Why do space operations use “nominal” to mean “working correctly”?When did the term “Space” first come into use?Did NASA ever use astronomical symbols for planets?Is the air “sucked out” or “blown out” into space when the hatch opens?What term can we use to describe a planet's or dwarf planet's nearest distance to Earth?Why does NASA use the position title “Pilot”' for crew members who are not in charge of piloting the spacecraft?Why use the term “gravitational slingshot”?What does the abbreviation “MS” for the current Soyuz version name mean?Why don't I find the concept of cosmic velocities in western space-related materials?Why do delta-v and delta-v both use the same term?How often did launch vehicles have a “Stage 0”, and what does it mean exactly?
What does "see" in "the Holy See" mean?
Send a single HTML email from Thunderbird, overriding the default "plain text" setting
Why do planes need a roll motion?
Why isn't there any 9.5 digit multimeter or higher?
How much were the LMs maneuvered to their landing points?
Please explain joy and/or the Kimatthiyasutta
What do I do with a party that is much stronger than their level?
How to judge a Ph.D. applicant that arrives "out of thin air"
How to store my pliers and wire cutters on my desk?
Could the rotation of a black hole cause other planets to rotate?
How to kill my goat in Goat Simulator
Suggestions for protecting jeans from saddle clamp bolt
How do I stop my characters falling in love?
How can religions be structured in ways that allow inter-faith councils to work?
Is it legal for private citizens to "impound" e-scooters?
Finding minimum time for vehicle to reach to its destination
How could Nomadic scholars effectively memorize libraries worth of information
Commercial jet accompanied by small plane near Seattle
How many oliphaunts died in all of the Lord of the Rings battles?
How did the Axis intend to hold the Caucasus?
How to tar a list of directories only if they exist
If a 2019 UA artificer has the Repeating Shot infusion on two hand crossbows, can they use two-weapon fighting?
The Sword in the Stone
Why is 'n' preferred over "n" for output streams?
Why do space operations use “nominal” to mean “working correctly”?
When did the term “Space” first come into use?Did NASA ever use astronomical symbols for planets?Is the air “sucked out” or “blown out” into space when the hatch opens?What term can we use to describe a planet's or dwarf planet's nearest distance to Earth?Why does NASA use the position title “Pilot”' for crew members who are not in charge of piloting the spacecraft?Why use the term “gravitational slingshot”?What does the abbreviation “MS” for the current Soyuz version name mean?Why don't I find the concept of cosmic velocities in western space-related materials?Why do delta-v and delta-v both use the same term?How often did launch vehicles have a “Stage 0”, and what does it mean exactly?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
In common parlance, "nominal" means "in name only", "small (amount or quantity)" or "stated, but not necessarily reflective of reality".
So, the general sense is that "nominal" means something that should not be taken at face value.
How and why, then, did it come to mean "working correctly" in space travel? Is the implication here that it really means "working as far as we can tell"? Or is there a deeper meaning?
terminology
asked Jul 17 at 16:39
DancrumbDancrumb
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In common parlance, "nominal" means "in name only", "small (amount or quantity)" or "stated, but not necessarily reflective of reality".
So, the general sense is that "nominal" means something that should not be taken at face value.
How and why, then, did it come to mean "working correctly" in space travel? Is the implication here that it really means "working as far as we can tell"? Or is there a deeper meaning?
terminology
asked Jul 17 at 16:39
DancrumbDancrumb
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
$endgroup$
13
$begingroup$
Answered well at english.stackexchange.com/a/189686
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jul 17 at 16:47
1
$begingroup$
It's not accurate to say it means "working correctly". Firstly: it mostly applies to readings/values. Velocity can be nominal, whereas to say velocity is "working correctly" is meaningless. Second: even when it could be tied to a system as an indicator of performance, it still is not directly a measure of correctness. For example if a system over-performs, it would be working correctly, by could still be off-nominal.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Jul 18 at 16:06
$begingroup$
it's even better to use the word norminal
$endgroup$
– Sdarb
Jul 19 at 21:24
$begingroup$
Of 12: "6. Of or relating to the presumed or approximate value, rather than the actual value." and "10. According to plan or design; normal."
