1/2²

[DTLarca]

Is it immediately clear that

1/2/2 = 1/2²

[frank]

Is it immediately clear that

1/2/2 = 1/2²

Indeed.

1/4 = 0.25

[DTLarca]

Indeed.

1/4 = 0.25

If I were to explain why it is that so many techs and students have a problem working out how we get from m/s/s to m/s² or 1/2/2 to 1/2² how might I start explaining this?

[frank]

Why do you feel the need to explain it?

[DTLarca]

1/2 divided by 2 is the same as 1/2 divided by 2/1 as in 1/2/2/1

We then multiply the top and bottom by a special case of the number one being 1/2/1/2 which cancels out to 1/2²

But why do some people have a proble with this - what are they missing?

[DTLarca]

Why do you feel the need to explain it?

Because I'm looking to spend an equal amount of time explaining ratios as the principles of physics because they are almost the same thing any way :)

[frank]

Anything divided by 1 remains as is.

245/1 = 245

1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

[DTLarca]

Anything divided by 1 remains as is.

245/1 = 245

Most (all folks I know) get that far...


1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

But now even you have made a mistake, see how fuzzy this stuff actually is - it's difficulties are deceivingly more than we intuitively imagine :)

[mad fridgie]

Most younger techs have been tought maths in a slightly different way to pherhaps how we were taught
"BODMAS"
(1/2)/2

[DTLarca]

Most younger techs have been tought maths in a slightly different way to pherhaps how we were taught
"BODMAS"
(1/2)/2

BODMAS is British - the Americans do not use it in their schools. I wonder if they are actually doing the better thing?

[monkey spanners]

Is it immediately clear that

1/2/2 = 1/2²

No, but i have dyslexia so :confused:

I can struggle adding up 24 and 5 for example if i am tired.

Often i find it because i don't understand the question that i struggle to answer.

Jon :)

[mad fridgie]

1/2+3 =????

[Brian_UK]

I thought that ratios were signed with a colon ':' as in 2:1 etc. or is that the wrong math now-a-days?

[DTLarca]

No, but i have dyslexia so :confused:

I can struggle adding up 24 and 5 for example if i am tired.

Often i find it because i don't understand the question that i struggle to answer.

Jon :)

What does 1/2 mean to you?

[DTLarca]

1/2+3 =????

This has to be 3.5

[mad fridgie]

This has to be 3.5
could it not be 0.2?
(1/2)+3= 3.5
1/(2+3) = 0.2

[DTLarca]

I thought that ratios were signed with a colon ':' as in 2:1 etc. or is that the wrong math now-a-days?

I = V/R

The current through given resistance depends on the ratio of V : R

[DTLarca]

could it not be 0.2?

It depends on the conventions you, and those using the system with you, agree upon.

You and I could agree that 2+3 without any gaps is the same as (2 + 3) in which case 1/2+3 would be 0.2 and 1/2 + 3 would be 3.5

[monkey spanners]

What does 1/2 mean to you?

I'd say thats a half. I think i'm more verbal that written in my thinking. Thats why these things like tests and exams give me trouble. Or i'm just stupid :p Who knows? :D

If i was being flippant i would say that '1/2' is empty of any inherent meaning, it only means what you think it does because that is what you have learnt and you haven't seen anything since that learning to make you question that knowledge.

I don't mind my dyslexia, in many ways its a blessing. I am quite good at 3D stuff so bending pipes to fit is easy for me, and if i can get a picture of them in my mind i find systems easy to fault find.

Jon :)

[Magoo]

I use an RPN calculator, that saves a lot of greif.
I went to school to eat lunch then learnt more after that, by choice.
If I knew then what I knew now, that situation would be totally different, but I cannot change time. Bugger

[desA]

e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0

Why? What significance?

[mad fridgie]

Why? What significance?
? lost me:confused:

[lawrence1]

Don't know what they're on but i wouldn't mind some.

[lawrence1]

Ahhh now i see it's Franks Harvest Pale,,,,,,must be good.

[DTLarca]

Why? What significance?

Euler's identity?

They say beauty?

But that's is a radical change of topic from how fractions work to how transcendental constants interplay.

[DTLarca]

I'd say thats a half.

If i was being flippant i would say that '1/2' is empty of any inherent meaning, it only means what you think it does because that is what you have learnt and you haven't seen anything since that learning to make you question that knowledge.

Would you agree that it means something like "If I have part of a whole I can tell roughly how much of the whole my part is if I cut the rest of the whole into pieces equal in size to the part I have"?

The "/" means "per" so I have 1 per 2 as in I have 1 of the 2 or 1 for every 2. If there are just 2 of them then I have half of them but if there are an unknown or variable amount of them then I will be entitled to a ratio of 1 for every 2. Whether it is a fraction or a ratio is is the same thing. Physics formula are ratios but they become fractions once the amounts are known.

[DTLarca]

It's important to understand how we work with fractions if we want to talk of physical principles in terms of ratios...

What does this reduce to...

1/2/1/2/1/2

As in, for instance, when we have

kg m²/s²/N/m/s²/K

[nevgee]

Euler's identity?

They say beauty?

But that's is a radical change of topic from how fractions work to how transcendental constants interplay.


Apparently a 1:2 ratio is symbolically beautiful, and so a "golden ratio" may exist.;)

[nevgee]

Would you agree that it means something like "If I have part of a whole CAKE I can tell roughly how much of the whole CAKE my part is if I cut the rest of the whole CAKE into pieces equal in size to the part I have"?

The "/" means "per" so I have 1 per 2 as in I have 1 of the 2 or 1 for every 2. If there are just 2 of them then I have half of them but if there are an unknown or variable amount of them then I will be entitled to a ratio of 1 for every 2. Whether it is a fraction or a ratio is is the same thing. Physics formula are ratios but they become fractions once the amounts are known.

?????? Having read that I now think I'm dislexic also. :confused:

I think there is a fundamental error here. You've taken a simple concept, ie a fraction 1/2 and made it into an extremely complicated structure by your own method of description. I really don't think the fraction has any need to be extorted in such a way. :rolleyes: Poor fraction.

simply 1/2 = one whole divided by 2 or did I miss a lesson? ;) Maybe I need some Harvest Pale?

[desA]

Euler's identity?

They say beauty?

But that's is a radical change of topic from how fractions work to how transcendental constants interplay.

The topic goes a lot, lot deeper than Euler & pure beauty.

The diatribe on the continued fractions is rather esoteric & beautiful. It proves nothing & will lead to confusion. Better to retain only a numerator & denominator, with various combinations strung in series products - as per dimensional analysis theory.

It is easy to appear incredibly smart at others' expense, but this can be counter-productive in the long-run. If you really want to take on a challenge, try explanations of how the various RHVAC circuits work - & develop solid design rules for these. We can then all chip in along the way & this group effort can teach us all something.

[DTLarca]

The topic goes a lot, lot deeper than Euler & pure beauty.

The diatribe on the continued fractions is rather esoteric & beautiful. It proves nothing & will lead to confusion. Better to retain only a numerator & denominator, with various combinations strung in series products - as per dimensional analysis theory.

It is easy to appear incredibly smart at others' expense, but this can be counter-productive in the long-run. If you really want to take on a challenge, try explanations of how the various RHVAC circuits work - & develop solid design rules for these. We can then all chip in along the way & this group effort can teach us all something.

I'm trying to take that which appears esoteric or appears as meant to be esoteric and rather make it common place.

Consider this example... Specific heat capacity

kJ/kg/k

Why does it reduce to kJ/kg.K and not KJ.K/kg ??

I have answers to this question - I brought it up a few times with my HND students at Bath College. I thought it so important that I even invited the college's math lecturer in to the class on one occasion to discuss the matter with us. After that occasion the question wasn't fully answered but I am now happy that I have thought enough about it to be able to explain the difference to myself.

[cool runings]

I'm trying to take that which appears esoteric or appears as meant to be esoteric and rather make it common place.

snip

After that occasion the question wasn't fully answered but I am now happy that I have thought enough about it to be able to explain the difference to myself.


DT you ask questions but you have a mightier than thou attitude..
You come over as somone who has taken it upon himself to educate others around you.

But........................

But you do not educate you talk down and undermine others.

You are obviously very educated and extremely inteligent but you come
across as a condicending pr*ck who has had a humour bypass.

You have taken it upon youself to make us better but
you have not asked us if we want your help.

Some of us are not very well educated and when an academic starts showing
off at how inteligent he is, others just put you in the w*nker box.

I have been watching your posts on here since you joined and I have tried to weigh you up...

But I can't, I can't weigh you up, you preach and talk down to people, you never realy offer any
constructive advise, you just spout on about how good you are.

Some engineers on here could not add 2 and 2 together but I would trust them
with a set of spanners and gauges, you would try to belittle them, just to make you look better.

I'm in two minds regarding you.....

Your a w*nker and you need to be filed in the w*nker box

OR

You might have a lot of usefull information and you might be of help to a lot of
good engineers and teach them, if you would only get off your soap box and stop preaching to us.


Now if you are a troll and a wind up merchant you have just won and I have
lost because I bit and mouthed back at you.....

If your a pr*ck then you'll continue as you are.

If you are a decent bloke you'll pull your head out of your arse and offer constructive advise in a way that helps.


coolrunnings

.

[monkey spanners]

Would you agree that it means something like "If I have part of a whole I can tell roughly how much of the whole my part is if I cut the rest of the whole into pieces equal in size to the part I have"?

The "/" means "per" so I have 1 per 2 as in I have 1 of the 2 or 1 for every 2. If there are just 2 of them then I have half of them but if there are an unknown or variable amount of them then I will be entitled to a ratio of 1 for every 2. Whether it is a fraction or a ratio is is the same thing. Physics formula are ratios but they become fractions once the amounts are known.

I understand fractions and their use, its just that its like numbers are a foreign langauge that i don't know that well, so unlike normal talking where you don't have to think to comunicate, i have to really think sometimes just to do what others may regard as a simple calculation.

I think it was when prime numbers were being taught at school that things started to go wrong for me, we were taught that a prime number is only divisible by itself and 1, e.g. 7 is a prime number.
But to me and my litteral way of taking things 7 and 1 is 8, and i may be daft but i know 8 won't fit in 7....

Jon :)

[DTLarca]

Specific heat capacity

kJ/kg/K

Why does it reduce to kJ/kg.K and not KJ.K/kg

To go from kJ/kg/K to kJ/kg.K we could say that we did the following

kJ/kg/K/1 was multiplied top and bottom by a special case of 1 being 1/K/1/K (1/K goes into 1/K once).

But then that invokes the question why not...

kJ/1/kg/1/K/1 which when subjected to the same treatment gives us kJ.K/kg.

One way we can look at it is to say that specific heat capacity kJ/kg.K just means that if you had 1kg of the substance then its enthalpy content would increase so many kJ per K temperature rise but at the same time if your substance were to rise in temperature by 1K then the enthalpy rise would be so many kJ for every kg of the substance you had. In which case it doesn't really make sense to think of it as kJ per kg per K but rather from the very outset to think of it as kJ per both kg and K at the same time.

But then we might look around at other examples of the layout and say that always where we have three levels to a fraction we actually have a numerator in fraction form and a denominator implicitly in fraction form which just needs the "over 1" or "/1" to be added beneath it to make explicit that when the numerator is a fraction so too must the denominator before transposing the whole arrangement.

How though does this view stand in regard to acceleration which does seem quite clearly to be m/s/s or meters per second per second as in Velocity per Second. It doesn't seem right to start off from the outset with meters per second second. I feel that m/s² is different from kJ/kg.K and if it is then in what way is it different?

[DTLarca]

I understand fractions and their use, its just that its like numbers are a foreign langauge that i don't know that well, so unlike normal talking where you don't have to think to comunicate, i have to really think sometimes just to do what others may regard as a simple calculation.

I think it was when prime numbers were being taught at school that things started to go wrong for me, we were taught that a prime number is only divisible by itself and 1, e.g. 7 is a prime number.
But to me and my litteral way of taking things 7 and 1 is 8, and i may be daft but i know 8 won't fit in 7....

Jon :)

I don't understand the relevance of prime numbers myself. I fell asleep just at the point where I read the words in your post above - now that I have woken up I hope to make a quick escape from any further consideration of them :)

I have limited mental capacity - so I spend most of my efforts eliminating what I think is not important - I tend only to discuss or get involved with discussions on stuff I know is very importantly relevant to what I do.

[nevgee]

I have limited mental capacity - so I spend most of my efforts eliminating what I think is not important - I tend only to discuss or get involved with discussions on stuff I know is very importantly relevant to what I do.

Everything has limits? ;)

[DTLarca]

Where acceleration is m/s/s and so m/s/s/1 becoming m/s² after multiplying it by a special case of 1 being 1/s/1/s we can do the reverse for pressure as in N/m² which can become N/m/m as in Newton per meter per meter.

If the force (Newton) was created by 10kg of water which would be 10 x 9.81 = 98.1N was over an area of 1m x 2m then the pressure in Pascals or N/m² would be 98.1/(1x2) = 49N/m² (Pa).

We could just as easily have followed N/m/m as in 98.1/1/2 = 49Pa.

Here we can look at 98.1/1/2 as if it were (98.1/1) divided by 2 gives 49Pa or someone might say "No, I see 98 divided by 1/2 which is 196Pa".

