Wrote

Ah well, back to trying to work out how to solve this puzzle...

No puzzle in there wrt SI as a sub-processor!

Inst_Valve Sizing CV series.sm (6 КиБ) скачан 70 раз(а).

Wrote

No puzzle in there wrt SI as a sub-processor!

Even your example is proof of your illogical approach.
Don't invent the wheel everytime, again, just use SI units.

Ok. Here is an excellent example of why units should be used in engineering calculations:

Wrote

In that example of 100's Orifice Plate, all process data
are given by the Chemical Engineering team in Engineering Units.
The Consulting Instrumentation Engineer do two things:
1. best find "ΔP[Pa] ... User XTR" to minimize the models XTR's.
2. calculate the the bore diameter for all 100's plate.
On the turnkey day of the multi billions $ Plant, SI is not invited.

Let's look at how calculations turn out if units are used.



Reynolds_Wrong_Calculus.sm (9 КиБ) скачан 76 раз(а).

It's very easy to make pretty serious mistakes by not using units.

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wow, ongoing battle since MathCAD collab days. I for one, love units. let's keep it civil. By enlarge, Jean's process is correct, although many times, I have seen Overlord modify the response in a way to satiate "UNITS" (BTW, thank you). Razonar, your example is fantastic is visually showing why the rest of us like units. The "wrong" Reynolds number HAS units ... which it shouldn't. Now we have a visual to look for the problem.
Have a blessed day y'all!

Wrote

By enlarge, Jean's process is correct,

Hello Elsid, we are old roosters in the barn ... Jean.

Wrote

By enlarge, Jean's process is correct.

That's the issue, it is not correct.
His calculations have fundamental mistakes.

Wrote

Wrote

By enlarge, Jean's process is correct.

That's the issue, it is not correct.
His calculations have fundamental mistakes.

In the interest of straight communication:

I really like that Jean is keen to help and share.

Some behaviours I'd like to see self moderated are:

• Repeatedly saying that SI units are unsuitable for process control. This misunderstanding may now be sorted, but the offending posts are still there.
  
• Misusing units by overloading (ie m:=1) because of the item above. Again sorted, but the misusing posts remain.
  
• Prolific off-topic posting, (easy to do, but so is starting an new thread).

Wrote

I really like that Jean is keen to help and share.

Thanks Mark for your Meritas.
Read attentively post #4 from Martin ... Samples, Solve Utilities Productive.
In my times, Michelin build two plants in Nova Scotia.
They are not SI, not even Engineering Units ... in Michelin Units.
Looking at their success World wide, it credits Michelin Units.
Still flying horizontal knots @ altitude [m] @ Geopotential [°C].
Delight yourself of this BIPM ... as given make it productive.
Take care Newzild ... Jean.

Wrote

Read attentively post #4 from Martin ... Samples, Solve Utilities Productive.

I have read it and concluded you are bending what Martin said.

Wrote

The correct way would have been to substitute the values including their units. Substituting just the numbers is a frequently seen type of laziness.
So it is not an example for clean handling of physical quantities. Many engineering books show this kind of disrespect to the equal sign for intermediate calculations Here we have second level disrespect by not even giving the unit of the result.

What Martin said was about book writers whom not using SI units in their published calculations.
It was not about SI units are wrong or not sufficient.
Martin's complain was writers,author and publishers laziness of not writing SI units.

Your ideology is completely different however, it faulty from start.
Your not using units is not out of laziness.
You deliberately oppose using units in calculations.
I believe anybody including Martin would not condone ditching units.

Wrote

In my times, Michelin build two plants in Nova Scotia.
They are not SI, not even Engineering Units ... in Michelin Units.
Looking at their success World wide, it credits Michelin Units.

I really want to see a standard paper for those invented Michelin units, used as substitute of SI units.
Or English Engineering Units. That's right, it is the proper name of what you like to use.
It is not Engineering Units, you misuse and alter its name to be proved right.

I doubt the very existence of Michelin Units, used as a replacement for SI, Imperial or English Unit systems.
Couldn't find anywhere on internet. However I am not saying they can't exist, I just want to see a proof.
You made a lot literally untrue statements in the past, and you are still making and going to make as it seems.
I have a sentiment to doubt everything you post.

