What are 6.5 Digit Multimeters Good For?
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 14 Mar 2010 12:00 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:34:09 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:25:30 -0600) it happened John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in ><9r7np5l0ouml00fj82aq7ftuajjmgprsri(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:23:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje >><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>Sorry can you explain that again in electronics English? >>>> >>>>--- >>>>If you can't understand it in plain English, what makes you think you'll >>>>be any less confused in "electronics English", whatever that may be? >>>> >>>>The point I was making was that your statement that 6.5 digit >>>>multimeters aren't needed is wrong, since without one you wouldn't be >>>>able to determine the accuracy of the cheap multimeter. >>> >>>I know a guy who was actually a technican, he started studying philoosphy. >>>He showed mw one of his books. >>>To make a long story short: Philosophy is not for me. >> >>--- >>The book had an ugly cover? > >Do not remember the cover, not interesting, >but some of the statements in it were interesting, >but indicated your state of mind in some aspects, >so that is why I thought I should mention it, >stay clear of it :-) --- Just because you can't grasp the ramifications of hierarchy and pyramidal structures doesn't mean I should be bound by your rules. JF
From: John Fields on 14 Mar 2010 12:53 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:36:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:13:20 -0600) it happened John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in ><l37np519aum4a3r6n9aetaona9ij7hesm7(a)4ax.com>: >> >>You seem to be the one having trouble with the language since even if >>it's used only once, you still _need_ the higher accuracy instrument in >>order to determine the error in the lower accuracy one. >> >>JF > >No you do not, --- Really? Do you think NIST's standards are verified with Simpson 260's? --- >how do you think those instruments came about? --- Breakthroughs in the study of the natural sciences applied to metrology. For a particularly good example, look at the evolution in timekeeping over about the last 6000 years from obelisk sundials to our current atomic frequency standards. Of particular interest, take a look at the invention of the mechanical escapement about 2000 years ago, versions of which are still very much with us today but aren't generally used to calibrate cesium clocks. --- >In your theory nothing could ever be made. --- If that's what you think, then you really _are_ in the dark as to what constitutes accuracy. And feedback, since how could one step back in time to use the consequence of an action to control the action which caused the consequence in the first place? JF
From: Jan Panteltje on 14 Mar 2010 13:41 On a sunny day (Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:00:39 -0500) it happened John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in <5f1qp55g37oh1ubeiqme08rvtbq80rqpf0(a)4ax.com>: >On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:34:09 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:25:30 -0600) it happened John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in >><9r7np5l0ouml00fj82aq7ftuajjmgprsri(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:23:56 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>Sorry can you explain that again in electronics English? >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>If you can't understand it in plain English, what makes you think you'll >>>>>be any less confused in "electronics English", whatever that may be? >>>>> >>>>>The point I was making was that your statement that 6.5 digit >>>>>multimeters aren't needed is wrong, since without one you wouldn't be >>>>>able to determine the accuracy of the cheap multimeter. >>>> >>>>I know a guy who was actually a technican, he started studying philoosphy. >>>>He showed mw one of his books. >>>>To make a long story short: Philosophy is not for me. >>> >>>--- >>>The book had an ugly cover? >> >>Do not remember the cover, not interesting, >>but some of the statements in it were interesting, >>but indicated your state of mind in some aspects, >>so that is why I thought I should mention it, >>stay clear of it :-) > >--- >Just because you can't grasp the ramifications of hierarchy and >pyramidal structures doesn't mean I should be bound by your rules. > >JF A lot of pyramid schemes had the guys arrested :-)
From: Jan Panteltje on 14 Mar 2010 13:43 On a sunny day (Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:53:20 -0500) it happened John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in <e22qp5lno9mb7q4o72denqgbe2k993lamk(a)4ax.com>: >On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:36:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:13:20 -0600) it happened John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in >><l37np519aum4a3r6n9aetaona9ij7hesm7(a)4ax.com>: >>> >>>You seem to be the one having trouble with the language since even if >>>it's used only once, you still _need_ the higher accuracy instrument in >>>order to determine the error in the lower accuracy one. >>> >>>JF >> >>No you do not, > >--- >Really? > >Do you think NIST's standards are verified with Simpson 260's? >--- > >>how do you think those instruments came about? > >--- >Breakthroughs in the study of the natural sciences applied to metrology. > >For a particularly good example, look at the evolution in timekeeping >over about the last 6000 years from obelisk sundials to our current >atomic frequency standards. > >Of particular interest, take a look at the invention of the mechanical >escapement about 2000 years ago, versions of which are still very much >with us today but aren't generally used to calibrate cesium clocks. >--- > >>In your theory nothing could ever be made. > >--- >If that's what you think, then you really _are_ in the dark as to what >constitutes accuracy. > >And feedback, since how could one step back in time to use the >consequence of an action to control the action which caused the >consequence in the first place? > >JF I think Newton would never have gotten that theory round if the apple had elevated from his head.
From: John Fields on 14 Mar 2010 15:01
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:41:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >A lot of pyramid schemes had the guys arrested :-) --- Omigod, you're just so cute!!! JF |