The correct answer seems to always come about when we treat the top most fraction as a whole number and then the remaining lower value as the denominator and treat it, during superposition, as an implied fraction by adding and "over 1" to it.

[DTLarca]

Everything has limits? ;)

And everything has a probability and the probabilities of all things must add up to one so something rather than nothing HAS to happen :confused:

[nevgee]

And everything has a probability and the probabilities of all things must add up to one so something rather than nothing HAS to happen :confused:

1 is the answer …….. and I thought it was 42!

[Quality]

I thought 3 was the magic number

[DTLarca]

1 is the answer …….. and I thought it was 42!

The answer probably is DA's 42 because the probability notion is nonsensical - it presents a paradox - the more things we can think of as possible the less likely they are if the sum of all probabilities can only equal 1 because how then can we think them possible.

[desA]

Consider this example... Specific heat capacity

kJ/kg/k

Why does it reduce to kJ/kg.K and not KJ.K/kg ??


The correct way to write this is

kJ.kg^-1.K^-1

or, kJ/(kg.K)

The first form is the scientific way, the second is an 'easier' way - both are mathematically correct. kJ/kg.K infers kJ/(kg.K), but is sloppy notation.

:)

[DTLarca]

The correct way to write this is

kJ.kg^-1.K^-1

or, kJ/(kg.K)

The first form is the scientific way, the second is an 'easier' way - both are mathematically correct. kJ/kg.K infers kJ/(kg.K), but is sloppy notation.

:)

Certainly, but that does not change the fact that, for example, acceleration is (m/s)/s as in rate of change of velocity and can be represented as m/s/s without being in any epistemic way wrong.

[nevgee]

And everything has a probability and the probabilities of all things must add up to one so something rather than nothing HAS to happen :confused:

With probability there will be uncertainty.

Is not the case that an uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that physical properties, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision.

meaning that it is impossible to determine with any great degree of accuracy or certainty.

Can you then be certain it is One? Or should it be one and a little bit, or one and a little less? ;)

[DTLarca]

With probability there will be uncertainty.

Is not the case that an uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that physical properties, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision.

meaning that it is impossible to determine with any great degree of accuracy or certainty.

Can you then be certain it is One? Or should it be one and a little bit, or one and a little less? ;)

In quantum theory Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to concepts such as trying to determine at the same time both the position and velocity of a sub atomic particle or at the same time the energy and the time.

It is like trying to know at the same time the tone of a musical note the current amplitude of the emitted sound - you cannot know both at the same time because a tone is a series of waves not a point moment of a wave.

But when it comes to "probabilities" we define them ourselves - probabilities lie between 0 and 1 or in terms of induction between just above 0 and just below 1 but never 0 or 1. As in the proposition "The sun has risen everyday in all of known history therefore it will rise again tomorrow" is a probability which cannot be a perfect 1. And the probability that the sun will not rise tomorrow cannot be a perfect 0 - we just cannot be so certain.

[desA]

Certainly, but that does not change the fact that, for example, acceleration is (m/s)/s as in rate of change of velocity and can be represented as m/s/s without being in any epistemic way wrong.

In matters of this nature, less confusion is found if standard conventions are adhered to.

This is precisely the reason for writing kJ.kg^-1.K^-1.

:)

[DTLarca]

In matters of this nature, less confusion is found if standard conventions are adhered to.

This is precisely the reason for writing kJ.kg^-1.K^-1.

:)

Yes, I tend to agree - I am fluent with the index notation - it has its own questions that crop up every now and then like why is anything to the index 0 equal to 1. Because 2²/2² is also 2² x 2­­­-²­ = 2²-² = 2° = 1

But look at it from this point of view. Picture yourself standing in front of a white board explaining acceleration on a velocity/time graph (Vfinal = at) and you are explaining that where velocity is meters traveled per second (m/s) acceleration is meters per second PER SECOND and you place that on the board as m/s/s so that the students can see that you mean precisely meters per second PER SECOND.

How does it help them to understand it, when they are your typical level 3 student who hardly understands what 5² means let alone what 5-² or 5^½ means, if you throw it up on the board in index notation - how are they to get a feel for what we are talking about?

When I went to college for my tech cert we had to have at least matric math and science. In the UK most students are doing fridge only because they were poor at math and science, not because those were their favorite subjects (very odd but true) and this is what my quest is about.

[nevgee]

But look at it from this point of view. Picture yourself standing in front of a white board explaining acceleration on a velocity/time graph (Vfinal = at) and you are explaining that where velocity is meters traveled per second (m/s) acceleration is meters per second PER SECOND and you place that on the board as m/s/s so that the students can see that you mean precisely meters per second PER SECOND.

How does it help them to understand it, when they are your typical level 3 student who hardly understands what 5² means let alone what 5-² or 5^½ means, if you throw it up on the board in index notation - how are they to get a feel for what we are talking about?



I remember doing the motion equations at school .... we didn't know what was going on, it was given to us in formula and by experimentation and model work. I recall specifically that we would draw our results in graph form (x & y axis).

acceleration was noted as m/s2 not m/s/s .. pointless notation which can only confuse further.

During my eductational and working life I found that it is essential for an instructor to level themselves at their students intellect level, Then work up from there. Pre judging someone's knowledge skill and then writing them off as being "stupid" is not the way forward and doesn't come over as very professional iether. I'm sure a good educator worth his salt can find the way to impart their knowledge to a student in the form that the student will understand, without having to try and rewrite conventional standards.

[DTLarca]

acceleration was noted as m/s2 not m/s/s .. pointless notation which can only confuse further.

I have found the m/s² form is either taken for granted as representing acceleration but rarely something a student can put into words explaining what is happening when something accelerates or it is just plain not understood.

I find that when we set that aside and instead go to talking about how the meters traveled per second are increased by so many meters per second every second, as in m/s/s, then eye's start to light up. Then the question after that is usually "ah, okay, that makes sense now - so then how is that related to m/s² ?" and this is then when we get to the reason this thread was started.

[monkey spanners]

There are a few things i find are helpful in learning new things.

One is believing i need to learn it, that the new knowledge will be useful to me.
For it to go in, it needs to be demostrated so i understand it, and for me to practice it and then become proficient.
I then need to use it regularily to keep it fresh in my mind.

I wonder if a lot of engineers are practicaly natured, and would benefit from real world examples of how these formulas are useful.

I can see how it would be frustrating to have to teach students who lack even the basics, sometimes i get fed up repairing things or bored with installation work but i try to remind myself that without this work i would not be able to earn a living :D

[nevgee]

surely the whole idea of teaching anyone is to expand their knowledge and understanding. If then one comes at a point where the student is not grasping some explaination because of a fundamental basic. Then the teacher needs to side step and explain that basic issue before moving on.
In this case m/s/s or m/s2. Surely then it is needed to take them off on another learning curve to grasp this little nettle before moving on.

What I don't grasp here is why would you be delivering a level of subject matter to people whom aren't quite up to the level of understanding.
If the've achieved NVQ2 then logically NVQ3 is the next level. The study material will be at a higher level , more in depth. Foundation knowledge should have been achieved at level 2. If understanding of powers etc is not in level 2 then level 3 is where it should be taught surely?

[DTLarca]

What I don't grasp here is why would you be delivering a level of subject matter to people whom aren't quite up to the level of understanding.
If the've achieved NVQ2 then logically NVQ3 is the next level. The study material will be at a higher level , more in depth. Foundation knowledge should have been achieved at level 2. If understanding of powers etc is not in level 2 then level 3 is where it should be taught surely?

Here is part of the Level 3 Rationale...

Cooling Science and Calculations

a) Compare and contrast system performance at a variety of conditions using pressure enthalpy diagrams.
b) Compare and contrast air conditioning processes using the psychrometric chart.
c) Apply equipment and components to cooling applications to allow system selection, design and balancing to be carried out.
d) Describe the effect of heat and vapour transfer to insulated structures.
e) Compare and contrast the use of different refrigerant types in cooling applications.
f) Explain the features and characteristics of zeotropic blends, azeotropes and single fluid refrigerants.
g) Assess heat loads to insulated cooled applications.
h) Describe Boyles Law Charles' Law and the Combined Gas Equation.
i) Explain Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures.

You can see that while it is only the combined gas law they are expected to understand and not the general gas law, which implies an understanding of enthalpy, they are anyway required to understand heat carriage and enthalpy.

Now, heat is energy, energy is force x distance and force is mass x acceleration so acceleration needs to be understood.

In the study of energy the two early difficulties are acceleration and then distance traveled by an accelerating mass. Thereafter all else in physics is derived from energy equation because without energy nothing at all happens and in fact because mass is energy then without energy nothing exists.

[Goober]

I agree with coolrunnings.........

[nevgee]

Combined gas law I guess is what we used to call the general gas equation p1. V1/ t1 = P2.V2/T2 which was "O" level chemistry / physics stuff. However, I am begining to understand your dilema here. As I'm aware too full well that the level of school leaving knowledge for science GCSe doesn't seem to be anywhere as near as the older "O" level papers for Chemistry, Physics and biology.

Even so, if that's a sign of the times there's nothing to be done other than train the students in a manner to which they need in order to get them to the level they need. I was lead to believe NVQ3 is suposed to be equivalent level to "A" level or National certificate (ONC) If the students don't understand basic math such as m/s2 etc at this level they shouldn't be on the course surely.

There is no hope for the future. :eek:

[lawrence1]

And i agree with Goober,,

[mad fridgie]

I to understand, but how it is explained becomes of importance.
Acceleration; what is it?
if you have a body,mass or material that at apoint of time is travelling at a speed and at another point in time is travelling at a faster speed then it has accelerated. Note; "speed is also called velocity"
We firstly have to determine what speed is. Speed is how much distance has been travel in a pre set time, for example 5m/s, this means in one second that the mass have travelled 5 meters (Note, speed can be shown in many ways, "miles/hr, ft/sec")
Now that we understand speed, we can look acceleration.
If we have a starting speed for example 10m/s we then measure one second later and the new speed is 11m/s, we can see that the actual speed has changed by 1m/s.
so how do we write this
change in speed= 1m/s
how long did it take to change this speed= 1 second
Therfore is 1meter per second per second = acceleration is 1m/s/s.
Hopefully this shows a method, with useful information to aid understanding, the gramma may be poor, but thats no my fortie!

[DTLarca]

Combined gas law I guess is what we used to call the general gas equation p1. V1/ t1 = P2.V2/T2 which was "O" level chemistry / physics stuff. However, I am begining to understand your dilema here. As I'm aware too full well that the level of school leaving knowledge for science GCSe doesn't seem to be anywhere as near as the older "O" level papers for Chemistry, Physics and biology.

Indeed, that is the combined and then the general is PV = mRT and the universal uses moles instead of mass and because mole for mole the energy per volume.pressure.temperaure is the same for every gas the constant R is the universal whereas for the general the gas constant is specific to that gas because the mass per mole depends on the molecular mass. The universal is then PV = nRT where n is the number of moles. If n or m are one then the formula are:

PV = RT (general gas constant R)
PV = RT (universal gas constant)

PV is energy and RT is energy so PV = RT is basically saying Energy = Energy :)

Energy is work or tha ability to do work, work is force x distance and force is mass x acceleration.


Even so, if that's a sign of the times there's nothing to be done other than train the students in a manner to which they need in order to get them to the level they need. I was lead to believe NVQ3 is suposed to be equivalent level to "A" level or National certificate (ONC) If the students don't understand basic math such as m/s2 etc at this level they shouldn't be on the course surely.

Standards are dropping right across the western world though more so in some countries than in others.


There is no hope for the future. :eek:

I meet a lot of techs who have done level 3 but do not feel they still understand PH charts or more importantly psychometrics and many want to understand fans and ducts. This is why I am designing a 2 day physics training course that is purely HVAC&R orientated - no nonsense stuff - nothing excessive - just what is required for a tech to be a good commissioning tech confident with why the ducting or water systems or ahu's are designed the way they are and why they are commissioned the way they are and what room to move do they have when they need to modify systems.

[mad fridgie]

Moles dig up my garden, so before using "Mole" as terminilogy, should you not first explain how Mole is related to mass.

[DTLarca]

I to understand, but how it is explained becomes of importance.
Acceleration; what is it?
if you have a body,mass or material that at apoint of time is travelling at a speed and at another point in time is travelling at a faster speed then it has accelerated. Note; "speed is also called velocity"
We firstly have to determine what speed is. Speed is how much distance has been travel in a pre set time, for example 5m/s, this means in one second that the mass have travelled 5 meters (Note, speed can be shown in many ways, "miles/hr, ft/sec")
Now that we understand speed, we can look acceleration.
If we have a starting speed for example 10m/s we then measure one second later and the new speed is 11m/s, we can see that the actual speed has changed by 1m/s.
so how do we write this
change in speed= 1m/s
how long did it take to change this speed= 1 second
Therfore is 1meter per second per second = acceleration is 1m/s/s.
Hopefully this shows a method, with useful information to aid understanding, the gramma may be poor, but thats no my fortie!

Yes, it is that the sort of approach that needs to be taken. I will have to scan the articles and email them to you - I don't want to be writing the physics articles on here then publishing them - it wouldn't make sense - so I am just sticking to particular points - at the moment that point is "working with fractions as pertains to elementary physics" :)

Knowing the difference between speed and velocity is important. For instance the difference between speed and velocity is important in developing an understanding of efficiency.

Velocity/speed is the efficiency factor.

