really idiotic, even by EE Times standards

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id13%31971&#msgs


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On 04/07/2017 03:55, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why do you object to a new method that will facilitate measuring  
temperatures more accurately and with less systematic error?

The old standard based on the triple point of water was always a bit  
iffy with the calibration always depending on the quality of the water  
and its isotopic composition. Never going to make any difference to  
basic engineering but it may have surprising applications elsewhere.

Time and length are already very well standardised.

Mass is still a bit iffy and the "standard reference kilogramme" is  
gradually losing mass (or the copies getting heavier).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId11%2003322

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:00:43 +0100, the renowned Martin Brown

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think John is objecting to the article suggesting practical and
"inexpensive" applications of an exotic laboratory technique when the
author appears to be totally ignorant of the current state of the art
(or even the 30-year-old PTS-90). And I'll go out on a limb and say
nobody needs to know the temperature of a semiconductor die to "parts
per billion" and even if they did, this method would not achieve it.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Josephson Junction voltage standards are exceedingly cool too, but I
don't think we're going to be having them in our multimeters any time
soon.  

--sp  

--  
Best regards,  
Spehro Pefhany

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On 04/07/2017 11:24, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is definitely the sort of thing that only metrologists can get  
excited about but anything that ties down the calibration of a unit of  
measurement to the constants of nature has to be a good thing*.

(*) provided that the constant is determined to a decent number of  
significant figures gravity as in G is a bit dodgy there.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I recall that was a part II physics practical in the late 70's for those  
in the experimental stream. Great fun with the loop quantised staircase  
waveform and surprisingly accurate if they got it to work at all.

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 06:24:17 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What I thought was stupid was

"There is little doubt that the SI will replace the Kelvin as the
international standard of temperature..."

which is wrong in lots of ways.

These EE magazines are mostly edited by journalism types who never
learned the basics.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
The first (or second) comment tries to correct this mistake.
(And points out that you must integrate for days to get the  
accuracy... two days to measure the temperature of my FET,  
I don't think so. :^)  
  
But the author just blows it off.  

  

George H.    
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On 05/07/2017 17:02, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I thought that was quite funny. Typical junk journalism.

But even learned journals are not above mangling key sentences in final  
drafts for publication such that a classic maximum entropy paper states  
"it cannot lead to conclusions for which there is evidence in the data".

An editor intending to clarify things removed the word "no" between "is"  
and "evidence". The authors vowed never to use a double negative again.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is true of most editors though. Very few have significant  
scientific or engineering training and rely on external reviewers.

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 09:02:23 -0700, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The first sentence says it all:

  "Forget Kelvin, Fahrenheit, and Celsius, not to mention centigrade."

None are going away because of a possible metrology advancement.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Their only purpose is to sell ad space.  They aren't very good at
that, either.

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 21:40:12 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No. The EE-type mags are literally disappearing, down to 30 pages or
so. And full of idiotic editorial content. And why does Master Bond
get so much attention? It's just epoxy.

The optics and microwave mags are doing fine, fat and glossy and full
of ads.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:51:17 -0700, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So they aren't very good at selling ad space, are they?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe those guys can read?  ;-)


Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On 06/07/2017 02:40, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Fahrenheit has been eliminated in all civilised countries.

Only knuckle dragging retards still use British (sic) units of  
measurement that have been preserved in aspic from around 1824.

https://physics.info/system-english/

Insane US units conversions errors have been the downfall of more than  
one spacecraft and aircraft falling out of the sky for lack of fuel.

Quoted text here. Click to load it



--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
AT Thursday 06 July 2017 15:06, Martin Brown wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Martin, you cannot take away imperial units from the US. SI units are un-
american, as well as metric screws. ;-)

--  
Reinhardt


Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On 07/06/2017 03:06 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Fahrenheit has been eliminated in all civilised countries.

Oh, come off it, Martin.  Celsius has half the resolution, equal  
accuracy, and its end points are no less arbitrary than Fahrenheit's.

Celsius is more convenient for calculations, but Fahrenheit is way  
better for the weather forecast.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--  
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On 06/07/17 15:45, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you suggesting that the Bahamas, Belize, and the Cayman islands are
not civilised?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Celsius used the freezing point and boiling point of water as its limits
(originally, boiling point was 0 and freezing was 100).  Those are
points that are simple and easily reproduced.

Fahrenheit used a mixture of salty water for 0 and "blood temperature"
for 96 - as if that were a good, stable choice.


These days, Fahrenheit is /defined/ in terms of Celsius - that should
give you a good idea of which scale is considered the accurate reference.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Fahrenheit is "better" for weather forecast only in the sense that
people who are used to seeing the forecast in Fahrenheit find it easier
to understand weather forecasts in Fahrenheit.  Fahrenheit has no
benefits or uses whatsoever that are not a direct consequence of the
habit of using Fahrenheit.



Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On 07/06/2017 10:21 AM, David Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Come off it again. Fahrenheit is currently defined in terms of Celsius.
That's what I meant by "equal accuracy" above.  Why would anyone want to
maintain two standards that would just get out of sync?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What a crock.  To be consistent with that argument, you'd have to
advocate returning to the original definition of the metre, based on a
surveyed quadrant of the Paris meridian--a line both of whose ends are
way out to sea. (Like so many subsequent French initiatives, bud I
digress.) ;)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As I stated above.  Your point being?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Okay, you don't like it, which is fine.  I'm a Canadian living in the
US, so I'm used to it both ways without needing to convert in my head.
I prefer Fahrenheit for its improved resolution, especially
rhetorically.  "the 60s" Fahrenheit is shirt sleeve weather with no air
conditioning needed.  "the 10s" Celsius ranges from a medium jacket to a
golf shirt.  See? Resolution is a good thing.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Except for the ones that I keep pointing out and you keep officiously
blowing off.

You don't like it, is all.  I have no quarrel with that--it's the idea
that people with other ideas are somehow unscientific morons that I
cordially dislike.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--  
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On 07/07/17 01:20, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's funny how you throw away the units digit and then talk about  
resolution. Really all you're saying is that the reliable resolution
of weather forecasts is closer to 10F than to 10C (or to 1F or 1C,
for that matter).

The reliable resolution of a weather forecast is hardly a sensible
way to choose a measurement standard.

Clifford Heath.

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
Clifford Heath wrote on 7/6/2017 10:22 PM:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think that is a pretty good way to choose the temperature standard used in  
weather forecasts.

--  

Rick C

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:20:02 -0400, Phil Hobbs

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We use all sorts of archaic units in everyday life. Pounds, cups,
tablespoons, fluid ounces and pints and gallons, tons, inches and feet
and yards and miles, horsepower, proof, ounce-inches, carats, drops,
fun stuff like that.

In engineering, we mostly use SI units, the exception being PCB layout
and mechanical design in (mostly) decimal inches. Fans are usually
evaluated in CFM.

Some of my aerospace customers still use lbs, lbf, inches, slugs,
degrees F, PSI, foot-pounds, all that to do serious engineering calcs.
That seems clumsy to me.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:24:33 -0700, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

All of our PCBs and mechanical designs are SI but that probably goes
along with "Reference Designator, Amateur".
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's what computers are for.

Re: really idiotic, even by EE Times standards
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 7:21:14 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Really; it tells you that they are equally accurate.  By definition.


are equal (room) temperatures,   That's how you make multiple standards
interoperable.   The silly  'degree' symbol, on the other hand, is a nuisan
ce.

Site Timeline