another Self looped Generator Claim

[TinselKoala]

@Farmhand:
Your question is basically "when do we perform the rounding" to the final digits that really are meaningful, in a long string of calculations. Right?

Well, when you are dealing with numbers like physical constants or integers, then you can take all of those digits as significant, sure. But consider this: when you make any measurement of anything physical, your measurement apparatus and technique will always be "rounding" the last digit of the readout. So, like in my caliper measurement above, I see 101.32 mm. That "2" on this instrument is telling me that the actual dimension could be anywhere between 101.315 and 101.325. (the endpoints may differ depending on the internal rounding algorithm; it could be ranging from 101.320 to 101.329, even.)
So, say you take this number as the measured length of a radius and you want to find the circumference of the circle. C = 2piR, and the "pi" and the "2" have infinite sig digs of precision. Integers are precise without question, and pi can be carried out to as many places as you have patience for. So what is your answer? Do you perform the calculation using sixteen digits of pi? If so, you get 636.612335323..... mm for the circumference, and using the 5 sig digs from the original measurement you would cite that as 636.61 mm and you could not measure it more precisely than that.
Or, using only 5 sig digs for pi, 3.1416, you get 636.613824 and citing only the correct 5 sig digs you get... 636.61 mm. And you could not measure it more precisely than that with your instruments.
The point is that you might as well only use the number of sig digs that is the least precise value, because by the time you get to the end of the calculation the extreme precision in the other numbers doesn't matter to the final result!

Don't forget that engineers did just fine using slide rules, that rarely gave more than three sig digs for _any_ calculation.

The issue of leading zeros. Are they significant, or not? Well, that is what scientific notation is for, to remind us that they are, in general, not "significant" in this use of the term.

Here is a question. How do we most accurately deal with many digit results during a calculation ? And if I were using, lets
say Watts is 0.00000189 really a very small amount if it's already rounded down from many more digits ? Isn't it just
another way to write 1.89 uWatts.

I don't understand how if a simple calculation gives a figure like 0.000001983583476297871  that that can be rounded back
to two decimal points and retain accuracy especially if the figure shows up in the middle of a set of calculations by continuing
with the large figures in the calcs sometimes they get small again. Rounding back the figure above to two or even four decimal places nets us a big Zero.

It depends on how you got to that number!  And you aren't rounding to "four decimal places" when you round 0.000001983583476297871 to  0.00000198, you are rounding to 8 decimal places, with three sig digs. 1.98 uW, with six places "hidden" in the "micro" expression. You don't wind up with zero by respecting sig digs!

What is the most accurate result for this calculation if were to be carried through to further calculations.   0.0000152 kg x 0.000213 = 0.0000000032376.
remember that figure is then to continued in calculations.

If those input numbers are the result of measurements, then the correct value should be cited as 0.00000000323, or 3.23x10e-9 or something like that. You can't really legitimately "round up" because you don't know, again, about the accuracy of those extra digits at all. Again, the "precision" of the extra 0.0000000000076 that you want to keep in will be lost in your final answer if you reduce at that point instead of now.

In the case of "pi" you can legitimately "round up" the last digit , like 3.14159.... becomes 3.1416, because you _do_ know that the 9 and other digits to the right are actually significant. But if you don't know that, like in your input numbers in the example, you should just drop the nonsig digs without rounding.

Then if the "end" result ends up being something like 0.00000046328- and many more figures and I round it back to
0.000000463 the result still has more decimal places than the input figures, and I see it ad rounded back to three figures.

Don't confuse "decimal places" with "significant digits". 

Wiki actually has a pretty good section on the "zero rules" for sig digs:

All non-zero digits are considered significant. For example, 91 has two significant figures (9 and 1), while 123.45 has five significant figures (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Zeros appearing anywhere between two non-zero digits are significant. Example: 101.1203 has seven significant figures: 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0 and 3.
Leading zeros are not significant. For example, 0.00052 has two significant figures: 5 and 2.
Trailing zeros in a number containing a decimal point are significant. For example, 12.2300 has six significant figures: 1, 2, 2, 3, 0 and 0. The number 0.000122300 still has only six significant figures (the zeros before the 1 are not significant). In addition, 120.00 has five significant figures since it has three trailing zeros. This convention clarifies the precision of such numbers; for example, if a measurement precise to four decimal places (0.0001) is given as 12.23 then it might be understood that only two decimal places of precision are available. Stating the result as 12.2300 makes clear that it is precise to four decimal places (in this case, six significant figures).
The significance of trailing zeros in a number not containing a decimal point can be ambiguous. For example, it may not always be clear if a number like 1300 is precise to the nearest unit (and just happens coincidentally to be an exact multiple of a hundred) or if it is only shown to the nearest hundred due to rounding or uncertainty. Various conventions exist to address this issue:
  A bar may be placed over the last significant figure; any trailing zeros following this are insignificant. For example, 1300 has three significant figures (and hence indicates that the number is precise to the nearest ten).
   The last significant figure of a number may be underlined; for example, "2000" has two significant figures.
   