[mad fridgie]

Yes, it is that the sort of approach that needs to be taken. I will have to scan the articles and email them to you - I don't want to be writing the physics articles on here then publishing them - it wouldn't make sense - so I am just sticking to particular points - at the moment that point is "working with fractions as pertains to elementary physics" :)

Knowing the difference between speed and velocity is important. For instance the difference between speed and velocity is important in developing an understanding of efficiency.

Velocity/speed is the efficiency factor.
We have to presume that those that we are trying to teach no little, we therefore need to start at the beginning slowly bring up the level of knowledge and understanding, if we move to fast, then all is lost!
The difficulty may be where we lie within the peer group, when you at at your oxford group then yes you should be using every word in the dictionary, but when talking to me, if I have learnt it on the Jeremy Kyle show, then I do not know it!! (bit of humour aids leaning0

[DTLarca]

Moles dig up my garden, so before using "Mole" as terminilogy, should you not first explain how Mole is related to mass.

Lol, I don't want to be discussing all that yet :)

Avogadro found that if you had equal volumes of different gases but all the gases were at the same pressure and same temperature then they would have equal numbers of molecules.

He realised that the reason all these identical volumes of gases at the same pressures and temperatures weighed differently was because they each had different molecular masses.

He then decided that if he weighed 2 grams of hydrogen which had atomic mass unit arbitrarily set at 1 he would measure the volume and call that the gram mole. At 0°C and atmospheric pressure 2 grams of hydrogen took up 22.4 litres.

Anyway - you and nevgee are hijacking my thread :)

I don't want to be getting into all the meat of this stuff here - I want to fine tune the finer principles such as at the moment fractions and physics.

[nevgee]

[quote=DTLarca;216626]

the general is PV = mRT and the universal uses moles instead of mass and because mole for mole the energy per volume.pressure.temperaure is the same for every gas the constant R is the universal whereas for the general the gas constant is specific to that gas because the mass per mole depends on the molecular mass. The universal is then PV = nRT where n is the number of moles. If n or m are one then the formula are:

PV = RT (general gas constant R)
PV = RT (universal gas constant)



Ideal gas equation?

[nevgee]

Ok I'll back off .....:cool:

[DTLarca]

Ideal gas equation?

Boyles, Charles and then the derived combined then general equations assume ideal gases.

This is why PH charts are preferred to equations for vapour compression calcs because vapours have molecules that do not behave entirely independent of each other - nearer the saturation zone, as is the case even with compressor discharge gases, there is friction between the molecules and so the powers involved in processing vapours are higher than those calculated for ideal gases.

[lawrence1]

Mad Fridgie,,,what's a Mole?

[mad fridgie]

Mad Fridgie,,,what's a Mole?
In our neck of the woods, a pretty bad insult against a women!:D

[DTLarca]

In matters of this nature, less confusion is found if standard conventions are adhered to.

This is precisely the reason for writing kJ.kg^-1.K^-1.

:)

Another question to ask...

Why do few, if any, techs write down ohms law as:

I = V R-¹

All I can ever remember talking to write it down as:

I = V/R

[lawrence1]

Mad Fridgie,
Thought so, it's the same here.

[slingblade]

Anything divided by 1 remains as is.

245/1 = 245

1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25



Not in Marc O'Briens head, have you learnt nothing from his previous existence. Sorry Frank, no offence. I have PM'd Dez to no avail, please terminate his account.
Regards, an unhappy Slingblade.

[DTLarca]

Not in Marc O'Briens head, have you learnt nothing from his previous existence. Sorry Frank, no offence.

Frank said 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

But 1 half divided by 1 half is 1.

1/2/1/2 is the same as 1/2 divided by 1/2 = 1 because 1/2 goes into 1/2 just once and precisely just once.

Frank no doubt took one look at this and thought "Gawd - what was I thinking".



I have PM'd Dez to no avail, please terminate his account.
Regards, an unhappy Slingblade.

Instead of harassing me why don't you just have a vote or something - start a pole of sorts. I'm not a democratic person, I admit, I believe all opinions should be supported by solid argument and evidence rather than merely by popularity but what the hell - do the democratic thing anyway and set up a vote for your grief.

[mad fridgie]

1/2/1/2=.25
broken down in sequence
1/2 = .5
.5/1=.5
.5/2= .25

[DTLarca]

1/2/1/2=.25
broken down in sequence
1/2 = .5
.5/1=.5
.5/2= .25

A fraction has to have a denominator and numerator.

In the arrangement 1/2/1/2 which is the denominator and which is the numerator?

[Goober]

I agree with Slingblade...........

[DTLarca]

1/2/1/2=.25
broken down in sequence
1/2 = .5
.5/1=.5
.5/2= .25

If you go back to Frank's post he says 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

Now how can 1/2/1/2 be the same as 1/2/2 ?

Is 1/2/2 like:

(1/2)/2 = 0.25 or is it like:

1/(1/2) = 2

You see 1/2/2 is in fact the same as 1/2/2/1 as in (1/2)/(2/1)

[DTLarca]

1/2/1/2=.25
broken down in sequence
1/2 = .5
.5/1=.5
.5/2= .25


Here we go, scroll down to complex fractions and have a quick read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_(mathematics)

I'm going to print that link off and read it tomorrow :)

[desA]

"speed is also called velocity"


Speed is the magnitude of velocity. Velocity has both magnitude & direction - it is a vector quantity.

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

[mad fridgie]

Speed is the magnitude of velocity. Velocity has both magnitude & direction - it is a vector quantity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed
What I was trying to show, is how training should be built,
What is magnitude and what is a vector quantity?
We are looking at training techs, so theorectical excellence has to be tempered with practrical realism, (with time more greater levels of theorectical)
So going back to speed and velocity, each is shown in the same method M/S, KM/Hr, etc, so practically is the same.
The nature of engineering is that it always leads to further questions and increase requirement of knowledge

[desA]

Begin with Newton's Laws of motion, then build up all the required components. It is all fairly straightforward - high-school maths.

Bringing in this highly-unconventional continued fraction approach will, I fear, only lead to more confusion.

[mad fridgie]

Begin with Newton's Laws of motion, then build up all the required components. It is all fairly straightforward - high-school maths.

Bringing in this highly-unconventional continued fraction approach will, I fear, only lead to more confusion.
Its been 30 years since I was at high school ??????????
I agree, for the purpose of teaching, this will lead to confussion.
":cool:The hijacker"

[desA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

There we go. :D

[desA]

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

This may also be helpful, Marc.

[frank]

Not in Marc O'Briens head, have you learnt nothing from his previous existence. Sorry Frank, no offence. I have PM'd Dez to no avail, please terminate his account.
Regards, an unhappy Slingblade.
Outside of my powers I'm afraid. Only the Boss can perform such actions.

[frank]

1/2/1/2=.25
broken down in sequence
1/2 = .5
.5/1=.5
.5/2= .25

Exactly as I saw the equation.


Frank said 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

But 1 half divided by 1 half is 1.

1/2/1/2 is the same as 1/2 divided by 1/2 = 1 because 1/2 goes into 1/2 just once and precisely just once.

Frank no doubt took one look at this and thought "Gawd - what was I thinking".

I think that there is some confusion in how the question was written.

If it was written (1/2)/(1/2) then I would have looked at it differently. There are obviously limitations to the way formula's can be written in the forum

[DTLarca]

Exactly as I saw the equation.



I think that there is some confusion in how the question was written.

If it was written (1/2)/(1/2) then I would have looked at it differently. There are obviously limitations to the way formula's can be written in the forum

If we were to say it is permissible to call the question ambiguous then we would have to give all possible answers as for something to be ambiguous there has to be two or more possible answers - not just one - if only one answer is given then the question was not perceived as ambiguous but was merely misunderstood.

If the question has more than one possible answer then they might include those derived from interpretations such as...

1/(2/(1/2)) = 0.25
1/((2/1)/2) = 1

But to say that 1/2/1/2 just means 1 divide 2 then divide 1 then divide 2 is to treat 1/2/1/2 as an instruction sequence rather than a fraction. If it is to be treated as a fraction then is has to be broken down into numerators and denominators.

Now, can we have a fraction such as 1/2/2?

No we cannot. A fraction must clearly demarcate numerator from denominator.

The convention, in the absence of brackets, is to start at the top identifying numerator then denominator then numerator then denominator.

[nevgee]

A fraction must clearly demarcate numerator from denominator.

The convention, in the absence of brackets, is to start at the top identifying numerator then denominator then numerator then denominator.


Can only say .......... I agree with this :cool:
Isn't that the whole reason for having standards and agreed formats to try to reduce missinterpretation. Hence m/s/s is written m/s2, and so on.

Any doubt with 1/2/1/2 would have been to look at it as 0.5 / 0.5 "simple" ;)

[frank]

Seems like you are going back to your old ways my friend.

Do you ever admit to being wrong, or in fact admit to possibly making an error?

There must be a psycological term for someone that is never wrong..........

Count me out of any further responses.

[DTLarca]

Can only say .......... I agree with this :cool:
Isn't that the whole reason for having standards and agreed formats to try to reduce missinterpretation. Hence m/s/s is written m/s2, and so on.

Any doubt with 1/2/1/2 would have been to look at it as 0.5 / 0.5 "simple" ;)

Indeed

m/s/s when treated with the conventions universally applied to fractions in the western world (perhaps everywhere else too) is interpreted as m/s/s/1 which was the whole reason for me starting the thread because I come across so many people who do not understand this and at the same time I believe this to be one of the key reasons people struggle to make full use fo the tools of physics.

If m/s/s was not implicitly m/s/s/1 then we just could not get to m/s²

m/s/s/1 is the same as m/s x 1/s = m/s²

And if you accept that then you have to accept also that 1/2/1/2 = 1 otherwise you are flat out contradicting yourself.

[DTLarca]

Seems like you are going back to your old ways my friend.

Do you ever admit to being wrong, or in fact admit to possibly making an error?

There must be a psycological term for someone that is never wrong..........

Count me out of any further responses.

Are you taking about me Frank?

Firstly - I have never changed my ways and never will - my ways and me are the same thing - they are inseparable.

When I know I am wrong I out loud announce that I am wrong. But right now I believe I am right about this - I could be wrong - that seems to me to be possible - that is why I started the thread - to weigh up a balance of arguments for and against. But so far I believe the arguments for are very much stronger than the arguments against and so this far I genuinely believe your arguments (not you) to be wrong and my arguments (not me) to be right.

Someone who is never wrong is a genius of extraordinary levels. But if you read David Hume's works you would understand that we can only ever learn from making mistakes. If I know a good amount of stuff then it is because I have more experience than others at being wrong about the same stuff at some stage.

Since you can only learn from being wrong and making mistakes - because being right is probabilistic and never a certainty - I put these questions up so that I and others can become more right out of experiencing more often more mistakes. If you are not willing to make mistakes then you are also not willing to learn.

Do you honestly believe - without doubt - that your answer is the correct one?

Do you know what the definition of arragance is?

[monkey spanners]

(.)(.)



I think i've found my level :D

[DTLarca]

Frank - use this online calculator to calculate 1/2/1/2

http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/fractions.php

[desA]

(.)(.)



I think i've found my level :D

Hahaha... :D

(.)(.)/(.)(.) => lotsatrubble.

[DTLarca]

hahaha... :d

(.)(.)/(.)(.) => lotsatrubble.

(.)(.)/(.)(.) = 1

[desA]

^ lol... :)

[monkey spanners]

Tits or tyres, nothing but trouble :p

[DTLarca]

Tits or tyres, nothing but trouble :p

Tits - I thought they were two buddha bellies :)

[chilliwilly]

I have found the m/s² form is either taken for granted as representing acceleration but rarely something a student can put into words explaining what is happening when something accelerates or it is just plain not understood.

I find that when we set that aside and instead go to talking about how the meters traveled per second are increased by so many meters per second every second, as in m/s/s, then eye's start to light up. Then the question after that is usually "ah, okay, that makes sense now - so then how is that related to m/s² ?" and this is then when we get to the reason this thread was started.

Question

If I'm stood underneath two condensing units, one weighing 100kg and one weighing 75kg, each vertically mounted side by side with a space gap of 300mm, at a height of 100 meters, air temperature @ 20 deg C, RH 68.6%, wind speed @ 11.7 mph/19.78 kph. And both units detach themselves equally at the same time due to poor fixings, fall and land on me.

Which unit will hurt me the most? :p

[stufus]

Question

If I'm stood underneath two condensing units, one weighing 100kg and one weighing 75kg, each vertically mounted side by side with a space gap of 300mm, at a height of 100 meters, air temperature @ 20 deg C, RH 68.6%, wind speed @ 11.7 mph/19.78 kph. And both units detach themselves equally at the same time due to poor fixings, fall and land on me.

Which unit will hurt me the most? :p

Probably the one that hits you first ,or failing that the one with the knife.;)

[mikeref]

Chilli, neither as you would be dead, but.. thats just an opinion. Cartoons come to mind,whistle.... followed by splat and a cloud of dust. Coyote lives to recalculate why both condensing units fell at different speeds.

[DTLarca]

Seems like you are going back to your old ways my friend.

Do you ever admit to being wrong, or in fact admit to possibly making an error?

There must be a psycological term for someone that is never wrong..........

Count me out of any further responses.

So Frank - do you not feel compelled to admit error yet?

Does "Count me out of any further responses" mean "Oh **** - if I hang around here I'm going to have to sooner or later admit I was wrong"?

