What is the smallest physically-possible voltage that can be detected or processed given the state of today's technology?
GreenXenon
What is the smallest physically-possible voltage that can be detected
or processed given the state of today's technology?
Thanks
John Larkin
You can buy nanovoltmeters that will resolve a couple of hundred
picovolts, if you're careful.
Superconductive SQUID detectors can measure a picovolt.
Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
John
Certainly not a sock-puppet
Go bugger yourself, you spamming pile of shit.
ItsASecretDummy
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
>
>John
PMTs can be good enough to detect single photon events.
rickman
<secretasian...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:40:20 -0700, John Larkin
>
>
> >Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
>
> >John
>
> PMTs can be good enough to detect single photon events.
Hmmm... I have a $35 digital multimeter that can measure exactly 0
volts!
Rick
Michael A. Terrell
No, it can't. It can display zero, even with some voltage at the
input. The issues is the resolution of the meter. Even with the probes
shorted, you will have some Johnson noise which is generated by the
resistors in the input circuitry, if the meter is above absolute zero
degrees. That voltage is too low to be displayed, but it is still there.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
John Larkin
wrote:
Yeah, but to how many percentage accuracy?
John
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, but zero volts is ancient history, rather than a
measurement.
Which is why the people with brains invented optcal computers, flat
sceeen hdtv debuggers,
c++, distributed processing, blue ray, holograms, xml, usb, on-line
banking, on-line shopping,
on-line publishing, diigital-terrain mapping, post Ford Batteries,
and self-assembling robots, rather than idiot physics anyway.
>
> Rick
Jerry Avins
How exactly?
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
GreenXenon
wrote:
> Go bugger yourself
aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-
ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh
aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-
ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh
aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-
ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh
aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-
ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh
aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-
ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh
aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-
ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh
aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-
ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh
aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-
ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh aah-ooh
GreenXenon
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> You can buy nanovoltmeters that will resolve a couple of hundred
> picovolts, if you're careful.
>
> Superconductive SQUID detectors can measure a picovolt.
>
> Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
Are there any devices that can detect, receive, record, playback,
modulate/demodulate, transmit and/or otherwise process signals with
peak-to-peak amplitudes around 1 femtovolt?
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip)
> Are there any devices that can detect, receive, record, playback,
> modulate/demodulate, transmit and/or otherwise process signals with
> peak-to-peak amplitudes around 1 femtovolt?
Since it is usually power, and not voltage, that is the limiting
factor, it might be possible if the current is high enough.
If you go through a transformer, or a series of them, to get
to a more usual voltage and current range, then it might work.
I would say that it is likely not possible to measure femtovolts DC,
but likely possible AC.
-- glen
Eric Jacobsen
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CMudnRFLId9xOrnX...@earthlink.com...
Yeah, but when it's exactly zero volts, that what the $35 multimeter will
display, so he wasn't incorrect.
;)
rickman
wrote:
That was my point. It was supposed to be funny... I guess I needed
to add the smiley.
One of the things I have thought about is when in court defending a
ticket for not stopping at a stop sign, asserting that there is no
defense possible since you can never prove a quantity is exactly zero
by measurement. Somehow I suspect the interesting aspects of this
defense would be lost on the judge...
Rick
rickman
> rickman wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, ItsASecretDummy > <secretasian...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:40:20 -0700, John Larkin
> >> >> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>> Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
> >>> John
> >> PMTs can be good enough to detect single photon events.
> >
> > Hmmm... I have a $35 digital multimeter that can measure exactly 0
> > volts!
>
> How exactly?
>
> Jerry
The usual way. It's not a magic voltmeter!
Rick
rickman
Can't you always chop a DC current to produce an AC current? Even if
the current is very high, the fact that it is at a very low voltage
makes it hard to get any of that current to flow through your
measuring device, even if it is a transformer.
I suppose that you could pass the entire current through the measuring
device and then calculate the voltage by knowing the impedance... But
I don't see how having a high current help a direct measurement of a
low voltage.
Rick
Michael A. Terrell
Judges don't have a sense of humor, and most have no common sense.
