PDA

View Full Version : Esoteric units???

Toutatis
2004-Sep-02, 02:33 PM
Systems: \$37C-\$26-\$36
DAY: 21152.79725694444 (TSA)
09/02/2004 14:33:03 (Gregorian/UTC)
~~~

Hi, all! :D

Advance apologies should this post appear 'off topic' --- My rationale in seeking input here owes to my suspicion that, in consideration of its rather large magnitude, practical application of the unit in question would seem restricted to astronomy...

With reference to the 'conversion factors' table located in the publication:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AUDELS HANDY BOOK of PRACTICAL ELECTRICITY

Author: Frank D. Graham

Publisher info: Theo. Audel &amp; Co. Publishers 49 W. 23rd ST., New York U.S.A. Copyrighted, 1924, 1937, 1940, 1941, 1942

NOTE: the above info is copied exactly as it appears from the book - No ISBN # is shown (perhaps the ISBN numbering convention post-dates this publication?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, to the point :-)

The 'Esoteric Unit' is defined as follows:

1 Ue = 5*10^23 Watt/seconds (The publication, of course, shows the foregoing relation in standard mathematical notation...) Please note that there is no 'typo' in the exponent (or otherwise) as evinced by the definition’s consistency where denominated by other familiar units (elsewhere on the table).

So my question: Of what significance is said unit?

For the convenience of the reader I have presented same in various denominations (below) without, as may be seen, satisfaction as to the unit's import :(

Ok! So we have:

1 Ue=5*10^23 J
---------------------

Hence (assuming I did my 'rithematic correctly ;))

1 Ue ~ The energy equivalent of 5.6 million kg. (6,174 Tons [Avoirdupois]).
1 Ue ~ 3.21*10^15 MeV.
1 Ue ~ Total Solar output per 1.3 milliseconds.
1 Ue ~ The energy yeailded via. detonation of 120 Million Megatons TNT.
1 Ue ~ 474*10^18 BTUs
1 Ue ~ 120*10^21 Cals
1 Ue ~ 120% of the estimated yield attendant to the ‘KT impact’.
1 Ue ~ 5,000 times annual US energy consumption (all sources) (Ref: Calendar year:1999)

Again the above figures are based upon my own calculations and, hence, subject to espresso-induced error ;)

As can be seen the ‘Ue’ represents a 'handsome' quantity of energy indeed (even if, perhaps, less than ‘astronomical’) - and one seeming entirely arbitrary in its election as a unit???? --- Was same defined ‘today’ -- as opposed to (at least) 62 years ago -- I might have imagined it to be based upon the approximation of the yield attendant to the "KT-impact" --- But again the publication’s last 'run' (and that, perhaps, without revision) was @ 1942!!!

Any and all insight, ideas or suggestions Re: the basis of the esoteric unit will be greatly appreciated!!! :D

Best regards
Sarandon

frogesque
2004-Sep-02, 05:59 PM
You didn't convert it to horse power but it sounds as if you could grow a lot of roses with that output!

I did a search for esoteric unit and came up with several categories of hit that were either psychic/woowoo or related to exotic gardening!

Circa 1924 (the original publication date) I can only think that 5*10^27 was a big number but I can't fathom why the units should be watts/second when 1 watt = 1 joule/second

.'. EU has units of joule/second^2 or kg/metre*second^4. I just can't get my head round this.

Edit: fixed some spelling

01101001
2004-Sep-02, 07:06 PM
Any and all insight, ideas or suggestions Re: the basis of the esoteric unit will be greatly appreciated
Well, I've got to wonder why someone would invent a unit of measurement and then label it "esoteric". What group of insiders could it be esoteric to?

If the esoteric unit were explained, would it still be esoteric?

Could it just be an inside joke by a playful author?

Toutatis
2004-Sep-03, 02:18 PM
Systems: \$37C-\$26-\$36
DAY: 21153.7909837963 (TSA)
09/03/2004 14:24:01 (Gregorian/UTC)
~~~

frogesque Remarked:

I can't fathom why the units should be watts/second when 1 watt = 1 joule/second

Indeed! Confusion introduced via. inappropriate use of the 'fraction-bar' is an unfortunate aspect of 'traditional' (read; ‘dated’) literature...

As written in many 'older' references the "Watt/Second" describes the amount of work preformed by (or energy attendant to) one Watt 'applied' for a period of one second (IOW 1 Joule)

Modern notation prefers "Watt second", 'Wattsecond' or "Ws"

Inasmuch as we are, in actuality, defining a product - as opposed to a quotient -- division of Joules by seconds yields Watts... (as you indicated).

EU has units of joule/second^2 or kg/metre*second^4. I just can't get my head round this.

