何当奇
第1楼2007/06/11
自然不会删贴,但是我觉得我们应该考虑先理清中文意思
poorlittle
第3楼2007/06/11
Because of the widely use of computer, many measurements can be “on-line” and “real time”. I am not sure whether 瞬时 implies real time measurement as I have no experience in using the flow meter.
I just used “flow meter”, “real time” and/or “transit time” as key words for searching with Google, and found that both “real-time” and “transit-time” were used in the websites regarding flow meters.
zhenyihong
第5楼2007/06/11
yes, i agree that real-time cld be a better choice rather than transient which indicates the time span on 10-6 s or even less. on the other hand, "integration" is another trouble maker in the phrase. sucks.
闲鹤野云
第6楼2007/06/11
You sound like an American. If you do do not use integration, how about integrating. We need a term to express this instrument the guy used.
zhenyihong
第8楼2007/06/12
i also searched on google and found no "flow integration/ing meters" or other similar expression. that is why i think "integration" could be a trouble. anyway, it is the technical point we don't really need to pursue. however, the whole phrase is somewhat hard concerning to the logic.
poorlittle
第9楼2007/06/12
Quoted from Google:
约有1,130,000项符合flow meter, integrating的查询结果
约有429项符合flow meter, integrating-type的查询结果
约有314项符合flow meter, integration-type的查询结果
How about “Uncertainty Evaluation of Error for the Real-time Flow Rate Measured by (an) Integrating-type Flow Meter”
or
“Evaluation of Uncertainty of Error of the Real-time Flow Rate Measured by Integrating-type Flow Meter”.
The second one seems too many “of”, but I don’t know why, I would prefer the second one.
zhenyihong
第10楼2007/06/12
i have no idea about which one, integrating or integration, is correct, since it depends on the technical trandition, rather than pure grammar.
the main drawback of the second one is that the function and name of the instrument are the similar, and thus flow appears twice. anyway, at least both of them seems understandable to me. is it possible to use other preparations instead of too many OF?