# medida de una magnitud



## harshduck

Hola a todos!

Alguien tiene idea de qué significa “los que deben dar la medida de una magnitud con su incertidumbre” en las frase siguiente? Incluyo la traducción literal, pero seguro que no es cierta porque no hace sentido.

Original:
Los equipos sujetos a calibración son aquellos que precisan una gran exactitud en la medida, los que deben dar la medida de una magnitud con su incertidumbre y los utilizados como patrones de las verificaciones.

Mi intento:
Any equipment that needs to measure something with great precision, that needs to measure a magnitude with its uncertainty or that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration.

Saludos y gracias de antemano


----------



## catrina

Hola, 
¿De qué tema es? La incertidumbre me parece que tiene que ver con cálculo y es un término que he oído muchas veces referido a la magnitud; no se mucho del tema, pero me parece que si buscas en temas de cálculo lo vas a encontrar fácil.  Espero te ayude


----------



## dilema

harshduck said:


> Hola a todos!
> 
> Alguien tiene idea de qué significa “los que deben dar la medida de una magnitud con su incertidumbre” en las frase siguiente? Incluyo la traducción literal, pero seguro que no es cierta porque no hace sentido.
> 
> Original:
> Los equipos sujetos a calibración son aquellos que precisan una gran exactitud en la medida, los que deben dar la medida de una magnitud con su incertidumbre y los utilizados como patrones de las verificaciones.
> 
> Mi intento:
> Any equipment that needs to measure something with great precision, that needs to measure a magnitude with its uncertainty or that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration.
> 
> Saludos y gracias de antemano


Sugiero:
_Any equipment that has to measure something with great precision, that has to give a magnitude's measure together with the measure's uncertainty and that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration.

_


----------



## k-in-sc

It sounds to me like it means "The pieces of equipment subject to calibration are those that require great precision of measurement, that must provide the measurement together with its degree of accuracy and those used for performing verifications." But the "magnitud con su incertidumbre" thing is not clear to me either.
You know you're not supposed to duplicate threads, right?


----------



## katlpablo

harshduck said:


> Original:
> Los equipos sujetos a calibración son aquellos que precisan una gran exactitud en la medida, los que deben dar la medida de una magnitud con su incertidumbre y los utilizados como patrones de las verificaciones.
> 
> Mi intento:
> Any equipment that needs to measure something with great precision, that needs to measure a magnitude with its uncertainty or that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration.


Una posible interpretación: 
Equipment subject to calibration are: those that need to make measurements with great precision; those that need to give a measure of a magnitude and its uncertainty; and those that are used as standards during calibration verification.


----------



## St. Nick

Habla de la _'measurement uncertainty,' _un término fijo en este campo.


----------



## harshduck

k-in-sc said:


> You know you're not supposed to duplicate threads, right?


I actually didn't know that. I won't do it again.



St. Nick said:


> Habla de la _'measurement uncertainty,' _un término fijo en este campo.


 


dilema said:


> Sugiero:
> _Any equipment that has to measure something with great precision, that has to give a magnitude's measure together with the measure's uncertainty and that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration._



On the basis of St Nick's and dilema's suggestions, this is my new translation:_

Any equipment that has to measure something with great precision, that has to measure a magnitude and its measurement uncertainty, and that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration.

_Qué pensáis?


----------



## k-in-sc

I think it's any, not all.


----------



## harshduck

But, that aside, you think it's OK?


----------



## k-in-sc

Sorry, I don't understand it well enough to say. That phrase "medida de una magnitud con su incertidumbre" is wtf. Rodelu2.0 would know.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

harshduck said:


> But, that aside, you think it's OK?



I'm coming late in this discussion but, to be quite frank, the original sentence in Spanish makes no sense to me. Your last attempted translation/interpretation has logic and is probably very close to the intended original meaning, but I think I would like to replace the phrase in red by something like "that has to give a measurement of a magnitude with its uncertainty". And I think a comma is needed before "is subject..."


