Mainlander wrote:

I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different units?

First, a warning, this is from a long distant memory so may be wrong, but
someone will chime in if it is...

dB are relitive, when you see another measurement, thats what its relitive to,
so dBm is a gain on a 1 millivolt or 1 milliwatt signal, dBV is a 1 volt signal etc.

If its just m, then its usually milliwatts, but you can never be sure on that.

You also see this in RF signal levels for wireless netowrking and TV/Satillite
etc, a 6dBmW output transmitter will have 6dB's of gain over a 1 miliwatt
transmitter, or 4mW

The first transformer specifies a voltage, you would have to work out the power
that 2 volts gives into 10,000 ohms, and compare that with the 100 microwatts
that the second allows. - its 0.0004 watts, so its 4 times the level of the
first, or capable of handling 6dB more power

Mainlander *@*.* wrote in message .nz...
I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different units?


Sounds like the first one is talking about the point at which the
transformer "magnetically saturates" and the second is talking about
low frequency roll-off, so even with unit conversion you'd still be
comparing apples to anvils.

"Mainlander" *@*.* wrote in message
. nz...

I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

2 volts is a lot more than -10 dBm.

I'm not telling you this so that you can read and run, but so that you have
a reference point when you follow the advice that follows.

Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different units?

This is a good question that you could probably answer for yourself after
you read the group faq.

If you had any questions after reading the faq, they would be even more
interesting.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i....audio.pro+faq

The group faq is posted lotsa places, including:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/

In article ,
Mainlander *@*.* wrote:

I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

2V is highest, unless it is a peak to peak measurement.
-10dBm would be 245mV rms on the 600ohm side and 1V rms the 10k side (for a
sine wave).

Check the distortion specs at those levels though. Higher might not be
better.


Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different units?

They are all logarithmic ratios to different reference power levels.
dBm is relative to 1mW dissipated in 600 ohms.
dBu is relative to the same power, but as a voltage which works out as
775mV rms and is used for non-600 ohm systems.
dBV is relative to 1V rms and also used for non-600 ohm systems.
It is better to stick with dBm and dBu for pro audio, but be aware of the
confusion that dBV can cause.

In article ,
Mainlander *@*.* wrote:
I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different units?

There is a nice discussion of this in the FAQ.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Mainlander *@*.* wrote:
I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different units?

May I suggest a Google search? I found this calculator:

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/st...dbconvert.html

If you want to play constipated mathematician and work it out with a pencil,
here are the basic relationships:

First, remember that dB is a ratio - it is the logarithmic difference
between two actual values.

dBm: power ratio referenced to 1 milliwatt of power in a 600 ohm load.
0dBm is 1 milliwatt of power in a 600 ohm load.
So, -10dBm is 0.1 milliwatts in a 600 ohm load.

Since we have two fixed terms, the resistance and the wattage, we can
calculate the voltage. For 0dBm, this corresponds to 0.775 volts. This is
referred to as 0dBv. See here for a longer explanation:

http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/1994_ar.../decibels.html

Now for your transformers. Power handling is usually measured at the lower
frequency limit of the transformer, hence the "30 Hz" specification. (As the
frequency tends towards DC, saturation effects become significant.) It's the
current through the winding which causes this.

For the 10K ohm : 10K ohm transformer, assume that one winding is being fed
from a voltage source and the other has a 10K ohm load connected to it. The
maximum recommended voltage across (either of) the 10K ohm winding(s) is 2
volts.

For the 10K ohm : 600 ohm transformer, the ratio is 16.67:1. Assume that the
10K ohm winding is being fed from a voltage source and the 600 ohm winding
has a 600 ohm load connected to it. The maximum recommended power to be
transferred to the load is 0.1 milliwatts, or 0.245 volts across 600 ohms.
Multiply that by 16.67 to give the voltage reflected across the 10 K ohm
winding: 4 volts.

In short, the 10K:600R transformer can handle twice the voltage that the
10K:10K one can.

Another way of doing it is to work out the maximum allowable power transfer.
For the 10K:600R transformer, this is already known: -10dBm = 0.1mw.
For the 10K:10K transformer, watts in a 10K load = 0.4mw. (Ohm's law: volts
squared divided by resistance in ohms, so (2 * 2) / 10000.)

