I want to convert 1.3138 kg/Nm^3 to lbm/ft^3. I've searched a lot of posts and can't find exactly what I want. I know that Nm^3 stands for "normal cubic meter" which means it is at standard temperature and pressure, but I don't know what to do with information. If I am talking about Dry Air, how would I convert that to an actual density value?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Converting Density from kg/Nm^3 1
- Thread starter sloth4z
- Start date
sailoday28
Mechanical
Mabe someday the SI system will be used universally.
- Thread starter
- #23
The number was listed as "density" with the units "kg/Nm3". After doing some research on the internet, I discovered that Nm3 can mean "normal cubic meter". Apparently the "normal" denotes that the density is the density of the gas at standard temperature and pressures (which weren't listed in the original list). The english equivelant is scf (standard cubic foot). Most of the website were more concerned with flowrates.
My problem wasn't with converting from SI to English units. I am comfortable with my abilities in this area. My concern was calculating the density at other temperature and pressures.
My problem wasn't with converting from SI to English units. I am comfortable with my abilities in this area. My concern was calculating the density at other temperature and pressures.
As an engineer you should not take every thing for granted, especially from the internet
Our academic books are far more reliable resources, because they have been written and revised by technical knowledgable people.
Every lunatic is free to write some rubbish on the internet and claim it is the truth.
This normal cubic meter is most probably the translation of some student who don't know the difference between an inch and a decimeter. I could do a guess the nationality of this person and within 4 attempts I would have the right one.
Our academic books are far more reliable resources, because they have been written and revised by technical knowledgable people.
Every lunatic is free to write some rubbish on the internet and claim it is the truth.
This normal cubic meter is most probably the translation of some student who don't know the difference between an inch and a decimeter. I could do a guess the nationality of this person and within 4 attempts I would have the right one.
Normal cubic meter has been discussed and clarified numerous times and is NOT a mistranslation:
TTFN
TTFN
I came across NM[sup]3[/sup] so many times, particularly dealing with pneumatic accessories (manufacturers from all parts of the world), that I don't mistake them to be alphabets in wrong order even if the exponential is missing![[wink]](/data/assets/smilies/wink.gif "[wink] [wink]")
.
The simple conversion given by Milton is what the manufacturers consider. It is volume of the gas at normal conditions.
I don't see any striking coincidence in it. As per Avagadro's law, one gram mole of any gas occupies 22.41 liters volume at 0[sup]0[/sup]C and 1.013 bar. As most of the members agreed NTP as 0[sup]0[/sup]C and 1.013 bar (in SI units, in many previous threads), 1 NM[sup]3[/sup] can be, without doubt, considered as the volume occupied by 1/22.4 kmol gas and not the other way round.
. The simple conversion given by Milton is what the manufacturers consider. It is volume of the gas at normal conditions.
Sethoflagos said:
I don't see any striking coincidence in it. As per Avagadro's law, one gram mole of any gas occupies 22.41 liters volume at 0[sup]0[/sup]C and 1.013 bar. As most of the members agreed NTP as 0[sup]0[/sup]C and 1.013 bar (in SI units, in many previous threads), 1 NM[sup]3[/sup] can be, without doubt, considered as the volume occupied by 1/22.4 kmol gas and not the other way round.
I am very surprised at the number of people reponding in this thread who seem to think that a Normal cubic meter is some new exotic expression, or somehow a misinterpretation of Newtons, or that it is somehow related to molecular weight.
Normal cubic meters as a volumetric measure of gases have been in worldwide usage for many, many years. All that has changed is that the set of reference temperature and pressure that applies to a Normal cubic meter has changed ... and there is no longer any universally accepted set of Standard or Normal reference conditions of temperature and pressure for gases.
In a Wikipedia article at there is a tabulation of the standard reference temperature and pressure conditions used by 15 different organizations including the ISO, NIST, ISA, OPEC and the IUPAC (both the IUPAC's old values of 0 °C and 1 atmosphere as well as the newer values of 0 °C and 1 bar) among others. A careful reading of that article will make it clear that there just is no universally accepted references conditions of temperature and pressure any longer.
Milton Beychok
(Visit me at www.air-dispersion.com)
.
Normal cubic meters as a volumetric measure of gases have been in worldwide usage for many, many years. All that has changed is that the set of reference temperature and pressure that applies to a Normal cubic meter has changed ... and there is no longer any universally accepted set of Standard or Normal reference conditions of temperature and pressure for gases.
In a Wikipedia article at there is a tabulation of the standard reference temperature and pressure conditions used by 15 different organizations including the ISO, NIST, ISA, OPEC and the IUPAC (both the IUPAC's old values of 0 °C and 1 atmosphere as well as the newer values of 0 °C and 1 bar) among others. A careful reading of that article will make it clear that there just is no universally accepted references conditions of temperature and pressure any longer.