You know, the difference between an arrogant antagonist and a sincere one is that the arrogant one will merely rebut your claims without explanation whereas a sincere one will at least try offer argument and evidence.

Of course it is possible you genuinely think you are right? I think that would be very odd - it would very much surprise me - but it could still just be that you genuinely believe you are right - in which case you are not obliged to admit you are wrong - it is sheer nonsense to ask someone to admit they are wrong when they feel sure that they are correct.

[mad fridgie]

I do think it comes down to how it is written, if I remember rightly, if you were calculating a fraction, the fraction was in a small font, with the comand in a larger font 1/2/1/2
The answer would then be clearly 1

[lawrence1]

I have read this thread from start,,,and i find watching paint dry far more interesting.I reckon coolrunnings post was spot on,yes go back and have another look at it and i think everyone will agree,,but unfortunately some people are too thick to absorb anything other than their own opinion.

[DTLarca]

I do think it comes down to how it is written, if I remember rightly, if you were calculating a fraction, the fraction was in a small font, with the comand in a larger font 1/2/1/2
The answer would then be clearly 1

Yes, the whole point is to establish a certainty of understanding with regards to the units analysis when considering say specific heat capacity kJ/kg.k or acceleration m/s² because no matter how much anyone does not like it these truly are just peculiar cases of complex fractions as in 1/2/1/2

That makes it kJ/kg/K/1 and m/s/s/1

I see no available argument to support any implied claim that a school child being introduced to fractions and ratios will be taught that 1/2/1/2 means 1 divide 2 then divide 1 and then finally divide 2. I think this is sheer nonsense. More likely the result of 30 years absence from studies than any erudition :)

I wholly reject the proposal that 1/2/1/2 is not a fraction having no numerator or denominator but is instead merely an instruction sequence.

There is no evidence available to me in any of my math books or any where on the web.

Therefore the matter is not ambiguous - there are not two or more different ways to interpret the arrangement 1/2/1/2. It can only be (1/2)/(1/2) and any other interpretation is a mistake.

[mad fridgie]

go to excell and type
=1/2/1/2
what is the answer?
Type as you have written, no f***ing with fuctions, or brackets.
whats the answer?

[mad fridgie]

It can only be (1/2)/(1/2)
CORRECT

[DTLarca]

go to excell and type
=1/2/1/2
what is the answer?
Type as you have written, no f***ing with fuctions, or brackets.
whats the answer?

That is your mistake Mad Fridgie :)

The convention with complex fractions taught to school kids and used in physics is that 1/2/1/2 must be read as (1/2)/(1/2) and not any other way.

A computer sees the number and function string as an instruction and so for you to get the right answer using excel you have to inform excel of the convention it is supposed to use and so with you string of instructions you also have to include convention instructions.

My question is not "What would excel do?" but rather "what is the convention?".

[DTLarca]

It can only be (1/2)/(1/2)
CORRECT

Lol, do you have an honest reason for believing so or are you just in a happy clappy keep the peace lets all just agree to agree and smile type mood? :)

I'm after the truth here - I don't give a **** about how unhappy or happy it makes anyone - only the truth please :)

[mad fridgie]

That is your mistake Mad Fridgie :)

The convention with complex fractions taught to school kids and used in physics is that 1/2/1/2 must be read as (1/2)/(1/2) and not any other way.

A computer sees the number and function string as an instruction and so for you to get the right answer using excel you have to inform excel of the convention it is supposed to use and so with you string of instructions you also have to include convention instructions.

My question is not "What would excel do?" but rather "what is the convention?".
You Quoted
"There is no evidence available to me in any of my math books or any where on the web."
Well excell is one of the most commonly used pieces of software, so by nature is convention.
Flynn verses the state, are porno mags convention, he proved it was due to how much porno films were watched.
I also clarified that Bodmas was used or that fractions were written in different fonts, to distinguish between fractions and string instructions.
What was the answer on excell, you never answered the question?

[DTLarca]

You Quoted
"There is no evidence available to me in any of my math books or any where on the web."
Well excell is one of the most commonly used pieces of software, so by nature is convention.
Flynn verses the state, are porno mags convention, he proved it was due to how much porno films were watched.
I also clarified that Bodmas was used or that fractions were written in different fonts, to distinguish between fractions and string instructions.
What was the answer on excell, you never answered the question?


I work with excel all the time - I produce little windows applications in Pascal - I do not have to do it in excel to know what excel will do.

You could say that because I am aware of what excel will do I am aware that it is not immediately obvious to everyone that 1/2/2 is the same as 1/2² and hense the thread. It has the answer but the method to go from one to the other contradicts the method excel follows.

Consider again what Frank says: 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

How on earth does Frank establish that 1/2/1/2 is the same as 1/2/2?

In other words how does Frank turn a 1/2 into a 2?

Why did he turn only the bottom 1/2 into a 2 and not also the top half. If he also turned the top half into a 2 then he would have 2/2 = 1.

Also then, why did he not instead just turn the top half into a 2 which would have given 2/1/2 = 4 or by your standards = 1

I think you guys are just trolling - seriously - I can't believe this nonsense.

[mad fridgie]

Lol, do you have an honest reason for believing so or are you just in a happy clappy keep the peace lets all just agree to agree and smile type mood? :)

I'm after the truth here - I don't give a **** about how unhappy or happy it makes anyone - only the truth please :)
what is happy or unhappy to do with it, the truth is you get self satisfaction by attemting to belittle others. Your are obviouly lacking self cofidence, even though betray confidence. I bet you look in the mirror every night and tell yourself what a great dude you are, but deep down you see yourself as just a little kid, doing what he needs to do to get attention.
You are just a bully, who likes to throw his intellectual weight around (no doubt you have excellent knowledge) Why do you not use it for the common good, then people will give genuine respect, it will make you feel good, unless you are happy being a miserable barsteward.

[DTLarca]

what is happy or unhappy to do with it, the truth is you get self satisfaction by attemting to belittle others. Your are obviouly lacking self cofidence, even though betray confidence. I bet you look in the mirror every night and tell yourself what a great dude you are, but deep down you see yourself as just a little kid, doing what he needs to do to get attention.
You are just a bully, who likes to throw his intellectual weight around (no doubt you have excellent knowledge) Why do you not use it for the common good, then people will give genuine respect, it will make you feel good, unless you are happy being a miserable barsteward.

I'm only interested in the matter at hand - as you will notice - I never belittle or attack anyone unless I their focus slips from the subject at hand to some irrelevant personal matter.

I never commit the ad hominem fallacy - I never do this - I never get personal - I always stick to the subject. But as soon as someone's insecurity or lack of skepticism causes them to get personal I will put them in their place - I will remind them that they must stay focused on the matter at hand.

If you go back through all my discussions you will see that I stay true to the technical ebb and flow of the discussion.

You will remember that, for instance, it was Nevgee's insecurity that brought him to complain that my discussions on the Iraqi guys AHU were off topic and there were a few other irrelevant person comments he made - but in the end - I was right - I had been steering the discussion in the right direction from the outset and anyone following would have learned from me - learned a lot and for free :)

[mad fridgie]

I work with excel all the time - I produce little windows applications in Pascal - I do not have to do it in excel to know what excel will do.

You could say that because I am aware of what excel will do I am aware that it is not immediately obvious to everyone that 1/2/2 is the same as 1/2² and hense the thread. It has the answer but the method to go from one to the other contradicts the method excel follows.

Consider again what Frank says: 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

How on earth does Frank establish that 1/2/1/2 is the same as 1/2/2?

In other words how does Frank turn a 1/2 into a 2?

Why did he turn only the bottom 1/2 into a 2 and not also the top half. If he also turned the top half into a 2 then he would have 2/2 = 1.

Also then, why did he not instead just turn the top half into a 2 which would have given 2/1/2 = 4 or by your standards = 1

I think you guys are just trolling - seriously - I can't believe this nonsense.
Did you not quote there was no evidence?
simple answer "yes or no"
I proved there was. so you are wrong, accept the truth
I asked you undertake the equation, which you did not. So what is the answer, do it?
Then you can accept that yours is not the only method of achieving a result.

[mad fridgie]

I'm only interested in the matter at hand - as you will notice - I never belittle or attack anyone unless I their focus slips from the subject at hand to some irrelevant personal matter.

I never commit the ad hominem fallacy - I never do this - I never get personal - I always stick to the subject. But as soon as someone's insecurity or lack of skepticism causes them to get personal I will put them in their place - I will remind them that they must stay focused on the matter at hand.

If you go back through all my discussions you will see that I stay true to the technical ebb and flow of the discussion.

You will remember that, for instance, it was Nevgee's insecurity that brought him to complain that my discussions on the Iraqi guys AHU were off topic and there were a few other irrelevant person comments he made - but in the end - I was right - I had been steering the discussion in the right direction from the outset and anyone following would have learned from me - learned a lot and for free :)
If you believe what you have written, then to you it must be the truth, and for that I can not argue,
Do you not understand, that we do want to learn from you! but believe me that you come across as some one who belittles most, maybe your intention or not. Have you ever been in love? does not make any sense.

[DTLarca]

Did you not quote there was no evidence?
simple answer "yes or no"
I proved there was. so you are wrong, accept the truth
I asked you undertake the equation, which you did not. So what is the answer, do it?
Then you can accept that yours is not the only method of achieving a result.

Here's a quote:


Anything divided by 1 remains as is.

245/1 = 245

1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

I implicitly agreed that excel will follow the numbers and functions as an instruction sequence. But I also explained why - if I were to follow yours and Franks example I would now also get personal and ask you what is it that your personality is lacking or what particularly is the deficiency in your emotional intelligence that causes you to deny the abvious - the obvious being that I replied to your comments on excel and gave my opinion that that was your mistake because excel needs all of the instructions of the conventions. But I do not get personal - I do not start to question what insecurities you might have that causes you to miss that argument I put and its implicit message that I know what excel does with the "equation".

Maybe you are not trolling - I just feel you are.

[mad fridgie]

Here's a quote:



I implicitly agreed that excel will follow the numbers and functions as an instruction sequence. But I also explained why - if I were to follow yours and Franks example I would now also get personal and ask you what is it that your personality is lacking or what particularly is the deficiency in your emotional intelligence that causes you to deny the abvious - the obvious being that I replied to your comments on excel and gave my opinion that that was your mistake because excel needs all of the instructions of the conventions. But I do not get personal - I do not start to question what insecurities you might have that causes you to miss that argument I put and its implicit message that I know what excel does with the "equation".

Maybe you are not trolling - I just feel you are.
What Iam indicating that all information should be shown with common clarity, one can not presume that all, already know your particular methods and descriptions.(and if they do not does not make them stupid or lacking in intelligence)
There is a simple saying
"presumbtion is the mother of all F***Ups.
I am sure if you had written the calc either in brackets or in different colours all would of come up with the same answer. Your argument is nothing to do with maths, but more to do with interpretation of data.

[DTLarca]

If you believe what you have written, then to you it must be the truth, and for that I can not argue,
Do you not understand, that we do want to learn from you! but believe me that you come across as some one who belittles most, maybe your intention or not. Have you ever been in love? does not make any sense.

Honestly - this is irrelevant to the topic at hand - utterly irrelevant to the matter of how truly does m/s/s become m/s²

You should never get personal in your discussions on the web unless you have something nice to say. Getting personal on the web has to be asymmetrical - it has to only be nice or supporting etc and not criticising or attacking. otherwise - as you see - you will get someone like me who is technically superior to most - by my own making - thanks to no one but myself - and you will get put in your place.

Now, if you don't mind, I really am interested to find a crack argument to establish the truth here.

I have already said so to Frank that I am willing to consider the chance that I am wrong - and I even explained that that is why I want to discuss the matter because I have my doubts. But all the evidence I find on the web and in books says your argument is nonsense - it just cannot be.

You might still be right - there could be something you say to clinch my understanding that could swing my beliefs about the matter but by the only conventions available to me 1/2/1/2 has to be 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and so I have no choice yet but to see your arguments as nonsense.

[mad fridgie]

Here's a quote:



I implicitly agreed that excel will follow the numbers and functions as an instruction sequence. But I also explained why - if I were to follow yours and Franks example I would now also get personal and ask you what is it that your personality is lacking or what particularly is the deficiency in your emotional intelligence that causes you to deny the abvious - the obvious being that I replied to your comments on excel and gave my opinion that that was your mistake because excel needs all of the instructions of the conventions. But I do not get personal - I do not start to question what insecurities you might have that causes you to miss that argument I put and its implicit message that I know what excel does with the "equation".

Maybe you are not trolling - I just feel you are.
Look at my name "Mad Fridgie", at least I know it!

[TRASH101]

Mad Fridgie has the more sound grasp on convention here that I can see.

I see the problem as 1 divided by 2 divided by etc unless there is a clear emphasis put on the "central" per (as MF mentions). That in itself if agreed by the majority of the participants on this forum, is a convention, until tried against a more popular convention that is.

[DTLarca]

What Iam indicating that all information should be shown with common clarity, one can not presume that all, already know your particular methods and descriptions.(and if they do not does not make them stupid or lacking in intelligence)
There is a simple saying
"presumbtion is the mother of all F***Ups.
I am sure if you had written the calc either in brackets or in different colours all would of come up with the same answer. Your argument is nothing to do with maths, but more to do with interpretation of data.

