## The Universal Unit System and its notaions

This forum contains discussion related to the UUS.
 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
The examples of Kodegadulo do not become the counterexample.
It is bacause that most examples are the example by which the difference in the length of the word contributes to their pattern match.

The fact that the effectiveness of pattern match does not change when we write Japanese that is an entirely different language with Kana character.
I think that it is probably involved in the universal human cognitive style.

Another expressions are used in the range 12^0-12^7 for pattern matching optimization and sparseness as described in my previous article.

'my-lli-m-bi-tri-on'(if it means 1215) -> migross myriad myllion
'myllion to the power of one two point three'(M12@3) -> migross byllion myllillion (migross:3, byllion:2, myllillion:1)
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
SI's denial of multiple prefixes, is a reaction against the use of prefixes such as ÂµÂµF. The use of multiple prefixes does not cloud the issue, no more than saying 'hundred thousand' does.

The reality is that there really isn't a demand for large numbers, except for the money market. The use of billion' to mean variously 1e9 and 1e12 bears witness to this.

But if you really do need large (or small) numbers, there is always the method of of the order of' or `of the "Nth twelfty-band" or the 'twelfty-dole', which represents positive and negative powers of twelfty.

There is no simple expression for fractions in common speech, and here i have been considering naming the negative powers of twelfty too, such as prat (1/120), and thus-forth.

The romans used weights here, supposing a pound to be a unit. Thus 1/120 is a penny, and 1/14400 is a grain, so 1/9 is thirteen pennies forty grains. A carat, as 1/24, comes from 1/24 of a solidus or roman shilling, or a metkal (the arabic coin that copies it), that saying 22 carat gold, is 22 solidus in the metkal. A carat was formerly divided into four grains (the metric carat of 200 mg is divided into four metric grains of 50 mg, 25 such carats makes 1/5 metric oz of 25 g, which is the weight to two dimes (6d) or the US 'nickel' (3d).

 Posts 817
Dozens Disciple
m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Feb 20 2011, 10:15 AM
Takashi @ Apr 13 2015, 10:58 AM wrote:The fact that the effectiveness of pattern match does not change when we write Japanese that is an entirely different language with Kana character.
It's not clear to me how to construct this experiment in Japanese. Even in text with katakana words, there aren't usually enough characters in a word to jumble them up to any great extent. And if there are katakana words, well, we can tell from context what phrase looks like ã‚±â€¦ã‚¸ãƒ»ãƒ¦â€¦ã‚£. So please explain, preferably with some evidence that the experiment has been done.

The -on/-no distinction seems to be the result of overfitting to the study. Having said that, it looks rather dubious, by those standards, when written in katakana (-ã‚ªãƒ³ and -ãƒŽ end with similar-looking strokes). Even more dubious is the use of the repeated infix â€˜-lli-â€™. We can surely agree that distinguishing words solely on a repeated infix is the worst possible way to do so, from a readability perspective. For some confusing word middles, see: â€œthoughâ€/â€œthroughâ€/â€œthoroughâ€. Repeated infixes are so confusing in speech that I can't imagine them occurring naturally, so I don't have an example.

But, as Wendy seems to point out, none of this matters. In all situations, we can assume either context or carefulness. If we have context, we're not going to make multiple-order-of-magnitude misreadings without checking. Context is the thing that allows us to interpret the jumbled word â€œwhotuitâ€ and to distinguish â€œmyllionâ€ from â€œmyllillionâ€.
A few little conventions:
- Dozenal integers suffixed with prime (&#8242;). This is the uncial point.
- Decimal integers suffixed with middle dot (·). This is the decimal point.

You may see me use * prefix for messages before 11&#400;7-03-1X, and a whole range of similar radix points. I will often use X and &#400; for and .

Sometimes, I will imply that an integer is in dozenal, so I won't add any marks to it. You should be able to tell that "10 = 22 * 3" is in dozenal.

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
The word purple comes from purpur. Repeated syllables can get broken, and sounds can mutate under the presence of other ones (like got you -> gotcha). This is something one has to watch in con-languages.

In any case, if a unit does not exist in the right area, people will invent them separately. Measurement dictionaries are full of them: Angstrong, x-unit, janksky, siriusweit, light year. parsec, lambda (1e-9 litre), micron, debye, darcy, horsepower, it goes on and on.

