what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory

Science > Physics > what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"MightyMeanie"
Date:	05 Dec 2004 07:28:23 AM
Object:	what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory

If I was to design a laboratory experiment to investigate the angle
¸ for a board (which hangs vertically from a hinge in still air)
and I vary the speed of the wind to vary the angle
what would be a good source for a stream of air?
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.

User: "Tom Potter"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 07:29:54 PM

"MightyMeanie" <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message news:41b30cf7$1_1@Usenet.com...

A fan, driven by a pendulum, etc.
would deliver an oscillating stream of air,
at a known frequency.
Once you determine the phase relationship
between the air stream,
and the angle of the board,
you should be able to compute
any other values you need.
This would be much more predictable than
wind from an elephant.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.

User: "Richard Henry"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 04:18:15 PM

"MightyMeanie" <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message news:41b30cf7$1_1@Usenet.com...

The atmosphere?
.

User: "Guy Gordon"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	06 Dec 2004 01:03:46 AM

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote:

"MightyMeanie" <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message news:41b30cf7$1_1@Usenet.com...

The atmosphere?

No, no. Too easy.
I suggest a huge bank of spray cans of Right-Guard.
.

User: "MightyMeanie"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	06 Dec 2004 07:29:00 AM

A fan, driven by a pendulum, etc.
would deliver an oscillating stream of air,
at a known frequency.

Once you determine the phase relationship
between the air stream,
and the angle of the board,
you should be able to compute
any other values you need.

This would be much more predictable than
wind from an elephant.

thanks
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.

User: "MightyMeanie"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	06 Dec 2004 07:29:00 AM

Has a fan been rejected?

i had thought of a fan, but is that scientific enough. how about a
circuit with a variable resistor that could change the power of the
wind, or air supply. is that possible do you think? if so how could i
create such a circuit. its mind boggling i find :shock: :?
sorry about how vague this original forum post was, i broke my
keyboard in the middle of it.
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	06 Dec 2004 09:16:05 AM

In article <41b45e9c$1_2@Usenet.com>,
MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

Has a fan been rejected?

i had thought of a fan, but is that scientific enough.

Bwahahaha! If it's not scientific enough, you could call it an
atmospheric impeller! Or a high-volume turbopump.

how about a
circuit with a variable resistor that could change the power of the
wind, or air supply. is that possible do you think? if so how could i
create such a circuit. its mind boggling i find :shock: :?

sorry about how vague this original forum post was, i broke my
keyboard in the middle of it.

If you just want wind, and it makes the air go fast enough, a fan is fine.
If you want a little more control you could build a wind tunnel. You
might put a fan at both the front and back, each one with "HI", "MEDIUM",
and "LO" settings, which will give you some control over the wind speed.
If you want to know the wind speed, you'll need a wind speed sensor.
Those can be bought commercially, which is expensive. You can measure the
cooling on an electrically heated platinum wire, which may or may not be
cheaper than buying a commercial unit. I haven't built or priced any.
The standard way to acheive a certain volume versus time is to build a
large, air-filled piston that exhausts into a tube containing your
experiment (e.g. a flow meter that you want to calibrate). Then the speed
that the piston moves is easily related to the quantity of air flowing.
Short of mounting your experiment on the top of your car and using
the speedometer to measure wind flow, what's easiest for home experiments
might be the Bernoulli effect.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BernoullisLaw.html
Build a wind tunnel with a small hole in the bottom somewhere that the
wind is relatively undisturbed by your experiment, to admit the flow
meter. The flow meter can consist of a clear peice of tubing with a U at
the bottom. The tube should be large enough in diameter that capillary
action has negligible effect, filled with water, and transparant or
translucent enough that you can clearly measure the water level. Stick
one end at the test point and the other end in undisturbed air. Measure
the difference in height of one leg versus the other, and use Bernoulli's
law to relate that to an air speed.
Bernoulli's law has that
P + 1/2 rho v^2 + rho g h = [constant]
P the static pressure, rho density, v velocity of fluid flow, g gravity, h
the height above a reference surface. So for two identical tubes,
P_air + 1/2 rho v_air^2 + rho g h_air
= P_sample + 1/2 rho v_sample^2 + rho g h_sample
If the tube ends are at the same height, h_air=h_sample. If the reference
tube is in undisturbed air, v_air=0. That leaves you with
P_air - P_sample = 1/2 rho v_sample^2
Pressure is related to the height difference in the water column by the
definition of pressure-- force divided by area.
delta P = F/A = m_water g / A
= rho_water A h_water g / A
= rho_water g h_water
I haven't played much with the Bernoulli effect, except to note that when
I blow on the straw in my soft drink, if the straw is angled towards me I
make bubbles and if the straw is angled away from me I make a spray gun.
So the advice is worth what you paid for it.
--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig."
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	07 Dec 2004 05:27:02 AM

