Probably we would need a new topic for this discussion.

In mp-units V1, we forced everyone to use strong radians, and the angle was
a base dimension. This was inconsistent with the current state of the
physical and metrology standards. We can still go this way, but I do not
think it is the best idea. ISO C++ standard should follow ISO 80000 and SI
definitions by default.

However, we do provide a strong angular system and extensions to ISQ that
make our calculation non-safe. This is, however, non-standard and
experimental. More info can be found here:
https://mpusz.github.io/mp-units/latest/users_guide/systems/strong_angular_system/
.

Best

Mat

śr., 19 cze 2024 o 13:56 Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):

> Now that think about it torque not being defined as `N * m / rad` in
> mp_units might also be another problem.
>
> Because if torque is defined as `N * m` then this units are equivalent to
> energy which is not, you have to multiply that by an angle to get the
> actual energy.
>
>
>
> We can then use this for example to compute the height a jumping robot can
> achieve, which takes advantage of a mechanism that transforms the
> rotational energy of a servo motor into a linear kinetical energy.
>
>
>
> We can actually completely forget about the travel of the motor, and
> accidentally directly convert the torque of the motor to a height by
> transfer to potential energy, and mp_units would completely allow that.
>
>
>
> That’s why I’m a little bit more careful than ISO 80000, there’s really so
> much that you can do to abuse math before you have to pay a price.
>