$endgroup$
– Peter Mortensen
Jul 20 at 12:01
$begingroup$
I feel like this question could use an illustrative usage example. :)
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
Jul 20 at 16:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In common parlance, "nominal" means "in name only", "small (amount or quantity)" or "stated, but not necessarily reflective of reality".
So, the general sense is that "nominal" means something that should not be taken at face value.
How and why, then, did it come to mean "working correctly" in space travel? Is the implication here that it really means "working as far as we can tell"? Or is there a deeper meaning?
terminology
asked Jul 17 at 16:39
DancrumbDancrumb
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
$endgroup$
In common parlance, "nominal" means "in name only", "small (amount or quantity)" or "stated, but not necessarily reflective of reality".
So, the general sense is that "nominal" means something that should not be taken at face value.
How and why, then, did it come to mean "working correctly" in space travel? Is the implication here that it really means "working as far as we can tell"? Or is there a deeper meaning?
terminology
terminology
asked Jul 17 at 16:39
DancrumbDancrumb
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 16:39
DancrumbDancrumb
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 16:39
DancrumbDancrumb
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 16:39
DancrumbDancrumb
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
asked Jul 17 at 16:39
DancrumbDancrumb
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
3262 silver badges6 bronze badges
13
$begingroup$
Answered well at english.stackexchange.com/a/189686
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jul 17 at 16:47
1
$begingroup$
It's not accurate to say it means "working correctly". Firstly: it mostly applies to readings/values. Velocity can be nominal, whereas to say velocity is "working correctly" is meaningless. Second: even when it could be tied to a system as an indicator of performance, it still is not directly a measure of correctness. For example if a system over-performs, it would be working correctly, by could still be off-nominal.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Jul 18 at 16:06
$begingroup$
it's even better to use the word norminal
$endgroup$
– Sdarb
Jul 19 at 21:24
$begingroup$
Of 12: "6. Of or relating to the presumed or approximate value, rather than the actual value." and "10. According to plan or design; normal."
$endgroup$
– Peter Mortensen
Jul 20 at 12:01
$begingroup$
I feel like this question could use an illustrative usage example. :)
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
Jul 20 at 16:41
add a comment |
13
$begingroup$
Answered well at english.stackexchange.com/a/189686
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jul 17 at 16:47
1
$begingroup$
It's not accurate to say it means "working correctly". Firstly: it mostly applies to readings/values. Velocity can be nominal, whereas to say velocity is "working correctly" is meaningless. Second: even when it could be tied to a system as an indicator of performance, it still is not directly a measure of correctness. For example if a system over-performs, it would be working correctly, by could still be off-nominal.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Jul 18 at 16:06
$begingroup$
it's even better to use the word norminal
$endgroup$
– Sdarb
Jul 19 at 21:24
$begingroup$
Of 12: "6. Of or relating to the presumed or approximate value, rather than the actual value." and "10. According to plan or design; normal."
$endgroup$
– Peter Mortensen
Jul 20 at 12:01
$begingroup$
I feel like this question could use an illustrative usage example. :)
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
Jul 20 at 16:41
13
13
$begingroup$
Answered well at english.stackexchange.com/a/189686
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jul 17 at 16:47
$begingroup$
Answered well at english.stackexchange.com/a/189686
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jul 17 at 16:47
1
1
$begingroup$
It's not accurate to say it means "working correctly". Firstly: it mostly applies to readings/values. Velocity can be nominal, whereas to say velocity is "working correctly" is meaningless. Second: even when it could be tied to a system as an indicator of performance, it still is not directly a measure of correctness. For example if a system over-performs, it would be working correctly, by could still be off-nominal.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Jul 18 at 16:06
$begingroup$
It's not accurate to say it means "working correctly". Firstly: it mostly applies to readings/values. Velocity can be nominal, whereas to say velocity is "working correctly" is meaningless. Second: even when it could be tied to a system as an indicator of performance, it still is not directly a measure of correctness. For example if a system over-performs, it would be working correctly, by could still be off-nominal.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Jul 18 at 16:06
$begingroup$
it's even better to use the word norminal
$endgroup$
– Sdarb
Jul 19 at 21:24
$begingroup$
it's even better to use the word norminal
$endgroup$
– Sdarb
Jul 19 at 21:24
$begingroup$
Of 12: "6. Of or relating to the presumed or approximate value, rather than the actual value." and "10. According to plan or design; normal."
