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.
Pedroh.sm (5kb) downloaded 9 time(s).
sergio

Thank you, Jean!

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

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.

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.



Best regards.
Alvaro.

Edited by user 08 June 2022 16:56:56(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

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.

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

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

However;

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