0
$\begingroup$

I have been trying to wrap my head around this, but I really can't figure it out. I don't understand why the value for the specific weight of water differs when I directly convert it from $\frac{N}{m^3}$ to $\frac{lb_f}{ft^3}$, and when I compute it using the formula for specific weight $\gamma=\rho g$

Converting it from $\frac{N}{m^3}$:

$$9810\frac{N}{m^3}\times(\frac{1m}{3.28ft})^3\times\frac{0.22lb_f}{1N}=62.4\frac{lb_f}{ft^3}$$

Using the formula $\gamma=\rho g$

$$\gamma=\rho g=(62.4\frac{lb}{ft^3})(32.2\frac{ft}{s})$$ $$\gamma=2009.28\frac{lb_f}{ft^3}$$

What is the cause of this? Is there something I'm missing? Something I'm misunderstanding?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ 1kg is 2.2046 lb, so have you got all your conversions correct? $\endgroup$
    – Solar Mike
    Commented Apr 19, 2022 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ Hmmm. Maybe 62.4 lbf/ft^3 calculated from converting from N/m^3 and 62.4 lb/ft^3 used in the formula of density*gravity are really the same thing. Why are you multiplying 62.4 by gravity? $\endgroup$
    – JohnHoltz
    Commented Apr 19, 2022 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I did a bit more of a searching that I think answers things. Pound-mass is dependent to pound-force in that pound-mass pertains to the mass that a pound-force acts upon, which means that pound-mass should converts 1:1 to pound-force. So what should actually happen is that we must divide the pound-mass by g again in order to find the real value. Otherwise, I should have used 1.94 slug/ft^3 for the density, which would yield similar results as direct conversion. Still not sure if my understanding is correct tho. $\endgroup$
    – Xyzar
    Commented Apr 19, 2022 at 15:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your 32.2 should be $\frac {ft}{s^2}$. Metric is so much nicer - particularly in the case of water! $\endgroup$
    – Transistor
    Commented Apr 19, 2022 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Xyzar I think the key to understanding this is that density in lb/ft3 is not mass per unit volume, but rather gravitational force per unit volume. So it already has the gravitational constant built in. In other words, the 62.4 lb/ft3 represents rho * g, not just rho in the second equation. Both current answers convey this mathematically, but I'm hoping this will clarify why. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Commented Apr 19, 2022 at 21:42

2 Answers 2

0
$\begingroup$

The simple mistake is the conversion from the matrix units to the imperial units has produced the weight density of water, $\gamma_w = \dfrac{62.4 lb_f}{ft^3}$. Note that $lb_f$ has already included the gravitational constant $g$, thus, unless you convert it back to the mass density $\rho = \dfrac{\gamma}{g}$, there is no need to apply the gravitational constant again.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

From: Water - Density, Specific Weight and Thermal Expansion Coefficients

In the Imperial system the mass unit is the slug [sl], and is derived from the pound-force by defining it as the mass that will accelerate at $1 ft/s^2$ when a $1 lb_f$ acts upon it.

The density of water is $1.940 sl/ft^3$ at 39 °F (4 °C), and the specific weight in Imperial units is:

\begin{align} γ &= \rho\ g \\ &= 1.940 sl/ft^3 \times 32.174 ft/s^2 \\ &= 1.940 lb_f/(ft/s^2\times ft^3) \times 32.174 ft/s^2 \\ &= 62.4 lb_f/ft^3\end{align}

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.