Radians and the unit of rotational energy

AI Thread Summary
Radians are dimensionless units, meaning they cannot be omitted in calculations involving angles. The correct unit for rotational energy is joules, which can also be expressed as N.m, since energy is fundamentally measured in these units. While some discussions suggest using N.m/rad or N.m.rad², these are not standard and can lead to confusion. The essential takeaway is that rotational energy should be represented simply as N.m or joules, without needing to include radians. Understanding this distinction clarifies the representation of rotational energy in physics.
dara bayat
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone

I have a question regarding radians and the unit of rotational energy (which has been probably asked several times elsewhere but is still confusing for me :-) ).

As I understand radian (rad) is a UNIT that is dimensionless (thus cannot be omitted), correct ?

Now if I want to look at the unit of Energy I think it goes as follows :

Er = T*theta --> unit=N.m.rad
Er : rotational energy
T : torque
theta : angle

but also

Er = 1/2*I*w² --> unit=kg.m².rad².s⁻²=N.m.rad²
I : moment of inertia
w : angular velocity

however since w=sqrt(k/I) , k is the torsion spring constant :
Er = 1/2*k*theta² = 1/2*I*w²*theta² (I saw this formula in a textbook) --> unit=N.m.rad⁴

I also read in other posts that the unit of rotational energy is sometimes N.m/rad

which one is correct ? Am I making a mistake ?

can I just omit radians and say that rotational energy is N.m? if yes, why ? If no, why ? :-)

is this really confusing ? Or have I not understood something ?

Thanks in advance for your help

Dara
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Radians are dimensionless. So as your intuition would tell you the correct units for rotational energy, which is an energy, are joules or N.m.

Taken from Graham Kemp's response in https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/803955/why-radian-is-dimensionless

"Thus the radian measure of angle as the ratio of arc length to radius length is one where the units of length cancel out."
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top