Part of what I'm trying to figure out is whether the 10K:600R can be used
in either direction. Whether the 600R is the primary or can be the
secondary.

In audio use, the most common application for a transformer of this type
is a passive DI. The signal source is connected to the 10K side. The 600R
side is connected to a balanced mike input on a mixing desk. If you
coupled it the other way all the impedances would be mismatched. There
may be another application for this transformer in which the 600R winding
is the primary, like coupling a standard low impedance mic to a high
impedance input, but you don't really need a transformer to do that.

Here's some specsmanship to the max. In a recent product "First Looks"
at Trident's linear fader pack, a box of eight linear faders to plug
into the insert jacks of the Trident S-100 (or any other) mixer, the
unit (it says here) is said to feature a +500 dB headroom and noise
floor at the theoretical minimum.

Given that this is just a pot, it's maximum output level (of which
headroom is a function) is probably determined by the point at which
it goes up in smoke and stops conducting electricity. Assuming 0 dBu
operating level at the insert jacks (typical for a small mixer) and
that it's a 10k Ohm pot, a quick flick of the abacus beads indicats
that it would have to be about a 280 megawatt pot in order to have
headroom of 500 dB. Will somebody check my arithmetic and get me one
of those mixers?

If it was a misprint and it's actually 50 dB of headroom, that would
still be a 6W pot, pretty hefty for a mixer.

I'm sure John Oram will be at NAMM. I'll have to harass him about this
in person.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Richard Malcolm-Smith wrote:

dB are relitive, when you see another measurement, thats what its
relitive to, so dBm is a gain on a 1 millivolt or 1 milliwatt signal,
dBV is a 1 volt signal etc.

If its just m, then its usually milliwatts, but you can never be sure on
that.

You also see this in RF signal levels for wireless netowrking and
TV/Satillite etc, a 6dBmW output transmitter will have 6dB's of gain
over a 1 miliwatt transmitter, or 4mW


And beware of spec sheets, especially in recent years. Misuse of these
terms seems to be increasing.

"Master Tech ©" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:48:25 +1200, Mainlander *@*.* wrote:

I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different units?



Why use out of date Technology


Explain please. (?)

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:48:25 +1200, Mainlander *@*.* wrote:

I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different units?



Why use out of date Technology

That's right Woger, you are well past use by date

In article , mams@NOSPAm-a-m-
s.com says...
=20
"Master Tech =A9" wrote in message news:fbiugvs8tm=
...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:48:25 +1200, Mainlander *@*.* wrote:

I have some specs here for an audio transformer quoted 10k:10k maximum
level "2V @ 30 Hz"
Another transformer 10K:600R "-10dBm @ 30 Hz"

Which is the higher or lower signal level?

Often times we see levels quoted as dBv, other times dBm, other times =
mV
or V, how do you work out the equivalences of all these different unit=
s?



Why use out of date Technology
=20
=20
Explain please. (?)

He's an old Pommie git who claims to be some techo wiz but gets into=20
arguments all the time with everyone else about his supposed skills and=20
experience. I would ignore any of his claims.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:50:08 +0100, Graham Hinton wrote:

They are all logarithmic ratios to different reference power levels. dBm
is relative to 1mW dissipated in 600 ohms.

Uh, no. It's relative to 1mW, into whatever resistance.

Antenna systems are usually 50 ohms for instance and the legal dBm limits
for radio transmitter systems are the actual power put out the antenna
(ie, Tx power, minus cable losses, plus antenna gain)

dBu is relative to the same power, but as a voltage which works out as
775mV rms and is used for non-600 ohm systems.

dBu is a wierd one.

dBV is relative to 1V rms
and also used for non-600 ohm systems.

Again, it doesn't matter what the resistance is, as long as it's the same
all the way through.

It is better to stick with dBm
and dBu for pro audio, but be aware of the confusion that dBV can cause

And don't forget that doubling the voltage quadruples the power, so a
change of 3dbV is the same as a change of 6dBm

In article ,
(Don Hills) wrote:

May I suggest a Google search? I found this calculator:

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/st...dbconvert.html

Which just goes to show how easily you can be misled on the web...