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
When arguing in http://z13.invisionfree.com/DozensOnlin ... wtopic=594 before, my opinion could not be readily understood.
However this time, it seems that other people write what I want to insist on.

------

Very large numbers such as myllillion are actually used hardly because of their largeness.
Therefore, it is not so important to ask whether 'lli-' is convenient as a morpheme.
The important point is the structure rather than the morpheme (*).
The purpose of the revision in this time is to correspond 2nd sequence and 1st sequence with a simple rule.

1st sequence : 'myllion to the power of one two point three'(M12@3)
2nd sequence : migross byllion myllillion (migross:3, byllion:2, myllillion:1)

(Isaac Asimov's idea named 'T-formation' is helpful.)

------

The example which assumes '(i)no' and 'on' as pair suffix really exists like 'neutrino' <-> 'neutron'.
However, 'no' does not conflict with 'on' in daily life because 'on' is not used in the daily life range 12^0 - 12^7 (*).

------

In order to introduce an actually required new unit, the prefix which the common frame provides beforehand should be sparse.
When the common frame is not sparse, the new unit coexists with the already existing prefix.
If there is flexibility of the choice coexisting on the sender side, for the receiver side, it will become rather obstructive.
The coexistence of 'pico' and 'micro micro' is similar.

Takashi @ Mar 31 2015, 09:58 AM wrote:2.2.2 Units with special names and symbols; units that incorporate special names and symbols (p.117)
Among these names and symbols the last four entries in Table 3 are of particular note
since they were adopted by the 15th CGPM (1975, Resolutions 8 and 9; CR, 105 and
Metrologia, 1975, 11, 180), the 16th CGPM (1979, Resolution 5; CR, 100 and
Metrologia, 1980, 16, 56) and the 21st CGPM (1999, Resolution 12; CR, 334-335
and Metrologia, 2000, 37, 95) specifically with a view to safeguarding human health.
------

(*) Of course, I welcome suggestions for relatively better morphemes.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
Calendars in the appendix D of http://dozenal.com/ were discussed in the mailing list Calndr-L.

If you are interested, please see http://calndr-l.10958.n7.nabble.com/Jit ... 15807.html .
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
Fundamental physical constants from NIST are revised.
( http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html )

I revised documents affected by this CODATA revision.
Please visit the top left corner of http://dozenal.com .

Units converter for UUS, TGM and etc. is also revised.
http://hosi.org/cgi-bin/conv.cgi?m=01000
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

Dozens Demigod
icarus
Dozens Demigod
Joined: Apr 11 2006, 12:29 PM
This is always what I loved about UUS: its basis on fundamental constants. Because of this, however, it needs "recalibration" once in a while.

I guess NIST-CODATA is to icarus as seven-segment-petrol-station-numerals are to many other people.

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
When the imperial and metric systems were defined on separate standards, then the metre-in-inches ratio depended on the comparison of two different standards, thus. The survey feet come from an era when the ellipsoid of the earth was first measured exactly. Clarke even goes as far as giving a true metre based on his ellipsoid.

Kater 1818 1 metre = 39.37079 inches
Clarke 1866 1 metre = 39.370432 inches (Survey foot in AUS and RSA)
Indian legal 1 metre = 39.370142 inches (Survey foot in India, &c)
US legal 1866 1 metre = 39.3700 inches (Suvey foot in US)
Beniot 1898 1 metre = 39.370113
Seera and Jolly 1933 1 metre = 39.370147 inches
International agreement 1 metre = 39.37007974

All of these represet exeriments that were used to define the inch/metre ratio. There were others that never made it (Rogers 1834 39.37027).

One should note that temperature affects the size of things, and the 1911 Encyclopedia notes that a brass metre, of perfect legal exactitude, will, by expanding from 32 F to 62 F, will become a greater number of inches, thus a brass metre becomes 39.382 inches, and this is its true commercial equilivant.

The effects are slight, but note that there is the "Enfield inch", used in gun manufacturer, which gives something much closer to 39.382 inches than any of the legal ratios.

The CODATA tables, especially for the electron, can be made into a coherent measurement system, with a wonky base (137.036). What we're seeing is that the metric and atomic scales are being djusted in the same way as the foot and metre above.

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
myllion - 128
byllion - 1216
&#124;
v
not: tryllion - 1224
but: tryllion - 1232

It will be easy to be misunderstood if 'tr' is used.