In article <cp1t3l$gbb$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

In article <41b45e9c$1_2@Usenet.com>,
MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

Has a fan been rejected?

i had thought of a fan, but is that scientific enough.

Bwahahaha! If it's not scientific enough, you could call it an
atmospheric impeller! Or a high-volume turbopump.

[puzzled emoticon here] If it ain't shiny and it ain't expensive,
it's not science? I was beginning to wonder if kids knew what
a fan was. I'm encountering all kinds of odd bits of knowledge
that doesn't exist anymore because people aren't exposed to them--
like being able to multiply 2 by 10 in your head.
<snip>

I haven't played much with the Bernoulli effect, except to note that when
I blow on the straw in my soft drink, if the straw is angled towards me I
make bubbles and if the straw is angled away from me I make a spray gun.
So the advice is worth what you paid for it.

Now I have to get a straw.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	07 Dec 2004 08:58:16 AM

In article <8uidnfqQqPm3ASjcRVn-hw@rcn.net>, <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

In article <cp1t3l$gbb$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

In article <41b45e9c$1_2@Usenet.com>,
MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

Has a fan been rejected?

i had thought of a fan, but is that scientific enough.

Bwahahaha! If it's not scientific enough, you could call it an
atmospheric impeller! Or a high-volume turbopump.

Those British did a lot of good science with string and sealing wax.
Nobody knows what sealing wax is any more, but we use a lot of duct tape.
I forget who said it, but some physicist said that the ideal experiment
will hold together long enough to take all the data that's needed, but no
longer. Otherwise you'd have wasted time and money over-engineering it.
--
"I fart for joy and I laugh more than if I had cast my old age, as a
serpent does its skin." -- Aristophanes, Peace, 421 BC
.

User: "Ken Muldrew"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	07 Dec 2004 01:14:34 PM

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

I forget who said it, but some physicist said that the ideal experiment
will hold together long enough to take all the data that's needed, but no
longer. Otherwise you'd have wasted time and money over-engineering it.

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the task
of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	08 Dec 2004 06:55:42 AM

In article <41b600bc.431051744@news.ucalgary.ca>,

(Ken Muldrew) wrote:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the task
of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).

<GRIN> Or, worse yet, a bit of code that been in use for
years and years without modification. The sources would
have turned into a poof of smoke.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	07 Dec 2004 04:39:06 PM

In article <41b600bc.431051744@news.ucalgary.ca>,

(Ken Muldrew) writes:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the task
of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).

:-))) Many years ago, while being temporarily "between jobs", I was
offered a short term contract to upgrade a program having to do with
nuclear medicine. The program was written circa 1960, in Fortran (the
original one, not even Fortran 4) and none of the people having
anything to do with it was still around. The contract was offered for
3 months. After looking the program over I told them that I can give
them a brand new program, written from scratch, in 3 months, but if
they insist on upgrading the original, it'll take at least 6 months.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	08 Dec 2004 06:53:03 AM

In article <eiqtd.14$45.5931@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <41b600bc.431051744@news.ucalgary.ca>,

(Ken Muldrew) writes:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

I forget who said it, but some physicist said that the ideal experiment
will hold together long enough to take all the data that's needed, but

longer. Otherwise you'd have wasted time and money over-engineering it.

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the task
of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).