This one either can't work out sqrt(3) or doesn't know that this is what it
should be working out. I would have thought and hoped that AD knew better,
but maybe like most other people they would rather knaw their leg off than
do a bit of maths or check the student's that they gave the job to.


http://www.sospubs.co.uk/

If you believe everything in that comic you really will be led down the
garden path.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:17:19 +0100,
(Graham Hinton) wrote:

In article ,
(Don Hills) wrote:

May I suggest a Google search? I found this calculator:

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/st...dbconvert.html

Which just goes to show how easily you can be misled on the web...

This one either can't work out sqrt(3) or doesn't know that this is what it
should be working out. I would have thought and hoped that AD knew better,
but maybe like most other people they would rather knaw their leg off than
do a bit of maths or check the student's that they gave the job to.


Just tried a few numbers in this one, and it looks OK. What did you
put in that made it calculate sqrt(3) - and what was the wrong result
it gave?

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article ,
"Uncle StoatWarbler" wrote:

Uh, no. It's relative to 1mW, into whatever resistance.

Not on this planet.
I was quoting the definition.


Again, it doesn't matter what the resistance is, as long as it's the same
all the way through.

It matters very much what the resistance is, there is a correction factor
to be added when they differ. This is what a DMM does when you wind through
the preset impedances.


And don't forget that doubling the voltage quadruples the power, so a
change of 3dbV is the same as a change of 6dBm

You can't have a change of 3dBV OR 6dBm, both are absolute levels. What you
are trying to say in your trollish way is that a change of 6dB (no suffix)
is approximately equivalent to a doubling of voltage.

Get your facts right before you try correcting people around here. Don't
try to tell me about electricity and I won't tell you how to warble stoats.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:49:06 +1200, Ron McNulty wrote:

They are all logarithmic ratios to different reference power levels.
dBm is relative to 1mW dissipated in 600 ohms.

Uh, no. It's relative to 1mW, into whatever resistance.

Dead right! I think the "into 600ohms" red herring comes about because
moving coil meters actually measure volts, not power.

Exactly.

So the VU meters we
used in broadcasting would only read correctly when measuring across a
known impedance. As 600 ohms was the impedance of choice, they would be
labelled "0dBm into 600 ohms". So people got to think 600 ohms was part
of the dBm standard.

It gets worse. True VU meters have non-linear responses across the
frequency range (tailored to match the ear's response curve, supposedly)
and a few quick tests will show they're also fairly sensitive to the
waveform being mesaured.


Same reasoning goes for AC multimeters that have a dBm scale.

You _can_ get meters which measure truepower. They are invariably
incredibly expensive, fragile and based on thermal sensors. I used to use
them routinely while repairing and calibrating microwave radio systems.

For voice frequencies we just used VU meters and applied appropriate
correction factors after removing the front end filters (Telephony _AND_
radio broadcast studio work - filtered meters are only much use on the
desk, you don't want to end up with things clipping in the transmission
chain for any reason...).

In article ,
"Ron McNulty" wrote:

I think the "into 600ohms" red herring comes about because
moving coil meters actually measure volts, not power. So the VU meters we
used in broadcasting would only read correctly when measuring across a known
impedance. As 600 ohms was the impedance of choice, they would be labelled
"0dBm into 600 ohms". So people got to think 600 ohms was part of the dBm
standard.

You cannot have electrical power without resistance, it needs to be defined
for dBm for BOTH powers being considered. It does not need to be considered
for dBu and dBV because they are defined as voltage ratios assuming the
resistances are equal.

Yes, dB are power ratios, but we are not considering comparing the power
output of stellar bodies or nuclear reactors. We don't usually use
wattmeters or thermometers to measure audio signals, we measure voltage
because that is easiest and derive the rest.

Same reasoning goes for AC multimeters that have a dBm scale.

When using a meter voltage reading you have to add 10*log10(R1/R2) where R1
and R2 are the resistances of the reference voltage and the system being
measured. DMMs can do this automatically. When R1 = R2, log(1) = 0.

This is really much simpler than most people seem to think. It is only a
simple application of Ohm's Law and the level of maths you should have done
when you where 14, nothing more complex.