$endgroup$
– Peter Mortensen
Jul 20 at 12:01
$begingroup$
Of 12: "6. Of or relating to the presumed or approximate value, rather than the actual value." and "10. According to plan or design; normal."
$endgroup$
– Peter Mortensen
Jul 20 at 12:01
$begingroup$
I feel like this question could use an illustrative usage example. :)
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
Jul 20 at 16:41
$begingroup$
I feel like this question could use an illustrative usage example. :)
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
Jul 20 at 16:41
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As explained in the answer that Organic Marble dug up, aerospatial "nominal" is really a shorthand for something like within the allowed tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified) value. We can speculate about how that shorthand evolved.
Example: Assume the thrust of an engine according to its design and specification -- its nominal thrust -- is 45 kN, but our mission rules (or whatever rules apply) say we're allowed to proceed if it's within +/- 10% of that figure. An engineer sees it's running at 42kN. How's the engine doing? The engineer might want to say "it's within the allowed tolerances from nominal."
That's a mouthful to say, so it gets shortened to something like "close enough to nominal" to save time, and eventually the literal meaning of "nominal" becomes irrelevant, and the engineer just says "nominal" to mean close-enough-to-the-expected-value and "off-nominal" (or "high", or "low", or "abort now-now-now") to mean not-close-enough.
answered Jul 17 at 16:55
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
$endgroup$
51
$begingroup$
It's not just aerospace. 'Nominal' is used in all of engineering.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jul 18 at 8:01
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure this answers the question, and in fact it seems a bit circular. So it's shorthand for tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified or expected), fine, but OP's question is why nominal is being used to mean "specified or expected" when it doesn't normally have that meaning.
$endgroup$
– ArrowCase
Jul 18 at 16:10
1
$begingroup$
I'll remove "expected". "Specified" for "nominal" doesn't seem a stretch to me.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jul 18 at 16:17
2
$begingroup$
@JaminGrey AFAIK / I've always understood that dressed ("pretty" smooth surface) timber is undersized because it was nominally [ :-) ] at full stated size when "rough sawn" and the act of dressing it has removed material on all major faces. I may be wrong :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
Jul 19 at 7:45
4
$begingroup$
As an engineer, I'm naturally biased towards these words making sense, but to me, it seems very reasonable to use "nominal" in the "name" sense... its the named value. Everybody knows that in the real world you basically never achieve any named value, but it can be close enough that people may act as-if it is the named value.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Jul 19 at 22:12
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Terms like "correct" and "right" might imply the condition might be checked further beside the value being inside the acceptable parameters, so it’s good to stay away from that.
Terms like "normal" might imply not the specific condition or even worse a comparison with some historic averages.
For that reason having a less loaded term (implying you are only comparing the reading with the procedures/specification tolerances) seems to be a good choice.
The usual definition of the term „nominal“ coming from its origin („of name“ or „as it is named“) somehow reflects that in a double way. First, it references the fact that you are talking about the „numerical reading“, not the actual condition and secondly that somebody has called out for an expected value for the current condition.
Webster actually defines two meanings which both apply to those mentioned aspects:
: of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual : APPROXIMATE
the pipe's nominal size
And the actual definition used in aviation/engineering:
: being according to plan : SATISFACTORY
everything was nominal during the launch
edited Jul 20 at 14:53
Peter Mortensen
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 10:11
eckeseckes
1513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
More to the point, if the craft is supposed to be accelerating at 1.00g, but an accelerometer with specified accuracy of 0.02g reports that they are producing 0.11g, and the engines are actually producing 0.12g, the accelerometer reading would be "correct" within the accelerometer's specification, but represent a condition that is outside the specifications for the system as a whole.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jul 18 at 17:16
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37395%2fwhy-do-space-operations-use-nominal-to-mean-working-correctly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As explained in the answer that Organic Marble dug up, aerospatial "nominal" is really a shorthand for something like within the allowed tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified) value. We can speculate about how that shorthand evolved.
Example: Assume the thrust of an engine according to its design and specification -- its nominal thrust -- is 45 kN, but our mission rules (or whatever rules apply) say we're allowed to proceed if it's within +/- 10% of that figure. An engineer sees it's running at 42kN. How's the engine doing? The engineer might want to say "it's within the allowed tolerances from nominal."