So, myriad.pdf and tables.pdf are slightly revised.

The pure number counting uses the following series which is only in Latin:

bi(2), ter(3)

The prefixes to atomic and cosmic use the following Greek series:

di(2), tri(3), tetra(4), ...

revised.pdf and online converter have been afected.

Online converter URL is http://hosi.org:8080/cgi-bin/conv.cgi?m=01000 .
The port number '8080' is required.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
The UUS is NOT based on CODATA.

For example, units of length, time, and mass can be strictly expressed as follows using fundamental physical constants.

hm - length : 100,1700; &#937;1 / R&#8734;
nc - time : 10;+8 hm / c0
ll - looloh : 10;+32; &#295; / (c0 hm)

These expressions have nothing to do with CODATA.
The same applies to the other units.

The reason for referring to CODATA in revised.pdf etc. is because CODATA describes the relationship between fundamental physical constants and the SI units.

Updating the numerical value of CODATA is not a problem of the UUS, it is a matter of the SI unit system.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
It is said that there is a difference of 40 figures between electromagnetic force and gravity. Let - M = 12.[sup]8[/sup] , then - cosmic : M[sup]+1[/sup] , - atomic : M[sup]-1[/sup] . The difference between them becomes M[sup]2[/sup] . - (1) - Elementary charge : M[sup]-2[/sup] universal Coulomb - Atomic mass unit : M[sup]-3[/sup] looloh The difference between them becomes M . Since this difference exists at both ends, the contribution becomes M[sup]2[/sup] . - (2) - Mass ratio of nucleon and electron : 12.[sup]3[/sup] Since this difference exists at both ends, the contribution becomes 12.[sup]6[/sup] = M / 12.[sup]2[/sup] . - (3) Since both ends of the gravity diagram are 7 x 5 instead of 1 x 1, - 7 x 5 = 35. ≒ 12.[sup]2[/sup] / 4 - (4) By multiplying (1)(2)(3) and (4) will result in - M[sup]5[/sup] / 4 . Sure it is almost 40 figures. Thus, in the UUS this ratio can be approximated by mental arithmetic.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
The exact values of the values in CODATA are given in the KU/KO thread. In essence, it's based on the electron in the ideal Bohr atom. But unlike conventional approaches, I derive the base from the constants as well.

The values are given in decimal, but the units are given in K n SI-unit, actually means 137^n of the KO or KU unit that matches it. In practice, 137 is a standin for the 'fine structure hundred' (137.035999056), and different units (like m vs cm) are known to different precisions.

The CODATA is then the conversion from this system into SI. When I generate the CODATA data for different systems, i pick the most exact values and derive a system from that.

(1) $$F = M m / 4\pi c_0 a^2 r^2$$ where a ~ 1.

(2) $$F = Z_0c_0 Q q / 4\pi r^2$$ where Z_0 ~ 1

If instead of mapping c onto 1, one maps it onto 12^8 for example, then one has L = 12^-8 T, and energy = 12^-16 mass. Since (1) and (2) above give mass and charge in terms of length and time, you get, where v = L/T = 12^-8.

cT = T cosmological time (say, one second)
cL = v.T
cQ = v^3 T
cM = v^4 T
G ~ 1

You get something very close to the atomic scale, by supposing aT = atomic time &c This comes from the observation that c/

aT = v.T = v cT
aL = v.L = v2. cT
aQ = v^2 L = v5. cT
aM = v^3 M = v7 cT

Unlike the usual exponents of a base, v is actually a negative-power, like 12^8. The size of the universe is of the order of T/v^2, and T/v is the order of a century.

Unlike Dirac (the large number hypothesis), i don't attatch the age of the universe to any exact point here, instead, suppose that these are some kind of numerical incidence of cosmological consequence.

The last two digits in my current dimension numbers derive from the tens as the cosmological scale, and the units as the atomic scale. So eg charge is 132, the first is cQ = v^3 Q, Q = v^2 aT. It's pretty useful.

The current system puts the base at A1 (ie the fine structure constant), the electron mass at A30, and the electron charge at A20. The speed of light is A4, and the radius of the electron as A10. The gravitational radius is then about M/L, for the elctron, A10, which gives electron*electron = A20 ~ 10^40.

