• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 day ago

    That level of precision in a resistor would literally be thrown off if you breathed on it. If you actually needed that, then you need to build an extremely controlled environment around it. Even then, the heat from the electricity itself would throw it off. Maybe in a liquid nitrogen bath?

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      21 hours ago

      First, assume a spherical resistor in a vacuum, that can also dissipate heat with 100% efficiency.

      Now that we’re in physics land, anything is possible.

    • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      A big aspect of good design is being able to solve an issue as succinctly as possible, with as wide an operating range as possible. Lower tolerance requirements = better.

      If you need that level of precision, you might want to reconsider your career in circuit design.

      • piecat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        You can’t tell me that there isn’t a good reason that 0.001% resistors exist. Otherwise why sell them?

        • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          18 hours ago

          4 Sig figs vs 9 Sig figs is a big gap. If you need your resistors in a circuit to be precise to 9 Sig figs, seek a new career.

          It is almost always possible to take a system and make it more precise by using more precise parts (just gotta make sure you know what part you are changing to improve what tolerance). You do get diminishing returns with that, but it beats inventing a new system if the tolerances you need are just alittle ways away.

  • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 day ago

    i miss old school radioshack. i did not know what all those bins of tiny electronic hobby parts were for, but I desperately wanted to learn. I did eventually but you have to get all your stuff from some shady oligarch.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      i did not know what all those bins of tiny electronic hobby parts were for, but I desperately wanted to learn.

      From what I understand, prior to the personal computer boom of the 1980’s, HAM radio was kind of a big deal with nerds. The parts were there for all manner of electronics tinkering, but a big mainstay was building and modifying radios. Yeah, you had people tinkering with computers in the 1970’s too, but it was more niche (until it wasn’t).

    • tacobellhop@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah we’re living in the ruins of the old America already and have been for like 25 years.

      It’s dirty they just use the same business names they did in the 20th century. While making smoke and mirrors versions of the old products.

  • abcd@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    2 days ago

    Without using fancy components: Just simply adding a 6.2 and a 2400 Ohm resistor in parallel already gives you 6.18402 Ohm ⚡️

      • Gordon Calhoun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ugh, 3 factorial is most definitely not equal to π. It’s something more like, idk, 9? Honestly I don’t even know how I got here; I majored in Latin and barely past

            • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              My high school English teacher still has night terrors about me starting sentences with conjunctions. And that was the least of their problems.

              Edit: kind of unrelated, but that song about conjunctions is now stuck in my head. 🎶Conjunction junction, what’s your function? 🎶

            • weker01@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Erm. In what world do you live that the precedent in your expression is right?

              In all languages and countries I know multiplication binds more strongly than addition. So what you wrote would be

              n^2 - n - 2n - 3n…

          • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Seriously, if you’re working with analog electronics, 𝛑=√1̅0̅ is close enough. If you need more precision, use active error correction, and in the 21st century that’s easiest to do digitally anyway.

          • Gordon Calhoun@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 days ago

            e = π = σ = ε = µ = Avogadro’s Number = k = g = G = α = i = j = 3

            (at least that’s how they all look when viewed from ∞)

            • andros_rex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Shouldn’t have i in there, or j if you’re using that to represent the imaginary number. The complex plane is separate.

              Let epsilon be substantially greater than zero…

                • andros_rex@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Imaginary numbers are best understood as symbolizing rotation. If we’re imagining a number line here, “looking back from infinity” - at a scale where Grahams number looks like the mass of an atom expressed in kilograms, i would not be in that infinite set of numbers, it would be a point above that line and creating a perpendicular plane to it.

                  I hate the term “imaginary” because it’s misleading. Most high school algebra teachers don’t understand what they are either, so people learn about these things called “imaginary” numbers, never learn any applications with them, hopefully graph them at best, and then move on understanding nothing new about math.

                  Students also tend to get really confused about it as possibly a variable, (it’s really annoying with in second year algebra courses, where e and logs also show up). We say “ah yeah, if you get a negative sign, just pull it out as an i and don’t worry about it. or just say no real solutions.”

  • deranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Numbers like that are why I quit majoring in mechanical engineering. Physics took the beauty of math and made it ugly.

    You knew something was wrong in calculus when you got a fucked up coefficient that wasn’t a nice number.

      • GoatTnder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’ve heard a story (so like 4th hand at this point) where an astrophysicist was talking about galaxy rotations or something. “And for this model, we can simplify pi to 10.”

        • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          My thermodynamics professor made so approximations in his derivations that all of his equations had an “O” term to represent the inaccuracy. Every time he made another approximation he’d say “and, of course, the O sucks up the error”.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      2 days ago

      Numbers like that should have been why you kept going in mech E.

      Once you get past the educational stage, every one of those calculations becomes “OK now round to the closest whole number that gives you the larger factor of safety and move on”

      • LostXOR@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        2 days ago

        Using π = 4 is only a 27% safety margin, better go for π = 10 just to be safe.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Eh, it’s just fundamentally ugly to me and that really turned me off. Rounding doesn’t help, that’s like turning the lights off for sex to make it better. I still know the ugliness exists, even if I don’t see it.

