Repository navigation
remove C as cgs base but also add CGS electric units - #4355
Conversation
|
Oh, and I'm marking it for 1.1 as it's probably fair to consider this a bug (i.e. #4345). |
|
+1. I realise I actually don't know how cgs works in this respect (and maybe I should see this just as another reason to stick to SI!), but would it, at least in principle, be possible to pick a given system and then allow conversion? I.e., something like and within this system charge per second would correspond to the relevant current? |
|
@mhvk - yes, actually that's probably a much better approach. I'd say that's definitely in the realm of "new feature", though, so maybe make a new issue for that and tenatively slate it for 1.2? (And we can merge this now for 1.1) The one catch is that then you have to figure out how to deal with the constants... Right now it's basically taken as "you can't do direct SI-to-cgs E&M conversions of the constants themselves so as to not make assumptions". That could be made cleverer... Or just left as-is and assumed that the user has to actually use the right constants in the right places. |
|
Agreed to keep it separate -- see #4359. |
|
p.s. The appveyor test seems spurious -- yet another one of these VOtable failures. |
|
Agreed - I think the test are indeed passing in reality. If this is OK with @astrofrog I think we can go ahead and merge it (and backport to 1.1) |
|
Looks good to me, I've restarted AppVeyor to check |
|
I think this is fine--it was a mistake to have C in the cgs bases. |
|
OK, appveyor is now happy, will merge and backport. |
remove C as cgs base but also add CGS electric units
remove C as cgs base but also add CGS electric units
|
backported to 1.1.x in c87aaa8 |
This closes #4354 by removing C as a cgs base (which was incorrect) while at the same time adding the CGS ESU/EMU charge and current as distinct physical types. This fixes #4354 by changing it so that this behavior happens:
Which is now more consistent with the behavior that happens when you try to convert CGS E&M units to their SI equivalents:
And that's what we want, because the different CGS E&M systems actually have really different physical interpretations. The relevant wikipedia arcticle section is good for background on this for any looking at this that isn't particularly up on their E&M.