4 ms·
Great tool, just starting exploring it. This brings into focus a math issue I've been wrestling with for some time, but haven't yet been able to adequately exp
by schiffern 8y ago
Great tool, just starting exploring it.
This brings into focus a math issue I've been wrestling with for some time, but haven't yet been able to adequately express.
Unexpectedly, some of the "equations" posted here aren't really equal! For instance, "pressure altitude - in feet"[1] (formulas that require a particular set of unit are a big red flag) is given as:
h_alt = ( 1 - ( P_sta / 1013.25 )^0.190284 ) · 145366.45
But this can't be correct -- the left side has a dimensions of length^1, while the right side has dimensions of (mass^0.190284 · length^-0.190284 · time^-0.380568). At the risk of stating the obvious, these are not equal!
Another red flag is that the page specifies that altitude and pressure inputs for this formula (I can't call it an "equation") must be given as dimensionless numbers. But length and pressure quantities have dimensions of length^1 and (mass^1 · length^-1 · time^-2), respectively.
To transform this expression into an equation (and as a side-effect, make it work with any arbitrary pressure and length units), just replace each "naked" (improperly dimensionless) variable X by the quantity X/<unit>, then rearrange so the units become part of the constants. For example, the above expression can be refactored into an equation as follows:
Substitute (X/unit) for X:
(h_alt / foot) = ( 1 - ( (P_sta / millibar) / 1013.25 )^0.190284 ) · 145366.45
Rearrange:
h_alt = ( 1 - ( P_sta / (1013.25 millibar))^0.190284 ) 145366.45 foot
Convert to SI:
h_alt = (1 - (P_sta / (101.325 kPa))^0.190284 · 44307.69396 meter
Note that we can do the same thing with the "equivalent" expression in meters[2] (a further red flag: if they're equivalent, why should any system of equations need more than one copy?) it should yield the same result:
h_alt = ( 1 - ( P_sta / 1013.25 )^0.190284 ) · 44307.69396
(h_alt / meter) = ( 1 - ( (P_sta / millibar) / 1013.25 )^0.190284 ) · 44307.69396
h_alt = ( 1 - ( P_sta / (1013.25 millibar))^0.190284 ) · 44307.69396 meter
Well I'll be damned. :)
Euler was the first person to realize this, afaik. Is there a term to describe these kind of "de-unit-ified" equations? More than once I've found myself needing to reconstruct a proper equation (with correct dimensions and constants) from one of these bastardized non-equations.
[1] https://www.fxsolver.com/browse/formulas/Pressure+Altitude+-+in+feet https://www.fxsolver.com/browse/formulas/Pressure+Altitude+-...
[2] https://www.fxsolver.com/browse/formulas/Pressure+Altitude+-+in+meters https://www.fxsolver.com/browse/formulas/Pressure+Altitude+-...
edit: I'd fix it myself (by submitting an equation), but I can't figure out how to embed units in the equation itself. It interprets "kPa," "kg," "m," and "s" as variable names. :(
TL;DR fxsolver.com doesn't seem to support embedding units in expressions, leading to to confusing non-equal "equations"
- nikic 8y ago> Euler was the first person to realize this, afaik. Is there a term to describe these kind of "de-unit-ified" equations? More than once I've found myself needing to reconstruct a proper equation (with correct dimensions and constants) from one of these bastardized non-equations. Not very surprisingly, it's called nondimensionalization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondimensionalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondimensionalization).
- mncharity 8y agoFWIW, Nondimensionalization for dummies[1] has a nicely-motivated introductory example (from ecology). [1] http://wp.auburn.edu/radich/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Nondimensionalization-Resource-2.pdf http://wp.auburn.edu/radich/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Nondi...
- schiffern 8y agoDamn, got my hopes up. That's close, but not quite the same thing. The nondimensionalization article is talking about reducing free dimensions in a model by variable substitution (while following all the rules of dimensional analysis), but I'm talking about re-writing a single equation so it can be used by "unit-phobic" people by simply dropping (not substituting!) all units (breaking all the rules of dimensional analysis), and assuming a certain set of units for input and output values. Compare this (incorrect) formula, which gives no hint as to which units are being used for pressure or height: h_alt = ( 1 - ( P_sta / 1013.25 )^0.190284 ) · 145366.45 with this (correct) equation, which always works regardless of what units are chosen (just follow the unit conversion rules): h_alt = (1 - (P_sta / (101.325 kPa))^0.190284 · 44307.69396 meter There are even unit-preserving calculators like Frink, which allow you to specify any units (for instance, giving barometric pressure in light-nanoseconds of mercury[1]). [1] http://frinklang.org/fsp/frink.fsp?fromVal=%281+-+%282.5+light+nanosecond+Hg+gravity%29+%2F+%28101.325+kPa%29%29%5E0.190284+%C2%B7+44307.69396+meter&toVal=#calc http://frinklang.org/fsp/frink.fsp?fromVal=%281+-+%282.5+lig...
- btrettel 8y agoDimensional analysis is one of my favorite subjects. Unfortunately the more advanced results from it are rarely taught outside of fluid dynamics classes, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem The pi theorem is one of the most useful results in my work as a theoretical fluid dynamicist. The (modest) dimensionality reduction it offers seems unbelievable at first.