        Engineering is still very cool to me, and I have huge respect for those who do it, but I’d never have made it. It’s physics but even further perverted by reality. Math was beautiful to me because of how “pure” it was. Just straight logic, divorced from the messy world we live in. Tidy coefficients and elegant derivations.

        • applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          2 days ago

          I have to hard disagree with you there. The beauty of the math equations they test you with in school is completely artificially selected. The vast majority of math does not have nice neat solutions. There is a lot of it that doesn’t have any solution at all. The beauty of engineering is figuring out how much of things you actually need. You might calculate that some quantity should be an irrational number for some design optimum, but the amount of precision you actually need will be some range around that. When you do that and see your design in the real world actually functioning, that’s the greatest feeling in the world by far.

          • deranger@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            Not knocking people’s choices, it just wasn’t for me. If math in reality isn’t math in education, it’s even better that I left.

            I’ll still contend math is much more elegant than physics or engineering, though. There’s no e^I*pi + 1 = 0 equivalent for either.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      After calculus though, they just expect you to cope with fucked up coefficients. In Diff Eq, sometimes you do just get something like 3/111 cos (6/111 x). It gets harder to come up with examples that work out with nice integers.

      Physics can also have some really beautiful math, look at Lissajous figures. Once you understand the connections between e, the imaginary plane, and sine/cosine, you get some profound understandings about how electric and magnetic fields work.

    • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      70
      ·
      2 days ago

      Mathematically yes. Practically, right now? No.

      So you need a resistor of this value for your widget.

      For that many places of precision you’re looking at a potentiometer with a 10 nano-ohm precision.

      I am not aware of any commercially available resistor that can do that but you could create one using microelectronic structures used for ICs and derive a 10 nano-ohm resistor by design and then chain enough of these elements into a resistor network or potentiometer to create the super precise resistance value you want.

      Cool, congratulations.

      Now how are you going to use this 10 nano-ohm resistor? What voltage will you be applying across it? What current do you expect it to handle? And therefore what are your power requirements? What are your tolerances, how much can the true value deviate from the designed ideal?

      Because power generates heat through losses, and that will affect the resistance value so how tightly do you need to manage the power dissipation?

      How will you connect to this resistor to other circuit components? Because a super precise resistor on it’s own is nothing but an over-engineered heating element.

      If you tried connecting other surface mount devices (SMDs) from the E24 or even E96 series to this super precise resistor then the several orders of magnitude wider tolerances of these other components alone will swallow any of the precision from your super accurate resistor.

      So now your entire circuit has to be made to the same precision else all of your design work has been wasted.

      Speaking of which, now your heat management solution now needs to be super precise as well and before you know it you’ve built the world’s most accurate widget that probably took billions of dollars/euros/schmeckles and collaboration from the worlds leading engineers and scientists that probably cost more time and money than the Large Hadron Collider.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      For starters resistance changes with temperature.

      Also even in a multi-turn potentiometer, getting a precision of 1 in 10^9 would require an equal level of precision in the angle you rotate that potentiometer to (for example, a 0.1 degree error in a 10 turn potentiometer - which I believe is more turns than anything that actually can be bought - translates into a 1 in 36,000 error in resistance, so about 3000 larger than 10^9) even if you had a perfect material whose resistance doesn’t change with temperature.

      (PS: Just out of curiosity I went and dove down further and to translate a 1/3000 deg movement in a rotating potentiometer into a 1mm movement at the end of a bar attached to it, you would need a 176m long bar - i.e. the radius for 1/(360*3000) of a circumference to be equal to 1mm, is aproximatelly 176 m. This of course has serious mechanical problems even if you remove the bar at the end of the process as the removal process itself would shift the potentiometer by much more than 1/3000 degrees)

      The joke here isn’t even specifically about resistances and electronics, it’s that the real world has all sorts of limitations that when you’re doing things wholly in the mathematical world you don’t have to account for, and that’s a hard realisation for Physicists (having gone to study Physics at uni and then half way in my degree changing to Electronics Engineering I can tell you that’s one of the shocks I had to deal with in the transition).

      (In a way, it’s really a joke about Theoretical Physicists)

      See also the “assuming this chicken is a spherical ovoid” kind of joke.

    • takeda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure, except the resistance will constantly change with time, temperature and other environmental variables.

    • Retro_unlimited@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I had a potentiometer on a circuit board that adjusted a timer, but I found that the timer varied in timing. I ended up replacing with a few resistors and it corrected the variations.

  • hardcoreufo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    The only application I can think of off the top of my head that would require that precision is a R2R DAC.

    Just sort through a bin until you find one.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    best they can usually do is three fiddy, and thats usually enough.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Quantum Ampere Standard
    https://www.nist.gov/noac/technology/current-and-voltage/quantum-ampere-standard
    .
    there also been research for defining a quantum volt and quantumly stable resistors

    https://www.nist.gov/noac/technology/current-and-voltage
    Quantum-based measurements for voltage and current are moving toward greater miniaturization

    P.S. :
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect
    Quantum Hall effect →
    Applications →
    Electrical resistance standards :

    (…) Later, the 2019 revision of the SI fixed exact values of h and e, resulting in an exact
    RK = h/e2 = 25812.80745… Ω.

    (this is precise to at least 10 significant digits)