Another thing that throws people off the scent is that a lot of the time we
are using dBs to indicate what happens where sound ultimately ends up -
coming out of a loudspeaker. We are not using dBs within, say, a mixer, or
even an amplifier, to study the power transfer from one stage to another,
we are using it as a model in the voltage domain of what happens to the
signal at the end of its path. It is just more convenient to think of it
like that.

This is asked time and time again, isn't it on the FAQ?

In article t writes:

Actually, I think it might be correct (though not practical) to claim
that the increase in power from 1mW to 2mW is 0dBm (i.e. 1mW).

Nope. An increase in power from 1 mW to 2 mw is 3 dB. (period)



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article ,
"Ron McNulty" wrote:

True, but the definition of dBm does not refer to 600 ohms or any other
resistance. It is simply dB referenced to one milliwatt. A quick search on
google will show this.

A google search can show anything
You are quite correct, but that does not answer the original poster's
question.


Sure, you need to bring in resistance when measuring
volts to derive power, but that is the red herring I was referring to.

This sounds like you think they are two different things?
In an electrical system power = V^2/R. That is a fixed relationship. We can
choose to use whatever measurements are more convenient to calculate the dB
ratio, but we still get *the same answer*.


I am pretty sure we used the terms interchangeably when I was a broadcasting
tech years ago (e.g. The level rose 3dB or 3dBm). Not quite correct.

Yes, but incorrect practise does not alter the theory. Any dB amount is a
relative quantity, but dBm, dbu and dbV are relative to a fixed reference
which makes them an absolute quantity.

Mike Rivers ) wrote:

writes:

Actually, I think it might be correct (though not practical) to claim
that the increase in power from 1mW to 2mW is 0dBm (i.e. 1mW).

Nope. An increase in power from 1 mW to 2 mw is 3 dB. (period)

Got it.

- Brian

Graham Hinton wrote:

Bels (or deciBels) are only used for comparing one power against another,
they are not used for any other ratio.

That is simply not true any longer. In signal processing,
linear circuit theory, and various areas in physics,
amplitudes and gains are considered quite independantly of
power consideration and dB (relative to various things) is
used extensively with the amplitude definition of
20*log10(Q/R), with Q the quantity whose amplitude is
involved and R the reference. I understand the historical
origin but power is by no means the only domain in which the
scale is utilized now.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Graham Hinton wrote:

If deciBels are being used for voltage amplitudes and gains in electrical
systems and there is a "20" in the formula just like you wrote above then
they ARE being used to describe power ratios.

This seems to be the stumbling block that most people trip over. DeciBels
are not used to describe voltage gains, voltages may be used to calculate
power gains in dB. The associated change in voltage is secondary and
implicit.

In dealing with linear feedback control systems and Bode
plots, dB is used extensively to characterize amplitude
gains and power is the secondary consideration if it is
considered at all. Again, I understand the historical
origin of it in power transfer and how power and amplitude
are related through impedence but just wish to say that I
know from many years experience as an EE that dB is used
extensively in domains where amplitude (information) rather
than power are the primary if not the exclusive
consideration. There are many systems in which information
rather than power is what is being moved about and
manipulated and dB is quite at home as a scale in such
systems without ever wanting or needing to relate the values
to what they mean in terms of power.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

In article ,
Bob Cain wrote:

In dealing with linear feedback control systems and Bode
plots, dB is used extensively to characterize amplitude
gains and power is the secondary consideration if it is
considered at all.

It is still being used correctly as a power ratio there.

I did not say that dBs are used because power is the primary consideration,
but there is a difference between using it as a tool to obtain secondary
information and thinking that it has become that secondary information.

dBs conveniently compress the signal ranges we encounter in audio into
approximately a 0-100 range, like a percentage, something we can cope with.
It helps us visualise what a change from, say, 11.6 microvolts to 836.4
millivolts means in the terms that we percieve sound, but it is still a
power ratio.

There are many systems in which information
rather than power is what is being moved about and
manipulated and dB is quite at home as a scale in such
systems without ever wanting or needing to relate the values
to what they mean in terms of power.

I know what you are saying, but so far you have not given any examples that
are not power ratios. The values already are in terms of power whatever you
want to do with them.
It is not a case of the definition changing, it hasn't. It can't.