I bet the manager peed in his pants. Managers absolutely hate this
because there are just too many unknowns. Now that I'm thinking
about it, fellow programmers hate it, too, because there are too
many unknowns.
FORTRAN II? Was it a flavor that had quasi-computed GOTOs or
before that? IIRC, IF I 10,20,30 would send the flow
chart off when I = negative, zero, and positive.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	08 Dec 2004 04:37:28 PM

In article <nrCdnVj97_JCnCrcRVn-sg@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <eiqtd.14$45.5931@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <41b600bc.431051744@news.ucalgary.ca>,

(Ken Muldrew) writes:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

I forget who said it, but some physicist said that the ideal experiment
will hold together long enough to take all the data that's needed, but

longer. Otherwise you'd have wasted time and money over-engineering it.

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the task
of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).

I bet the manager peed in his pants.

Pretty much so.

Managers absolutely hate this
because there are just too many unknowns. Now that I'm thinking
about it, fellow programmers hate it, too, because there are too
many unknowns.

Meaning, "too many obvious unknowns". The other approach has as many
or more unknons, only they're not as obvious.

FORTRAN II? Was it a flavor that had quasi-computed GOTOs or
before that? IIRC, IF I 10,20,30 would send the flow
chart off when I = negative, zero, and positive.

I was worse than this, had full blown computed GOTOs, like
IF {expression} 10,40,250,80,540,......
some of them going over two continuation lines. Just try to follow
any of these.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	09 Dec 2004 04:34:26 AM

In article <ImLtd.20$45.9115@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <nrCdnVj97_JCnCrcRVn-sg@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <eiqtd.14$45.5931@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <41b600bc.431051744@news.ucalgary.ca>,

(Ken Muldrew) writes:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

I forget who said it, but some physicist said that the ideal

experiment

will hold together long enough to take all the data that's needed, but

longer. Otherwise you'd have wasted time and money over-engineering

it.

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the task
of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).

I bet the manager peed in his pants.

Pretty much so.

Managers absolutely hate this
because there are just too many unknowns. Now that I'm thinking
about it, fellow programmers hate it, too, because there are too
many unknowns.

Meaning, "too many obvious unknowns". The other approach has as many
or more unknons, only they're not as obvious.

True. The other approach is known to have worked once upon a
time. One of the risks of a rewrite is that all those bandaids
come off all at once, and you can suddenly find yourself up to
your bellybutton in alligators even if the spec stated that you
were in the desert.

FORTRAN II? Was it a flavor that had quasi-computed GOTOs or
before that? IIRC, IF I 10,20,30 would send the flow
chart off when I = negative, zero, and positive.

I was worse than this, had full blown computed GOTOs, like

IF {expression} 10,40,250,80,540,......

some of them going over two continuation lines.

<gag> My hair hurts already.

... Just try to follow
any of these.

It would be fun to write a flowchart, but only as an academic
exercise (where's that grad student?). I can already tell how
the coder wrote it.
Did you have the convenience of a functional spec written
in English ASCII or did you need to divine it out of the code?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	09 Dec 2004 04:21:00 PM

In article <KuKdnc4vF4VxryXcRVn-hw@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <ImLtd.20$45.9115@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <nrCdnVj97_JCnCrcRVn-sg@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <eiqtd.14$45.5931@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <41b600bc.431051744@news.ucalgary.ca>,

(Ken Muldrew) writes:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

I forget who said it, but some physicist said that the ideal

experiment

will hold together long enough to take all the data that's needed, but

longer. Otherwise you'd have wasted time and money over-engineering

it.

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the task
of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).

I bet the manager peed in his pants.

Pretty much so.

Managers absolutely hate this
because there are just too many unknowns. Now that I'm thinking
about it, fellow programmers hate it, too, because there are too
many unknowns.

Meaning, "too many obvious unknowns". The other approach has as many
or more unknons, only they're not as obvious.

For sure. However, as things stood, the original program consisted
mostly of band aids and there was no way to avoid touching those even
within the framework of a "minimal rewrite". So, it appeared safer to
toss the whole mess overboard and start from scratch.

FORTRAN II? Was it a flavor that had quasi-computed GOTOs or
before that? IIRC, IF I 10,20,30 would send the flow
chart off when I = negative, zero, and positive.

I was worse than this, had full blown computed GOTOs, like

IF {expression} 10,40,250,80,540,......

some of them going over two continuation lines.

