calculation, since it is an empirical formula involving units.

Therefore you have to divide by the expected input unit and multiply the result to match the expected output unit.

I tried that, but I couldn't

Wrote

I guess you have to fix the units before the calculation, since it is an empirical formula involving units.

Therefore you have to divide by the expected input unit and multiply the result to match the expected output unit.

You have to explain better. What happen? Maybe you get the result in "J"? It's correct; just position yourself at the bottom of the result, a black square (placeholder) appears and you set the desired unit.
File not found.

Show Spoiler

sergio

Thank you very much for the answer pompelmo. I wasn't using this "MPa" as you used in this formula. Thank you very much, again. Now I can easily dimension my beam. :d

Wrote

You have to explain better. What happen? Maybe you get the result in "J"? It's correct; just position yourself at the bottom of the result, a black square (placeholder) appears and you set the desired unit.
File not found.

Show Spoiler

File not found.

sergio

Thank you, Jean!

Wrote

Wrote

And now, after artificially removing the evil units result without questioning if it is an input error, a wrong equation, a bug in the program or something else, you are off by 2 orders of magnitude...


This is a member resistance, it will "just" cost a lot of money more than what it should, but if it was an action, no safety factor can fix such mistakes and save a life.

There are many empirical formulas involving the characteristic concrete strength to compression. They won't follow strict physical unit consistency. Davide approach is the ONLY one suitable for those. Jean approach is absurd and simply wrong.

[POR] Pedroh, no meu canal vais encontra rum curso completo do SMath in portuguese. https://www.youtube.com/user/JFASACM

Jean, you have to work consistenly with units, whatever you use them explicitely like in SMath/Mathcad, or implicitly like in Excel or by hand (or in SMath too, using only numbers).

Your first example is an hibrid approach that deletes the output units from a calculation with explicit units that contains an experimental formula not balanced with the appropriate units.

Hence you miss a 100 factor [(1E-6)^(2/3)*1E6].

Wrote

You have not invented M formula, just borrowed.
As well, borrow [p, b, h] and result unit.

And this is another mess....

Input units: Pressure... what pressure? The math works only if you give MPa as input, and you get MPa as output.


Output units: blablabla what unit represents? If you use the correct input unit for pressure (MPa = N/mm2) you miss a 1E6 factor... 0.023 would be in MNm

Fiquei em dúvida se funcionaria elevando o MPa a 2/3. Mas já assisti toda essa sua playlist ai, amigo. Pretende continuar com mais vídeos sobre o Smath? Muito bom os vídeos e muito grato pela contribuição.

Wrote

There are many empirical formulas involving the characteristic concrete strength to compression. They won't follow strict physical unit consistency. Davide approach is the ONLY one suitable for those. Jean approach is absurd and simply wrong.

[POR] Pedroh, no meu canal vais encontra rum curso completo do SMath in portuguese. https://www.youtube.com/user/JFASACM

The all matter is to explicit result in units.
As SI applicable or Engineering system.

Wrote

... here is a working example.

I think the question is a bit serious:

Is the SMath forum a reliable source of technical information or is it simply riddled with serious engineering errors?

That Reynolds number result has already been shown to be wrong, but it keeps showing up. And it is also not very pleasant to think that for new or occasional visitors they are not going to be noticing who posts ridiculous things, but simply that those who post here leave them in view.

[albumimg]1669[/albumimg]

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wrote

That Reynolds number result has already been shown to be wrong, but it keeps showing up

Reynolds in Samples Viscosity Water is correct for general use.
For Orifice Plate sizing, the reduced result is used.
Multiply by 10^6 ... sanity efunda.

Wrote

Multiply by 10^6 ... sanity efunda.

Sanity? You disappear the density! The relative error from 2.1 to 2.6 is about 25%. Can an orifice plate sensor deal with that? Of course, since the Reynolds number is only used in its calibration to make sure the fluid is turbulent, but not for any instrument adjustments. centi-Poise is the CGS unit for dynamic viscosity, while centi-Stoke is for kinetic viscosity. The dynamic viscosity can be obtained with cool prop for the operating temperature assuming quality equal to zero, that is, on the saturation line.



Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wrote

Can an orifice plate sensor deal with that? Of course, since the Reynolds number is only used in its calibration to make sure the fluid is turbulent, but not for any instrument adjustments.

Reynolds is essential to calculate the bore ratio wrt installation style
i.e: Flange, Corner, Pipe taps ... accordingly ISO-5167.

Wrote

Reynolds in Samples Viscosity Water is correct for general use.
For Orifice Plate sizing, the reduced result is used.

Actually Reynolds in your "Samples>Viscosity Water" was wrong.
This is why you deleted the post I guess. But your file remains, be careful next time.
While you try to gloss over your failures at least don't leave trails.

Link to Jean's wrong viscosity calculation file

Second, there is no "reduced" result for Reynolds.
Reynolds is what it is, just one result.
There is no "complete" or "reduced" version of it.
Don't try to cover your mistake with a bigger falsification.

For those who will read this;
Do not use Jean's calculations for engineering applications. I know I wouldn't, never ever.
He will just act nothing wrong, call you names, how he won something something and lecture you he worked here and there.
But when caught with his pants down and can't resist he is wrong anymore, he will delete his posts without apologizing.
What if a new user or a student or an inexperienced engineer use his incorrect calculations?
Don't think we forgot your kW/hr absurdity.



Funny part is, even links he had given in his sample prove his calculations are wrong.

https://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_reynolds.cfm#calc



https://www.ajdesigner.com/reynoldsnumber/reynoldsre.php#ajscroll

I was not diligent wrt strictly pipe Reynolds vs other specific use.
Check the refreshed Viscosity Formulas, just posted.
Offer more practical formulas from data source that are just data.
Spirax Sarco was Bible in my times, maybe just bible today.

Well, at least you made your viscosity calculations correct, FINALLY.
Took a while but you are improving against all odds.

However;

... download the last updated attachment.

This topic should just be renamed to: "Jean gets wrecked" lol