First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org 
CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] unit conversion


Chronological Thread 
  • From: m.cooling at auckland.ac.nz (Mike Cooling)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] unit conversion
  • Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:52:48 +1200
Oh, to clarify, I mean the statement



"It doesn't really make sense to say nanodimensionless per
microdimensionless"



DOES in fact make sense.Colloquially we say.. Etc etc.



From: Mike Cooling [mailto:m.cooling at auckland.ac.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2008 1:42 p.m.
To: 'CellML Discussion List'
Subject: RE: [cellml-discussion] (OT) the nature of 'mole' | Re: unit
conversion



Andrew said:

" It doesn't really make sense to say nanodimensionless per
microdimensionless, I prefer nanolitres per microlitre even though you
need to duplicate it if you have other conversion factors."

Duplication brings in the possibility of error and inconsistencies, and is
tedious and I think should be reduced at all points.

I think your statement above makes perfect sense, it just isn't commonly
said. Colloquially we say "how many femtos in a micro?" - same thing. But, I
wasn't advocating using dimensionless really, I think these conversions
between prefixes could be built in, just as the prefixes themselves are.

If reducing constructs in the specification was your goal then prefixes are
unnecessary and could be implemented via multipliers. At the moment, we
provide prefixes as a separate construct without easy conversion between
them - it just seems like we are providing half a feature.








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cellml.org/pipermail/cellml-discussion/attachments/20080603/2d6705d9/attachment-0001.htm



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page