Tell me how many Euro Dimes it takes to push a key!

[Konrad]

Agreed there are surely better and more accurate methods than a Rip-O-Meter metric - and don't get me wrong, rip can be annoying at times and it sorta rankles me to align myself with his cause.

But if you insist on going back to high school: Lacking other data, we can reasonably assume an error margin equal to half of the least significant digit, ie: ±0.0005g for each US nickel, which is awfully insignificant. But let's say we took shop and learned that metalworking tolerances are never better than ±0.5%, ie: ±.025g per US nickel. So a stack of ten US nickels should mass 50.000±0.250g, and let's generously double that because nickels get damaged and filthy while in circulation ... still ... even half a gram (at most!) ain't very phat, it's a pretty insignificant contribution on that scale, perhaps as heavy as a tiny strip of tape or scrap of tissue, I don't see it realistically impairing accuracy. Besides, can you offer another method that doesn't require expensive equipment and yet can promise less than 1% error in the measures?

So unless you can convince me otherwise I have to accept the offensively-named Rip-O-Meter can measure mass and weight with sufficient accuracy in this application.

Unless there other important factors which are not governed by weight? Sure I can know qualitatively if a switch is heavy or light by touch, but the point is to express that measure quantitatively. Why do you assert that force applied through gravity is not an accurate metric? I don't especially want to be confrontational webwit, but you dummytalk me without really having answered my question - please elaborate in no uncertain terms, exactly what are the factors which trap me into a false sense of accuracy?

They did teach you the difference between precision and accuracy, I presume?

[The Solutor]

So unless you can convince me otherwise I have to accept the offensively-named Rip-O-Meter can measure mass and weight with sufficient accuracy in this application.

On linear keys surely.

On tactile ones NO, because there are too many factors that affect the the point when the snap action take place.

[Konrad]

Important factors, you say?

[Soarer]

What webwit is saying is that the accuracy of the method is measured in terms of numbers of coins (the accuracy of each coin's weight is insignificant by comparison).

Ignoring any other factors, the best it could ever manage is to say the force is between N-1 and N coins. So if a switch triggers with ten 5g coins, it's between 45g and 50g.

But other factors, however small, push that error bound outwards - he says +/- 2 coins, but I'll be generous and say +1 / -2. Even so, that's only able to tell me that my example switch activates between 40g and 55g.

[webwit]

Important factors, you say?

Such as reading skills?

[The Solutor]

What webwit is saying is that the accuracy of the method is measured in terms of numbers of coins (the accuracy of each coin's weight is insignificant by comparison).

Ignoring any other factors, the best it could ever manage is to say the force is between N-1 and N coins. So if a switch triggers with ten 5g coins, it's between 45g and 50g.

But other factors, however small, push that error bound outwards - he says +/- 2 coins, but I'll be generous and say +1 / -2. Even so, that's only able to tell me that my example switch activates between 40g and 55g.

The accuracy is not a problem here, all you need is to use more lighter coins, I think that even Ripster can do some addition even if the numbers aren't rounded.

The main problem is the precision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

[Soarer]

Fair point. Being pedantic, it is neither accurate or precise. And lacking precision precludes accuracy, so that is tautology.

But...

What we want is accuracy, and it's a given that we require precision for that, so I defend my using that term

[The Solutor]

Fair point. Being pedantic, it is neither accurate or precise

If there's a place where being pedantic is a mandatory requirement is in the measurement world.

What we want is accuracy, and it's a given that we require precision for that, so I defend my using that term

Whats the point to have, say, 1g of accuracy when te precision is more than 10%, because the switch itself is imprecise ant the placement of the coins is subject to the human factor which is imprecise too ?

[webwit]

The idea this is a good way to measure activation forces, and then others need to prove it is not, is wrong to start with.

The premise of the ripometer is that it can be used by people who don't have a more accurate method - start stacking coins. It goes wrong right there.