<gag> My hair hurts already.

I'm sure.

... Just try to follow
any of these.

It would be fun to write a flowchart, but only as an academic
exercise (where's that grad student?).

Certainly could've kept a grad student busy for a long time.

I can already tell how the coder wrote it.

:-)))

Did you have the convenience of a functional spec written
in English ASCII or did you need to divine it out of the code?

No spec (functional or otherwise) available. But, I had at my
disposal a postdoc who used the old program for couple years and who
could provide the answers to two crucial questions:
1) What was it that the program was doing for him?
2) What he would like the program to do for him?
That was quite enough. And, there was a functional spec written (for
the new version) when I finished.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	10 Dec 2004 03:00:24 PM

In article <4_2dnbYKFeT-CiTcRVn-2g@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <gd4ud.29$45.11547@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <KuKdnc4vF4VxryXcRVn-hw@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <ImLtd.20$45.9115@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <nrCdnVj97_JCnCrcRVn-sg@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <eiqtd.14$45.5931@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <41b600bc.431051744@news.ucalgary.ca>,

kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca

(Ken Muldrew) writes:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

I forget who said it, but some physicist said that the ideal

experiment

will hold together long enough to take all the data that's needed,

but

longer. Otherwise you'd have wasted time and money over-engineering

it.

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the

task

of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).

I bet the manager peed in his pants.

Pretty much so.

Managers absolutely hate this
because there are just too many unknowns. Now that I'm thinking
about it, fellow programmers hate it, too, because there are too
many unknowns.

Meaning, "too many obvious unknowns". The other approach has as many
or more unknons, only they're not as obvious.

I had one of those once but wasn't allowed to do a rewrite since
the author worked years on perfecting the mess.

Well, of course. A great mess isn't created all at once, it needs
time to mature, like wine.

He had the notion
that "saving" code was calling a paragraph from the middle of
a USING statement (it was COBOL). Later, I simply reworked the
software that produced the input to that COBOL program.
When we shipped it, we were thanked by computer center PHBs who
could reassigned their systems programming to doing real work
rather than converting mixed mode data into ASCII for downstream
billing programs.

I'm sure they were quite happy about it.

<snip>

I can already tell how the coder wrote it.

:-)))

Yep, definintely a three-)er.

Did you have the convenience of a functional spec written
in English ASCII or did you need to divine it out of the code?

That's even better, especially the second. JMF became
a bit god over and over again because he remembered to
ask the second.

Indeed, that's crucial. It is all to often that useless program
features are perpetuated while potentially useful ones are not being
introduced, only because people ask just the first question, not the
second.

..And, there was a functional spec written (for
the new version) when I finished.

You're hired. Not many people would do that last 5% of the
project that causes the ASCII to match the executable.

Well, these last 5% are a pain. But, apparently I did a good job
explaining to them how their stuff cannot be well upgraded since it
has no documentation. Got them convinced and then they absolutely
insisted that the scope of the projected *must* include documention,
not just programming. Served me right:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	11 Dec 2004 05:03:59 AM

In article <I7oud.35$45.14542@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <4_2dnbYKFeT-CiTcRVn-2g@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <gd4ud.29$45.11547@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

<snip>

Did you have the convenience of a functional spec written
in English ASCII or did you need to divine it out of the code?

That's even better, especially the second. JMF became
a bit god over and over again because he remembered to
ask the second.

Indeed. The real expert is the end user doing the work, not the
programmer; this fact seems to be lost in the chip wind these days.

..And, there was a functional spec written (for
the new version) when I finished.

You're hired. Not many people would do that last 5% of the
project that causes the ASCII to match the executable.

Well, these last 5% are a pain.

Tell me about it. One of my duties as the den mother was to
pick up that last 5% of all the guys.

..But, apparently I did a good job
explaining to them how their stuff cannot be well upgraded since it
has no documentation. Got them convinced and then they absolutely
insisted that the scope of the projected *must* include documention,
not just programming. Served me right:-)

OH! You yakked yourself into the documentation. I thought you did
it voluntarily :-)))).
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	11 Dec 2004 05:48:52 PM

In article <qqSdncwbL8JyQSfcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <I7oud.35$45.14542@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4_2dnbYKFeT-CiTcRVn-2g@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <gd4ud.29$45.11547@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

<snip>

Did you have the convenience of a functional spec written
in English ASCII or did you need to divine it out of the code?

