🚀 go-pugleaf

In <C1F1Er.E5E@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin) writes:
>>claim, the scientific community has a different definition of "3-digit
>>accuracy."  The latter definition means, as you fail to understand, "one part
>>in 1000."

>Sorry, what definition of "3-digit accuracy" do you use where, say, a
>temperature of 37.2 +/- 0.1 degrees doesn't meet the definition?  First
>poster said that medical thermometers were accurate to 3 digits; next
>poster said "bullshit"; I pointed out that I had SEEN such thermometers.
>Is there some distinction between "3 significant figures" and "3 digit
>accuracy" that I'm not aware of?  Do you insist that your thermometer
>actually HAVE a range of 1000 before you'll allow that its readings are
>accurate to within 1 part in 1000?  Carl, you've completely lost me.

a normal (cheap) medical thermometer might have a range of
32.0-44.7 giving 12.7 degrees, 127 steps, 7 bits.
-> one part in 127.

It's display has been scaled to show 0.1 degrees/bit.

Still nobody has said it's accuracy is 0.1 degrees, the digits
could be just bullshit, with a wrong gain in the input
amplifier the number could be 0.5 too small near 32
and 0.7 degrees too big near 44.

My thermometer, four digits, has a display unit of 0.01 degrees,
but the manual says:

Accuracy:
 +- 0.10 C between 32.00-42.00 C at an ambient temperature of 22.0 C

VesA