Michael A. Terrell
Sigh.
Richard Owlett
WRONG!
If you had said "many" or possibly "most" that would be something else.
For over three years I sat in on local Justice of Peace every Monday.
Great entertainment! It was free, educational, and entertaining to boot.
Jerry Avins
I meant not "How, exactly", but "exact to what extent".
ItsASecretDummy
wrote:
>On Jun 1, 10:33�pm, ItsASecretDummy
No... it cannot. In fact, nothing can.
ItsASecretDummy
Zero volts cannot be measured no matter what parasitics are in place or
are not.
Nothingness cannot be quantified. Only tangibles can. Zero is not
tangible, it is the absence of tangibility.
ItsASecretDummy
No, as in: there is no such measurement capacity available anywhere on
any device.
Your statement has 'bent' grammar. Insert word "points" or choose
different manner to ask same question as in: "to what degree of
accuracy".
ItsASecretDummy
] Not if it is turned on it wont.
> so he wasn't incorrect.
Oh yes he was, and so is most of the other responses to him.
If the meter is off, there will be no display. If it is on, it will
not be very likely to read zero volts when probing a bare piece of metal
or shorting the leads.
Like a scale that has been zeroed, one will see drift above and below
the zero line if the scale can resolve to tenths of a gram. It will also
drift as the internal electronics heats up. Not so much with a meter as
with scale electronics, for some reason.
So if the meter has more than 2 digits behind the decimal point, one
will likely see errant values pop in and out.
prote...@gmail.com
<secretasian...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 22:00:07 -0700, "Eric Jacobsen"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
YOUY ARE FULL OF ESCREMENT TROLL
BUGGER OFF TO YOUR USUAL NAME PLACE AND TIME
I AM PROTEUS
GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement
Yes, your FM receiver. Usually takes 3 or more though.
We call them radios.
Satellite and deep space radio waves exhibit even less energy. That what
the big concentrator dishes are for.
Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason
wrote:
>
>One of the things I have thought about is when in court defending a
>ticket for not stopping at a stop sign, asserting that there is no
>defense possible since you can never prove a quantity is exactly zero
>by measurement. Somehow I suspect the interesting aspects of this
>defense would be lost on the judge...
Yeah, and then there are those of us that, as we aged and learned, did
not decide to cast out half of what we were taught and pull crap like
ignoring rules, not using turn signals, flicking their cigarette butts
out onto the rest of the world, forgetting what the rule is for a stop
sign, and generally growing up thinking they are smart, and then doing
stupid shit like applying to much precision where less is used by the
rest of the world, and invariably using too little where it is needed,
and then they have a wreck, and want to call it "an accident" when they
should be charged with negligence.
It was an accident that we let them make laws that allow any dumb
mutant to get a license to drive. Because invariably some other retarded
mutant observes said mutant driving, and then picks up his mutated foul
driving habits.
ItsASecretDummy
wrote:
>On Jun 2, 9:08�am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
It would have to be to be able to measure zero volts, since such feats
are not possible.
The Great Attractor
>rickman wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 9:08 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> rickman wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, ItsASecretDummy > <secretasian...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:40:20 -0700, John Larkin
>>> >> >> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>> Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
>>> >>> John
>>> >> PMTs can be good enough to detect single photon events.
>>> >
>>> > Hmmm... I have a $35 digital multimeter that can measure exactly 0
>>> > volts!
>>>
>>> How exactly?
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>> The usual way. It's not a magic voltmeter!
>>
>> Rick
>
>I meant not "How, exactly", but "exact to what extent".
>
>Jerry
Ahh... the resolution question again. He already answered that one
too, you just have to read what was written.
Another resolution question is the guys trying to determine the age of
the universe.
I would think it quite hard to look that far back because things would
be so distorted that even your determination of how far back you are
"seeing" could be off an order of magnitude. 13.5 Billion years could
really be 135 Billion.
