EcoModder Forum Decimal places

Register Now
 Remember

 04-10-2021, 07:25 PM #1 (permalink) Master EcoModder     Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Australia Posts: 1,821 Thanks: 99 Thanked 1,459 Times in 1,032 Posts Decimal places I see people here often quoting data to many decimal places. Sometimes, even (as Aerohead did recently), increasing the number of decimal places after doing a calculation. So what's the issue? The number of decimal places is indicative of the accuracy of the measurement, with the more decimal places, the higher the degree of assumed accuracy. Two points. 1. You cannot increase the number of decimal places that was present in the original measurement. So for example, a 9 per cent reduction in a drag coefficient of 0.32 cannot become 0.2912 - there's no basic of validity for the last two decimal places (ie there was no such resolution in the original measurement) and so it becomes 0.29. 2. As textbook I have says of the use of too many decimal places: "They imply a very precise result from imprecise data." Therefore, the number of decimal places should reflect the uncertainty in the original measurements. If I do fuel economy measurements over a relatively short distance (i.e. not thousands of km) and get 3.2 litres/100 km, and then make a change and get 2.9 litres/100km, the improvement is 9.375 percent. But realistically, taking into account the uncertainties involved, it's better to say "about 10 per cent". As soon as someone starts using lots of decimal places, you know they either have incredibly precise measurements - or they don't have a good feel for the data. __________________ Two of my books: Modifying the Aerodynamics of Your Road Car Car Aerodynamic Testing for Road and Track - second edition
 Today Popular topics Other popular topics in this forum...
Master EcoModder

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 18,936
Thanks: 5,271
Thanked 6,259 Times in 5,015 Posts
You're not wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
Quote:
 In a set of measurements, accuracy is closeness of the measurements to a specific value, while precision is the closeness of the measurements to each other. [snip] In simpler terms, given a set of data points from repeated measurements of the same quantity, the set can be said to be accurate if their average is close to the true value of the quantity being measured, while the set can be said to be precise if the values are close to each other. In the first, more common definition of "accuracy" above, the two concepts are independent of each other, so a particular set of data can be said to be either accurate, or precise, or both, or neither.
__________________
.

Cold hearted orb that rules the night, Removes the colours from our sight, Red is grey and yellow white, But we decide which is right, And which is an illusion.
The Day Begins -- Moody Blues
_________________

 The Following User Says Thank You to freebeard For This Useful Post: aerohead (04-23-2021)
 04-10-2021, 11:34 PM #3 (permalink) Tyrant-at-large     Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Champaign, IL Posts: 1,822 Pope Pious the Prius - '13 Toyota Prius Two Team ToyotaSUV 90 day: 53.96 mpg (US) Tycho the Truck - '91 Toyota Pickup DLX 4WD Thanks: 193 Thanked 1,625 Times in 858 Posts This is an important point. First semester of an engineering or sciences degree, multiple professors will spend class time on this (in the degree I'm finishing now, we covered this in Chemistry 101, Physics 141, and Engineering Science 201. Yes, it was duplicative. Yes, it's that important). This is the concept of "significant figures," or, as we referred to it in school, "sig figs." The basic rules are: 1) The last digit is uncertain--it's an estimate. Measure something from a tape measure marked in centimeters, and you estimate the decimal point (between the marks), eg 23.7 cm. Measure it with a tape marked in millimeters, and the decimal point is again estimated, eg 236.7 mm. Accuracy depends on the measuring device, but in all cases the last digit--just beyond the resolution of the device--is estimated. It's uncertain.* 2) Addition and subtraction: The uncertain digit is taken from the smallest significant figure of the two numbers, eg 0.067 + 1.40 = 1.467. 3) Multiplication and division: The answer is rounded to the smallest number of significant figures of the input data, eg 0.067 * 1.40 = 0.094 (not 0.0938; one number has only two significant figures, so the answer is rounded to two significant figures). *Note that this says nothing about the calibration of the device. If you use a tape marked in millimeters but each mark is actually 1.1 mm, you're going to be way off regardless of correct rounding. __________________
 The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vman455 For This Useful Post: Joggernot (04-12-2021), JulianEdgar (04-11-2021)
 04-11-2021, 01:24 AM #4 (permalink) Master EcoModder     Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: northwest of normal Posts: 18,936 Thanks: 5,271 Thanked 6,259 Times in 5,015 Posts Significant figures are significant. You can add all the decimal places you want so long as they're all zeros. __________________ . Cold hearted orb that rules the night, Removes the colours from our sight, Red is grey and yellow white, But we decide which is right, And which is an illusion. The Day Begins -- Moody Blues_________________
 The Following User Says Thank You to freebeard For This Useful Post: Joggernot (04-12-2021)
Tyrant-at-large