Planck scale, for L, M, T and Q is then A19.5, the planck constant itself is A39.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
Takashi @ Nov 15 2016, 08:46 AM wrote: Updating the numerical value of CODATA is not a problem of the UUS, it is a matter of the SI unit system.
You define your UUS units in terms of natural constants. So, technically speaking, the "definition" of your units never changes. But if we get revised values for those natural constants, based on more and more accurate measurements, then the actual values of your units need to change accordingly, if they are to keep with their definitions. But how are we to know exactly how "big" those values are, if we cannot measure them against some kind of stable reference standard?

SI units are are not defined in terms natural constants that get revised. They are relatively arbitrary standards, but at least the values for those standards are stable. CODATA is reporting revised values for natural constants, using SI units, but that doesn't matter. Any system with stable standards could be used to report the revised values. We could convert those to TGM, or Primel, or anything else. We could measure them in multiples or fractions of wavelengths of emissions from a specific isotope, and multiples or fractions of oscillation periods of a particular isotope, values we know with extreme accuracy. It doesn't matter.

The natural constants you are depending on do not all have perfectly stable values yet. But that is not simply an artifact of how SI defines its units. That is just a fact of life at this point in history. However, the values we do have at this point are probably accurate enough that it won't really matter for most practical purposes.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
It is already decided that the definition of the SI unit system should be replaced with the definition using the fundamental physical constants in the next revision.

That is, the SI unit system comes closer to the UUS.

As a result, there will be no gap left except units for physical time and electric charge.

Since their precisions are at least 10 digits, practical problems do not remain.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
Right, but I would make a distinction to say that SI's units are not "based" on natural units. The notional basis of the SI units are still the quadrant of the Earth, the mean solar day, the density of water, the difference between water"s melting and boiling points, etc. They are simply planning to use natural units as a way to precisely and reproducibly "specify" the SI units. Presumably scientists anywhere in the universe can reproduce the natural constants and then multiply by the correct factors to reproduce the SI units. But your UUS units _are_ based on natural units.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
Right, the UUS units are based on not CODATA but natural constants.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
It may be better to identify the following rather than 'based on':
(http://dozenal.wikia.com/wiki/The_Harmonic_System )

- Conceptual design
- Strict definition
- Common usage image(?)

From the last point of view, I want the following facts to be known more.
(http://z13.invisionfree.com/DozensOnlin ... 1550&st=43 )

- The quadrant meridian length of the Earth : almost strictly equal to 10. ^ 7 SI meters and roughly(=2.5% difference) equal to 12. ^ 7 times length unit

- 9 / 8 days : roughly(=2.8% difference) equal to 10. ^ 5 SI seconds and almost strictly equal to 12. ^ 5 times physical time unit

- The density of ice < 12. ^ 2 times density unit < the density of water

- When heat of unit energy is added to water of unit mass, the temperature rises twice the unit temperature.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
Yes... but we only know how big those natural constants are, to whatever degree scientists have been able to measure them so far. When they do so, they report the data in SI units. It does not mean your units are based on SI, but we only know how big your units actually are to the extent that we can relate them to accurate data.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

 Posts 187
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM
I think that the following three points should be commented on the article Topic1569-44.

1. I wrote to Errata.html quite a while ago, univunit-e.pdf p.23 B.4 Figure 1 and
the expressions of B.3 are quoted from different manuscripts.
For this reason the symbols of both do not correspond.
Currently the most reliable description is revised.pdf p.13.

2. I put a translation of the excerpt of the textbook which became the original story
of univunit-e.pdf Appendix B.4 as electromagnetism.pdf.
(Since this textbook adopts the MKS rationalized unit system,
the solid angle is dimensionless.)

3. As can be seen from univunit-e.pdf Appendix B and electromagnetism.pdf,
we can construct a mathematically and physically consistent system with the
dimension of 'turn' as the solid angle. This does not immediately deny the
existence of a mathematically and physically consistent system with the
dimension of 'turn' as the plane angle. However, I do not know how to make it
possible to withstand the discussion on electromagnetism.pdf pp.8-10,
while setting the dimension of 'turn' as a plane angle.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
The idea of turns and loops, arises from Maxwell's notion that magnetism is a vortex in a fluid. The other model of magnetism is the Weber-Lorentz model that it is due to a moving charge. The equations look like this.