That's a mouthful to say, so it gets shortened to something like "close enough to nominal" to save time, and eventually the literal meaning of "nominal" becomes irrelevant, and the engineer just says "nominal" to mean close-enough-to-the-expected-value and "off-nominal" (or "high", or "low", or "abort now-now-now") to mean not-close-enough.
answered Jul 17 at 16:55
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
$endgroup$
51
$begingroup$
It's not just aerospace. 'Nominal' is used in all of engineering.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jul 18 at 8:01
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure this answers the question, and in fact it seems a bit circular. So it's shorthand for tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified or expected), fine, but OP's question is why nominal is being used to mean "specified or expected" when it doesn't normally have that meaning.
$endgroup$
– ArrowCase
Jul 18 at 16:10
1
$begingroup$
I'll remove "expected". "Specified" for "nominal" doesn't seem a stretch to me.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jul 18 at 16:17
2
$begingroup$
@JaminGrey AFAIK / I've always understood that dressed ("pretty" smooth surface) timber is undersized because it was nominally [ :-) ] at full stated size when "rough sawn" and the act of dressing it has removed material on all major faces. I may be wrong :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
Jul 19 at 7:45
4
$begingroup$
As an engineer, I'm naturally biased towards these words making sense, but to me, it seems very reasonable to use "nominal" in the "name" sense... its the named value. Everybody knows that in the real world you basically never achieve any named value, but it can be close enough that people may act as-if it is the named value.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Jul 19 at 22:12
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
As explained in the answer that Organic Marble dug up, aerospatial "nominal" is really a shorthand for something like within the allowed tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified) value. We can speculate about how that shorthand evolved.
Example: Assume the thrust of an engine according to its design and specification -- its nominal thrust -- is 45 kN, but our mission rules (or whatever rules apply) say we're allowed to proceed if it's within +/- 10% of that figure. An engineer sees it's running at 42kN. How's the engine doing? The engineer might want to say "it's within the allowed tolerances from nominal."
That's a mouthful to say, so it gets shortened to something like "close enough to nominal" to save time, and eventually the literal meaning of "nominal" becomes irrelevant, and the engineer just says "nominal" to mean close-enough-to-the-expected-value and "off-nominal" (or "high", or "low", or "abort now-now-now") to mean not-close-enough.
answered Jul 17 at 16:55
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
$endgroup$
51
$begingroup$
It's not just aerospace. 'Nominal' is used in all of engineering.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jul 18 at 8:01
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure this answers the question, and in fact it seems a bit circular. So it's shorthand for tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified or expected), fine, but OP's question is why nominal is being used to mean "specified or expected" when it doesn't normally have that meaning.
$endgroup$
– ArrowCase
Jul 18 at 16:10
1
$begingroup$
I'll remove "expected". "Specified" for "nominal" doesn't seem a stretch to me.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jul 18 at 16:17
2
$begingroup$
@JaminGrey AFAIK / I've always understood that dressed ("pretty" smooth surface) timber is undersized because it was nominally [ :-) ] at full stated size when "rough sawn" and the act of dressing it has removed material on all major faces. I may be wrong :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
Jul 19 at 7:45
4
$begingroup$
As an engineer, I'm naturally biased towards these words making sense, but to me, it seems very reasonable to use "nominal" in the "name" sense... its the named value. Everybody knows that in the real world you basically never achieve any named value, but it can be close enough that people may act as-if it is the named value.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Jul 19 at 22:12
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
As explained in the answer that Organic Marble dug up, aerospatial "nominal" is really a shorthand for something like within the allowed tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified) value. We can speculate about how that shorthand evolved.
Example: Assume the thrust of an engine according to its design and specification -- its nominal thrust -- is 45 kN, but our mission rules (or whatever rules apply) say we're allowed to proceed if it's within +/- 10% of that figure. An engineer sees it's running at 42kN. How's the engine doing? The engineer might want to say "it's within the allowed tolerances from nominal."
