On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 15:50, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
One
classic was the time they told me that my method of measuing something
(actually capitance) was a 'comparison' and not a 'measurement'. To this
day I am trying to find a defintion of 'measurement' that does not
involve comparison to a standard.
Tongue _firmly_ planted in cheek, I could ask you to measure the
average number of peas in a pod! :-)
My own feeling is that actually here you missed to learn something in
school that is vital. And that is an aspect of human interaction, or
rather, interpreting unspoken demands. Clearly, a successful student
would know what the teacher wants, and solve the problem in that
fashion, rather than taking the literal meaning (and/or possibly more
efficient solution) of the problem statement. Since the subject is
Physics, I guess the idea would be to measure capacitance using
"lower" units of measurements: Capacitance can be found using time,
current, and voltage - and volt can be derived (with difficulty) using
a standard length, mass and time. So, assume you have a calibrated
ammeter, voltmeter, and clock, finding capacitance is easy! Never
mind those calibrations were made by doing comparisons earlier. Is is
the best or most efficient way to do it? Hell no! But it's what
physics teachers want.
This skill is very important but especially to an engineer, as anyone
can tell having completed a task only to be told "that's not what I
wanted!" ("But you asked me to do this!!" "But it's not what I
wanted!
Do it again!" ... followed later by "You're fired!") I'm sure many
of
us have been on both sides of this kind or exchange.
--
Joachim Thiemann ::
http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/~jthiem