See you on 12/20/2012.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, it would be, since stop signs don't really have anything to do
with
Judges, but only really concern DAs. Which is mostly why the people
with actual
brains started building Optical Computers, Distributed Processing,
Self-Assembling Robots,
Self-Replicating Machines, Holograms, On-Line Banking, On-Line
Publishing,
GPS, Autonomous Vehicles,, and Drones for the idiots, Rather than
more roads.
>
> Rick- Hide quoted text -
Jerry Avins
...
> Another resolution question is the guys trying to determine the age of
> the universe.
>
> I would think it quite hard to look that far back because things would
> be so distorted that even your determination of how far back you are
> "seeing" could be off an order of magnitude. 13.5 Billion years could
> really be 135 Billion.
13.5 billion is so last year! The number now is 13,500,000.001.
Sam Wormley
>
> I would think it quite hard to look that far back because things would
> be so distorted that even your determination of how far back you are
> "seeing" could be off an order of magnitude. 13.5 Billion years could
> really be 135 Billion.
>
> See you on 12/20/2012.
Have fun... Javascript calculator of the many distances involved in cosmology
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
John Larkin
Fluke 75, shorted leads, VDC range: steady .000
Fluke 87, ditto: steady 0.000
AlwaysWrong.
John
John Larkin
<GoldIntermetall...@youdontknowjack.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:17:53 -0700 (PDT), GreenXenon
><gluce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 1, 5:40 pm, John Larkin
>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You can buy nanovoltmeters that will resolve a couple of hundred
>>> picovolts, if you're careful.
>>>
>>> Superconductive SQUID detectors can measure a picovolt.
>>>
>>> Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
>>
>>
>>Are there any devices that can detect, receive, record, playback,
>>modulate/demodulate, transmit and/or otherwise process signals with
>>peak-to-peak amplitudes around 1 femtovolt?
>
> Yes, your FM receiver. Usually takes 3 or more though.
Femtovolts, with an FM receiver? Good ones need microvolt or so. A 3
dB noise figure, optimistic for a radio, is ballpark 1 nV RMS noise
per root Hz, and an FM radio has a couple of hundred KHz bandwidth.
AlwaysWrong.
John
glen herrmannsfeldt
< Femtovolts, with an FM receiver? Good ones need microvolt or so. A 3
< dB noise figure, optimistic for a radio, is ballpark 1 nV RMS noise
< per root Hz, and an FM radio has a couple of hundred KHz bandwidth.
How about traditional satellite TV? As I remember, it is about six
watts per channel. If the signal covers most of the continental US,
a 10m dish has about 1/(500000)**2 the area of the US, so about
6W/2.5e11 or about 2.4e-11W At 75 ohms that is about 40uV.
I would expect that to be a lot less than FM radio with 100kW
transmitters.
On the other hand, my cable modem has about +16dBm input at 75 ohms.
About 1.7V, maybe enough for a small light bulb. (I believe that is
only for the specific signal it is receiving, not counting the
hundreds of other cable channels.)
-- glen
Michael A. Terrell
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>
> In comp.dsp John Larkin <jjla...@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:
>
> < Femtovolts, with an FM receiver? Good ones need microvolt or so. A 3
> < dB noise figure, optimistic for a radio, is ballpark 1 nV RMS noise
> < per root Hz, and an FM radio has a couple of hundred KHz bandwidth.
>
> How about traditional satellite TV? As I remember, it is about six
> watts per channel. If the signal covers most of the continental US,
> a 10m dish has about 1/(500000)**2 the area of the US, so about
> 6W/2.5e11 or about 2.4e-11W At 75 ohms that is about 40uV.
Try that without the feed horn and dish to supply a fair amount of
gain.
The early 'Galaxy' birds were 10 watts per transponder.
rickman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:40:51 -0700, ItsASecretDummy
>
>
>
> <secretasian...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 22:00:07 -0700, "Eric Jacobsen"
>
> >>"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Are you going to return these meters for repair?
