From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-09 04:02:59
Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:36:40PM -0500, David Greene wrote:
> > the library. Andy presented this example to justify kg's 0 power:
> >
> > mass::kg m(1); // 1 kg == 1000 g
> > acceleration::m_div_s2 a(1); // 1 meter per second squared
> > force::N f = m * a;
> >
> > The value of f should be 1000 Newtons right?
> >
> > Of course, the value is 1 Newton. But this has nothing at all to
> > do with kg having a prefix power of 0 or 3. The calculation can
>
> The point is,
>
> 1 N = 1 kg * 1 m / 1 s / 1 s
>
> The 1 comes from 10^0, hence 0 is needed.
>
> 10^0 N = 10^0 kg * 10^0 m / 10^0 s / 10^0 s
>
> 0 = 0 + 0 - 0 - 0
>
> The calculation of the left-hand 0 is done with generic
> templates using '+' to add up exponents. How is it logical
> to make an exception here for kg?
>
> If you'd force 'kg' to be 'g' internally, then you will
> have to apply the same trick to N that is now applied to kg,
> with the exception that then BOTH are internally not in S.I.
> units (mN and g, instead of N and kg). That is, you'd end up
> with:
>
> 3 = 3 + 0 - 0 - 0
>
> and thus mN. But you still want to print N.
> I don't think it will get any better by using a prefix power of 3 for kg.
If you know that kg ==> 10^3g and that N = kg.m.s-2 then you
have the information right there! Given that N is expressed in terms
of kg, the library will know that the powers of each unit are:
N = [ 3, 0, 0, 0 ]
and that mN is:
N = [ 0, -3, -3, -3 ]
You don't need to treat kg as a special case here where the math is
concerned, as per my unit system toy example.
- Reece
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/