SL,

To be 'consistant' in your Logic of using "Five Significant Digits":

Would be: 120.00 V * 1.4142 = 169.704 Rounded 'down' to 169.70

NOT: 120 V * 1.421356237~ = 169.705627484~ Rounded 'up' to 169.71

Regardless Either Answer:

- - - When 'rounded' to Whole Numbers the Answer would be 170.

But then again, how does one really, truly, factually claim that "170"

is 'round' to "Two Significant Digits" using Three Numbers ? ? ?

hnyccot ~ RHF

Hey, Numbers! You Can Count On Them.

- Resideing just-south of Buz-Er-Kal-Lee, Cali-4-Ni-Ah

- - In The Logic Free Zone

)

- - - Where Everthing Adds Up To Nothing !

..

Ok-land, Cali-4-Ni-Ah

Mayor Jerry "Moon Beam" Brown

- - - - - - -&- - - - - - -

The Gover-Nator der Arnold !

..

= = = Stagger Lee

= = = wrote in message ...

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:55:29 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender wrote:

:

: And Arf!Arf! still can't explain why the FCC question pool question used as an example is WRONG.

: RMS voltage is calculated thusly:

: From FCC Element 4:

:

: E8A11 What is the RMS value of a 340-volt-peak-to-peak pure sine wave?

: A. 120-V AC

: B. 170-V AC

: C. 240-V AC

: D. 300-V AC

Yeah, but that wasn't the history of it. In message ,

you posted the following:

"120 V * 1.414 = 169.69 Volts.

Learn how to multiply, DROPOUT"

And that little gem illustrates that you can't even get the final

digit in a multiplication to come out (hint: 2 x 4 = 8) and that you

have no idea about significant digits. You SHOULD have used more

significant digits in the square root of two if you wanted to obtain

the peak voltage to five significant digits (169.71). Otherwise, you

should have rounded the number off to the two significant digits used

in the FCC question pool and obtained 170 VAC.

Your faux pas has forever been archived on Google, and you can't

spin your way out of it. Every time you try, I'll repost the

Message-ID of your blunder.