This is only 0.0000292 tnf-ml
(really...it is)
Do you really want to understand? (like on an engineers/physicist level?)
Well, first of all, in this thread you've not once wrote the US unit of torque correctly.
Its not lb-ft but lb
f-ft!
Well, one could think, what meaning could that letter f have that makes it so important?
The difference is in that lb is a unit of mass and lb
f is a unit of force (pound force).
Torque is a rotational force.
By not writing it as force per distance but mass per distance, and engine would produce less torque (and thus less power) say on mars, or in space, or even on the equator than say in canada.
That is of course nonsense because engines (and forces) dont work that way. When the power output is the same at a certain rev, the torque should be too, wherever the engine is.
So torque is an (angular)
force, not an angular mass; thus lb
f-ft.
Now for the interesting bit:
Comparing lb
f to Newton. (and some of the other SI units...)
the formula on how lb
f (pound force) is set:
1 lb
f = 1lb x 9,80665 m/sē
or
1 lb
f = 1lb x 32,174049 ft/sē
Rather cumbersome numbers. Not very practical I think. It makes that 1 lb
f = ~4,49 N
Now lets look at the Newton:
1N = 1 kg x 1 m/sē
thats it! Nothing more!
Pretty simple now isnt it?
If you know what a kilogram is, know what a meter is, know what a second is, you now know what a Newton is.
So now you dont have to remember the number 9,80665 or 32,174049.
Thats the beauty of the SI units. It all fits together without very clumsy conversions. And it doesnt work in multiples of 16 (oz->lbs) or 12 (in->ft) etc.
its based on 10- folds.
Be honest, why would you use a system that is based on average lenghts of a certain bodyparts or weights of a single seed with random numbers to mulitply them to make them fit?