IE-11 is probably more current notation than using 10E-11 for 1 part in
1 hundred thousand million.
However this is only to be expected from oder application notes and papers.
Tom Duckworth wrote:
Warren- No, a 100% error would be 40 GHz. Where did you get 40.4 GHz?
That would be 101% and of course 80 GHz is 200%.
He's just using the same perverse logic that produced the last set of
numbers on the application note.
Bruce
Bruce- Of course you are right about the + symbol for 40.000 000 003
GHz (+7.5 parts in 1E-11) but what would you consider current standard
notation. We still Use this metric notation in the US. What do you use?
Tom
Tom Duckworth
[email protected]
----- Original Message ----- From: "WarrenS" <[email protected]>
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Newbie questions
Interesting
So a 100% error (1e2) would then be 40.4GHz and not 80GHz
Sounds like some new math the cost of living department came up with.
ws
**********
Bruce Griffiths bruce.griffiths at xtra.co.nz
Tue Jan 5 20:25:05 UTC 2010
One should of course be aware that the number notation used is no longer
considered correct.
Also even after correcting for the non standard notation the last set of
numbers is incorrect:
eg
40.000 000 003 GHz is equivalent to an error of +7.5 parts in 1E11 not
7.5 parts in 1E-11.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
