4 ms·

Hey respected downvoters - pure means homogeneous. Can you please explain to be what ultra homogeneous means? When discussing scientific concepts being haphaza

by qume 8y ago

Hey respected downvoters - pure means homogeneous. Can you please explain to be what ultra homogeneous means? When discussing scientific concepts being haphazard with language seems like it should be called out, especially when the source is a respected publication like wired. Simply take a few seconds to let us all know the error in my ways please.

upandatom 8y ago
Pure is not 100%. The article talks about 99.XXX percentages depending on application.
- qume 8y ago
  The article isn't the canonical source of the meaning of the word pure. And yes, the word pure _literally_ means 100% My point was that the author has misused the word pure. Which remains my point as your argument has failed to add anything valid to change this.
  - acqq 8y ago
    > the word pure _literally_ means 100% Only to you, if you observe it out of the context. The practice is completely different, and the OP article wasn't incorrect. http://www.thequartzcorp.com/en/applications/silicon-metal.html http://www.thequartzcorp.com/en/applications/silicon-metal.h... "For silicon metal to be used in solar and semiconductor applications it must be extremely pure. For solar applications, the metal must be 99.9999% Si, while semiconductor applications require 99.999999999% purity. No quartz product can be purified above 99.999% SiO2, which means silicon metal must go through successive purification processes before it can be used." As you see, the common use in the industry of "pure" is somewhat as "went through the process of the purification," therefore if it is purified more than what is commonly referred to as "pure" then it's "extremely pure" or can even be called "ultra pure" (edit: note, in the sense of "purer than what is typically offered as pure" and not in the sense of "more than what anyway doesn't exist"). In practice, anything "completely" purified, so that "not even single atom of the impurity remains" simply doesn't exist. There's no absolute, only different achieved levels of what is commonly called "pure": See e.g. "Purest silicon sphere ever created": https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/purest-silicon-sphere-ever-created-will-redefine-the-kilogram/3007588.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/purest-silicon-sphere-ev... The common usage, that you object to, reflects the reality.
    - qume 8y ago
      Thank you, excellent points amd compelling argument. My point however remains - 99.999999% pure makes 100.000% sense. Ultra pure does not.
      - tabletopneedle 8y ago
        For example, cleanroom has classification that implies some amount of dust particles/impurities in the air. The technicians don't talk about the number of dust particles allowed, they just consider class 5 suitable for some applications whereas others might need class 4. Class 4 cleanroom makes sense, as does "Ultra pure" as long as industry sees it as a standard. Another example: UHD makes as little sense as FHD in terms of display resolution. I mean, Full must mean it's at maximum possible amount of high definition? Well we just know it stands for 1920x1080, and we know UHD or 4K is larger.
gh02t 8y ago
In this context "pure" is meaningless (truly 100% pure silicon is impossible to obtain in quantity), whereas "ultra pure" is a technical term that refers to a specific level of purity. The meanings are context dependent. It isn't haphazard, it's actually hyper specific and the terms have clear definitions in context. And in this case they are defined in the article.
- qume 8y ago
  I didn't realise the word pure was context sensitive. OED doesn't either, perhaps you could contact them and help them update their definition: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pure https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pure
  - close04 8y ago
    A pure metal is never 100% simply because that's practically impossible. Yet the term is perfectly correct when used in the right context. Now that you know it's context dependent you can maybe stop insisting it's wrong. Pure or ultrapure simply mean different and very clearly defined levels of purity for every field they are used in. Including some that stretch your concept of pure, like pure quantum states. Please don't try to redefine it. You're going into deeper and deeper mud while trying to walk out clean from this.
    - windows_tips 8y ago
      >1 Not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material. You could argue the definitions of mixed or adulterated if you'd like. >Pure or ultrapure simply mean different and very clearly defined levels of purity for every field they are used in. Not so clear in the case of dictionaries. >Please don't try to redefine it. Maybe fields that use such highly context-dependent definitions of common words should take a look at their wider usages and determine if an update of their nomenclature is appropriate.
      - close04 8y ago
sanxiyn 8y ago
Your argument is valid but uninteresting, hence my downvote. You should mail WIRED for such corrections instead of posting comments to HN. WIRED won't read your HN comments.
- qume 8y ago
  I apologize if you found my post uninteresting. You must downvote a lot.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  I would argue it isn’t even valid. Words have meaning in context, not isolation. There were lots of examples of words misused from their most exact dictionary definition given in this thread, which I’ll leave as an exercise to scroll up if you want to read. This was instead a pointless pedantic rant by a few folks.
dang 8y ago
Please don't do flamewars on HN and for heaven's sake not nitpicky pedantic ones. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by qume 8y ago

upandatom 8y ago

Pure is not 100%. The article talks about 99.XXX percentages depending on application.

