Horsepower (Water) to Calories (th)/second

hp

1 hp

cal(th)/s

178.30855640535372848948 cal(th)/s

Conversion History

ConversionReuseDelete

1 hp (Horsepower (Water)) → 178.30855640535372848948 cal(th)/s (Calories (th)/second)

Just now

Entries per page:

1–1 of 1


Quick Reference Table (Horsepower (Water) to Calories (th)/second)

Horsepower (Water) (hp)Calories (th)/second (cal(th)/s)
0.117.83085564053537284895
0.589.15427820267686424474
1178.30855640535372848948
2356.61711281070745697897
5891.54278202676864244742
101,783.08556405353728489484
508,915.42782026768642447419

About Horsepower (Water) (hp)

Water horsepower (hp(W)) equals 746.043 watts and is used specifically in pump engineering to express the hydraulic power delivered to a fluid, as distinct from the shaft power input to the pump. It accounts for the fact that a pump's mechanical input power always exceeds the hydraulic power delivered due to efficiency losses. Pump efficiency is calculated as water hp divided by input shaft hp. The difference between water hp and electric/mechanical hp is negligible (0.05%) for most calculations.

A pump delivering 100 gallons per minute at 50 feet of head produces approximately 1.26 water hp of hydraulic power. A pump rated at 2 shaft hp may deliver 1.6 water hp at 80% efficiency.

About Calories (th)/second (cal(th)/s)

Calories (thermochemical) per second (cal(th)/s) equals 4.184 watts. It is a caloric power unit used in thermochemistry and laboratory heat-flow measurements where energy is expressed in thermochemical calories rather than joules. Reaction calorimeters and bomb calorimeters sometimes report heat release rates in this unit. It is closely related to the watt but retains the calorie convention of chemistry rather than physics.

A 60 W light bulb dissipates about 14.3 cal(th)/s as heat. A vigorous chemical reaction releasing 100 cal(th)/s generates 418 W of thermal power.


Horsepower (Water) – Frequently Asked Questions

Water HP = (Flow in GPM × Total Head in feet) / 3,960. The magic number 3,960 comes from the weight of water (8.33 lb/gal) × 33,000 ft·lbf/min per hp ÷ 8.33 × the appropriate conversions. For example: 200 GPM at 80 feet of head = 200 × 80 / 3,960 = 4.04 water hp. If the pump is 75% efficient, you need 4.04 / 0.75 = 5.39 shaft hp, so you'd select a 7.5 hp motor (next standard NEMA size up).

Because the motor must provide shaft hp, not water hp. If your application needs 3 water hp but the pump is only 65% efficient, you need 3 / 0.65 = 4.6 shaft hp — meaning a 5 hp motor minimum. Underestimating this gap leads to overloaded motors, overheating, and premature failure. Pump efficiency varies from 30% (tiny pumps) to 90% (large, well-designed centrifugal pumps), so the water-hp-to-shaft-hp gap ranges from 10% to 70%.

Water hp is the useful hydraulic output — the power actually delivered to the fluid as pressure and flow. Brake hp (bhp) is the shaft input power measured at the coupling. The ratio is pump efficiency: η = WHP / BHP. A pump rated at 10 bhp with 80% efficiency delivers 8 water hp; the other 2 hp is lost to friction, turbulence, and heat in the pump. When specifying pumps, you calculate the required water hp first, then divide by efficiency to find the necessary brake hp.

Rarely. International pump engineering uses kilowatts for both hydraulic power and shaft power. The formula becomes: Hydraulic Power (kW) = (Flow in m³/h × Head in meters × density × g) / 3,600,000. European pump catalogs list "hydraulic efficiency" as a percentage relating input kW to output kW. The concept is identical — water hp is just the US customary wrapper around it. If you see "water horsepower" in a specification, it's almost certainly an American or Canadian document.

Municipal water supply: 50–500 water hp per pump station. Oil pipeline pumping: 1,000–10,000 water hp per station. Mining dewatering: 100–5,000 water hp. Hydroelectric dam penstocks deliver thousands of water hp to turbines (in reverse — the water does the work). The largest single pump installations, like the pumps protecting New Orleans from flooding, can exceed 10,000 water hp each — moving millions of gallons per minute against levee heights.

Calories (th)/second – Frequently Asked Questions

Tradition and unit consistency. When your energy measurements are in calories (specific heat of water = 1 cal/g/°C makes calculations beautifully clean), expressing rates in cal/s keeps everything in the same system. A chemist measuring how fast a reaction heats 500 mL of water doesn't want to convert to joules just to report a rate. The calorie makes water-based calorimetry arithmetic almost trivial.

The thermochemical calorie (lowercase "c") used in cal/s equals 4.184 joules. The food Calorie (uppercase "C" or kilocalorie) is 1,000× larger at 4,184 joules. So 1 food Calorie/s = 4,184 watts — roughly the power of a space heater. Nutrition labels use kilocalories but write "Calories" with a capital C, creating one of the most persistent unit confusions in science. When you see cal/s in chemistry, it's always the small calorie.

It varies enormously. Neutralizing a strong acid with a strong base might release 0.5–5 cal/s in a teaching lab. Combustion of magnesium ribbon produces 50–200 cal/s of intense white-hot heat. Thermite reactions can exceed 10,000 cal/s (42 kW). Explosive decomposition of TNT releases energy at roughly 250,000 cal/s (1 MW) during detonation. The rate depends on both the enthalpy change and how fast the reaction proceeds.

A reaction calorimeter submerges the reaction vessel in a known mass of water and measures temperature rise over time. If 1,000 g of water rises 0.5°C in 10 seconds, the heat release is 500 cal in 10 seconds = 50 cal/s. Modern isothermal calorimeters use Peltier elements to maintain constant temperature, measuring the electrical power needed to compensate — giving cal/s readings with milliwatt precision.

Increasingly rarely. IUPAC officially recommends joules, and most modern journals require SI units. However, the calorie persists in biochemistry (metabolic rates), nutrition (food energy), and some physical chemistry subfields where decades of reference data are in calories. Older researchers and textbooks still think in calories. The 4.184 conversion factor is burned into every chemist's brain, even if they wish it weren't.

© 2026 TopConverters.com. All rights reserved.