----------



## PaulQ

My 2 cents:
Equipment subject to calibration are those that (i) require a high accuracy of measurement, (ii) give a measure of magnitude and uncertainty and (iii) those used as standards for verification.

If the subject is engineering, substitute 'tolerance' for 'uncertainty'.


----------



## k-in-sc

What's a "measure of magnitude"?


----------



## Oldy Nuts

PaulQ said:


> My 2 cents:
> Equipment subject to calibration are those that (i) require a high accuracy of measurement, (ii) give a measure of magnitude and uncertainty and (iii) those used as standards for verification.
> 
> If the subject is engineering, substitute 'tolerance' for 'uncertainty'.



This certainly makes sense. I wonder what the author of the original would think, though.

Anr on reading K's message, I would write "a magnitude and its"


----------



## PaulQ

k-in-sc said:


> What's a "measure of magnitude"?


If, for example, the measure were (5.18*10^-4)mm, the magnitude would be 10^-4.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

PaulQ said:


> If, for example, the measure were (5.18*10^-4)mm, the magnitude would be 10^-4.



As I understand things, that would be the _order of magnitude_ of the measured magnitude.


----------



## PaulQ

Hmmm... I was thinking along the lines of metres, centi-, milli-, nano-,metres etc. These being as you say orders of magnitude of metres, or simply put, magnitude in general. It might be helpful to know what the thing is measuring; it could be the magnitude of stars.


----------



## harshduck

As several people have suggested, it is certainly the case that this sentence (like the rest of the text) is badly written and hard to understand in places.



PaulQ said:


> It might be helpful to know what the thing is measuring; it could be the magnitude of stars.


It would be helpful... but the author of the text I am translating was not forthcoming with such help in the text.



PaulQ said:


> If the subject is engineering, substitute 'tolerance' for 'uncertainty'.


The subject is not engineering, but measurement instruments used in a bottling factory.



PaulQ said:


> Equipment subject to calibration are those that (i) require a high accuracy of measurement, (ii) give a measure of magnitude and uncertainty and (iii) those used as standards for verification.


Unfortunately, I don't think I can get away with including (i), (ii), (iii): while it tidies the sentence up, is not included in the original and I think it is beyond my remit to make additions like that. Nevertheless, this sentence (without those additions) currently seems like the best option.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

harshduck, I don't envy you. Taking into account all that has been said, my final suggestion would be your attempt in message #7 with the part in red changed as follows:

_Any equipment that has to measure something with great precision, _that has to give a measurement of a magnitude with its accuracy_, and that is used as the standard against which checks are performed*,* is subject to calibration.

_This makes sense and I think is close enough to the difficult to understand original_.
_


----------



## dilema

PaulQ said:


> If, for example, the measure were (5.18*10^-4)mm, the magnitude would be 10^-4.


No, the magnitud would be "length". In the International System:
length > measured in meters
time > seconds
temperature > degrees
mass > Kilograms
speed > meters per second
etc


----------



## rodelu2

El original:
Los equipos sujetos a calibración son aquellos que precisan una gran exactitud en la medida, los que deben dar la medida de una magnitud con su incertidumbre y los utilizados como patrones de las verificaciones. 
La "calibración" se refiere aquí a verificar periódicamente el buen funcionamiento del equipo o instrumento de medida. "Exactitud" e "incertidumbre" están muy estrechamente vinculadas y se refieren al apartamiento de la medida que entrega el instrumento con respecto al valor real de lo medido; si medimos una distancia de un metro, se apartará del metro patrón de platino conservado en Francia, en un cierto valor que depende del instrumento de medida empleado, de la pericia del operador, de las condiciones de trabajo etc. 
En otro tema, un equipo de medida no *"precisa" una gran exactitud de medida,* sino que es capaz de *ofrecer* esa exactitud; quien precisa de la gran exactitud es el trabajo para el cual se ha elegido ese equipo.
Mi intento: *High-accuracy measuring equipment and standards used for verification will require periodic calibration.  *Dejé de lado la "incertidumbre" porque está implícito que es conocida.
Por último, y a riesgo de aburrimiento despiadado, no debe confundirse o intercambiarse "exactitud" con "precisión", son dos cosas muy distintas.


