Hi Marcus, Pat: I think we can preresrve our hearts from 'beating or bleeding'. The SI manuals are clear on the subject that *ROUNDING* off must be done to keep the results at its most updated values - so if the result is 1, 2, 3, 4 at the last digit 'ignore it' and if it is FIVE (5) or above take it to the next higher place after the decimal point.! For example: 43.54 cm could be rounded to 44 cm (or 43.5 cm) and 43.67 cm could be rounded to 44 cm (or 43.7 cm). I suppose this is being done already. Brij Bhushan Vij
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21375] Re: Heart beats >Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:11:51 -0700 > >Excellent, Pat. I'm in full agreement with your post. This issue, >incidently, is the exact same one I brought to this group a few months ago >when we were discussing changing the bpm thing to an SI unit. > >The only difference though is that I elected the cHz instead of mHz for >that (ok, I know, the "percent" mindset you've been talking about... :-) >). > >The main rationale for my choice of cHz was that the numbers would continue >to be close to the ones the public are familiar with (2 to 3 digits) and >the fact that we do not need more accuracy than beyond 1 cHz for this >measurement. Aside from this I have no quarrels with mHz as a choice for >this application, unlike our current discussion on angles which seems to >require somewhat more... digging into. > >BTW, since we're at it I might as well open a new... "topic" here (please >feel free to rename it later on). The issue of accuracy (no, it's not the >good old discussion we had before involving precision). Some of us may >need to understand that *applications* (now I'm addressing the specific >*practical* needs of industries out there) MAY or DO require that >accuracies be of specific magnitude. > >Unfortunately, here is exactly where those who defend the *exclusive* use >of engineering decimal powers of 3 may run into trouble. There may even be >the argument to say that if one cannot achieve a specific accuracy given by >a specific prefix, than it's just plain wrong to show the result of the >measurement with it. It's at best a "guestimate" (like when we use our >school rulers to produce a result like 43.54 cm - we can "read" up to the >mm here, 5, but the 4 would be "eyeballing" at best!) > >Example, if our measurement comes as, say, 43 cm and the best we can do (or >the uncertainty of the measurement) is within a full cm, it just doesn't >make sense to present the result as 430 mm! Why? Because we have no clue >whether this value is 432, 431, 436, 437... Therefore, the rationale is >why bother cluttering the result with one more digit? So, I submit that >the KISS principle is strongly applied here... > >So, in summary, it's a question of both practicality and instrument >measurement accuracy. > >Comments, anyone? > >Marcus > >On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:13:48 > Pat Naughtin wrote: > >Dear All, > > > >Could you comment on this please? > > > >Heart beats > > > >Frequency measurements are often used to describe events that happen > >rhythmically - like your heart beat. > > > >If you check the frequency of your heart beating and notice that your >heart > >beats once each second - then the frequency of your heart beat is one >beat > >per second or, to use the SI unit for frequency, your heart rate is one > >hertz (1 Hz). A low frequency - like 1 hertz - probably means that you >are > >well rested and that you are physically fit. Through your normal day your > >heart rate varies constantly according to your activities. > > > >Your heart beat frequency can change quickly from your resting rate of >(say) > >1 hertz to a rate that is appropriate for your current activity. Your >heart > >might beat at 1.5 hertz when you are walking briskly or jogging and it >might > >go to 2 hertz when you are running. Super fit athletes might have a heart > >beat frequency above 3 hertz and their ultimate performance might >approach 4 > >hertz. > > > >However, using simple numbers like 1, 2, 3, and 4 might be a bit too >chunky. > >You might need to know details small subtle differences of your heart >beat. > >To do this simply use an SI prefix - millihertz would be good for this - >and > >will give you the same sort of details that millimetres give to length. > > > >Using millihertz the previous paragraph would now read: > > > >Your heart beat frequency can change quickly from your resting rate of >(say) > >1000 millihertz to a rate that is appropriate for your current activity. > >Your heart might beat at 1500 millihertz when you are walking briskly or > >jogging and it might go to 2000 millihertz when you are running. Super >fit > >athletes might have a heart beat frequency above 3000 millihertz and >their > >ultimate performance might approach 4000 millihertz. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Pat Naughtin CAMS > >Geelong, Australia > > > > > > >Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably >Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. >Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
