1/2²

[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

[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?

[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

[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

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

[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.
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.
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

[TRASH101]

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

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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxqcw...eature=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.

[DTLarca]

Ok, Marc.

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

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

1. S believes P
2. S's belief in P is fallibly justified.
3. P is true.
4. 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.