Re: dimensionality

• To: caron@xxxxxxxx
• Subject: Re: dimensionality
• From: Russ Rew <russ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:23:28 -0600

Hi,

I mistakenly posted this to visad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, not realizing that
would exclude people at SSEC from seeing it, so here it is again, this
time posted to visad-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.

--Russ

------- Forwarded Message

cc:      visad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> during my undergrad 'career' was a representation of quantity names
> using a 3-D matrix for powers (and inverse powers) of Length, Mass, and
> Time.  In each box, the "unit dimensional" quantity was shown (like:
> 
>                  1  -2
>                 L  T 
>                    acceleration
> 
> Not every box had a name, but the ability to relate to a quantity
> without introducing specific units systems was an extraordinary aid to
> dimensional analysis.  I would think this sort of thing would be
> critical when users start combining parameters with units attached.

Sort of like this figure from "Geometrical Dimensional Analysis":

  http://www.the-abode.com/gda01/Z0YES3D.HTM

(If you follow the links at the bottom of this page, you will learn
 everything there is to know about geometrical dimensional analysis, and
 then some ...).

For a nice planar view, see the NIST diagram of basic units and derived
units:

  http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/SIdiagram.html

(Maybe this is getting a little off-topic, but the pictures are cool.)

- --Russ

------- End of Forwarded Message