Jonathan Morton wrote:
> I should instead write 59 ±2°C, since that is the most precision
> I can possibly know it to. With some advanced measuring techniques
> it *may* be acceptable to write 59.43 ±2°C *at most*, and then only
> if you really know why you need the extra information.
It's easy to conceive of a device which, for whatever reason, gives
an "absolute" reading accurate ±2°C, but which tracks temperature
changes somewhat more accurately. And hence a small difference
between successive readings still has significance. A real-world
example is a mercury thermometer in which the glass has been
physically shifted relative to an adjacent scale. So 18°C reads as
20°C, etc.
Cheers,
Phil
---------------------------------------------
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 23 2001 - 21:00:31 EST