Wrote

I doubt the very existence of Michelin Units

Good luck visiting Michelin telling them how stupid they are
to keep their secrets by not using SI.
Not even with your Grand Crusading Vocabulary.
Michelin ... time, quantities, temperature, cooking gradients ... etc.
Michelin Process Control Algorithms...
BTW, have you calculated the Orifice Plate bore diameter ?

Wrote

Good luck visiting Michelin telling them how stupid they are
to keep their secrets by not using SI.

Do not alter the words people use or nitty pick a portion of sentence.
What did I said?

Wrote

I am not saying they can't exist, I just want to see a proof.
I doubt the very existence of Michelin Units, used as a replacement for SI, Imperial or English Unit systems.

I didn't say they aren't or can't use a complete different system.
I have said I don't believe until I see they completely use an other measurement system.
I don't want to see their unit system fully uncovered.
I only want to see just a mere statement written anywhere which them using a different measurement system.

You claim Michelin invented units and using them.
When asked for proof you simply say they are using in secret.
Do NASA secretly hide the truth of flat earth too?
(this is satire by the way, explaining it in case you can't understand)

And there is an another issue, even they use another unit system, they still use UNITS.
You jocosely propagate complete ditching of units in calculations.

You are the person who claimed there is no mathematical meaning of (-1)^x.
You claimed maple is successor of maxima. You claimed no one can find a curve function.
You still use dynamic viscosity in your functions. You insist units are useless on a daily basis.
You have claimed so many ridiculous things I can't even stop laughing while remembering them.

Your words coming out of your mouth has no respectful meaning.
Most of time you simply lie, decontextualise or don't know what you say.
It is completely normal for us to suspect your gibberish statements.

Wrote

BTW, have you calculated the Orifice Plate bore diameter ?

Why would I correct your full of error sheets? Do your own job.
BTW, did you corrected your kW/hr MISTAKE?

Jean, there is no scientific meaning of kW/hr as said to you before. (6 years ago to be precise)

Wrote

kW/hr is non-existent (physically nonsensical) unit of power. Power is measured in kW, and work is measured in kW*hr.

Wrote

Delight yourself of this BIPM ... as given make it productive.

Of course we can. Your problem is that you identify here

Wrote

This document recapitulates Pt100, Ge, T,J
T, J data from NBS Monograph 125
...
Inst_Type Pt100, Ge, T, J Copy.sm (537 КиБ) скачан 96 раз(а).

Wr with a resistence, which is not. It is a ratio of resistances. And how you assume that all units are equal to one, and with which you make the reader lose any idea of ​​the dimensions with which you work. That is why you get to calibrate in that document a PT100 (which should have a resistance of 100 ohms at 0 Celsius) with values ​​between 0.5 and 1.5 ohms, which is completely absurd, if the units you handle were correct.

That is, the number Wr is dimensionless, so there is no problem raising it to 1/6. And if it had dimensions, it would only be necessary to divide it by its units, as is done in practice.

That is to say, another document with serious conceptual and result errors simply for not using units. As margin note, you asume also that because for Germanium is used with mV for sub-cryogenics measurements you think that for Platinum is the same, but for that the unit is mA (for a 4 to 20 mA control loop) because the power that dissipates could be much greater.

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wrote

They are not SI, not even Engineering Units ... in Michelin Units.

Jean, let's finish this conversation.

I put it to you that Michelin units (like imperial units which are now defined in SI units) are just an alias for SI units.

This would be easy to check. A a good process control engineer who knows SMath could do the required units mapping in a few minutes.

I think you are that process engineer.

BTW: it is likely that Michelin units are an obfuscation to make it hard for competitors to reverse engineer the process.

It is guaranteed that Michelin don't maintain a set of 'Michelin Standards'. Their calibration will trace back to SI units. There are no 'new and mysterious' units of measurement that are not counted for within SI units.

Wrote

There are no 'new and mysterious' units of measurement that are not counted for within SI units.

