Wrote

Actually there are also PT1000, whose nominal resistance is 1000 ohms at 0 C

There are even more SPRT [25.5 Ω] ... others fit in mother board.
TP water 0.01 °C
Please, make the attached as you think it should be.
Publish for the benefit of the Smath Community.
Take care Alvaro ... Jean.

Inst_Type Pt100 BIPM Copy.sm (396 KiB) downloaded 60 time(s).

Wrote

Wrote

Actually there are also PT1000, whose nominal resistance is 1000 ohms at 0 C

There are even more SPRT [25.5 Ω] ... others fit in mother board.
TP water 0.01 °C
Please, make the attached as you think it should be.
Publish for the benefit of the Smath Community.
Take care Alvaro ... Jean.

Inst_Type Pt100 BIPM Copy.sm (396 KiB) downloaded 60 time(s).

Fedeghi is right, answering you does not make any difference: "Sostenedlla y no enmendadlla". I'm just doing it to warn the community of what I consider to be correctable mistakes but unacceptable bugs if you insist on them.

W is dimensionless, but you insist on putting it in ohms. If you don't want to read the NIST document, at least take a look at the table header: It has no units. Just modify your calculations or stop spamming these kinds of errors:



And don't try to confuse the reader with the 0.01 W value, which is dimensionless and not in ohms like in your table: PT100 temperature sensors have a resistance of 100 ohms at 0 C, not 1 ohm like in your calculations.

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wrote

PT100 temperature sensors have a resistance of 100 ohms at 0 C, not 1 ohm like in your calculations.

Again 0.01°C
eit90 and BIPM are compatible as given conjointly.
Produce your own for the benefit of Smath Community.

Wrote

Personally speaking I have stopped reading his stuff and downloading his documents

Suppose you have not downloaded "Most used_3" because you denigrate.
You have rejected this exceptional collection of 5 Collaborators.
1. Carlos ∫Adaptive(f,a,b,iter,ε)
2. Viacheslav ODE exposed ... good/freak
3. Martin discrete successive derivative.
4. Mostly Jean back Mathcad adapted Smath
5. Paul W. convolution Laser as I have first exposed.

Wrote

Wrote

PT100 temperature sensors have a resistance of 100 ohms at 0 C, not 1 ohm like in your calculations.

Again 0.01°C
eit90 and BIPM are compatible as given conjointly.
Produce your own for the benefit of Smath Community.

Neither, as usual. Sostenedlla y no enmendadlla.

Water TP is the water Triple Point, which is 0.01 C according to ITS-90. You can check that even on wikipedia. The water is for the thermal bath where the sensor is immersed, just like mercury or nitrogen.

PT100 is for Platinum, which has according to EN 60 751 a nominal value of 100.000 Ω at 0°C.

Wrote

...
Produce your own for the benefit of Smath Community.

For what? The calculations you show are for the sensor manufacturer, not for use by the instrument engineer to calibrate the sensor. Or do you suggest that I do a liquid Hydrogen or Helium bath every time I'm going to calibrate a temperature sensor?

Best regards.
Alvaro.

Wrote

Every single topic gets spammed and hijacked by Jean's out of topic posts.
What a spammer! You would expect such an immature use of a forum from a teenager.
This forum has become a mess under his many unrelated replies, and "search" function is polluted with crap, crusades against SI or other useless/unrelated stuff.

But maybe as forum users, we should just "stop feeding the troll" and ignore him, since it appears that the recent two weeks ban was useless, and we can't expect he changes his mind today.
So my suggestion is to stop interacting.
Personally speaking I have stopped reading his stuff and downloading his documents. And I will return silent again after this reply.

I would like to add one more thing: for "non english" mother tongue users, his colloquial english is often confusing, to say the least.
It is confusing to me, at least (and I remember more than one user being puzzled, and asking to rephrase...). Colloquial and unclear statements, that's not the approach I would expect on a forum like this one.
I remember when I joined the forum some years ago, I always read his replies ten times while thinking "Damn I need to improve my english, here there is someone who is trying to teach me something and, stupid me, I'm missing the point due to my english skill".
After some months, I finally understood that my english was 10% of the problem :^P

IMHO, in his replies there is no true intention to "help" (as some may think), but only the intention to "show" (...wrongs... as we have all read recently, and as resumed by other users in this same thread).

See you.

I agree with you. as an silent reader (rarely to post anything), I conclude that JG just intend to 'show', his intention to 'help' just a secondary.