That's even better, especially the second. JMF became
a bit god over and over again because he remembered to
ask the second.

Indeed. The real expert is the end user doing the work, not the
programmer; this fact seems to be lost in the chip wind these days.

Yes, indeed. It is not lost in scientific programming, though, since
the contact between the end user and the programmer is much tighter
(and oftentimes it is the same person).

..And, there was a functional spec written (for
the new version) when I finished.

You're hired. Not many people would do that last 5% of the
project that causes the ASCII to match the executable.

Well, these last 5% are a pain.

Tell me about it. One of my duties as the den mother was to
pick up that last 5% of all the guys.

Well, you sure have my sympathy.

OH! You yakked yourself into the documentation. I thought you did
it voluntarily :-)))).

Call it "semi voluntarily". The topic is close to my heart, have seen
too much good stuff rotting into oblivion because the person(s) who
generated it didn't bother with the above mentioned (last 5%).
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	12 Dec 2004 06:42:34 AM

In article <EHLud.39$45.16374@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <qqSdncwbL8JyQSfcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <I7oud.35$45.14542@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <4_2dnbYKFeT-CiTcRVn-2g@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <gd4ud.29$45.11547@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

<snip>

Did you have the convenience of a functional spec written
in English ASCII or did you need to divine it out of the code?

That's even better, especially the second. JMF became
a bit god over and over again because he remembered to
ask the second.

Indeed. The real expert is the end user doing the work, not the
programmer; this fact seems to be lost in the chip wind these days.

Yes, indeed. It is not lost in scientific programming, though, since
the contact between the end user and the programmer is much tighter
(and oftentimes it is the same person).

<GRIN> That can be a problem if the project is going
to be sold or used by another ;-). What works well for
you won't work for me.

..And, there was a functional spec written (for
the new version) when I finished.

You're hired. Not many people would do that last 5% of the
project that causes the ASCII to match the executable.

Well, these last 5% are a pain.

Tell me about it. One of my duties as the den mother was to
pick up that last 5% of all the guys.

Well, you sure have my sympathy.

<shrug> Somebody had to do the dusting. It was easier and
more efficient to get the work done rather than try to get
somebody else to get the work done. I did have one exception
which we called DOC files. Their use eventual became worthless
but I couldn't get the permission of PHBs (pointy haired bosses)
to eliminate the files from our distribution tapes. Since it
would take me a man-month to do one, I made these guys do their
won.
Story time: Once upon a time, there was a developer who had
to do one of these DOC files. My private nickname for him
became Slippery because getting him to do this DOC file was
harder than trying to clean up a broken jar of mayonaisse
spilled on a waxed kitchen floor. One day, I made an appt.
with him. At 11:00 I sat down in his office and said, "Now
do that DOC file." He OBJECTED. Then I told him that the
sooner he did the edit, the sooner this meeting would end.
He got the edit done in 10 minutes with a few hints from
me that reduced the ASCII byte count from 10,000 to 1000.

OH! You yakked yourself into the documentation. I thought you did
it voluntarily :-)))).

Call it "semi voluntarily".

Understood :-))).

..The topic is close to my heart, have seen
too much good stuff rotting into oblivion because the person(s) who
generated it didn't bother with the above mentioned (last 5%).

Yep. That's been my number 1 goal since JMF died. I'm trying
to unobliviate everything I possible can. My problem is that
the more I study how to nix the dumbing down trend, the more I
find that I didn't know about.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laborato	10 Dec 2004 05:55:07 AM

In article <gd4ud.29$45.11547@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <KuKdnc4vF4VxryXcRVn-hw@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <ImLtd.20$45.9115@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <nrCdnVj97_JCnCrcRVn-sg@rcn.net>,

writes:

In article <eiqtd.14$45.5931@news.uchicago.edu>,

wrote:

In article <41b600bc.431051744@news.ucalgary.ca>,

kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca

(Ken Muldrew) writes:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

I forget who said it, but some physicist said that the ideal

experiment

will hold together long enough to take all the data that's needed,

but

longer. Otherwise you'd have wasted time and money over-engineering

it.