It's only a presumption or assumption if you actually presume or actually assume. But if you tell people what your assumptions are then they are no longer assumptions but matters brought out into the open overtly for consideration to be tested as to whether they can be assumed good.

Generally something is considered an assumption because the person did not realise it should be mentioned - it does not help to tell people they must not forget to tell certain things they see obvious because if they never did then there would never be assumptions.

If I am assuming anything then by definition I may or may not realise what I am assuming and if I do not realise something it does not help to tell me that I should realise it - maybe I also don't realise what it is I should realise I should realise.

Can you think of a reason why in physics I should drop the convention that 1/2/1/2 is 1/2 x 2/1

Is it possible that I am mistaken in seeing m/s/s as also m/s/s/1 to be treated as m/s x 1/s ??

[DTLarca]

Look at my name "Mad Fridgie", at least I know it!

Mad Fridgie - we all have some madness of some form :)

[mad fridgie]

Honestly - this is irrelevant to the topic at hand - utterly irrelevant to the matter of how truly does m/s/s become m/s²

You should never get personal in your discussions on the web unless you have something nice to say. Getting personal on the web has to be asymmetrical - it has to only be nice or supporting etc and not criticising or attacking. otherwise - as you see - you will get someone like me who is technically superior to most - by my own making - thanks to no one but myself - and you will get put in your place.

Now, if you don't mind, I really am interested to find a crack argument to establish the truth here.

I have already said so to Frank that I am willing to consider the chance that I am wrong - and I even explained that that is why I want to discuss the matter because I have my doubts. But all the evidence I find on the web and in books says your argument is nonsense - it just cannot be.

You might still be right - there could be something you say to clinch my understanding that could swing my beliefs about the matter but by the only conventions available to me 1/2/1/2 has to be 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and so I have no choice yet but to see your arguments as nonsense.
Can you see you have changed without know it, how you written each calculation
Option 1
1/2/1/2
1/2X2/1
option 2
1/2 / 1/2
1/2 X 2/1
can you see the confussion
option2 calc one is very clear (but not the way you have written it), option two is how you have written calc two.
This where confussion lies, need for clarity

[DTLarca]

Mad Fridgie has the more sound grasp on convention here that I can see.

I see the problem as 1 divided by 2 divided by etc unless there is a clear emphasis put on the "central" per (as MF mentions). That in itself if agreed by the majority of the participants on this forum, is a convention, until tried against a more popular convention that is.

Your position could be a correct position - but at the moment if it is it would only be a coincidence because so far it has no convincing argument or evidence - it so far only has the vote.

[TRASH101]

If it is all about convention then the truth is what the majority deem it to be, for your postulation to become convention here you would need more a compelling argument than MF's. I wish you luck as the format was set in your original post.

[mad fridgie]

Excell has made many us lazy when it comes to maths, and is a common convention, I have forgotton most of what i learnt during my schooling years.
Marc in many ways is correct, I do wish he would however, start his threads with some sort of inclinging in where the thread is going, instead of looking through his criptic clues. all done!

[DTLarca]

Are both methods correct? Surely not? Maybe? Hmmm, I can't see it.

How does Frank go from 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2

His explanation might be a clue.

Consider this example

I travel 4680mile per 3 days which is 4680/3

I wan to know how many miles per hour this is.

There are 24 hrs per day which is 24/1

So I go

4680/3/24/1

Following Frank's method I get 65 miles per hour

Following mine 4680/3 x 1/24 = 65 miles per hour

But if I use franks method with 1/2/1/2 I get 1/4

When I use my method with 1/2/1/2 I multiply both the bottom fraction and the top fraction by 2/1 which cancels out to give 1/2 x 2/1 = 1

So when the bottom fractions denominator is 1 both methods work but when it is other than one then they differ.

So which is correct - where am I going wrong with my method?

[TRASH101]

When I use my method with 1/2/1/2 I multiply both the bottom fraction and the top fraction by 2/1 which cancels out to give 1/2 x 2/1 = 1

So when the bottom fractions denominator is 1 both methods work but when it is other than one then they differ.

So which is correct - where am I going wrong with my method?


Wether it is wrong or not is not what your looking for is it?

The point of breaking with convention is what seems to be the problem you are addressing and that is a very ambitious task.

The original format is what sets it in stone for me and the methodolgy for the interpretation, labelled by yourself as a sequential instructions, is the default analytical view in the absence of individual emphasis put on any of the operation.

I see no reason why your analysis should not take the sequential route.

Please explain why?

[DTLarca]

Excell has made many us lazy when it comes to maths, and is a common convention, I have forgotton most of what i learnt during my schooling years.
Marc in many ways is correct, I do wish he would however, start his threads with some sort of inclinging in where the thread is going, instead of looking through his criptic clues. all done!

I have always followed the philosophers approach to acquiring knowledge.

Continuous probing and guessing and challenging and argument after argument and polemic after polemic and the longer there is doubt and disagreement the longer and deeper one's mind is probing and exploring and so the more intense and clear one's understanding becomes. I do this on my own with everything I read.

In other words I try to encourage people to discuss issues with one another - to test their beliefs. This is very very different from what the vast majority of people do - the vast majority of people "present their case" to each other. I present mine to you and you present yours to mine and that concludes that - end of story - no thinking - just presentation and receiving. I prefer discussion - debate - argument - polemic - I want to discuss each position presented not just "receive" it.

[DTLarca]

Wether it is wrong or not is not what your looking for is it?

The point of breaking with convention is what seems to be the problem you are addressing and that is a very ambitious task.

The original format is what sets it in stone for me and the methodolgy for the interpretation, labelled by yourself as a sequential instructions, is the default analytical view in the absence of individual emphasis put on any of the operation.

I see no reason why your analysis should not take the sequential route.

Please explain why?

I just did - I thought it was good - but obviously not good enough - I need to improve on my argument.

I have been fighting arrogance for much of my life so the last thing I want to do is do the arrogant thing and just walk off with the last word "I am right you are wrong - I'm out of here."

If I travel 4680 miles in three days and I want to know what that is in miles per hour when I know there are 48 hours in 2 days I can write

4680/3/48/2

Now by Franks method this gives 16.25 miles per hour

By my method it gives 4680/3 x 2/48 = 65

So my method works for every possible fraction but Franks works only if in the bottom fraction either the numerator or the denominator, or both, are 1.

I say this is a very strong argument for saying that I am right and the majority are wrong - which is often how it works out but just because it often works out that way it does not mean we can decide the truth by just picking the least common beliefs.

I am glad i have persevered with this now - it is becoming very clear to me that my method is correct and that I should emphasis it when teaching physics because I think people misunderstanding this has a lot to people not understanding physics.

[DTLarca]

Again - in summary

If I traveled 100miles in 2 days and I wanted to know how many miles per hour that was when I knew there were 48 hours in those 2 days then by the "popular" method my miles per hour were:

100/2/48/2 = 0.521

But by my method

100/2/48/2 = 100/2 x 2/48 = 2.08

The "popular" method goes miles divided by days divided by hours divided by days

My method goes miles per day multiplied by days per hour and the days cancel out to give miles per hour.

I think I have cracked it.

I will definitely be writing an article about this.

[TRASH101]

LOL I just tried to post and failed.

The notation will always lead to confusion Marc but good luck though.

[DTLarca]

Those who can see they are wrong should now admit they are wrong - not that it matters to me - I am only after the truth - but there seems to be a fetish about this discussion board to do with admitting error and also apologies.

Now if there is anyone who was arguing for the erroneous side of the matter deliberately when all along they knew very well they were not right - they should now both admit they were arguing on the wrong side, deliberately, and they should apologies for doing so - the latest discussion board fetish requires this.

Those who have sufficiently strong mental constitution to not have been swept in by all this "admitting fault" and "aplogising" and all other irrelevancies do not have to do anything - they were only interested in the truth and I believe I have labored the truth to the surface.

I have been battling with this problem on and off for two years now since I started lecturing and while I knew I was right I was never certain. It mattered to me so much that I even invited the college math lecturer in to discuss the matter. Trust me - he is no idiot - yet still I was not happy with the matter.

It has been bugging me on and off still recently - haunting my mind while I drive in and out of London - keeping me quiet at the dinner table not listening to others talk because I was immersed in this problem.

I think thanks to Mad Fridge for edging my thoughts on and on squeezing eventually the final convincing argument out of me.

As Richard Feynman said when they asked him why does he bother with all this stuff no one else cares about - he replied "It's the kick in the discovery".

Two bloody years of agony are over :)

Now for the next problem...

[DTLarca]

LOL I just tried to post and failed.

The notation will always lead to confusion Marc but good luck though.

So far it has lead to confusion - indeed - I recognised that when I started lecturing. I saw that what I took for granted was not even considered an option by others - even the HND students and even the Math Lecturer - as has been witnessed here too in this thread.

But I have had an inner conviction all along that I was right and they wrong. Now that I know for sure that I am right and they - well, they weren't wrong - they just didn't have any opinion at all on the matter of my approach.

So now I can work towards eliminating the confusion.

Using my miles per 2 days example converted to miles per hour with 48 hours in the 2 days does the trick - it is the winning argument.

From now on 1/2/1/2 can mean nothing other than 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and I can know this with certainty ( At least as certain as I know the sun will rise again tomorrow :) )

[mikeref]

Anything divided by 1 remains as is.

245/1 = 245

1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25
One half of one half = one quarter. One half divided by one half = one. (.5/.5=1), and(1/2 of 1/2= 1/4). Now problem solved Marc, didn't need to waste two years stressing out on this. Its the way it is said that counts. Yep, i'm right. Never been to a lecture where the teacher never spoke. So, both you and Frank are right! :D

[mikeref]

From now on 1/2/1/2 can mean nothing other than 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and I can know this with certainty. LOL, good luck at explaining this in a lecture.

[DTLarca]

From now on 1/2/1/2 can mean nothing other than 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and I can know this with certainty. LOL, good luck at explaining this in a lecture.

Thanks to my miles per 2 days and then hours per 2 days example students will see that the correct convention is as I say.

However, as a short cut, as long as there is a 1 in either the numerator or the denominator in the bottom fraction then the "popular" method will work. But it is only a coincidence that it works - it does not work because it is the right way - it will not guarantee a right answer every time.

If your clock on your wall is stuck on 6 O'Clock because the battery is flat it is only right twice a day and if you come downstairs in the morning at 6am and check the clock you will by coincidence see the right time and if you come home at exactly 6pm and look at the clock again you by coincidence see the right time. But it is only by coincidence. The popular method works the same - it is correct by coincidence so long as either the lower fractions numerator or denominator are 1 but at all other times it will be wrong.

[TRASH101]

But your notation needs to be modified for you to be right (by convention);)

[DTLarca]

But your notation needs to be modified for you to be right (by convention);)

There developed a secondary question along the way in the discussion which was "should we use brackets to make explicit the demarcation of numerators and denominators?"

1/2/1/2 could be (1)/((2)/1/2) for instance. Well, by convention if that is what the fraction actually was then it should be made clear with the use of brackets.

But if what is meant by 1/2/1/2 is (1/2)/(1/2) then the brackets are actually not needed - because the conventions in place already for complex fractions are good enough - the brackets then would be superfluous.

[DTLarca]

I typed 1/2/1/2 =1 into my Facebook status and a friend who has a physics degree from the Netherlands replied thus:

‎1/n/1/n = 1, where n is any real number unequal to zero, or complex number as long as its real or imaginary part is unequal to zero.

That, however, would not clinch it for me - it sounds too tautological - it sounds like dogma - it sounds too much like "It is because it is" - I want real argument and evidence which I have already anyway provided :)

[chilliwilly]

Chilli, neither as you would be dead, but.. thats just an opinion. Cartoons come to mind,whistle.... followed by splat and a cloud of dust. Coyote lives to recalculate why both condensing units fell at different speeds.

Coyote or black bear sat at the table waiting for its tea. ;)

[nevgee]

. . . for instance, it was Nevgee's insecurity that brought him to complain that my discussions on the Iraqi guys AHU were off topic ... I was right - I had been steering the discussion in the right direction from the outset and anyone following would have learned from me - learned a lot and for free :)


1 - I did not have any form of insecurity. ... had that been the case I wouldn't have entered the Lion's den. My point was aimed at you redirecting a poster's call for assistance into a self serving resurgent commentary from your good self. no more no less ;)

2- I don't know in the end what it was that you were right about ...but I do believe the one thing you didn't do was to steer the discussion in the "right direction". Had that been the case, then the OP would have probably thanked you for the help and assistance he received ... which clearly was not evident. Steering the discussion you clearly did .. in the right direction? for the op? I don't think that was true. You steered the discussion in your own direction to make your own point over and above that of the original request. I know you don't believe in democracy .... that is self evident. :(

[nevgee]

Well excell is one of the most commonly used pieces of software, so by nature is convention.




Sorry can't agree with this. Since when did Exel have the right to define what convention is or is not.....
there are so many mistakes made now because tech's have drifted away from the idea of standard formats and convention.
I get annoyed when I see tech manuals written with kw instead of kW and kWhr when they mean kW.

DTLarca may have a very annoying approach to his lectures with his hidden meanings and criptic questions but I have to agree with him that there are standards and technical formats that need to be adhered to if we're to understand what it is that others are trying to explain.

Taking a stance that Exel is a format that is accepted is nonsense. My calculator will give me all sorts of ridiculous answers if I punch in the numbers without following the rules (BODMAS) etc. That' why those rules are there so we all can work on an apparently level playing field.