It is like builders talking about a yard of sand when they really mean a
cubic yard and then supposing that a yard has become a unit of mass instead
of length and it was only length for "historical reasons".

Graham Hinton ) wrote:
I know what you are saying, but so far you have not given any examples that
are not power ratios. The values already are in terms of power whatever you
want to do with them.
It is not a case of the definition changing, it hasn't. It can't.

What are the overwhelming reasons that "Bel" should be restricted to
'power ratios', for all time? As I understand its history, the crux of
the problem that it solved was that there was/is the need for a
practical way to represent and compare values of greatly differing
magnitude (i.e. that varied from vary small to very, vary large), and
using the raw values was impractical because of the number of digits
that are wielded at the upper end of the scale.

If the "Bel" solves essentially the same problem in a different domain,
why not apply it, as long as one preserves the basic function, changing
only the terms of the ratio? I can fathom some objection to it, but
considering the advantages, it seems to me that using the existing term
is a better idea than creating a new one that basically has the same
mathematical meaning.

For example, if basically the same function turns out useful in, say,
the IT domain, to help represent data transmission rates, do you really
think it's preferable to invent a new root term (e.g. "Horn")? The
difficulty people in general have with Bels is understanding its
logarithmic nature, and I think coming up with a new term to represent
essentially the same thing would cause more problems than it prevents.


It is like builders talking about a yard of sand when they really mean a
cubic yard and then supposing that a yard has become a unit of mass instead
of length and it was only length for "historical reasons".

If a builder can't use context to resolve the difference between the
instruction "build me a 6 by 10 yard sandbox", and his supplier asking
him "how many yards of sand do you need?", then he's probably in the
wrong line of work. The same would apply to an audio engineer or a
network engineer who couldn't manage the difference between power
values, bit rates, and dinner time.

- Brian

You may find this useful: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/decibel.htm .

However, beware that you can't compare your two specs at all; you need
to know whether they're for the input side or the output side of the
transformer. I've seen xfmrs. spec'd both ways.

There are much worse things in this world than a good transformer.

James Boyk

In article ,
Brian Takei wrote:

What are the overwhelming reasons that "Bel" should be restricted to
'power ratios', for all time?

The same reasons that a Watt is restricted to power, because that is the
established and defined unit. Period. It is bad enough with the
misunderstandings that arise when people are talking about the same thing,
why do you want to make it worse?

Units have been redefined before because the original definition was wrong
(ironically, the French scientists got the metre, the gramme and the second
all slightly out when they formed the cgs system), but never changed
purpose.

All the physical units have been carefully established by some of the best
brains that have ever lived and are standardised by international bodies.
You don't just change them because it suits you or because some people
don't understand them.


For example, if basically the same function turns out useful in, say,
the IT domain, to help represent data transmission rates, do you really
think it's preferable to invent a new root term (e.g. "Horn")?

Yes, bad example though, there is already the Baud for that and it is
another one that is widely misunderstood and misused.
The IT industry is probably not the best to go round coining new units,
look at the confusion caused by the use of K (1024) instead of k (kilo) for
memory and disk sizes. Nobody is sure anymore what M and G mean.

Graham Hinton wrote:

No. It is log10 because it is a Bel,

Huh? I don't remember any formal connection between log
base ten (or logs in general) and A. Bell. He just used
log10 in the definition of a notation that somewhat conveyed
the perception of loudness and it became associated with his
name. I think the logical conclusion of your reasoning
would be to say that not only is the notation specific to
power but it is specific to acoustic power.

I think that the fact that what he was trying to describe,
relative loudness, is in fact a function of pressure
amplitude and only related to power by the impedence of air
indicates that the way we use it in EE, thinking in terms of
amplitudes, is well within the spirit of his definition.


There is nothing arbitary about any of this. It is your use of the word
arbitary that I'm taking exception to.

What makes it arbitary in the end is the fact that it is
unit free and more of a notation than a physical quantity.
This places it in a very grey area because the result of the
notation cannot be directly tied to anything physical other
than by history. That is why I am comfortable remaining in
disagreement with you without a lot of further
justification. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Graham Hinton ) wrote:

In article ,
Brian Takei wrote:

What are the overwhelming reasons that "Bel" should be restricted to
'power ratios', for all time?