That's a mouthful to say, so it gets shortened to something like "close enough to nominal" to save time, and eventually the literal meaning of "nominal" becomes irrelevant, and the engineer just says "nominal" to mean close-enough-to-the-expected-value and "off-nominal" (or "high", or "low", or "abort now-now-now") to mean not-close-enough.
answered Jul 17 at 16:55
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
$endgroup$
As explained in the answer that Organic Marble dug up, aerospatial "nominal" is really a shorthand for something like within the allowed tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified) value. We can speculate about how that shorthand evolved.
Example: Assume the thrust of an engine according to its design and specification -- its nominal thrust -- is 45 kN, but our mission rules (or whatever rules apply) say we're allowed to proceed if it's within +/- 10% of that figure. An engineer sees it's running at 42kN. How's the engine doing? The engineer might want to say "it's within the allowed tolerances from nominal."
That's a mouthful to say, so it gets shortened to something like "close enough to nominal" to save time, and eventually the literal meaning of "nominal" becomes irrelevant, and the engineer just says "nominal" to mean close-enough-to-the-expected-value and "off-nominal" (or "high", or "low", or "abort now-now-now") to mean not-close-enough.
answered Jul 17 at 16:55
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 16:17
answered Jul 17 at 16:55
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 16:55
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
answered Jul 17 at 16:55
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
99.3k3 gold badges347 silver badges432 bronze badges
51
$begingroup$
It's not just aerospace. 'Nominal' is used in all of engineering.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jul 18 at 8:01
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure this answers the question, and in fact it seems a bit circular. So it's shorthand for tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified or expected), fine, but OP's question is why nominal is being used to mean "specified or expected" when it doesn't normally have that meaning.
$endgroup$
– ArrowCase
Jul 18 at 16:10
1
$begingroup$
I'll remove "expected". "Specified" for "nominal" doesn't seem a stretch to me.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jul 18 at 16:17
2
$begingroup$
@JaminGrey AFAIK / I've always understood that dressed ("pretty" smooth surface) timber is undersized because it was nominally [ :-) ] at full stated size when "rough sawn" and the act of dressing it has removed material on all major faces. I may be wrong :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
Jul 19 at 7:45
4
$begingroup$
As an engineer, I'm naturally biased towards these words making sense, but to me, it seems very reasonable to use "nominal" in the "name" sense... its the named value. Everybody knows that in the real world you basically never achieve any named value, but it can be close enough that people may act as-if it is the named value.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Jul 19 at 22:12
|
show 6 more comments
51
$begingroup$
It's not just aerospace. 'Nominal' is used in all of engineering.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jul 18 at 8:01
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure this answers the question, and in fact it seems a bit circular. So it's shorthand for tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified or expected), fine, but OP's question is why nominal is being used to mean "specified or expected" when it doesn't normally have that meaning.
$endgroup$
– ArrowCase
Jul 18 at 16:10
1
$begingroup$
I'll remove "expected". "Specified" for "nominal" doesn't seem a stretch to me.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jul 18 at 16:17
2
$begingroup$
@JaminGrey AFAIK / I've always understood that dressed ("pretty" smooth surface) timber is undersized because it was nominally [ :-) ] at full stated size when "rough sawn" and the act of dressing it has removed material on all major faces. I may be wrong :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
Jul 19 at 7:45
4
$begingroup$
As an engineer, I'm naturally biased towards these words making sense, but to me, it seems very reasonable to use "nominal" in the "name" sense... its the named value. Everybody knows that in the real world you basically never achieve any named value, but it can be close enough that people may act as-if it is the named value.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Jul 19 at 22:12
51
51
$begingroup$
It's not just aerospace. 'Nominal' is used in all of engineering.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jul 18 at 8:01
$begingroup$
It's not just aerospace. 'Nominal' is used in all of engineering.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Jul 18 at 8:01
2
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure this answers the question, and in fact it seems a bit circular. So it's shorthand for tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified or expected), fine, but OP's question is why nominal is being used to mean "specified or expected" when it doesn't normally have that meaning.
$endgroup$
– ArrowCase
Jul 18 at 16:10
$begingroup$
I'm not sure this answers the question, and in fact it seems a bit circular. So it's shorthand for tolerances around the nominal (i.e. specified or expected), fine, but OP's question is why nominal is being used to mean "specified or expected" when it doesn't normally have that meaning.