It's up to ripster to prove it isn't wrong, and until then, I dismiss this method. Numbers scare him, so he can't and he won't and doesn't even understand why it is wrong. So all that is left to him is keep yelling that it is good and it is science blah blah because marketing a wrong thing gives him more pleasure than admitting it is wrong. Repeatedly yelling that it is science is not evidence or proof, it is intellectual poverty championed by a certain class of Americans who think it is cool to be stupid. Steven Colbert made a show out of it. People who stick to a useless method and snub the evidence because they prefer this out of feelings, they too are a supporter of truthiness - truth from the guts!

[webwit]

Whats the point to have, say, 1g of accuracy when te precision is more than 10%, because the switch itself is imprecise

Lol, ehm, to be able to measure how inprecise the switch is? I.e. the IBMs have a large deviation, the Cherries little. What you are saying you might as well measure people in 30cm intervals instead of 1cm, because people are not of equal length, hence it is just as accurate. Harhar.

[webwit]

Oops, Soarer, I accidentally zapped your last post. (Hit the wrong button, this is the second time this happens to me). Sorry, this was not my intention. Please repost if you still remember what you wrote.

[Soarer]

What we want is accuracy, and it's a given that we require precision for that, so I defend my using that term

Whats the point to have, say, 1g of accuracy when te precision is more than 10%, because the switch itself is imprecise ant the placement of the coins is subject to the human factor which is imprecise too ?

You cannot have more accuracy than your precision allows. But assuming the precision error could be minimised, the method still falls short on accuracy (particularly when using 5g coins, as is the case), and that is what I was saying - I used the correct term!

[Soarer]

Oops, Soarer, I accidentally zapped your last post. (Hit the wrong button, this is the second time this happens to me). Sorry, this was not my intention. Please repost if you still remember what you wrote.

I was wondering where it went! Or if I even posted it successfully! Anyway, found it by going 'back' enough times

[The Solutor]

But assuming the precision error could be minimised, the method still falls short on accuracy

Ok let assume to use a linear switch where a better precision can be reached, who force you to use 5g coins? I never did it.

I tested some keys, upon ripster request, with a combination of big coins to reach slightly less the weight needed, and then I added some 1 cent or 2 cent coins, that are roughly 3g and and 2.3g.

2.3g is well below the precision, and the tolerance between two (theoretically) identical switches.

[ripster]

They don't allow pedantry in America. Especially around school playgrounds.

[Soarer]

Ok let assume to use a linear switch where a better precision can be reached, who force you to use 5g coins? I never did it.

I tested some keys, upon ripster request, with a combination of big coins to reach slightly less the weight needed, and then I added some 1 cent or 2 cent coins, that are roughly 3g and and 2.3g.

2.3g is well below the precision, and the tolerance between two (theoretically) identical switches.

My first post in this thread was giving some analysis of the accuracy when using coins that were all the same, essentially pointing out that it is measured in the units of measure (i.e. coins). In case you hadn't noticed, my saying "other factors" includes precision, and I stated that I was assuming the other factors could be minimised ("however small"). Unless you disagree with my statement that "if a switch triggers with ten 5g coins, the method is only able to tell me that it activates between 40g and 55g" with those assumptions, the rest of this tangent is not relevant.

[webwit]

In case there was any doubt, that was all of ripster's defense.

[ripster]

Please see Caveat section of RipOmeter!

duckshirt.jpg (52.61 KiB) Viewed 5959 times

Cave as in Beware!

[webwit]

Yawn. If you had a defense you would have given it. So thanks for admitting your method if faulty. The link you provided does not give a defense, but is just a fine example of the "yelling that it is good, repeat 100 times, so it is good" mentality. Yelling it is science doesn't make it science, it makes it anti-science.

One thing catched my curiosity though:

It's Not Accurate! I'd say there's maybe a +/3gm level of accuracy going on here. Many people can't feel the difference in a 30g Topre pinky key versus the 45g main cluster so it's good enough.

Where did you get the 3g from? From the guts? The first sentence states "it is not accurate". How, in the sentences after that, do you actually prove it is accurate? It has no substance. None of it has.

[The Solutor]

Where did you get the 3g from?

