Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am trying to calculate the energy budget of a water body and the last term I'm trying to calculate is the energy advected from the water body ($Q_v$). This equation is given by:

$Q_v = V ( (T_1 - T_0) / A)$

enter image description here

where $V$ is the daily inflow (in $\mathrm{m}^3 \mathrm{day}^{-1}$); $T_1$ is the temperature of the inflow ($^\circ\mathrm{C}$); $T_0$ is the temperature of the outflow ($^\circ\mathrm{C}$); $A$ is the surface area of the water body ($1\times10^{10} cm^2$)

and $Q_v$ is given in $\mathrm{cal}\cdot\mathrm{cm}^{-2} \mathrm{day}^{-1}$.

How would I convert $Q_v$ into $\mathrm{W\cdot m}^{-2}$ i.e. Watts per meter squared?

I've seen an example in page 881 in this paper

http://ecologia.ugr.es/pages/publicaciones/publicaciones-pdfs/2004/thermalstructureandenergybudgetinasmall2004/!

which shows that

$1 \mathrm{cal\cdot cm}^{–2}\mathrm{h}^{–1} = 4.19\times10^{–4}\mathrm{J\cdot m}^{–2}\mathrm{h}^{–1} = 11.63 \mathrm{W}/\mathrm{m}^2$

Could anyone explain to me the process of calculating this and for the example I provided?

share|improve this question
    
You cannot convert $\text{cal cm}^{-1} \text{day}^{-1}$ to $\text{W}/\text{m}^2$ because they are not the same physical quantity: $\text{cal cm}^{-1} \text{day}^{-1}$ is energy per length per time, while $\text{W}/\text{m}^2$ is energy per length squared per time. –  Michiel May 20 '13 at 11:46
    
Did you look at the link? They seemed to do it, and that is a published article. Also, I've made a minor change to the post. –  Emma May 20 '13 at 11:48
    
Yes I did, and they don't do that: they convert $\text{cal cm}^{-2} \text{day}^{-1}$ to $\text{W}/\text{m}^2$. Note the -2 on the centimeter –  Michiel May 20 '13 at 11:49
    
OK thanks. Ignoring the equation for Qv, how would you convert 1 cal cm–2 h–1 to W/m2, I'm struggling to work through this step mainly –  Emma May 20 '13 at 11:57
1  
The fact that it is in a published paper doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. It could be a typo, a typesetting error or just an error in itself. I remain convinced that the equation is dimensionally incorrect. Just check the units for yourself: you get $Qv=[\text{m} ^oC/\text{day}]$ –  Michiel May 20 '13 at 12:31
show 3 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Converting units is simple if you simply work with the units as algebraic symbols. Thus start with the equalities $$1\textrm{ cal}=4.18\text{ J},$$ $$1\text{ day}=24\times60\times60\text{ s}=86,400\text{ s, and}$$ $$1\text{ cm}=0.01\text{ m}$$ and just plug the numbers in: $$ 1\text{ cal cm}^{-2}\text{ day}^{-1} =\frac{4.18\text{ J}}{(0.01\text{ m})^2 \times 86400\text{ s}}\approx0.48\text{ W m}^{-2}. $$ Easy!

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.