Dang this slip-stick. It always misses the decimal place!D Tibbets wrote: More percise discription, but I believe 7 microns =~ 10 micro armospheres, not 100. (760,000 microns per atmosphere).
Ejection of byproducts
No, that's the point. 1e4 is your notation. To my mind, 10e4 is without ambiguity - it makes no sense for it to mean anything but 10^4, else otherwise you'd write 1e5.MSimon wrote:Mantissa. Exponent. (not exactly - but parallel).Dan's nomenclature, 10e4,
10e4 = 100,000
1e4 = 10,000
BTW Exa is rarely used.
[The 'mantissa' is the fractional part of a logarithm and has been replaced with the term 'significand' in recent times to discriminate the significant digits in real, SI-type numbers, supposedly to avoid confusion.]
Not his notation, most every computer user anywhere's notation. E means x10^ and D means the same thing but with double precision. Been that way for decades. So 10E4 means 10x10^4, or 100,000, only you are not supposed to write it that way.chrismb wrote: No, that's the point. 1e4 is your notation. To my mind, 10e4 is without ambiguity - it makes no sense for it to mean anything but 10^4, else otherwise you'd write 1e5.
Dan uses e cuz he is lazy and doesn't like to push extra buttons. Look at his other writings and it is plain to see. My problem with it is that e is the natural number and 1e5 reads 1xe^5; except I figure on his thriftiness with key strokes and read HIS stuff as 1E5.
Oh dear God.If it were, say 30,500 then you'd write 30k5.
BURN THE HERETIC!!
Last edited by TallDave on Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is not my notation. I saw it in a Feynman Lecture from 1979.chrismb wrote:No, that's the point. 1e4 is your notation. To my mind, 10e4 is without ambiguity - it makes no sense for it to mean anything but 10^4, else otherwise you'd write 1e5.MSimon wrote:Mantissa. Exponent. (not exactly - but parallel).Dan's nomenclature, 10e4,
10e4 = 100,000
1e4 = 10,000
BTW Exa is rarely used.
[The 'mantissa' is the fractional part of a logarithm and has been replaced with the term 'significand' in recent times to discriminate the significant digits in real, SI-type numbers, supposedly to avoid confusion.]
http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
Try the first one.
I believe I learned that notation in high school which would have been around 1960.
And yes. 1e4 (and not uncommonly before E mean Exa 1E4) is how I would write it.
Last edited by MSimon on Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well, my neurons are starting to feel like neutrons, but I hadn't realized other people could tell.chrismb wrote:Maybe there is some interesting news from Tokamak-world to interest your neutrons!?!?
I should probably write Alan Boyle and see if anything's in the works. Not sure he even knows about WB-8.
Actually, I used e to the whatever power as a concession to what I was seeing used predominatly in this forum (e or E?). I prefer and will go back to using 10^whatever power. If some number other than 1 is in the mantissa, then I'll write X*10^ whatever power. Less ambiguity that way. Of course, writing out the zeros, using terms like -billion, micro-, microns, pascals, atmospheres, liters, milliliters or cubic centimeters, inches, millimeters, meters, meters^3, feet, joules, watts, watt seconds, moles, etc. should allow plenty of opertunities for me to mix units.KitemanSA wrote:Not his notation, most every computer user anywhere's notation. E means x10^ and D means the same thing but with double precision. Been that way for decades. So 10E4 means 10x10^4, or 100,000, only you are not supposed to write it that way.chrismb wrote: No, that's the point. 1e4 is your notation. To my mind, 10e4 is without ambiguity - it makes no sense for it to mean anything but 10^4, else otherwise you'd write 1e5.
Dan uses e cuz he is lazy and doesn't like to push extra buttons. Look at his other writings and it is plain to see. My problem with it is that e is the natural number and 1e5 reads 1xe^5; except I figure on his thriftiness with key strokes and read HIS stuff as 1E5.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Just to weigh in on this; perhaps a bit late, but...
My PhD research basically involves a lot of C++ with a bit of Matlab (and of course some paper work to figure out what I should be trying to make the computer do). If I tell the computer 1e4 in either of these languages, it means 10,000. Plain and simple. It's a well-established standard, and as a matter of fact both languages use 'e' notation as a default for outputting very large or very small numbers, ie: 1.0000e+040 is 10^40.
I've even seen scientific papers use it (or the capital E version, which I just confirmed also works in Matlab, and is probably used more commonly in FORTRAN), mostly when showing direct output from a computer.
My PhD research basically involves a lot of C++ with a bit of Matlab (and of course some paper work to figure out what I should be trying to make the computer do). If I tell the computer 1e4 in either of these languages, it means 10,000. Plain and simple. It's a well-established standard, and as a matter of fact both languages use 'e' notation as a default for outputting very large or very small numbers, ie: 1.0000e+040 is 10^40.
I've even seen scientific papers use it (or the capital E version, which I just confirmed also works in Matlab, and is probably used more commonly in FORTRAN), mostly when showing direct output from a computer.
I use a units conversion program called Uconeer by Katmar Software that uses the 1E4 convention for 10,000. The calculator that comes with my PC (Windows) uses the 1e4 convention. With that calculator 10e4 = 100,000.93143 wrote:Just to weigh in on this; perhaps a bit late, but...
My PhD research basically involves a lot of C++ with a bit of Matlab (and of course some paper work to figure out what I should be trying to make the computer do). If I tell the computer 1e4 in either of these languages, it means 10,000. Plain and simple. It's a well-established standard, and as a matter of fact both languages use 'e' notation as a default for outputting very large or very small numbers, ie: 1.0000e+040 is 10^40.
I've even seen scientific papers use it (or the capital E version, which I just confirmed also works in Matlab, and is probably used more commonly in FORTRAN), mostly when showing direct output from a computer.
The Microsoft Works spreadsheet uses the 1E4 (or 1e4) convention for 10,000. Which means Open Office is probably the same (too lazy to check).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I was taught (back in the mid to late '70s) that the E (or e) was for Exponent.
MSimon, I just tested it on Open Office. I entered "10e4" into the cell and it changed it to 10000 as the value, and displayed "1.00E+005". I entered "1E4" next, with the result of 1000 as the value and "1.00E+004" being displayed.
Personally, I prefer to use 10^n for exponents, but recognize 10En to mean the same thing. Every calculator I've ever used (to include a high-end Hewlett Packard from the early '80s that a friend had, that were so advanced the math teacher didn't recognize it as a calculator) has also supported it.
MSimon, I just tested it on Open Office. I entered "10e4" into the cell and it changed it to 10000 as the value, and displayed "1.00E+005". I entered "1E4" next, with the result of 1000 as the value and "1.00E+004" being displayed.
Personally, I prefer to use 10^n for exponents, but recognize 10En to mean the same thing. Every calculator I've ever used (to include a high-end Hewlett Packard from the early '80s that a friend had, that were so advanced the math teacher didn't recognize it as a calculator) has also supported it.
10000 as the value, and displayed "1.00E+005"krenshala wrote:I was taught (back in the mid to late '70s) that the E (or e) was for Exponent.
MSimon, I just tested it on Open Office. I entered "10e4" into the cell and it changed it to 10000 as the value, and displayed "1.00E+005". I entered "1E4" next, with the result of 1000 as the value and "1.00E+004" being displayed.
Personally, I prefer to use 10^n for exponents, but recognize 10En to mean the same thing. Every calculator I've ever used (to include a high-end Hewlett Packard from the early '80s that a friend had, that were so advanced the math teacher didn't recognize it as a calculator) has also supported it.
You know. Something doesn't add up here. 10000 <>= "1.00E+5"
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.