The same reasons that a Watt is restricted to power, because that is the
established and defined unit. Period.

Understood.

It is bad enough with the
misunderstandings that arise when people are talking about the same thing,
why do you want to make it worse?
snip
All the physical units have been carefully established by some of the best
brains that have ever lived and are standardised by international bodies.
You don't just change them because it suits you or because some people
don't understand them.

Point taken. My questions and comments are obviously based on the fact
that The Bel has nicely addressed the problem of representing very wide
ranging values, and my casual observation was that, if the same solution
were to solve the same problem in a different domain, is seems sensible
to use the established root term to refer to the values. I'm aware (and
please be aware) that among the core RAP population I have limited
experience in this field, and I don't yet have a profound relationship
with its elements. From my perspective, I've essentially perceived it
as the 'Bel Function', and didn't really think that I was suggesting
that it might be 'fundamentally changed', but rather, 'applied
elsewhere'. But I am open to correction.

For example, if basically the same function turns out useful in, say,
the IT domain, to help represent data transmission rates, do you really
think it's preferable to invent a new root term (e.g. "Horn")?

Yes, bad example though, there is already the Baud for that and it is
another one that is widely misunderstood and misused.

No, it's a good example, and no, Baud does not represent data
transmission rates, at least not generically (i.e. independent of the
device(s)). My point was that bps, cps, etc. could run head-on into the
same problem that Watt does, particular if somebody were trying to meter
it in large, highly dynamic systems. But here's a more general example:

Case in POINT: If I wanted to create a scale to measure rates (or
anything variable) in a system, and the rates varied so widely that a
linear scale showing raw Counter/TimeInterval values would be about as
useless as xWatts is on a mixer, probably the first thing I'd try is
applying "The Bel Function" (no offense), and try and tune it with a
coefficient.

Case in COUNTERPOINT: If I labeled the units of the scale "xB"
(particularly "dB"), then distributed it, some people would be well
within rights to give me serious hell, and I would be well advised to
duck.

- Brian

Graham Hinton ) wrote:
Units have been redefined before because the original definition was wrong
(ironically, the French scientists got the metre, the gramme and the second
all slightly out when they formed the cgs system), but never changed
purpose.


Speaking of the French, here is some very recent linguistic news:

"France is saying goodbye to "email" and hello to "courriel" - the term
that the linguistically sensitive French government is now using to
refer to electronic mail in official documents."

"The culture ministry has announced a ban on the use of the word email
in all government ministries, documents, publications or websites, in
the latest step to stem an incursion of English words into the French
lexicon..." -- Associated Press

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/sto...002707,00.html

Brian Takei wrote:

Graham Hinton ) wrote:

For example, if basically the same function turns out useful in, say,
the IT domain, to help represent data transmission rates, do you really
think it's preferable to invent a new root term (e.g. "Horn")?

Yes, bad example though, there is already the Baud for that and it is
another one that is widely misunderstood and misused.


No, it's a good example, and no, Baud does not represent data
transmission rates, at least not generically (i.e. independent of the
device(s)). My point was that bps, cps, etc. could run head-on into the
same problem that Watt does, particular if somebody were trying to meter
it in large, highly dynamic systems.


IMO a log scale for data transmission rates would be quite useful.

In article ,
Brian Takei wrote:

Case in POINT: If I wanted to create a scale to measure rates (or
anything variable) in a system, and the rates varied so widely that a
linear scale showing raw Counter/TimeInterval values would be about as
useless as xWatts is on a mixer, probably the first thing I'd try is
applying "The Bel Function" (no offense), and try and tune it with a
coefficient.

Well there are other logarithmic units, musical tones being an obvious one,
but that does not make then Bels. Log-log and log-lin graph paper had been
used for plotting all sorts of data for years before Bels were defined.

Bels are just a special case of logarithmic functions, not the general
case.

"Invisible" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:21:55 +1200, Mainlander *@*.* wrote:

In article ,
says...

Get a life sad Pommie git

WTF is a reast, and booring?!?!

They are small sardine-like fish.

-mike