$endgroup$
– ArrowCase
Jul 18 at 16:10
1
1
$begingroup$
I'll remove "expected". "Specified" for "nominal" doesn't seem a stretch to me.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jul 18 at 16:17
$begingroup$
I'll remove "expected". "Specified" for "nominal" doesn't seem a stretch to me.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jul 18 at 16:17
2
2
$begingroup$
@JaminGrey AFAIK / I've always understood that dressed ("pretty" smooth surface) timber is undersized because it was nominally [ :-) ] at full stated size when "rough sawn" and the act of dressing it has removed material on all major faces. I may be wrong :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
Jul 19 at 7:45
$begingroup$
@JaminGrey AFAIK / I've always understood that dressed ("pretty" smooth surface) timber is undersized because it was nominally [ :-) ] at full stated size when "rough sawn" and the act of dressing it has removed material on all major faces. I may be wrong :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
Jul 19 at 7:45
4
4
$begingroup$
As an engineer, I'm naturally biased towards these words making sense, but to me, it seems very reasonable to use "nominal" in the "name" sense... its the named value. Everybody knows that in the real world you basically never achieve any named value, but it can be close enough that people may act as-if it is the named value.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Jul 19 at 22:12
$begingroup$
As an engineer, I'm naturally biased towards these words making sense, but to me, it seems very reasonable to use "nominal" in the "name" sense... its the named value. Everybody knows that in the real world you basically never achieve any named value, but it can be close enough that people may act as-if it is the named value.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Jul 19 at 22:12
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Terms like "correct" and "right" might imply the condition might be checked further beside the value being inside the acceptable parameters, so it’s good to stay away from that.
Terms like "normal" might imply not the specific condition or even worse a comparison with some historic averages.
For that reason having a less loaded term (implying you are only comparing the reading with the procedures/specification tolerances) seems to be a good choice.
The usual definition of the term „nominal“ coming from its origin („of name“ or „as it is named“) somehow reflects that in a double way. First, it references the fact that you are talking about the „numerical reading“, not the actual condition and secondly that somebody has called out for an expected value for the current condition.
Webster actually defines two meanings which both apply to those mentioned aspects:
: of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual : APPROXIMATE
the pipe's nominal size
And the actual definition used in aviation/engineering:
: being according to plan : SATISFACTORY
everything was nominal during the launch
edited Jul 20 at 14:53
Peter Mortensen
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 10:11
eckeseckes
1513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
More to the point, if the craft is supposed to be accelerating at 1.00g, but an accelerometer with specified accuracy of 0.02g reports that they are producing 0.11g, and the engines are actually producing 0.12g, the accelerometer reading would be "correct" within the accelerometer's specification, but represent a condition that is outside the specifications for the system as a whole.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jul 18 at 17:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Terms like "correct" and "right" might imply the condition might be checked further beside the value being inside the acceptable parameters, so it’s good to stay away from that.
Terms like "normal" might imply not the specific condition or even worse a comparison with some historic averages.
For that reason having a less loaded term (implying you are only comparing the reading with the procedures/specification tolerances) seems to be a good choice.
The usual definition of the term „nominal“ coming from its origin („of name“ or „as it is named“) somehow reflects that in a double way. First, it references the fact that you are talking about the „numerical reading“, not the actual condition and secondly that somebody has called out for an expected value for the current condition.
Webster actually defines two meanings which both apply to those mentioned aspects:
: of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual : APPROXIMATE
the pipe's nominal size
And the actual definition used in aviation/engineering:
: being according to plan : SATISFACTORY
everything was nominal during the launch
edited Jul 20 at 14:53
Peter Mortensen
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 10:11
eckeseckes
1513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
More to the point, if the craft is supposed to be accelerating at 1.00g, but an accelerometer with specified accuracy of 0.02g reports that they are producing 0.11g, and the engines are actually producing 0.12g, the accelerometer reading would be "correct" within the accelerometer's specification, but represent a condition that is outside the specifications for the system as a whole.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jul 18 at 17:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Terms like "correct" and "right" might imply the condition might be checked further beside the value being inside the acceptable parameters, so it’s good to stay away from that.
Terms like "normal" might imply not the specific condition or even worse a comparison with some historic averages.
For that reason having a less loaded term (implying you are only comparing the reading with the procedures/specification tolerances) seems to be a good choice.