----------



## k-in-sc

Everything you say is true, but unfortunately, it sounds like he doesn't have any leeway in the translation. I still don't understand what "magnitud" means in the phrase "dar la medida de una magnitud con su incertidumbre." I don't think it would be "length" either -- that seems too specific. Maybe "dimension."  Maybe "con su incertidumbre" is another way of saying "to a (specific) tolerance/accuracy."


----------



## rodelu2

"Magnitud" es cada una de las....well, magnitudes, que forman los  sistemas de medida. Segundo, kilogramo, metro, etc, son "magnitudes".  Sustituye "magnitud" por "dimensión" en el original y creo todo queda  claro. "Magnitud" es 100% correcto en el contexto del original.
Our friend Harshduck should demand leeway, the original is far from watertight.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

K, in scientific jargon, a "magnitude" is any quantity susceptible to be measured, such as a lenth or a time interval. Unfortunately, the word is also sometimes used for the actual size of any such measured quantity.


----------



## Grux

Oldy Nuts said:


> K, in scientific jargon, a "magnitude" is any quantity susceptible to be measured, such as a lenth or a time interval. Unfortunately, the word is also sometimes used for the actual size of any such measured quantity.


I agree. And it is true that, in technical language, accuracy(=exactitud) is not the same as precision.


----------



## k-in-sc

And rodelu2.0 says they're units of measurement, it got PaulQ thinking about orders of magnitude ... you can see how it needs to be less ambiguous.


----------



## Grux

I don't see where rodelu2.0 said that, perhaps you have misunderstood him/her. And the concept of "magnitude" is different from the concept of "order of magnitude".

Rodelu2's translation is fine and perhaps it has more sense than the original. However, if you want to be faithful to the original I would use the last Oldynut's translation, but changing "precision" for "accuracy".


----------



## Oldy Nuts

k-in-sc said:


> And rodelu2.0 says they're units of measurement, it got PaulQ thinking about orders of magnitude ... you can see how it needs to be less ambiguous.



I know: "order of magnitude" of a mesaured quantity is its value rounded to the next -usually the lower- power of then, meant to give a very rough idea of its size.

Grux, just to add to the confusion: around here we used to use "precisión" for "accuracy" and "exactitud" for "precision".


----------



## k-in-sc

In post #23.


----------



## Grux

k-in-sc said:


> In post #23.


OK, sorry, I think rodelu didn't express itself very clearly in that post.

Example 1: 
A length of 3·10^5 metres (300 000 metres)
Magnitude:length.  Unit: metre.  Order of magnitude: 10^5 m    

Example 2: 
An electric resistance of 0.004 ohms (4·10^-3 ohm)
Magnitude: electric resistance,   unit: ohm,    order of magnitude: 10^-3 ohm


----------



## Grux

> Grux, just to add to the confusion: around here we used to use "precisión" for "accuracy" and "exactitud" for "precision".



In this link:  http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precisión_y_exactitud,  you can see that exactitud=accuracy, and precision=precision. I think this is the most accepted and natural translation.


----------



## k-in-sc

If "magnitude" is used in English to mean "dimension/aspect to be measured," this is the first I've heard of it.


----------



## Grux

Not in everyday language, but it is used with that meaning in physics, metrology, etc. You can look for "physical magnitudes" in google.

EDIT:  After further research in the web, it seems that in English it is more common to refer to this concept as "physical quantity". There are many sites in wich they use "physical magnitude" as a synonym for "physical quantity" but most of them are from non-native English authors. Although I think both of them are correct, perhaps it would be better to use the word "quantity" instead of "magnitude".


----------



## harshduck

Thanks for all your contributions. In the end, while I am concerned with the accuracy of my translation, I now find myself trying to second guess the poorly written original: "what might they have meant, had they written it properly"...

