Forums

> I don´t see why the "old way" should not allow a correct calculation. I
> understand that square inches look nicer with the "new way" but that does
> not
> make the "old way" incorrect.
>
> in = 2.54 * 10^-2 * m
>
> old way : sqin = 2.54^2 * 10^-4 * m^2

Sven, here is the misunderstanding. In the old way, you do not have the
first exponent. Your example is too simple. Let's take another one, more
explicit (I hope): a density of molecule expressed in micromole per square
inches:

<listOfUnitDefinitions>
<unitDefinition id="umolPerSqIn">
<listOfUnits>
<unit kind="mole" scale="-6" />
<unit kind="metre" multiplier="0.254" exponent="2" />
</listOfUnits>
</unitDefinition>
</listOfUnitDefinitions>

old way:

mole x 10E-6 x 0.254 x (metre)^2

new way:

mole x 10E-6 x (0.254 x metre)^2

The first one is wrong. The second is right.

--
Nicolas LE NOVERE, Computational Neurobiology,
EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK
Tel: +44(0)1223494521, Fax: +44(0)1223494468, Mob: +44(0)7833147074
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov, AIM:nlenovere, MSN:nlenovere@hotmail.com

____________________________________________________________
To manage your sbml-discuss list subscription, visit
https://utils.its.caltech.edu/mailman/listinfo/sbml-discuss

For a web interface to the sbml-discuss mailing list, visit
http://sbml.org/forums/

For questions or feedback about the sbml-discuss list,
contact sbml-team@caltech.edu.