----------------------------
wrote in message
...
In alt.engineering.electrical Don Kelly wrote:
| Just a bitch that we have dealt with befo
|
| Phil- please realize that 207.846096....... is meaningless except that
it is
| "about 208". 208V is correct to 3 significant figures which is actually
| better than one can assume to be true in practice. If the voltage line
to
| neutral is actually 120.V (note the decimal) then we have 3 significant
| digits implying something between 119.5 Vand 120.5.V
| Then all you can truly claim is 208.V
| If it is 120.0V then there is reason to assume 208.0 V but no more
decimals
| than that.
| If you have a meter which gives you 120.000000V with less than 1 part in
120
| million error then you can claim 207.846097V for line to line voltage
Do
| you have such a meter?
|
| Engineering and physics students who ignore the principle of
"significant
| digits" lose marks for this "decimal inflation".
|
| Sure- you can let the calculator carry the extra digits (as it will do
| internally) but accepting these as gospel truth to the limit of the
| calculator or computer display is simply not on as you can't get better
| accuracy from a calculation than the accuracy of the original data
(actually
| you will lose a bit). All that you get rid of is round off errors in
| calculations.
|
| Since, as you say, precise voltage is not really practical, then
| multi-decimal point numbers are meaningless. If we say 120V +/-10% then
we
| are talking about 108-132V which for line to line becomes 187-229V
(average
| 208V) and any extra decimal points don't mean anything.
You didn't notice the :-) I put on the number?
We've been over this. I know the practice of significant digits, and how
the voltages are designated (two different reasons you can get 208). I do
follow the practice of carrying exactly the result of calculations into
other calculations. I also use over significance in comparison of
numbers.
But I also know that rounding is a form of noise. So I avoid it until the
time I end up with the final result. So if I multiply 120 by the square
root of three I do get a number like 207.84609690826527522329356 which is
either carried as-is into the next calculation, or rounded if it is the
final answer. If some other strange calculation happens to give me the
value 207.84609690826527522329356 then I know it is effectively equivalent
to 120 times the square root of three in some way. But if what I get is
208.455732193971783228 then I know it has nothing to do with 120 times the
square root of three, even though it, too, would end up as 208 if rounded
to 3 significant digits.
When it comes to _measured_ amounts, as opposed to synthetic ones, then
the
significance rules dictate how to round the results. With synthetic
numbers
(e.g. numbers I can just pick), I can also pick the rounding rules for the
final results. But if I don't know that the calculations are done (e.g. I
am not merely giving a designation for a voltage system), where someone
else
may take those numbers and do more calculations and round the results,
then
I do use more significance. But that is no different to me than just
carrying
that number from one calculation stage to another.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to
ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post
to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP.
|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at
ipal.net) |
-------------------------
Fair enough- but still overkill. For the bulk of the calculations that one
does, single precision is more than adequate. Anything more, even for
comparison of numbers is really fluff.
I simply set my display to show the desired sig figs and let the calculator
deal with the rest in its normal internal mode. I don't want to see the
extra digits, or , if I do, 1 or 2 is sufficient. Ditto with the computer.
Only if I am dealing with ill conditioned sets of simultaneous equations ,
will I really require double precision.
--
Don Kelly
remove the X to answer