Issue 269 Temperature Controller Article

I believe there have been a large number of typographical issues regarding the temperature values as presented in this article.

For example the K type thermocouple is described as having a range of 200-23000F or 96-12600C, where this should actually read 200-1300F or 96 - 1260C, the 'degree' symbols have been somehow become transcribed as an additional 0 throughout much of the article.

There is also an inconsistency with reporting the numbers, sometimes 400C and sometimes with a gap between the number and the C, such as 400 C, again adding to the confusion regarding the actual temperature being discussed, which in reality was only 40C.

I also appreciate that such items are not easy to pick up on any proof reading, as these are all still valid temperature values, however, in a technical article such as this one where most of the article is about precise temperature control, the values as shown are wildly misleading .

Could also be a printing issue and once it has gone to print the Editor has no control.

Unlike some magazines they don't have a team of proof readers so occasionally errors slip through and it is the same with many , many other publications !

I am sure it is a printing issue, which is a shame for such a well written article, since it adds an unnecessary level of confusion.

Unfortunately, I am not even sure that the thermocouple values are correct, as on reading the manual for the JLD612, it shows a K type thermocouple as -328 to 2372F or -200 to 1300C, so it looks like the preceding '-' sign has been dropped from the lower values shown for the thermocouples as well as the F and C values being transposed.

We've discussed this issue and this article before

The author used superscript zeros as degree symbols, and I missed them when preparing the article (I have to change them all to the word degrees or a proper degree symbol).

In the setting process all formatting is stripped out and they become ordinary zeroes, that said I should have spotted them when proofing, but didn't.

Neil

Thanks Neil,

I have only just read the article, and did look to see if there was a previous posting regarding this issue, but did not see one - maybe I should have looked harder.

As I mentioned above, even if it had been proof read, the issues may not have been picked up as they were still valid temperatures, if a little high.

The sooner we all use the Kelvin temperature scale in all technical articles, the better.

No problem with zeros, noughts, ‘O’ s, sub- or super-scripts, degrees, Celsius, Centigrade, Fahrenheit, Reamur, Rankine, Absolute, any abbreviations of the preceding temperature scales, or anything else. Just plain K after the number.

We forgive you Neil !

Nidy ,

You forgot the most important temperature scale of all time - PTBC - Pyrometerus temperus Beerus Correctus !

.

I agree ... but perhaps that is inevitable

**LINK**

https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=136275&p=1

MichaelG.

I've given up using the degree symbol. In the context of model engineering or, indeed, everyday life 200C or 300F are unlikely to be confused with 200 Coulombs or 300 Farads.

Rod

The average pedant doesn't need to be confused, merely piqued

Neil