4 ms·
It looks like they defined that stat internally as "1.046e7", which would be a reasonable number assuming Joules. Elsewhere it defines Kilocalories as "0.000239
by zamadatix 1y ago
It looks like they defined that stat internally as "1.046e7", which would be a reasonable number assuming Joules. Elsewhere it defines Kilocalories as "0.000239006"... but I'm guessing they meant it the other way around (i.e. "4184" not "1/4184") based on how they use the data in the functions.
Sure enough, if you do 4e10/4184^2 you get right on target. I think other things in the energy category may have the same "wrong conversion direction" bug as well.
- hermitcrab 1y agoOops. The energy values were indeed inverted. Now fixed. Thanks. Also fixed a few other rogue values. We had the mass of a great white shark as 8.9e20 Kg, rather than 8.9e2 Kg. That would be quite some shark.
- feoren 1y ago> We had the mass of a great white shark as 8.9e20 Kg, rather than 8.9e2 Kg We're going to need a bigger boat.