I'm off to the pub. ;)

[DTLarca]

1 - I did not have any form of insecurity. ... had that been the case I wouldn't have entered the Lion's den. My point was aimed at you redirecting a poster's call for assistance into a self serving resurgent commentary from your good self. no more no less ;)

2- I don't know in the end what it was that you were right about ...but I do believe the one thing you didn't do was to steer the discussion in the "right direction". Had that been the case, then the OP would have probably thanked you for the help and assistance he received ... which clearly was not evident. Steering the discussion you clearly did .. in the right direction? for the op? I don't think that was true. You steered the discussion in your own direction to make your own point over and above that of the original request. I know you don't believe in democracy .... that is self evident. :(

Ask the original poster and Gary Lloyd whether they think any of my claims were off target.

Ask teh OP why he gave me rep points and what his comment was with the rep points :)

Also - I recall him coming back and saying "And the winner is - Hot Gas bypass" :D

[nevgee]

Big rasberry to you too ....:p

[Quality]

I do not doubt the knowledge you DTLarca have expressed but I do doubt your acceptance of other peoples opinion.
Weather you have your way or say and the next man has another then if mine is different for my own understanding then so be it.
If your any good at lecturing that your knowledge suggests your are then you will know full well that people do not understand / learn the same way.
I could go on to express the different ways of learning and understanding but if I did you would tell me I am wrong anyway so I will not bother

[DTLarca]

I do not doubt the knowledge you DTLarca have expressed but I do doubt your acceptance of other peoples opinion.
Weather you have your way or say and the next man has another then if mine is different for my own understanding then so be it.
If your any good at lecturing that your knowledge suggests your are then you will know full well that people do not understand / learn the same way.
I could go on to express the different ways of learning and understanding but if I did you would tell me I am wrong anyway so I will not bother


I have never behaved as you suggest I have, never, so you have no reason whatsoever to imagine I might do as you say.

[Quality]

So I am obviously wrong

Thought some how

[nevgee]

Ask the original poster and Gary Lloyd whether they think any of my claims were off target.



Also - I recall him coming back and saying "And the winner is - Hot Gas bypass" :D

Gary did query your SHR motives quite frequently ... because everyone thought you were off target !


Yeah you did suggest that HGBP might be a solution.

You said ...... "If you are right (Nevgee )..... it seems the TEV and compressor are over sized for the evaporator.... and during these conditions some sort of compressor/evaporator capacity control is required".

Well I was right.

huh? can you admit it? huh? can you?

So, DTLarca, I guess in a very round about indirect way you have actually agreed that I was right about the problem before you decided to hijack my statement and come up with the idea of HGBP. The diagnostics were not wholly yours you just concurred and applied the bandaid. :D

This being so and all things etc .... you can have your ego boost, I don't live for those things.

[DTLarca]

So I am obviously wrong

Thought some how

You may be and you may not be - I have not yet received your argument. Perhaps you should lay your case out for me with clearly demarcated arguments from premises to conclusions with evidence so that I can consider their value - at the moment I am hearing mere assertions - vague assertions at that which are even being presented as pseudo generalisations and so I have nothing to go on.

I can only say that you have made judgments based on your own projections rather than on the actual context.

As I say, you may be right and you may not - until you make your case neither of us will know.

[DTLarca]

Gary did query your SHR motives quite frequently ... because everyone thought you were off target !


Yeah you did suggest that HGBP might be a solution.

You said ...... "If you are right (Nevgee )..... it seems the TEV and compressor are over sized for the evaporator.... and during these conditions some sort of compressor/evaporator capacity control is required".

Well I was right.

huh? can you admit it? huh? can you?

So, DTLarca, I guess in a very round about indirect way you have actually agreed that I was right about the problem before you decided to hijack my statement and come up with the idea of HGBP. The diagnostics were not wholly yours you just concurred and applied the bandaid. :D

This being so and all things etc .... you can have your ego boost, I don't live for those things.

Rasberries to you :)

[mad fridgie]

Sorry can't agree with this. Since when did Exel have the right to define what convention is or is not.....
there are so many mistakes made now because tech's have drifted away from the idea of standard formats and convention.
I get annoyed when I see tech manuals written with kw instead of kW and kWhr when they mean kW.

DTLarca may have a very annoying approach to his lectures with his hidden meanings and criptic questions but I have to agree with him that there are standards and technical formats that need to be adhered to if we're to understand what it is that others are trying to explain.

Taking a stance that Exel is a format that is accepted is nonsense. My calculator will give me all sorts of ridiculous answers if I punch in the numbers without following the rules (BODMAS) etc. That' why those rules are there so we all can work on an apparently level playing field.

I'm off to the pub. ;)
Excel, does not have the right to be used as convention, but because it is used heavily it has become by nature a convention. (I am not say this is right or wrong,)
very early on i did bring up BODMAS.
The point of my arguments is to make you think,
All information has to clear and in context with the data around it. (while agree that we should be using a common method, practically we do not)
Marc has given examples of travelling, the context has determined the method of calculation.

[nevgee]

Rasberries to you :)


Touche ;)

[Goober]

And the madness continues......Webram? Webram?..where for art thou? End the madness. Who wants this...really?

[DTLarca]

Excel, does not have the right to be used as convention, but because it is used heavily it has become by nature a convention. (I am not say this is right or wrong,)
very early on i did bring up BODMAS.
The point of my arguments is to make you think,
All information has to clear and in context with the data around it. (while agree that we should be using a common method, practically we do not)
Marc has given examples of travelling, the context has determined the method of calculation.

But you are then committing the fallacy of High Redefinition - of equivocation - slipping between different definitions of the word "convention".

When I talk of the conventions in math and arithmetic I mean of the same conventions as those related to indices as in 2² = 4 or 2^2 = 4

You cannot suddenly decide that 25² = 5

These examples might seem far less likely but they are really of the same order - their absurdity is more clear but no different.

4÷2÷3÷2 = 0.333

4/2/3/2 = 1.333

Go into excel and in cell
A1 put 100 (miles)
A2 put 2 (days)
A3 put 48 (hours)
A4 put 2 (days)

Then to calculate how many miles per hour was done if 100 miles per 2 days was done when there are 48 hours in 2 days in cell
A5 put =A1/A2/A3/A4
A6 put =(A1/A2)/(A3/A4)

And see for yourself that because you have not put in the right info (convention) into cell A5 you will have gotten garbage out.

Cell A6 gives the right answer every time whereas cell A5 gives the right answer only when either cell A3 or A4 or both equal 1

Cell A5 gives the wrong answer because even excel requires you to demarcate your expression's arguments according to BODMAS.

For example - there are maybe 4.33 weeks in a month so how many days are there in a month if there are 5 work days and 2 weekend days in a week

That in excel according to your argument would be 5+2*4.3 = 13.66

Of course you have to tell excel what you really mean - it will not decide that for you - so you have use the convention (5+2)*4.3 = 30.31

So as I said before - the question is not "what will excel do?" but "what is the convention?" and my miles per day example shows that the convention regarding 1/2/1/2 is to treat it as a fraction in the numerator and a fraction in the denominator as in (1/2)/(1/2) = 1

That has to be the right convention because it is the convention that works every time even when there is no 1 in either the numerator or denominator of the lower fraction.

[mad fridgie]

Again - in summary

If I traveled 100miles in 2 days and I wanted to know how many miles per hour that was when I knew there were 48 hours in those 2 days then by the "popular" method my miles per hour were:

100/2/48/2 = 0.521

But by my method

100/2/48/2 = 100/2 x 2/48 = 2.08

The "popular" method goes miles divided by days divided by hours divided by days

My method goes miles per day multiplied by days per hour and the days cancel out to give miles per hour.

I think I have cracked it.

I will definitely be writing an article about this.
Just seen this one!
I disagree with your popular method
100/2/24 as a string or (100/2)/24
100/48
With explanation
A day is 24 hours so you use either the day or you use 48 Hours and forget the day.
By using both day and 48hrs you have over complicated the calc.
So to be correct you should referencing the number of days by the number of hours in a day, to give total hours travelled. (hope that makes sense)

[Quality]

You may be and you may not be - I have not yet received your argument. Perhaps you should lay your case out for me with clearly demarcated arguments from premises to conclusions with evidence so that I can consider their value - at the moment I am hearing mere assertions - vague assertions at that which are even being presented as pseudo generalisations and so I have nothing to go on.

I can only say that you have made judgments based on your own projections rather than on the actual context.

As I say, you may be right and you may not - until you make your case neither of us will know.

Ok

no argument

1/21/2 =0/25

or are you going to say I am wrong
but I know I am not

Lets discuss and converse in a friendly manner then everyone can contribute and enjoy

This is a friendly forum and one of best I must add

[DTLarca]

Just seen this one!
I disagree with your popular method
100/2/24 as a string or (100/2)/24
100/48
With explanation
A day is 24 hours so you use either the day or you use 48 Hours and forget the day.
By using both day and 48hrs you have over complicated the calc.
So to be correct you should referencing the number of days by the number of hours in a day, to give total hours travelled. (hope that makes sense)

If I traveled 100 miles in 3 days and I wanted to know how many miles per hour that was then

100/3/72/3 = 100/3 x 3/72 = 1.389 miles per hour

Because I am using the right convention I do not have to go through the hassle of converting the 72 hours in the 3 days traveled to 24 hours in just one of the 3 days traveled. But if I wanted to I could have and still got the correct answer.

With the "popular" method I will only get the right answer if remember to see to it that there is a 1 somewhere in the hours per day section.

[mad fridgie]

But you are then committing the fallacy of High Redefinition - of equivocation - slipping between different definitions of the word "convention".

When I talk of the conventions in math and arithmetic I mean of the same conventions as those related to indices as in 2² = 4 or 2^2 = 4

You cannot suddenly decide that 25² = 5

These examples might seem far less likely but they are really of the same order - their absurdity is more clear but no different.

4÷2÷3÷2 = 0.333

4/2/3/2 = 1.333

Go into excel and in cell
A1 put 100 (miles)
A2 put 2 (days)
A3 put 48 (hours)
A4 put 2 (days)

Then to calculate how many miles per hour was done if 100 miles per 2 days was done when there are 48 hours in 2 days in cell
A5 put =A1/A2/A3/A4
A6 put =(A1/A2)/(A3/A4)

And see for yourself that because you have not put in the right info (convention) into cell A5 you will have gotten garbage out.

Cell A6 gives the right answer every time whereas cell A5 gives the right answer only when either cell A3 or A4 or both equal 1

Cell A5 gives the wrong answer because even excel requires you to demarcate your expression's arguments according to BODMAS.

For example - there are maybe 4.33 weeks in a month so how many days are there in a month if there are 5 work days and 2 weekend days in a week

That in excel according to your argument would be 5+2*4.3 = 13.66

Of course you have to tell excel what you really mean - it will not decide that for you - so you have use the convention (5+2)*4.3 = 30.31

So as I said before - the question is not "what will excel do?" but "what is the convention?" and my miles per day example shows that the convention regarding 1/2/1/2 is to treat it as a fraction in the numerator and a fraction in the denominator as in (1/2)/(1/2) = 1

That has to be the right convention because it is the convention that works every time even when there is no 1 in either the numerator or denominator of the lower fraction.
Very good points, so for the point of clarity, it would be fair to say that we use BODMAS has now become the convention (use of brackets for example) to ensure that confussion is removed. Maybe this is why BODMAS is now teached to students (well in my neck of the woods)

[DTLarca]

Ok

no argument

1/21/2 =0/25

or are you going to say I am wrong
but I know I am not

Lets discuss and converse in a friendly manner then everyone can contribute and enjoy

This is a friendly forum and one of best I must add

1/21/2 = 1/21/2/1 = 1/21 x 1/2 = 0.95

[mad fridgie]

If I traveled 100 miles in 3 days and I wanted to know how many miles per hour that was then

100/3/72/3 = 100/3 x 3/72 = 1.389 miles per hour

Because I am using the right convention I do not have to go through the hassle of converting the 72 hours in the 3 days traveled to 24 hours in just one of the 3 days traveled. But if I wanted to I could have and still got the correct answer.

With the "popular" method I will only get the right answer if remember to see to it that there is a 1 somewhere in the hours per day section.
Where do you get your 72 hours from?
You have already undertake a calculation of 3*24 (all be it in your head), it would be fair to say you have travelled either 3 days or 72 hours

[Quality]

1/21/2 = 1/21/2/1 = 1/21 x 1/2 = 0.95


Thats the point I am trying to make I do not, like many others do not agree with your method weather its your method or not. We each have our own method of understanding.

Depending on what you are trying to achieve has a large effect on how you go about it

but we are all different in many ways, so long as the job is done regardless of what it is

satisfaction

is the result

[DTLarca]

Where do you get your 72 hours from?
You have already undertake a calculation of 3*24 (all be it in your head), it would be fair to say you have travelled either 3 days or 72 hours

Well, I traveled 100 miles in 3 days. I want to know how many miles per hour that was if there were 72 hours in those 3 days.

Now, as, you say, I could then just say that dividing the 100 miles by 72 immediately gives me my miles per hour - why go through the miles per day hassle first?

Well, someone on the walk with me might have said Oh, there are 96 hours in 4 days.