the bars and underlines didn't come thru the formatting.. sorry.. check the original article in Wiki to see them...

A decimal point may be placed after the number; for example "100." indicates specifically that three significant figures are meant.^[2]
   In the combination of a number and a unit of measurement, the ambiguity can be avoided by choosing a suitable unit prefix. For example, the number of significant figures in a mass specified as 1300 g is ambiguous, while in a mass of 13 h‍g or 1.3 kg it is not.

With modern calculators there isn't any reason to delete non-sig digs in intermediate calculations; since you are going to give your final answer using only the number of sig digs in the least precise input figure, you can "round" or drop the extra digits at the end of the process. But it does no harm to drop or round to sig digs at every stage where it matters, either, or you'd never get anywhere using a slide rule.

(Daddy, what's a slide rule? I don't know son, better ask your grand dad.)



Sure, context is everything... and that's why I object in the way I do, when the use of many digits is done just to make the reader go "wow" but they don't mean anything at all. Except the more non-sig-digs there are, the more precisely "wrong" the answer is, even if the arithmetic that was used to get there is completely error-free. This is not an "arithmetic" issue, it is a data integrity and analysis issue.

Thanks for asking, I hope that I haven't confused you more than ever.

--TK

[TinselKoala]

Here'snoneohojhohvbb whyncnegncoy it'senaoscneeeg annoyinglnmolnn ton'oc=e seenoinonb superfluouscaeer meaninglesslno'udiurn digitsveaerac whensvaergaefaeec yousreareac areanocihncet tryingcerafacetaga tocean'vaetavavne evaluatenonsichiencee somenoihvoiyeince claimsno'inoihochentg ofdaercaeavaegag excessderafcvegaayv performancea'vdapoehgnerv.

Get it?

[e2matrix]

Yep I get the "Here's why it's annoying to see superfluous meaningless digits when you are trying to evaluate some claims of excess performance."
I also get that it's annoying to nit pick on some little detail of misunderstanding while missing the big picture that this person may really have something of great significance.   Getting hung up on sig digs will potentially be a big loss.  I've had PM's with Temporal Visitor and understand why he is trying to share this info at this time and why it is important for him to share it very soon.   I wish I could say more but it's not my right to share his personal disclosures to me (unrelated to details of the device or how it works).    I believe it would be best to give this related 'self looped generator' some more consideration.   My opinion - everyone's choice.

[TinselKoala]

It wouldn't be the first time that a great idea got ignored or scoffed at because it was presented poorly. I think this is the "fault" or responsibility of the presenter, though, not the audience.

It also wouldn't be the first time that bogus claims were hidden behind a wealth of superfluous detail, nor would it be the first time that an arrogant inventor claimed to have discovered something that not only violates well-established principles of engineering mechanics but contradicted actual experience... and turned out later to be utterly wrong. Once again... not the responsibility of the audience, but of the claimant.

"I believe it would be best to give this related 'self looped generator' some more consideration.  "
Well, you are certainly able to read the Charles Pierce "blog" reports on PESN, I think. How's Chuckie coming with his _already proven and patented and running his house in a blackout_ self-looped generator then? Abut ready for the live demo?

[e2matrix]

I wasn't referring to Pierce's device but rather Temporal Visitor's device as covered on his web site.   I've come across enough talk of mechanical amplifiers lately that I think it's worth looking at in more detail.  I think his device involves this concept. 
Tesla found that mechanical power is relative to the "reference frame" within which it is created.  The implication is that if you make power in one reference frame and remove it from another, there can be either less or MORE power available from the system.  This leads directly to the development of "mechanical amplifiers".    That's more or less quoted from an email I got recently.   Several other people I consider high caliber inventors/researchers have also been seriously discussing this concept as shown by a number of inventors.