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 1,822

Pope Pious the Prius - '13 Toyota Prius Two
Team Toyota
SUV
90 day: 53.96 mpg (US)

Tycho the Truck - '91 Toyota Pickup DLX 4WD
Thanks: 193
Thanked 1,625 Times in 858 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by freebeard Significant figures are significant. You can add all the decimal places you want so long as they're all zeros.
Only if you mean zeros before other digits, eg 0.000937 has three significant figures but 0.937000 has six.
__________________

 The Following User Says Thank You to Vman455 For This Useful Post: Ecky (04-11-2021)
 04-11-2021, 10:19 AM #6 (permalink) Master EcoModder     Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Vermont Posts: 4,304 Gaptooth (retired) - '00 Honda Insight Team HondaGen-1 Insights 90 day: 54.26 mpg (US) Such Fit - '07 Honda Fit Sport 90 day: 41.27 mpg (US) Connect - '15 Ford Transit Connect XL 90 day: 20.83 mpg (US) K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight Team Honda 90 day: 41.4 mpg (US) Thanks: 2,100 Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,201 Posts Others have covered it pretty thoroughly already, but I'd like to put out there that, after a calculation, you can have more decimal places, even while following the rules for significant figures. It isn't the number of decimal places that matters, but rather, maintaining the precision of measurement through the calculations. __________________ 2000 Insight TLC & Build Thread Honda Insight w/Acura TSX engine
 The Following User Says Thank You to Ecky For This Useful Post: aerohead (04-16-2021)
 04-11-2021, 02:48 PM #7 (permalink) Long time lurker     Join Date: May 2019 Location: Uk Posts: 149 Thanks: 68 Thanked 114 Times in 87 Posts resolution Another point is the resolution of the original measurements. " If I do fuel economy measurements over a relatively short distance (i.e. not thousands of km) and get 3.2 litres/100 km, and then make a change and get 2.9 litres/100km, the improvement is 9.375 percent. But realistically, taking into account the uncertainties involved, it's better to say "about 10 per cent". " If you read 3.2, you are really reading 3.2 +/- 0.05, and 2.9 +/- 0.05. While the reading says 3.2, it could actually be 3.24999, or it could be 3.1500. So your change could be anywhere between 6.4% and 12.4%, (if you assume 3.25 and 2.95, and compare to 3.25 and 2.85) so the margin of error on your 9% is plus minus 33%.
 The Following User Says Thank You to AeroMcAeroFace For This Useful Post: aerohead (04-16-2021)
 04-11-2021, 05:14 PM #8 (permalink) Master EcoModder     Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Australia Posts: 1,821 Thanks: 99 Thanked 1,459 Times in 1,032 Posts Yep, I was trying to make it all easy! For example, the textbook I am using has three different rules for sig figs and uses no less than 10 examples, with sig figs up to 6. What I was attempting to do is address the most egregious examples of people quoting data and calculations here as if they were quite precise, when clearly they are not. __________________ Two of my books: Modifying the Aerodynamics of Your Road Car Car Aerodynamic Testing for Road and Track - second edition
Eco-ventor

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,481

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*´ω｀*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 47.46 mpg (US)
Thanks: 63
Thanked 594 Times in 376 Posts
Quote:
 Only if you mean zeros before other digits, eg 0.000937 has three significant figures but 0.937000 has six.
But what about when the number is 937000?
__________________

2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)

 The Following User Says Thank You to jakobnev For This Useful Post: aerohead (04-23-2021)
 04-12-2021, 11:23 AM #10 (permalink) Somewhat crazed     Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: 1826 miles WSW of Normal Posts: 1,772 Thanks: 176 Thanked 492 Times in 420 Posts I'm going sociology here: more than 2 places past the decimal is meaningless (mostly because you cant half a person and expect meaningful results) I doubt that the homebuilt state of the art can actually measure to that accuracy without compensation or under closed controlled atmospheres. Go ahead and prove me wrong with actual data and not massaged findings.