So I now have miles per 3 days and hours per 4 days. no problem - the convention still works

100/3/96/4 = 100/3 x 4/96 = 1.389

Job done :)

[mad fridgie]

Well, I traveled 100 miles in 3 days. I want to know how many miles per hour that was if there were 72 hours in those 3 days.

Now, as, you say, I could then just say that dividing the 100 miles by 72 immediately gives me my miles per hour - why go through the miles per day hassle first?

Well, someone on the walk with me might have said Oh, there are 96 hours in 4 days.

So I now have miles per 3 days and hours per 4 days. no problem - the convention still works

100/3/96/4 = 100/3 x 4/96 = 1.389

Job done :)
I think you are missing the point, not the answer
you have your miles good
You have a common denominator which is time,
it is either stated in hours or days, hours is actually what we want, but it is days that we measure, we therefore need to calculate the total hours travelled, or we just measure hours and forget about the days, I do not see the purpose in a calculation of bringing in two different types (gone blank sorry, hours and days, meters and inches etc) for the same process variable

[DTLarca]

Thats the point I am trying to make I do not, like many others do not agree with your method weather its your method or not. We each have our own method of understanding.

Depending on what you are trying to achieve has a large effect on how you go about it

but we are all different in many ways, so long as the job is done regardless of what it is

satisfaction

is the result

You are doing what we call humptydumptying

You are giving private meaning to words and conventions in common use. When Alice asked Humpty Dumpty what he meant by "glory" he said "I mean "there's a nice knock-down argument for you"" and then Alice protests that "this is not the meaning of glory" to which Humpty replies "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less"

This is stipulative definition of quite a bizarre kind.

[mad fridgie]

1/21/2 = 1/21/2/1 = 1/21 x 1/2 = 0.95
Are you really sure on this one!
1/21= 0.0476
1/2 = 0.5
0.0476 * 0.5 = 0.0238

[Quality]

You are doing what we call humptydumptying

You are giving private meaning to words and conventions in common use. When Alice asked Humpty Dumpty what he meant by "glory" he said "I mean "there's a nice knock-down argument for you"" and then Alice protests that "this is not the meaning of glory" to which Humpty replies "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less"

This is stipulative definition of quite a bizarre kind.

You must be correct

[DTLarca]

I think you are missing the point, not the answer
you have your miles good
You have a common denominator which is time,
it is either stated in hours or days, hours is actually what we want, but it is days that we measure, we therefore need to calculate the total hours travelled, or we just measure hours and forget about the days, I do not see the purpose in a calculation of bringing in two different types (gone blank sorry, hours and days, meters and inches etc) for the same process variable

If I want to convert 20 meters per second to feet per second I divide meters per second by however feet per second we have per meters per second.

For feet per minute I divide meters per second by how ever many feet per minute there are per meter per second.

[DTLarca]

Are you really sure on this one!
1/21= 0.0476
1/2 = 0.5
0.0476 * 0.5 = 0.0238

1/21/2 = 1/21/2/1 = 1/21 x 1/2 = 0.0238 indeed.

I picked up my Casio to do the previous one when I have been using my TI83 to do all the others so far which is now down in the kitchen until I get another cup of coffee :)

[mad fridgie]

1/21/2 = 1/21/2/1 = 1/21 x 1/2 = 0.0238 indeed.

I picked up my Casio to do the previous one when I have been using my TI83 to do all the others so far which is now down in the kitchen until I get another cup of coffee :)
No problems, its good to be human:D

[mad fridgie]

Applogies for my sub concious

100/3/72/3
"3/3"=1

should this not read
100/1/72/1
then
100/72

[DTLarca]

Applogies for my sub concious

100/3/72/3
"3/3"=1

should this not read
100/1/72/1
then
100/72

Indeed

100/3/72/3 = 100/3 x 3/72 and the 3's cancel out but in the cases of 100/3/96/4 or 100/3/48/2 the 3 and 4 and then 3 and 2 will not cancel out to whole numbers.

[DTLarca]

I sms'd a friend asking what he thought 1/2/1/2 equals - he replied that it was the start of a march.

[stufus]

I'd say draw a line under it lads , but fear it may be taken out of context and start another mathematical debate.......

[DTLarca]

I'd say draw a line under it lads , but fear it may be taken out of context and start another mathematical debate.......

What are the odds ? :)

[chilliwilly]

Mmm...mmm, I'm a bit bored, I wonder what I can find to do. I know I'll reinvent the wheel. I'll make it with four right angles!...no hang on, hang on erm...er...er. F*ck it I'll do that and if anyone says its a square, they can go and bollocks and that's a fact because I said so! Because Einstein was my Grandad and Eureka is my dogs name so there.
:(

[mad fridgie]

Mmm...mmm, I'm a bit bored, I wonder what I can find to do. I know I'll reinvent the wheel. I'll make it with four right angles!...no hang on, hang on erm...er...er. F*ck it I'll do that and if anyone says its a square, they can go and bollocks and that's a fact because I said so! Because Einstein was my Grandad and Eureka is my dogs name so there.
:(
I saw you on TV, you bloody awsome, jump was not to big though.
What about your tyre width?:rolleyes:

[chilliwilly]

...tyre width? I know who I'd like to tire with, but she won't entertain me since we went down that cobbled road and nackered them!

[lawrence1]

chilliwilly,
So whats wrong with reinventing the wheel,,,make sure it's width is fractionally related to it's compound(1/21/2) which should be black(4/5ths of f*ckin/nofin) ,right-angled to it's diameter and hey presto you are indeed the grandson of Einstein.
Lawrie

[chilliwilly]

And the tyre side wall should have "Phillosopher" stamped on it instead of "Pirrelli" or "Firestone".

[Goober]

Wait........its gone all quiet.......do you think he's gone? You know who...that bollicks with the bear avatar. Maybe he's gone into a zen like meditative state and will return to enlighten us. Oh my gosh! I can't wait!

[TRASH101]

Goober don't you realise you've just committed the fallacy of "tempting providence" ;)

LMAO:D

[lawrence1]

but wait,,,,,,,,,,,he'll ,,,,,,,,,,,be ,,,,,,,,,,,,back,,,like a pimple on a bum,,,,annoying but eventually it goes away..........,,,,,,,,,,,we hope.

[DTLarca]

2÷4÷2÷4 = 0.0625
2/4/2/4 = 1

2÷4÷1÷4 = 0.0125
2/4/1/4 = 2

2÷4÷2÷1 = 0.25
2/4/2/1 = 0.25

So I was wrong about under which circumstances the "popular" method will work.

It seems the "popular" method will only work if the denominator of the lower fraction is 1 (denominator of the denominator) otherwise for all other cases the "popular method" will not work.

[nevgee]

Goober don't you realise you've just committed the fallacy of "tempting providence" ;)

LMAO:D


How prophetic is that? You are truely one of the wise ones, you are special! :D

[lawrence1]

nice one goober

[stufus]

Right that's it !!
I'm off to a mathematicians(or whatever they're called) forum to start a pointless rambling refrigeration debate.:p
Stu

[mikeref]

Right that's it !!
I'm off to a mathematicians(or whatever they're called) forum to start a pointless rambling refrigeration debate.:p
Stu
Hey Stu, mind if i tag along for a laugh?

[desA]

We'll need to ask the board guvners to open a trivialities & party-tricks section for this stuff.

[DTLarca]

We'll need to ask the board guvners to open a trivialities & party-tricks section for this stuff.

Then again - for anyone who wants to understand thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, thermophysics etc wihout a monkey see monkey do approach this is extremely important - it is literally FUNDAMENTAL :)

[desA]

Then again - for anyone who wants to understand thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, thermophysics etc wihout a monkey see monkey do approach this is extremely important - it is literally FUNDAMENTAL :)

Marc, you are simply showing off.

Your applied wisdom in matters of refrigeration nature will be openly welcomed, I'm sure. This kind of continuous oneupmanship is beginning to spoil the 'flavour' of RE forum. This would be a great pity, in my view, as I've found this site to be wonderful in former times.

Please think long & hard about your contribution to the society here, before opening these kind of threads & then telling everyone how stupid they are.

For the record, a number of posters may well be able to knock your technical arguments to smithereens, if they were so want to do - especially in regards to the nuances of the Navier-Stokes equations & fluid-dynamics in general. This kind of confrontation is not, in my view, what RE is all about.

[mad fridgie]

Marc, you are simply showing off.

Your applied wisdom in matters of refrigeration nature will be openly welcomed, I'm sure. This kind of continuous oneupmanship is beginning to spoil the 'flavour' of RE forum. This would be a great pity, in my view, as I've found this site to be wonderful in former times.

Please think long & hard about your contribution to the society here, before opening these kind of threads & then telling everyone how stupid they are.

For the record, a number of posters may well be able to knock your technical arguments to smithereens, if they were so want to do - especially in regards to the nuances of the Navier-Stokes equations & fluid-dynamics in general. This kind of confrontation is not, in my view, what RE is all about.
good comments, but head and brick wall, seem to come to mind:eek:

[TRASH101]

How prophetic is that? You are truely one of the wise ones, you are special! :D


Thanks Nev, for not spelling special with a "sh".

[stufus]

Hey Stu, mind if i tag along for a laugh?

The more the merrier,;)
We could discuss the finer points of philosophy and handbags on route.
If time allows maybe even watch the great Socrates in his pomp doing what he did best :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxqcwH4lTtM&feature=related
Cheers
Stu

[DTLarca]

Marc, you are simply showing off.

I repeat - for anyone who wants to understand any technical aspect of HVACR involving energy - which is almost all technical aspects of HVACR - without a monkey see monkey do approach - they must understand the principles established in this thread - I am so convinced of this I have been haunted by this question for over 2 years now. I haven't gone back and read over the thread but I don't recall you making any contributions? What happened?


Your applied wisdom in matters of refrigeration nature will be openly welcomed, I'm sure.

Oh cool :) Hang on, not so fast - if you believe that then why this particular post - something does not add up?


This kind of continuous oneupmanship is beginning to spoil the 'flavour' of RE forum. This would be a great pity, in my view, as I've found this site to be wonderful in former times.

One upmanship? What if on the other hand one of the members says something I happen to disagree with. Like, for instance, I think it is utter nonsense that this topic should rather be under a section set aside for party tricks and the like?

Free speech is important in order that we can openly challenge each others arguments and have our own challenged. Liberty does not mean the freedom to think and say what we want free from the critique of others. If you think any of my arguments are weak - demonstrate this - but steer clear of personal attacks - you are not a juvenile.


Please think long & hard about your contribution to the society here, before opening these kind of threads & then telling everyone how stupid they are.

I am a thinker - I think long and hard about almost everything.

For instance - try defining for me the word "stupid" as you use it above and then show me what this word with this definition has to do with anything I have proposed.


For the record, a number of posters may well be able to knock your technical arguments to smithereens, if they were so want to do - especially in regards to the nuances of the Navier-Stokes equations & fluid-dynamics in general. This kind of confrontation is not, in my view, what RE is all about.

Very arrogant, Des, you under estimate me, you should go steady with such thoughtless arrogance - there are people like me who could very well end up putting you right :)

[desA]

@ Marc (no malice intended in any shape, or form):

Arrogant people generally have an incredible number of blind spots. Their apparent extrovert nature is often a cover for an extremely insecure, hurting inner person. Empty vessels also seem to make the most noise.

My take on RE is one of a community of jolly decent, helpful contributors. It's like we are all in a boat in the middle of a huge raging river - trying to survive. I have found the kind contributions from so many members to be incredibly generous & these have helped my own developments in the RHVAC industry tremendously. Their patience & depth of experience, have been very much appreciated.

If you remember back to your early days as DTLarca, your posts were great. Very informative & made a good read. Slowly you began to introduce the great 'I am' into your posts, until the point at which we are now - where everything seems to be about you & your prowess over others. This is meaningless & makes you a target. Judging from my own feeling & the comments of others, you are beginning to make others uncomfortable.

Wouldn't you like to chill a little & go back to your wise self? This is a refrigeration forum, after all. :)

[Goober]

Oh great....its all back on again....I was wondering why I couldn"t sleep at night..now all I do is read posts by that bollicks with the bear avatar....and I'm out like a light in seconds...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[lawrence1]

desA,
WELL SAID.

[mikeref]

DesA, the simile of being in a boat is spot on. Can picture it right now,.. Floating down the Brisbane river, discussing relative humidity, river velocity and H20 density at 101.3 Kpa. What problems would we expect with severe contamination in this medium compared to lower water velocity and density. Meanwhile, Frank and lowcool compare brews while Lawrence, Stufus, Chilli, and Goober express their views of disappointment as to the direction the boat is heading. Mad Knows E=MC squared and we are headed for a showdown but Paul h is sick of the ride and wishes he was out of this mess. Captain Webram looks on in disappointment and wonders.. how long it will be before he has to ask the moderators to calm his passengers, as this could be a long and bumpy ride.

[DTLarca]

@ Marc (no malice intended in any shape, or form):

Arrogant people generally have an incredible number of blind spots. Their apparent extrovert nature is often a cover for an extremely insecure, hurting inner person. Empty vessels also seem to make the most noise.

My take on RE is one of a community of jolly decent, helpful contributors. It's like we are all in a boat in the middle of a huge raging river - trying to survive. I have found the kind contributions from so many members to be incredibly generous & these have helped my own developments in the RHVAC industry tremendously. Their patience & depth of experience, have been very much appreciated.

