|
|
|
|
|
by palimpsests
1816 days ago
|
|
Are you suggesting that you've developed unit systems that are stronger and superior to what has been established in the field of physics? Can you please share some examples other than adding specifiers about material e.g. 3 mg of plutonium, 5 L of argon, etc? I can think of at least one other criterion for checking unit systems - ease of computation. See, for example, MKS vs Gaussian units. |
|
I don't have concrete examples other than adding in "of X material" when appropriate (e.g. mass and volume, but not energy), but don't underestimate how useful that really is. One calculation I encounter a lot that is wrong a troublingly large amount of the time, despite passing a traditional dimensional analysis, is this one:
Calculate the mass of SO2 produced from burning 1,000 moles of gas with a molecular weight of 24 g/mol containing 2% H2S by weight (and no other sources of sulfur).
It's not hugely complicated: there are really only two units to keep track of here (g and mol) but they can be "of" three different materials (whole gas, SO2, and H2S), so it's very easy to cancel terms when you really shouldn't if you analyze it traditionally. With the materials attached to each unit, you're also forced to include a term that is otherwise invisible (the stoichiometric ratio of SO2 to H2S, which is usually omitted because it's 1), which helps guide your intuition on how the calculation relates to the chemistry of what's happening and helps you come up with the correct calculation when more complicated chemical reactions are involved.