Agreed: no big deal to associate polygon area/perimeter UNITS with the data set.
You can probably do same for arc length from data.
Arc length from function is not so obvious unless user defined.
Don't worry for Michelin proprietary recipes and control algorithms.
Over 60 years ago they offered my a job from passing their 3 days exam.
I preferred Aeronautics. Take care Newzild ... Jean.

Wrote

a PT100 (which should have a resistance of 100 ohms at 0 Celsius)

Pt100 is simply a designation from EIT90 with Ω as given 1 @ 0.01 °C.
The instrument maintenance crew calibrates the XTR's reading from
expensive secondary standard lab equipment accordingly to BIPM.
Platinum wire is not infinitely ductible ... 100 times smaller cross area ?
Of same cross area now 100 times longer ?
Don't worry, those things work fine for so long.
Cheers ... Jean.

Wrote

Wrote

a PT100 (which should have a resistance of 100 ohms at 0 Celsius)

Pt100 is simply a designation from EIT90 with Ω as given 1 @ 0.01 °C.
The instrument maintenance crew calibrates the XTR's reading from
expensive secondary standard lab equipment accordingly to BIPM.
Platinum wire is not infinitely ductible ... 100 times smaller cross area ?
Of same cross area now 100 times longer ?
Don't worry, those things work fine for so long.
Cheers ... Jean.

From your SMath file ( https://en.smath.com/forum/resource.ashx?a=43693&b=2 ):



and



From the NIST ( https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.250-91.pdf at page 77)



There you can see that Wr is dimensionless, and can read how to define it as a quotient between resistance's. What you get, 0.59493791 and 1.77363368 are not fake ohms, as you type. Are the relation between the Platinum electric resistance and the reference value for the water at 0.01 Celsius. It is very practical because it is very easy to obtain temperatures of 0 C and 100 C with enough accuracy in the work area inside the plant, without having to disassemble the instrument and take it to the workshop workbench. It is PT100 because 100 ohms, otherwise it would be called PT1. You can google it. Actually there are also PT1000, whose nominal resistance is 1000 ohms at 0 C

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Every single topic gets spammed and hijacked by Jean's out of topic posts.
What a spammer! You would expect such an immature use of a forum from a teenager.
This forum has become a mess under his many unrelated replies, and "search" function is polluted with crap, crusades against SI or other useless/unrelated stuff.

But maybe as forum users, we should just "stop feeding the troll" and ignore him, since it appears that the recent two weeks ban was useless, and we can't expect he changes his mind today.
So my suggestion is to stop interacting.
Personally speaking I have stopped reading his stuff and downloading his documents. And I will return silent again after this reply.

I would like to add one more thing: for "non english" mother tongue users, his colloquial english is often confusing, to say the least.
It is confusing to me, at least (and I remember more than one user being puzzled, and asking to rephrase...). Colloquial and unclear statements, that's not the approach I would expect on a forum like this one.
I remember when I joined the forum some years ago, I always read his replies ten times while thinking "Damn I need to improve my english, here there is someone who is trying to teach me something and, stupid me, I'm missing the point due to my english skill".
After some months, I finally understood that my english was 10% of the problem :^P

IMHO, in his replies there is no true intention to "help" (as some may think), but only the intention to "show" (...wrongs... as we have all read recently, and as resumed by other users in this same thread).

See you.

To be clear, I don't have permission to ban users. Until now this has not been necessary, except for the usual spammers. Yes, I can ask Andrey about it personally, but only in extreme cases. The current case is borderline. I don't have time to follow everything that happens on the forum. I could delete all posts that are not related to the topic of the forum, but this is inefficient. Thus, if you want to change something, then you will have to jointly develop proposals, coordinate them with Jean and report the result to Andrey. I think this is a more civilized way.

Yes Uni, I understand and agree with your statement, I also think it is a waste of time to "regulate" this at an admin level.
On the other hand, since it is unlikely that we can change Jean's mind and way of thinking, I will personally stop interacting and simply ignore what happens.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the forum will keep getting polluted and the "search" feature (which would be a very important feature of any technical forum...) is impacted.

You are both right, Smath Community is on the decline of Poisson Distribution.
@ fedeghi 0.25% statistics, little chance of productive whatever collaboration.
Take care ...