If you remember back to your early days as DTLarca, your posts were great. Very informative & made a good read. Slowly you began to introduce the great 'I am' into your posts, until the point at which we are now - where everything seems to be about you & your prowess over others. This is meaningless & makes you a target. Judging from my own feeling & the comments of others, you are beginning to make others uncomfortable.

Wouldn't you like to chill a little & go back to your wise self? This is a refrigeration forum, after all. :)

Des, with respect bud. You are talking nonsense. That is regarding "what an arrogant person is" and regarding me. I have been fighting arrogance for much of my life - I know what it is.

Here, a piece from faulty towers comes to mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnNhzgcWTk

Get it?

Now, with regard to semi cryptic questions on new threads - I have been doing that since around 1995 on the web. Before and after 2000 I had a discussion board on my webite where I had a section called the fridgetech challenge. Guys like Andy Shoen (Prof Sporlan), Dan Murphy etc used to love those challenges. In fact Sporlan started their Prof Sporlan Challenge section around the same time and possibly as a copy of my challenge section. Some of the editors of the UK magazines thought the whole thing was so great I was invited to write articles for them precisely because of it.

And these cryptic like questions I ask now are a little different from those asked before - admittedly, they are slightly different in that I am for these ones not sure of the right answers myself - I am inviting others to think about the problems with me but starting from the very foundations. Those who are not interested should just ignore the threads - Imagine everyone was obliged to leave a comment in every thread whether or not they were interested in the thread and if they were not then they had to leave a comment saying something like "Hi, I'm not interested in this thread - I even find it boring, bye". That would be ridiculous - so the people who stir **** in my threads have got to ask themselves why do they do it - there would lie the answer.

[desA]

Ok, Marc.

A little concerned that a hole has sprung in our boat. The raging river worries me. :D

[DTLarca]

Ok, Marc.

A little concerned that a hole has sprung in our boat. The raging river worries me. :D

My boat floats firm, Des, you might have said my boat was poorly assembled when everyone seemed to think that because most people thought I was wrong about the fractions I was therefore actually wrong. But being thought to be wrong and actually being wrong are two entirely different matters. In the end my boat turned out to have been assembled just fine all along except, admittedly, perhaps by chance, because without a proof I could never myself be sure of my convictions on the matter - until my proofs it could still have just been a coincidence that my method worked.

With regards to the matter of me - well - I have proof that my position is right, my position is what I would call a justified true belief - you only have to go back and read all the threads I have been involved in.

For something to be knowledge it should be a fallibly justified true belief:

In philosophical logic iff means if and only if


S knows P iff
S believes P
S's belief in P is fallibly justified.
P is true.
2 ensures that that 1 and 3 are not jointly an accident
When you are watching "Who wants to be a Millionaire" there are always 4 answers and 1 of them is always correct. So for each question you know what the answer is as in you have knowledge of it. You may not know which of the 4 answers is the actual correct answer but because you can see all 4 possible answers you do have knowledge of the answer because you have knowledge of the possible answers which include the right answer. What you do not have is belief in any particular answer. So knowledge requires more than just awareness of the possible answer - it also requires belief of the right answer. But belief on its own is insufficient.

If you have knowledge of the truth you believe it. I believe it therefore it is true. Nope - this is a fallacy. Like if I am running I am moving. I am moving therefore I am running. Nope, you could just be rolling over in your sleep :)

[TRASH101]

I assume the passengers and crew can swim?
Can the boat be repaired ?

If you answer no to both of the above you were ill prepared for a trip on a raging river.

:p

[desA]

I assume the passengers and crew can swim?
Can the boat be repaired ?

If you answer no to both of the above you were ill prepared for a trip on a raging river.

:p

Forgot to mention the rescue chopper flying overhead, didn't I? :D

[nevgee]

I assume the passengers and crew can swim?
Can the boat be repaired ?

If you answer no to both of the above you were ill prepared for a trip on a raging river.

:p


Now you know you shouldn't assume ..... as it has been written that assumption is the mother of all F**** ups ;)

Can the boat be fixed? ...well of course it probably can ...if you have the materials and skill and time available. . .. are there any rapids further down the river ?

Do we jump or stay with the boat? :confused:

[chilliwilly]

If I traveled 100 miles in 3 days and I wanted to know how many miles per hour that was then

100/3/72/3 = 100/3 x 3/72 = 1.389 miles per hour

Because I am using the right convention I do not have to go through the hassle of converting the 72 hours in the 3 days traveled to 24 hours in just one of the 3 days traveled. But if I wanted to I could have and still got the correct answer.

With the "popular" method I will only get the right answer if remember to see to it that there is a 1 somewhere in the hours per day section.

Or how about 100/3/24=1.38 mph. But that only gives you an average speed travelled, it doesn't give you the lowest or highest speeds or the amount of time you stopped. Other variables may include the following parameters and protocols.

You may have been walking up and down hills, waiting at pelican crossings (120 secs), waiting for the ferry or for "st Christopher" at peak times to shoulder back you across a torrent river (3600 secs), catching sheep to run over a minefield so you can walk across it safely (after you've sh*gged them of course(and doing this you would probably run back and forth clocking up more distance which you'd more than likely forget to include as a variable)) (7200; 18000 secs), bribing the immigration and border patrols to let you carry on walking in your fake Timberland boots (7200 secs), convincing the chuck wagon that you'll pay them for your spam and egg sandwich the next time you pass this way (600 secs), having a good dump or a slash or both ( 120;1200 secs, finding and reading a few wank mags (and maybe some adjusting some other parameter whilst reading them) 600;1800 secs, being chased by a bull or a wasp (in which case you might gain on any time you may have lost whilst performing some of the latter (providing your running in the right direction of course)). To name a few.

It would be interesting to see what the equation might look like with the addition of the above correction factors?

[slingblade]

@ Marc (no malice intended in any shape, or form):

Arrogant people generally have an incredible number of blind spots. Their apparent extrovert nature is often a cover for an extremely insecure, hurting inner person. Empty vessels also seem to make the most noise.

My take on RE is one of a community of jolly decent, helpful contributors. It's like we are all in a boat in the middle of a huge raging river - trying to survive. I have found the kind contributions from so many members to be incredibly generous & these have helped my own developments in the RHVAC industry tremendously. Their patience & depth of experience, have been very much appreciated.

If you remember back to your early days as DTLarca, your posts were great. Very informative & made a good read. Slowly you began to introduce the great 'I am' into your posts, until the point at which we are now - where everything seems to be about you & your prowess over others. This is meaningless & makes you a target. Judging from my own feeling & the comments of others, you are beginning to make others uncomfortable.

Wouldn't you like to chill a little & go back to your wise self? This is a refrigeration forum, after all. :)

desA,
You have no idea what the o'brien is like, but i give you credit for being one of the first new members to spot where this is going. this is getting on for 2005/6 all over again.
I will limit my comments to that, as i promised one of the Moderators I would do so.

Edit, Apologies to everyone else who has twigged what is going on, i have not just singled-out desA for recognition, regards to all. You know who you are.

[Goober]

Row row row our boat, gentley down the stream, merrly merrly merrly merrly live is but a dream....well....its a dream world where that bollicks with the bear avatar lives anyway. I change my mind. I think the dream boy should be encorouged. We need to understand him, let him nurture us. We need to be more accepting and caring of schpecial people

[Goober]

I thought I'd bump this thread again....well, because, you know.....I miss it. No no, I really do. There must be more of you out there that miss it too. Although i do see there is another thread, involving you know who....wink wink, that has drawn some attention. I mean the man has to be admired for is abilty to type so so many words. That in itself is a feat to be revered!!. Let alone all the proper punctuation, paragraphing, references etc. truly, truly astonishing. Come now...don't be bashfull. Some of you are with me. Surely. Aministrators!! please can we have section dedicated to Black Bears? Please please please, pretty please even?? I implore you, men of greatness. We will be so so so better off. Life will even be worth living!!!!

[mikeref]

I thought I'd bump this thread again....well, because, you know.....I miss it. No no, I really do. There must be more of you out there that miss it too. Although i do see there is another thread, involving you know who....wink wink, that has drawn some attention. I mean the man has to be admired for is abilty to type so so many words. That in itself is a feat to be revered!!. Let alone all the proper punctuation, paragraphing, references etc. truly, truly astonishing. Come now...don't be bashfull. Some of you are with me. Surely. Aministrators!! please can we have section dedicated to Black Bears? Please please please, pretty please even?? I implore you, men of greatness. We will be so so so better off. Life will even be worth living!!!!Goober, do you mean like... reading a book thats really quite drawn out but is laced with juicy bits to keep you interested?;)

[Goober]

And we're off and racing now..........

[lawrence1]

Good on ya Goober,,,,where's Yogi?

[stufus]

And so the saga continues,
Just when you thought it was safe to back on RE...
Cheers
Stu

[desA]

I like the green bottles. :D

[monkey spanners]

Did someone say saga....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Y4OPmBRAE&feature=related

[Quality]

They actually meant yellow brick road

[mad fridgie]

I thought I'd bump this thread again....well, because, you know.....I miss it. No no, I really do. There must be more of you out there that miss it too. Although i do see there is another thread, involving you know who....wink wink, that has drawn some attention. I mean the man has to be admired for is abilty to type so so many words. That in itself is a feat to be revered!!. Let alone all the proper punctuation, paragraphing, references etc. truly, truly astonishing. Come now...don't be bashfull. Some of you are with me. Surely. Aministrators!! please can we have section dedicated to Black Bears? Please please please, pretty please even?? I implore you, men of greatness. We will be so so so better off. Life will even be worth living!!!!
I know what you got for XMAS

A "stick" to waken dogs
A "big spoon" for rotating poo!:D

[Goober]

Back in the day in my little home town, the circus used to come to town and set up. They had Tigers and Elephants in the circus in those days. The tigers would go from their gages to the Big Top through a gage type tunnel. We used to wait for them to come out and poke them with sticks as they went passed. Scared the s**t out of us but great fun. Untill the Ringmaster caught us and beat the crap out of us. So yep! I like to poke things, now I especially like to poke Bears, Big Black Bears!

[MikeHolm]

Hey we used BODMAS in Canada

[MikeHolm]

BODMAS is British - the Americans do not use it in their schools. I wonder if they are actually doing the better thing?

see above comment: I still cannot figure out out to do quotes correctly

[MikeHolm]

Why? What significance?


Homer had trouble with this one as well;)

[MikeHolm]

think this one is dead and I am way off......BEER is needed NOW

[frank]

I still cannot figure out out to do quotes correctly
Hi Mike

When you want to reply to a post, click on the "Quote" button on the bottom R/H side of the particular post.

A window will then open up and show you the post inside of square brackets. This is the original post and you can edit/delete anything inside of the square brackets that is not relevant to what you want to reply to.

Next, type your reply below this quote and click on either "preview" or "submit"

:)

[desA]

Testing quotes, testing

1/"^2 =? (1/")*(1/")


1/"^2 =? (1/")*(1/")

[MikeHolm]

Testing quotes, testing

1/"^2 =? (1/")*(1/")



Duh...youse guys is so smart......:)

[DTLarca]

Testing quotes, testing

1/"^2 =? (1/")*(1/")

By accident 1/n² is the same as 1²/n² is the same as (1/n)²

[DTLarca]

By accident 1/n² is the same as 1²/n² is the same as (1/n)²

Therefore it can't be that 1/"^2 =? (1/")*(1/")

For instance 2/2² = 2/4 = 0.5

But according to your rule

2/2² can also be 2/2 x 2/2

But 2/2 x 2/2 = 1

And not 0.5

[desA]

1 1 was a racehorse
2 2 was 1 2
1 1 1 1 race
& 2 2 1 1 2

[DTLarca]

1 1 was a racehorse
2 2 was 1 2
1 1 1 1 race
& 2 2 1 1 2

We should not talk of religion nor men of the cloth.

[desA]

Lol... 2 2 :)

[Josip]

Speaking about mathematics ... small lesson about percentage...


What Makes 100%?

What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?

Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%?

We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over
100%. How about achieving 103%?

What makes up 100% in life?


Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:

If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
U V W X Y Z

is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:


H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%


and



K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%


But,


A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E

1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%


And,


B-U-L-L-*-*-*-*

2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND , look how far ass kissing will take you.

A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G

1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:


While HARD WORK and KNOWLEDGE will get you close,
and
Attitude
will get you there,
it's the
Bull****
and
Ass Kissing
that will put you over the top.

Best regards, Josip :)

[stufus]

Very good Josip
But did you know that 3 out of 2 people don't understand fractions.
Cheers
Stu

[mad fridgie]

The average married couple has 2.2 kids, the car manufactures produce car that best suit the average.
I have been lucky i have 3 full kids, no wonder they complain about being short of space in the back of the car.

[Josip]

I believe you'll like this even more... how to express your professionalism ... within 8 jpg files ..;)


Best regards, Josip :)

[mad fridgie]

Josip, thats the winner, the black bear should love that one!

[DTLarca]

The average married couple has 2.2 kids, the car manufactures produce car that best suit the average.
I have been lucky i have 3 full kids, no wonder they complain about being short of space in the back of the car.

The average human has 1 tit and one testical :confused:

[mikeref]

The average human has 1 tit and one testical :confused:
Cryptic at best, would that be in the first trimester before fetal development, or is that based on todays averages of 1/2 persons per family?

[lawrence1]

oh no Yogi smells something to chew on

[desA]

Now we know where the bears study... LOL... Jossip rules!!!