I have gone, in the end, with the following translation:

"Any equipment that has to measure something with great precision, that has to measure a magnitude and its uncertainty, or that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration."

It is a bit of a fudge (particularly as, having read the link in Grux's last post, I tend to agree that that is probably what they mean by "magnitud"), but it is also the best I can do unless they rewrite the sentence (which I will ask them to do on submission, with very low expectations of a positive response). Moreover, I had many deeply frustrating experiences in the past where I have put the correct translation and it has been rejected for being "too far from the original".


----------



## k-in-sc

OK, thanks for posting back. Keep us apprised. Thanks also to everyone who contributed


----------



## Oldy Nuts

harshduck, I said I do not envy you. Once I corrected a gross and obvious misspelling in a text, and my correction was rejected on the grounds that the paragraph had been written by the CEO...


----------



## harshduck

Oldy Nuts said:


> harshduck, I said I do not envy you. Once I corrected a gross and obvious misspelling in a text, and my correction was rejected on the grounds that the paragraph had been written by the CEO...


And guess who wrote the text in this case...

Thanks again everyone


----------



## dilema

harshduck said:


> I have gone, in the end, with the following translation:
> 
> "Any equipment that has to measure something with great precision, that has to measure a magnitude and its uncertainty, or that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration."
> 
> It is a bit of a fudge (particularly as, having read the link in Grux's last post, I tend to agree that that is probably what they mean by "magnitud"), but it is also the best I can do unless they rewrite the sentence (which I will ask them to do on submission, with very low expectations of a positive response). Moreover, I had many deeply frustrating experiences in the past where I have put the correct translation and it has been rejected for being "too far from the original".


In my opinion, what I've underlined is conceptually wrong. You can measure a magnitude, but not an uncertainty (if you could, then you'd be totally accurate).

What the equipment must do, according to the original, is to give the measure of a magnitude (length, time, whatever) togheter with the uncertainty with which that equipment is able to measure. For example, the equipmente must show "3.3 kg +/-0.5%".


----------



## Grux

I didn't notice that point, but you are completely right, dilema.

The only thing I'm still not sure about, is if the term "magnitude" (physical magnitude) is common in _technical_ English to refer to measurable properties, or if it is a bit rare and perhaps they prefer "quantity" (physical quantity). I thought it was very common, but now I'm not so sure.


----------



## angelp

En términos físicos la traducción de magnitud al inglés es quantity. Se mide una magnitud física (quantity)
Magnitude y magnitud     cantidad y quantity   son falsas análogas


----------



## harshduck

Dados los comentarios mas recentes (de dilema, Grux y angelp), la traducción correcta sería:

"Any equipment that has to measure something with great precision, that has to measure a physical quantity and its measurement uncertainty, or that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is subject to calibration."

Qué os parece?


----------



## Grux

As dilema pointed out, the measurement uncertainty is not measured by the instrument, and on the other hand, I still think "exactitud" is equal to "accuracy" and different from "precision" (according to the link to wikipedia and my books). So I would say:

"Any equipment that has to measure something with great accuracy, that  has to give the measurement of a quantity together with  its measurement uncertainty, or  that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is  subject to calibration".

In this context, I guess it is not necessary to specify "_physical_ quantity", and perhaps it could be also a "_chemical_ quantity"...


----------



## harshduck

Grux said:


> As dilema pointed out, the measurement uncertainty is not measured by the instrument, and on the other hand, I still think "exactitud" is equal to "accuracy" and different from "precision" (according to the link to wikipedia and my books). So I would say:
> 
> "Any equipment that has to measure something with great accuracy, that  has to give the measurement of a quantity together with  its measurement uncertainty, or  that is used as the standard against which checks are performed is  subject to calibration".
> 
> In this context, I guess it is not necessary to specify "_physical_ quantity", and perhaps it could be also a "_chemical_ quantity"...


All good points. I will use the exact text in your post.


----------