Rick
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Jun 3, 5:09�pm, John Larkin
We do have an Agilent 34401A benchtop DVM. It has a VF display that
kicks huge noise spikes out the front-panel connectors. So on the low
AC ranges, it's pretty much measuring its own spikes. So they boogered
the firmware so that, just above that noise floor, the displayed value
drops to exactly zero.
John
prote...@gmail.com
> Hi:
>
> What is the smallest physically-possible voltage that can be detected
> or processed given the state of today's technology?
>
> Thanks
COMMERCIALLY ?
THE ANSWER IS . 001 vOLTS
I AM PROTEUS
John Larkin
YOU BE MORON.
My Fluke handheld DVM resolves 100 uV. My Fluke benchtop does 100 nV.
You can buy meters that resolve 200 pV.
John
prote...@gmail.com
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
CLEAN MY PROBE "BE"
I AM PROTEUS
David L. Jones
> rickman wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, ItsASecretDummy
>> <secretasian...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:40:20 -0700, John Larkin
>>>
>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>> PMTs can be good enough to detect single photon events.
>>
>> Hmmm... I have a $35 digital multimeter that can measure exactly 0
>> volts!
>
>
> No, it can't. It can display zero, even with some voltage at the
> input. The issues is the resolution of the meter. Even with the
> probes shorted, you will have some Johnson noise which is generated
> by the resistors in the input circuitry, if the meter is above
> absolute zero degrees. That voltage is too low to be displayed, but
> it is still there.
Whoosh!
Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
Michael A. Terrell
"David L. Jones" wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > rickman wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 1, 10:33 pm, ItsASecretDummy
> >> <secretasian...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:40:20 -0700, John Larkin
> >>>
> >>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Single-electron transistors can sense, well, single electrons.
> >>>
> >>>> John
> >>>
> >>> PMTs can be good enough to detect single photon events.
> >>
> >> Hmmm... I have a $35 digital multimeter that can measure exactly 0
> >> volts!
> >
> >
> > No, it can't. It can display zero, even with some voltage at the
> > input. The issues is the resolution of the meter. Even with the
> > probes shorted, you will have some Johnson noise which is generated
> > by the resistors in the input circuitry, if the meter is above
> > absolute zero degrees. That voltage is too low to be displayed, but
> > it is still there.
>
> Whoosh!
Whoosh! all you want, but some of us have worked in Metrology labs,
and other very critical applications where a comment like his isn't a
joke, rather its grounds for dismissal.
David L. Jones
And to think you have a signature that reads:
"You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!"
It was an excellent reply to one of GreenXenon's idiotic trolling threads.
It's quite sad if you didn't find that funny.
Benj
> And to think you have a signature that reads:
> "You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!"
> It was an excellent reply to one of GreenXenon's idiotic trolling threads.
> It's quite sad if you didn't find that funny.
Quite sad. But that's no surprise for Terrell.
Personally my question is what is the smallest physically-possible
intelligence that still allows a human to be alive?
Call me GreenXerox...
George Jetson
news:ed419ee4-39a6-438f...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Call me GreenXerox...
There are two "smallest physically-possible" organs showing up prominently
in this thread.
Michael A. Terrell
"David L. Jones" wrote:
>
> And to think you have a signature that reads:
> "You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!"
> It was an excellent reply to one of GreenXenon's idiotic trolling threads.
> It's quite sad if you didn't find that funny.
Whatever. The idiot spreads enough stupidity for a dozen newsgroups,
so there is no need to add to it. There is a wide gap between funny,
and ignorance. Laugh yourself sick, if you can't see the difference.
--
Michael A. Terrell
When you reach his level, I will.
--
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
The capacity to make an inane post to Usenet.
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>There are two "smallest physically-possible" organs showing up prominently
>in this thread.
I guess that means that you're the dickhead. Who is the other, and what
organ is he? Bwuahahahah!
prote...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 20:16:26 -0400, "George Jetson" <GJet...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There are two "smallest physically-possible" organs showing up prominently
> >in this thread.
>
> I guess that means that you're the dickhead. Who is the other, and what
> organ is he? Bwuahahahah!
GO PROBE YOURSELF FAGGOT
I AM PROTEUS