Milton Beychok
(Visit me at www.air-dispersion.com)
.
It is not often that a poster is able to prove his point as clearly and as unequivocally as svanels has done here. A new bench mark has been set.
Katmar Software
Engineering & Risk Analysis Software
Katmar Software
Engineering & Risk Analysis Software
I support Katmar on this one and his earlier point regarding "Nm" would most likely be confused for "newton (N) and meter (m)"
Correctly "Nm" would be the units associated with torsion, that is, a moment. So I disagree with earlier comments that "Nm" is typical in the metric system. Quite simply, kg/Nm^3 would not balance out dimensionally consistent to density measurement. But this point has already been raised and correctly so by Katmar.
You cannot bastardize the metric system. "Normal" is not a proper SI related term under the present convention. Also, "N" does not stand for any prefex associated with a linear measure, milli, mega, hexa, nano for example. Trying to rationalize it as such is simply wrong!
Kenneth J Hueston, PEng
Principal
Sturni-Hueston Engineering Inc
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Correctly "Nm" would be the units associated with torsion, that is, a moment. So I disagree with earlier comments that "Nm" is typical in the metric system. Quite simply, kg/Nm^3 would not balance out dimensionally consistent to density measurement. But this point has already been raised and correctly so by Katmar.
You cannot bastardize the metric system. "Normal" is not a proper SI related term under the present convention. Also, "N" does not stand for any prefex associated with a linear measure, milli, mega, hexa, nano for example. Trying to rationalize it as such is simply wrong!
Kenneth J Hueston, PEng
Principal
Sturni-Hueston Engineering Inc
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
UmeshMathur
Chemical
For what it's worth, and in support of Milton Beychok's point, I have used kg/Nm3 since 1961 as a measure of the standard volumetric density for gas, referred to a base temperature of 0 C and a base pressure of 1 standard atmosphere. At BIPM (Shell), usage of Nm3 for volume measurements goes back to the earliest days after the adoption of the SI system.
It appears from reading this thread that those unfamiliar with traditional usage of the Nm3 terminology (for the volume corrected to standard conditions, especially in the petroleum and gas industries) find it very confusing, as it does appear to violate the strictest nomenclature rules for the SI system. This is a pity, but this is a highly entrenched convention going back at least 45 years, I believe, so it's unlikely to go away even in places deeply committed to the SI system.
It appears from reading this thread that those unfamiliar with traditional usage of the Nm3 terminology (for the volume corrected to standard conditions, especially in the petroleum and gas industries) find it very confusing, as it does appear to violate the strictest nomenclature rules for the SI system. This is a pity, but this is a highly entrenched convention going back at least 45 years, I believe, so it's unlikely to go away even in places deeply committed to the SI system.
And I stand by opinion that the word Normal or N as pointed out by others do not has his place in the units. It is something that manufacturers use to let non-engineers do engineering calculations.
I am surprised that just chemical engineers are objecting about this.
Anyone and especially chemical engineers who must know about dimensional analysis and sure have read books about heat transfer, and other transport mechanisms written by welknown Americans.
Before we jump into empirical calculations using:
Reynolds, Nusselt, Grashoff and many others the knowledge of Dimensional Analysis is a pre-requesite.
I am surprised that just chemical engineers are objecting about this.
Anyone and especially chemical engineers who must know about dimensional analysis and sure have read books about heat transfer, and other transport mechanisms written by welknown Americans.
Before we jump into empirical calculations using:
Reynolds, Nusselt, Grashoff and many others the knowledge of Dimensional Analysis is a pre-requesite.
Svanels:
Just because one is unaware of a particular usage of measurement units (or too young to be aware of that usage) does not mean that one should deride or make fun of those who are aware the usage.
I just did a search on Google for the keyword "Nm3" and got 586,000 hits ... a great many of which deal with gas volume amounts. So it is clearly obvious that a great many people are aware that usage.
The SI metric system provides a very useful, consistent set of units. But rules such as the SI system should not be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. We should not be obsessive about such rules and we should have enough elasticity to tolerate other usages that have been in widespread use for decades.
Milton Beychok
(Visit me at www.air-dispersion.com)
.
As Umesh said in his posting on this thread, the Nm[sup]3[/sup] has been in world-wide usage as a measure of gas volume for over 40 years and still is in wide usage. The world existed for centuries before the SI system of units was in being. Newton and Einstein came up with their outstanding and innovative scientific contributions before the SI sytem existed. We designed and/or invented bridges, jet aircraft, nuclear power plants, radio, electric lights, telephones and etc. before the current set of SI units existed.
Just because one is unaware of a particular usage of measurement units (or too young to be aware of that usage) does not mean that one should deride or make fun of those who are aware the usage.
I just did a search on Google for the keyword "Nm3" and got 586,000 hits ... a great many of which deal with gas volume amounts. So it is clearly obvious that a great many people are aware that usage.