Likely AT&T or Verizon

[webwit]

It must be. Because if he's talking 3 gram accuracy with 5 gram coins, it is black magic. Burn the witch!

[ripster]

Because rarely are peoples results different than more than 5g in the Peak Force database.

I will await your rebuttal as Those Who Fear Change find the exceptions to the rule (probably human error since results are from Geekhack, OCN and Deskthority.net and involve almost a hundred measurements).

[webwit]

Because rarely are peoples results different than more than 5g in the Peak Force database.

So where does the 3g come from. Wait, forget that. Let's take a look at the last one!
You say "A Fujitsu Peerless - 80g."

However the original post at OCN says "It took between 16 and 18 nickels to register as a keystroke, depending on how gentle I was stacking the nickels."

That's a 10g difference on the same key. So what is it, and why did you not mention this? I guess because this renders these measurements useless. This is not the first time you have been caught manipulating results by dismissing the parts you don't like. The results are as useless as someone who reports "hey man, I measured how tall I am, and I measure sometimes 1.7m and sometimes 1.9m". Webwit's reaction: *ploink* Ripster's reaction: You stand 1.9m tall, and this proves it's a very accurate measurement with a maximum of 3cm deviation which I pull right out of my ass.

[ripster]

The link picture is labeled 80g because there are 16 nickels in the pic.


See the Peak Force Database for raw numbers. Each has a source link. I don't edit them, just publish it.

[Konrad]

The idea this is a good way to measure activation forces, and then others need to prove it is not, is wrong to start with ... The premise of the ripometer is that it can be used by people who don't have a more accurate method - start stacking coins. It goes wrong right there.

You got a better idea?

It seems to me that your problem is not with what I've said above, but it's really more a problem with rip. Yes, it's obvious that discrete 5g increments are going to provide basic accuracy of ±5g at best. You got something better?

Once again you've managed to say much without actually answering the question. Yes, I did my reading, I read a lot of words lacking numerical content, categorical assertions that something is inaccurate, repeated several times with a variety of synonyms for "inaccurate" ... it doesn't prove anything. You got numbers and facts?

It's up to ripster to prove it isn't wrong, and until then, I dismiss this method.

Actually that's not how science works. Since (in the absence of better apparatus) rip's method appears to be accurate enough, it's up to you to prove rip is wrong if you wish to discredit his method, the expectation is that you do so by providing something better. So let's see some proof. Simply declaring "I am right, rip is wrong" is not enough, no matter how often or loudly you shout it. Nothing should be dismissed until proven false, strange that other people have volunteered to answer for you in better ways.

[webwit]

Blah, blah, yada yada. I advise you to next time research your stuff, so your knowledge matches your aggression into an argument. Yes I got a better idea, got numbers and facts, got something better, proved him false. If you had taken your head out of your ass for 5 minutes and googled for it, you would have found it.

I've written many times how this method works and what things you can find out, and not find out by stacking coins. Such as consistency of a switch type (compare IBM to Cherry). The difference between the blues and browns. The difference between Unicomp buckling spring keyboards and earlier. The actual error of ripometer results.

So you bump in to a thread of a long ongoing discussion, and demand people update you with things said many times before, because you are too arsed to look any deeper yourself. Nice show, princess.

And no, not under any circumstances can you put some measurement method into existence without proof it works, and then demand of others to proof it is not valid instead. It is not religion. That is not how science works. According to you, science is when I say the moon is made of cheese, and then unless you proof me otherwise, the moon is defined as being made of cheese.

This is also irrelevant, because despite that, I did proof him wrong many times, and he never has a defense of any substance (see above for examples).

[Konrad]

Lol, oh of course, I contradicted webwit's opinions so yes everything I said should be dismissed as irrelevant. Clearly I shouldn't waste my time arguing with you.

Consider me withdrawn from this thread, I've already read it (twice) and found little actual information. I'll just look elsewhere.

[webwit]

Bye. Next time bring ammo. Full reply here.

[lal]

Aah, good ol' webwit. I'd already been worried about the lack of deeply personal insults lately :)

[webwit]

Moved to flame thread, gave warning to webwit.