Dan,
It is a matter of semantics. You are quite right in the rest of your
posting. Precision does not require accuracy but I must say to be accurate
requires precision. It may not be 'high' precision but precision.
> the former being in accordance with excellent Practice and Standards
> (even if not high *precision*
AFAIK, it is as high a 'precision' as the standards specifies (if any
specs, were given in the standards).
Tim Foo
Precision = repeatability + no. of sig. figures....
Dan Bathker
<dab_at_jpl.nasa.go To: alan.boswell_at_baesystems.com
v> cc: Fractenna_at_aol.com, nec-list_at_gweep.ca, (bcc: Wan Juang
Sent by: Foo/ece/staff/npnet)
nec-list-admin_at_g Subject: Re: NEC-LIST: Small antennas: can they me multiply resonant?
weep.ca
01/10/03 10:31
AM
Just a "simple" reminder -- *accuracy* versus *precision* -- the former
being
in accordance with excellent Practice and Standards (even if not high
*precision*
measurements, but with 'verifiable' limits) while the latter may be
extremely
careful measurements, with lots of decimal points AND the stats to support
it,
but based on a corrupt standard, or a basic 'misteak', -- or not based on
fundamentally acceptable Standards -- a Big difference in mentality and
credibility
-- one can 'bet' on Accuracy but Beware of Precision only--
<snip>
-- The NEC-List mailing list <nec-list_at_gweep.ca> http://www.gweep.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nec-listReceived on Tue Jan 14 2003 - 08:19:23 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Oct 02 2010 - 00:10:44 EDT