The SI metric system provides a very useful, consistent set of units. But rules such as the SI system should not be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. We should not be obsessive about such rules and we should have enough elasticity to tolerate other usages that have been in widespread use for decades.
Milton Beychok
(Visit me at www.air-dispersion.com)
.
Milton you didn't get my point
Normal is not part of the units like kg, Watt, Newton, Ampere and many others.
If you feel offended about my statement about the Internet, I feel sorry for you.
Actually I have a copy of your post about the balance of cooling tower pinned on my board behind my desk.
Not because Nm is on the Internet, and have 30 millions hits, it will invalidate the ISO rules which had the participation of a lot knowledgable and respected members of the engineering community and also have contributed to the ASME, ASRAE and API standards.
Websites and calculators are made by programmers, if they do not have guidance of engineers like us, they will make a mess of it.
Too many times I have seen formulas in an excel spreadsheet with some "magical conversion factor" wich are an afront to all laws of physics.
About the term!! normal is widely used in the catalogues of Atlas Copco, Ingersoll Rand and many others. In fact not being aware of the term "normal" makes it almost impossible to size an aircompressor, but that does not promote normal to unit for calculation.
Maybe I am pissed off because just this week I had to explain to some![[conehead]](/data/assets/smilies/conehead.gif "[conehead] [conehead]")
s why the receiver of an instrument-air watercooled compressor was filling with water. The humidity of surrounding air is almost 82% and the trap is undersized. The argument that it have been working for 1 year, thus it is not undersized I call BS. The iceberg was growing during 1 year and just surfaced.
Normal is not part of the units like kg, Watt, Newton, Ampere and many others.
If you feel offended about my statement about the Internet, I feel sorry for you.
Actually I have a copy of your post about the balance of cooling tower pinned on my board behind my desk.
Not because Nm is on the Internet, and have 30 millions hits, it will invalidate the ISO rules which had the participation of a lot knowledgable and respected members of the engineering community and also have contributed to the ASME, ASRAE and API standards.
Websites and calculators are made by programmers, if they do not have guidance of engineers like us, they will make a mess of it.
Too many times I have seen formulas in an excel spreadsheet with some "magical conversion factor" wich are an afront to all laws of physics.
About the term!! normal is widely used in the catalogues of Atlas Copco, Ingersoll Rand and many others. In fact not being aware of the term "normal" makes it almost impossible to size an aircompressor, but that does not promote normal to unit for calculation.
Maybe I am pissed off because just this week I had to explain to some
s why the receiver of an instrument-air watercooled compressor was filling with water. The humidity of surrounding air is almost 82% and the trap is undersized. The argument that it have been working for 1 year, thus it is not undersized I call BS. The iceberg was growing during 1 year and just surfaced.![[thumbsup]](/data/assets/smilies/thumbsup.gif "[thumbsup] [thumbsup]")
Ashereng said:
There are the "right way" and the way the person is using.
The OP stated that Nm3 was to mean "normal m3". He defined it as volume.
So, I took it as a volume. Is it right? Does it matter? If people have been using Nm3 as a volume for 45 years, then they believe it is useful. Right or wrong, SI or not, they use it.
We as engineers also need to be aware that not everyone, every industry, every location, uses the same "conventions" of units.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
UmeshMathur
Chemical
Irrespective of the professed irritation of some about the ubiquitousness of the term "Nm3", the fact remains that there are innumerable existing, immutable, and legally binding gas suppy contracts all over the world that specify use of gas volumes in Nm3.
Unless these contracts are abrogated unilaterally and replaced by something more aesthetically pleasing to the purists, the rest of us will simply have to continue to muddle through and continue using that unit of volumetric measure, at least in the gas industry.
Only a fool will defend use of deliberately confusing terminology; however, usage of this term precedes the careers of the vast majority of chemical engineers. When the term was first coined, it made a lot of sense, firstly because it was logically equivalent to specifying flows in molar units, and secondly because it replaced other less "standardized" usages. I used it in process calculations for over 25 years as it made a lot of physical sense, at least to me.
Finally, since this term was not coined merely to add to the ranks of the perplexed, I humbly suggest that we close out this thread.
Unless these contracts are abrogated unilaterally and replaced by something more aesthetically pleasing to the purists, the rest of us will simply have to continue to muddle through and continue using that unit of volumetric measure, at least in the gas industry.
Only a fool will defend use of deliberately confusing terminology; however, usage of this term precedes the careers of the vast majority of chemical engineers. When the term was first coined, it made a lot of sense, firstly because it was logically equivalent to specifying flows in molar units, and secondly because it replaced other less "standardized" usages. I used it in process calculations for over 25 years as it made a lot of physical sense, at least to me.
Finally, since this term was not coined merely to add to the ranks of the perplexed, I humbly suggest that we close out this thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
