Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: Request for clarification on Unit commensurability
- From: Werner Keil <
>
- To: "
" <
>
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: Request for clarification on Unit commensurability
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:51:08 +0100
Maybe this helps you:
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/our-calculations
It refers to a "W/m2K" which goes alongside a sentence and further formulas
in the Dagego sample
>
Interessant ist auch die Frage, um wie viel Kelvin die Temperatur in einer
Stunde in einem 1000L Speicher steigt, wenn man >nur 9,5 KW zur Verfügung
hat. Dafür ist es nötig, die Formel umzustellen nach:
Translated:
"How many K per hour does the temperature rise in a 1000 l boiler if you
have 9.5 KW to heat?"
Another simple calculation:
http://www.endmemo.com/physics/heatengine.php
based on Carnot's work, it contains some "constant" 1, which as of now, we
could not deal with either.
Quantity.subtract(Quantity) exists, so as a workaround we do have
AbstractQuantity.ONE.subtract(someQuantity);
Werner
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <
>
wrote:
>
>
Le 16/12/14 21:39, Werner Keil a écrit :
>
>
We don't make money from this, but I don't think the company that does (
>
http://www.dagego.de/) got this totally wrong.
>
>
I do not said that they are wrong. I said that I'm pretty sure that the
>
Boltzmann constant (or something equivalent) is hidden somewhere in their
>
equations. They may have managed to rewrite their equations in such a way
>
that the numerical value of their constant become 1, and consequently
>
omitted it. This may be bright. But a numerical value of 1 does not mean a
>
dimensionless quantity: we can have 1 second, 1 metre, 1 kWh, etc. So the
>
fact that we can omit a multiplication in the computation of a *numerical*
>
value does not mean that we can omit that multiplication in the computation
>
of the *unit* of that value.
>
>
Martin
>
>