qume 8y ago
The article isn't the canonical source of the meaning of the word pure. And yes, the word pure _literally_ means 100% My point was that the author has misused the word pure. Which remains my point as your argument has failed to add anything valid to change this.
- acqq 8y ago
  > the word pure _literally_ means 100% Only to you, if you observe it out of the context. The practice is completely different, and the OP article wasn't incorrect. http://www.thequartzcorp.com/en/applications/silicon-metal.html http://www.thequartzcorp.com/en/applications/silicon-metal.h... "For silicon metal to be used in solar and semiconductor applications it must be extremely pure. For solar applications, the metal must be 99.9999% Si, while semiconductor applications require 99.999999999% purity. No quartz product can be purified above 99.999% SiO2, which means silicon metal must go through successive purification processes before it can be used." As you see, the common use in the industry of "pure" is somewhat as "went through the process of the purification," therefore if it is purified more than what is commonly referred to as "pure" then it's "extremely pure" or can even be called "ultra pure" (edit: note, in the sense of "purer than what is typically offered as pure" and not in the sense of "more than what anyway doesn't exist"). In practice, anything "completely" purified, so that "not even single atom of the impurity remains" simply doesn't exist. There's no absolute, only different achieved levels of what is commonly called "pure": See e.g. "Purest silicon sphere ever created": https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/purest-silicon-sphere-ever-created-will-redefine-the-kilogram/3007588.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/purest-silicon-sphere-ev... The common usage, that you object to, reflects the reality.
  - qume 8y ago
    Thank you, excellent points amd compelling argument. My point however remains - 99.999999% pure makes 100.000% sense. Ultra pure does not.
    - tabletopneedle 8y ago
      For example, cleanroom has classification that implies some amount of dust particles/impurities in the air. The technicians don't talk about the number of dust particles allowed, they just consider class 5 suitable for some applications whereas others might need class 4. Class 4 cleanroom makes sense, as does "Ultra pure" as long as industry sees it as a standard. Another example: UHD makes as little sense as FHD in terms of display resolution. I mean, Full must mean it's at maximum possible amount of high definition? Well we just know it stands for 1920x1080, and we know UHD or 4K is larger.

gh02t 8y ago

In this context "pure" is meaningless (truly 100% pure silicon is impossible to obtain in quantity), whereas "ultra pure" is a technical term that refers to a specific level of purity. The meanings are context dependent. It isn't haphazard, it's actually hyper specific and the terms have clear definitions in context. And in this case they are defined in the article.

qume 8y ago
I didn't realise the word pure was context sensitive. OED doesn't either, perhaps you could contact them and help them update their definition: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pure https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pure
- close04 8y ago
  A pure metal is never 100% simply because that's practically impossible. Yet the term is perfectly correct when used in the right context. Now that you know it's context dependent you can maybe stop insisting it's wrong. Pure or ultrapure simply mean different and very clearly defined levels of purity for every field they are used in. Including some that stretch your concept of pure, like pure quantum states. Please don't try to redefine it. You're going into deeper and deeper mud while trying to walk out clean from this.
  - windows_tips 8y ago
    >1 Not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material. You could argue the definitions of mixed or adulterated if you'd like. >Pure or ultrapure simply mean different and very clearly defined levels of purity for every field they are used in. Not so clear in the case of dictionaries. >Please don't try to redefine it. Maybe fields that use such highly context-dependent definitions of common words should take a look at their wider usages and determine if an update of their nomenclature is appropriate.
    - close04 8y ago

sanxiyn 8y ago

Your argument is valid but uninteresting, hence my downvote. You should mail WIRED for such corrections instead of posting comments to HN. WIRED won't read your HN comments.

qume 8y ago
I apologize if you found my post uninteresting. You must downvote a lot.
jsjohnst 8y ago
I would argue it isn’t even valid. Words have meaning in context, not isolation. There were lots of examples of words misused from their most exact dictionary definition given in this thread, which I’ll leave as an exercise to scroll up if you want to read. This was instead a pointless pedantic rant by a few folks.

dang 8y ago

Please don't do flamewars on HN and for heaven's sake not nitpicky pedantic ones. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html