(1) $$\vec D = Q\vec s \qquad \vec H = Qv \times\vec s$$
(2) $$\vec F = Q\vec E \qquad \vec F = Qv \times \vec B$$
(3) $$E = zcD \quad = \quad zH = cB$$

While Weber constructed magnetism as an extension of electrics, Lorentz deals with 'electrons' (ie charged particles'), where the 'current' is actually a stream of charged particles.

The sum $$F = F_e+F_m$$ is the lorentz-force, and the extra equality in (3) is what is required to keep photons as single entities across the boundary condition.

The idea of circulation (turns) is due to Maxwell's notion that the EM field exists in a compressionless viscousless fluid (where we get Maxwell's equations from).

None the same, circulation has been quite clearly demonstrated in transformers.

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
The issues discussed on page 8-10 of your PDF has little to do with turns.

The point O in the diagram on page 6, sees the two loops as magnetic dipoles, rather than current loops. That it sees m=IA and m'=-IA', so positioned that m/r^2 = m'/r'^2. In any case, that I is not seen means this is not connected to the solid angle.

The vector area A does not change when the surface changes. It is a geometric trick, that relies on volume not changing with coordinate, and that volume is the moment of surface.

(1) $$V = \int x \cdot dS\quad$$ volume = sum of coordinate dot surface normal.

(2) $$\int dS = 0 \quad$$ volume does not depend on coordinate, has zero sum

We now suppose that the loop L is part of a solid bounded by two shells S- and S+. Since S- + S+ = 0, we can keep S- and replace S+ with any other surface that is bounded by S.

Ampere Current

A current as Q/T, can be read as a linear density (1/L) of individual moving charges (QL/T). This reduces the current to a stream of several different things.

In a coil, the current goes around and around many times, but the magnetic field is being produced by n different instances of Qv. If the coil is a 1000 qv's we would find that the flux is due to #16, and #1016, and #2016, and #3016 etc, rather than several instances of current.

In the diagram on page 10, we see the double-crossing is due to two instances of qv crossing the plane formed by the loop. So the point P is actually 'hearing' the current from two different points.

The idea of 'ampere current' is magnetically defined by m='I'A, would be equal to the 'electric current', only if all the parts of 'I' were collected. But in a coil, we hear different instances of qv, that what would be spread over 50 metres is wrapped into 1 dm. We here it 500 times not from one lot of qv, but 500 separate instances of qv.

When turns matter

Dimensionally, turns have been connected when an electric current is coiled to an ampere-current, or magnetic-flux is coiled into faraday-flux. Since without the turn concept, it is not possible to define electrics from magnetics, the turn is used to allow separate electrical and magnetic systems to be part of a common system.

The idea is to measure a charge electrostatically, and then measure the time it takes for this charge to discharge, measuring the current in magnetics. This experiment has been repeated many times (speed of light by emu/esu), and is one of the key parts involved in showing that light is an electromagnetic effect.

Dimensionally, it is easy to find. For electric quantities, one supposes that I is unchanged, or replace IT with Q. For magnetic quantities, one replaces I with IU. In equations with both electric and magnetic quantities, the values of U will not be balanced, and the CGS form is found by balancing out U with U = 1/c [which is the size of 1 turn in c curls].

$\nabla \times \overset{U}{H} = \tau D + J \qquad \nabla \times \overset{U}{H} = \overset{U}{U}\tau D + \overset{U}{U}J \qquad \nabla \times {H} = \frac 1c\tau D + \frac 1c J$

Note here the dimensional analysis goes term over term, that is, + and - are treated as equals. It's like "metres = metres + metres".

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
wendy.krieger @ Jan 19 2017, 09:59 AM wrote: The vector area A does not change when the surface changes. It is a geometric trick, that relies on volume not changing with coordinate, and that volume is the moment of surface.

(1) $$V = \int x \cdot dS\quad$$ volume = sum of coordinate dot surface normal.

(2) $$\int dS = 0 \quad$$ volume does not depend on coordinate, has zero sum
This is so garbled. $$d\mathbf{S}$$ is a differential of a vector area. The integral of this over some surface $$S$$ is not a volume and is not zero. It is simply the total area of the surface, i.e. $$\displaystyle\iint_S d\mathbf{S} = S$$. Really now, this is pretty elementary calculus.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
Theýe vectors, hun. Not scalars. (1) is the moment of outvector, (2) is the sum of outvectors.