The usual definition of the term „nominal“ coming from its origin („of name“ or „as it is named“) somehow reflects that in a double way. First, it references the fact that you are talking about the „numerical reading“, not the actual condition and secondly that somebody has called out for an expected value for the current condition.
Webster actually defines two meanings which both apply to those mentioned aspects:
: of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual : APPROXIMATE
the pipe's nominal size
And the actual definition used in aviation/engineering:
: being according to plan : SATISFACTORY
everything was nominal during the launch
edited Jul 20 at 14:53
Peter Mortensen
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 10:11
eckeseckes
1513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Terms like "correct" and "right" might imply the condition might be checked further beside the value being inside the acceptable parameters, so it’s good to stay away from that.
Terms like "normal" might imply not the specific condition or even worse a comparison with some historic averages.
For that reason having a less loaded term (implying you are only comparing the reading with the procedures/specification tolerances) seems to be a good choice.
The usual definition of the term „nominal“ coming from its origin („of name“ or „as it is named“) somehow reflects that in a double way. First, it references the fact that you are talking about the „numerical reading“, not the actual condition and secondly that somebody has called out for an expected value for the current condition.
Webster actually defines two meanings which both apply to those mentioned aspects:
: of, being, or relating to a designated or theoretical size that may vary from the actual : APPROXIMATE
the pipe's nominal size
And the actual definition used in aviation/engineering:
: being according to plan : SATISFACTORY
everything was nominal during the launch
edited Jul 20 at 14:53
Peter Mortensen
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 10:11
eckeseckes
1513 bronze badges
edited Jul 20 at 14:53
Peter Mortensen
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
edited Jul 20 at 14:53
Peter Mortensen
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
edited Jul 20 at 14:53
Peter Mortensen
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
2141 silver badge7 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 10:11
eckeseckes
1513 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 10:11
eckeseckes
1513 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 10:11
eckeseckes
1513 bronze badges
1513 bronze badges
$begingroup$
More to the point, if the craft is supposed to be accelerating at 1.00g, but an accelerometer with specified accuracy of 0.02g reports that they are producing 0.11g, and the engines are actually producing 0.12g, the accelerometer reading would be "correct" within the accelerometer's specification, but represent a condition that is outside the specifications for the system as a whole.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jul 18 at 17:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
More to the point, if the craft is supposed to be accelerating at 1.00g, but an accelerometer with specified accuracy of 0.02g reports that they are producing 0.11g, and the engines are actually producing 0.12g, the accelerometer reading would be "correct" within the accelerometer's specification, but represent a condition that is outside the specifications for the system as a whole.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jul 18 at 17:16
$begingroup$
More to the point, if the craft is supposed to be accelerating at 1.00g, but an accelerometer with specified accuracy of 0.02g reports that they are producing 0.11g, and the engines are actually producing 0.12g, the accelerometer reading would be "correct" within the accelerometer's specification, but represent a condition that is outside the specifications for the system as a whole.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jul 18 at 17:16
$begingroup$
More to the point, if the craft is supposed to be accelerating at 1.00g, but an accelerometer with specified accuracy of 0.02g reports that they are producing 0.11g, and the engines are actually producing 0.12g, the accelerometer reading would be "correct" within the accelerometer's specification, but represent a condition that is outside the specifications for the system as a whole.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Jul 18 at 17:16
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37395%2fwhy-do-space-operations-use-nominal-to-mean-working-correctly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
13
$begingroup$
Answered well at english.stackexchange.com/a/189686
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jul 17 at 16:47
1
$begingroup$
It's not accurate to say it means "working correctly". Firstly: it mostly applies to readings/values. Velocity can be nominal, whereas to say velocity is "working correctly" is meaningless. Second: even when it could be tied to a system as an indicator of performance, it still is not directly a measure of correctness. For example if a system over-performs, it would be working correctly, by could still be off-nominal.
$endgroup$
– ANone
Jul 18 at 16:06
$begingroup$
it's even better to use the word norminal
$endgroup$
– Sdarb
Jul 19 at 21:24
$begingroup$
Of 12: "6. Of or relating to the presumed or approximate value, rather than the actual value." and "10. According to plan or design; normal."
$endgroup$
– Peter Mortensen
Jul 20 at 12:01
$begingroup$
I feel like this question could use an illustrative usage example. :)
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
Jul 20 at 16:41