‘Tis as well you cannot!!! :D

From the familiar relation: E=mc^2 (Energy(Joules), mass(kg), absolute velocity constant(meters per second) it is obvious that:

1kg*1m^2/1s^2=1 J Or, more eloquently: 1kg*1m^2*1s^-2 = 1 J (where m=meters, s=seconds)

Hence:

1 Ue=(50,000,000/9)kg*300,000,000m^2*1s =5*10^23 J
///////

01101001 (a.k.a. #105?, \$69?, %151?, "i"? --- Ahhh! The 'lower-case' 'version' of that old Rush tune? ;)) --- Wrote:

Well, I've got to wonder why someone would invent a unit of measurement and then label it "esoteric". What group of insiders could it be esoteric to?

A valid and interesting question to be sure! :) It is my experience, however, that 'naming conventions' can be bizarre to say the least (as a trivial example consider the 'cognomina' of many software development systems [e.g. 'C' and 'APL']) Moreover the well-nigh circuitous etymology of 'esoteric' leaves much to the imagination...

Could it just be an inside joke by a playful author?

Um... (Re: the handbook's author) We're talkin' an 'NEC jingoist' whom (among other 'revelries') devoted fully seven pages to a treatise upon the preferred method of securing conductors via ceramic 'cleats'... While I 'spose there could be a sense of humor in there somewhere - the 'Ue' would seem a bit abstruse to his taste?! - but then ya know what they say about 'still waters'... ;)

Many thanks for the responses!!! :D

I hope there will be more to come!!! - 'Google stumpers' are the very devil :(

Very best regards
Dan Sarandon (Relaxed and concentrated...) ;)

milli360
2004-Sep-03, 03:23 PM
Toutatis:
Indeed! Confusion introduced via. inappropriate use of the 'fraction-bar' is an unfortunate aspect of 'traditional' (read; ‘dated’) literature...

As written in many 'older' references the "Watt/Second" describes the amount of work preformed by (or energy attendant to) one Watt 'applied' for a period of one second (IOW 1 Joule)

Modern notation prefers "Watt second", 'Wattsecond' or "Ws"

Inasmuch as we are, in actuality, defining a product - as opposed to a quotient -- division of Joules by seconds yields Watts... (as you indicated).
In this case, how are you certain that that is what is indicated? Does the definition just read 1 Ue = 5*10^23 Watt/seconds, as you said, or is there more to it? Are there other examples in the publication of such mistakes?

Toutatis
2004-Sep-04, 01:16 AM
Systems: \$37C-\$26-\$36
DAY: 21154.24568287037 (TSA)
09/03/2004 01:18:47 (Gregorian/UTC)
~~~

milli360 inquired:

Does the definition just read 1 Ue = 5*10^23 Watt/seconds, as you said, or is there more to it?

The conversion info is tabulated in 'standard' format (Thus):

To convert from........|...........To.........|..Multiply by..|
.
.
.
Ues............................|.Watt/Seconds.|...5*10^23.....|

Notes:

1) The manual's text represents Ues with 'e' at right-subscript and 's' (in 'normal' script [to indicate plurality]). Moreover, as with all abbreviations therein, 'Ue' is 'foot-noted' where it is identified as the 'Esoteric Unit'... (The 'reversal', I can only imagine, owing to the syntax of Latin forms) --- By no stretch of logic may 'e' (in this case) be 'taken' as Euler's number!!! :)

2) Re: the conversion factor: 5*10^23 is written with '23' at right-superscript (as per standard exponential notation)

3) The extraneous "." characters were added by myself to force tabulation, and, where applicable, indicate intervening entries...

Are there other examples in the publication of such mistakes?

Yes sir (or Madame), and with flawless consistency! --- Howbeit I am inclined to regard same as variance in convention as opposed to error???

Some examples: (randomly 'extracted' from the table):

1 Foot/Pound = 1.356*10^7 Ergs
1 Volt/Second = 10^8 Maxwells
1 Horsepower/hour = 2.685*10^6 Joules

Many thanks for the reply! :D Apologies should my reproduction of the table entry (and A-L-L my notes) seem a bit ‘over the top’ -- I merely wished to leave nothing to speculation! :)

With warm regards
Sarandon

Squink
2004-Sep-04, 04:38 AM
1 Ue = 5*10^23 Watt/seconds
That 10^23 sort of sticks out as the same power that's found in Avogadro's number. Avogadro's number didn't settle down to near its current value (6.022*10^23 atoms/mole) until the 1950's, so maybe someone back in 1924 wanted to define a mole of watt/seconds, (why? -esoteric reasons.) and used the best value they could find: 5*10^23.

Joe87
2004-Sep-04, 11:32 PM
After looking around the web a bit, it seems that UE is the symbol for internal energy (http://www.benwiens.com/encyclopedia.html), defined as:
internal energy...symbol UE, is the multidirectional energy contained in the molecular and smaller motions that cannot entirely be converted into external energy. Internal energy is logically divided up between 8 different types that are the most used...
The 8 types of internal energy are defined as thermal, latent, solution, chemical, electron, radiant, nuclear, and nucleus.

By this definition, UE is a variable rather than a unit, but it's units would be joules. 6.022x10^23 joules (possibly 5x10^23 joules in 1924) could be the internal energy of a mole of something that has one joule of internal energy per molecule.

Not sure this helps, but it looks like UE is used to represent a type of energy.