The principle still lives on. Just take a look at the computer
programs that researchers write (woe unto you if you're given the

task

of reviving a bit of code that's not in current use).

I bet the manager peed in his pants.

Pretty much so.

Managers absolutely hate this
because there are just too many unknowns. Now that I'm thinking
about it, fellow programmers hate it, too, because there are too
many unknowns.

Meaning, "too many obvious unknowns". The other approach has as many
or more unknons, only they're not as obvious.

I had one of those once but wasn't allowed to do a rewrite since
the author worked years on perfecting the mess. He had the notion
that "saving" code was calling a paragraph from the middle of
a USING statement (it was COBOL). Later, I simply reworked the
software that produced the input to that COBOL program.
When we shipped it, we were thanked by computer center PHBs who
could reassigned their systems programming to doing real work
rather than converting mixed mode data into ASCII for downstream
billing programs.
<snip>

I can already tell how the coder wrote it.

:-)))

Yep, definintely a three-)er.

Did you have the convenience of a functional spec written
in English ASCII or did you need to divine it out of the code?

That's even better, especially the second. JMF became
a bit god over and over again because he remembered to
ask the second.

..And, there was a functional spec written (for
the new version) when I finished.

You're hired. Not many people would do that last 5% of the
project that causes the ASCII to match the executable.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: "TomGee"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	07 Dec 2004 04:04:46 PM

Anything that doesn't smell as bad....
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 06:25:29 PM

In article <41b30cf7$1_1@Usenet.com>,
MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

Has a fan been rejected?
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.

User: "robert j. kolker"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 06:56:57 PM

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

Has a fan been rejected?

A wind tunnel is basically a fan with a confined and channeled airflow.
Bob Kolker
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	06 Dec 2004 05:40:11 AM

In article <cp08tp$vp7$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

In article <41b30cf7$1_1@Usenet.com>,
MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

Has a fan been rejected?

I assumed so; I further assumed this was because the
wind directions and speeds needed to be varied...in a
controlled manner. But with the thingie hanging down
on a hinge, I got myself confused.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: "Ian Stirling"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 08:18:45 AM

MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

If I was to design a laboratory experiment to investigate the angle
? for a board (which hangs vertically from a hinge in still air)
and I vary the speed of the wind to vary the angle

what would be a good source for a stream of air?

Trained elephants.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 07:56:24 AM

In article <41b318c5$0$52984$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:

MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

Trained elephants.

Does the guy want to vary the wind speed or the direction
or both? I guess I don't understand what is getting studied.
A problem statement would help.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: "Morituri-\|-Max"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 08:48:31 AM

wrote:

A problem statement would help.

It's pugdog74 posting under another name trying to get others to do his
homework.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 08:49:09 AM

In article <3dFsd.81078$KQ2.13053@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

A problem statement would help.

It's pugdog74 posting under another name trying to get others to do his
homework.

This is the type of homework where only he can do the work
(building something). A part of design is to be able to
state what you're trying to build and/or the problems.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: "Ian Stirling"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 12:55:41 PM

wrote:

In article <41b318c5$0$52984$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:

MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

Trained elephants.

Does the guy want to vary the wind speed or the direction
or both? I guess I don't understand what is getting studied.

It's not a problem, the elephants can vary this quite easily.
.

User: "Brett Aubrey"
Title: Re: what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory	05 Dec 2004 01:39:46 PM

"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41b359ad$0$29770$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <41b318c5$0$52984$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:

MightyMeanie <yasminrfkhan@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

Trained elephants.

Does the guy want to vary the wind speed or the direction
or both? I guess I don't understand what is getting studied.

It's not a problem, the elephants can vary this quite easily.

Not only that, but each source vary independently (twice the efficiency in
running different scenarios!).
.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 19 Sep 03 Washington, DC
Physical FORCE -- What Force REALLY IS
Re: what is "real"? / More censorship on sci.physics.research.
Re: Condensed or not, what is really the matter :
What's New -- Friday, June 4, 2004 by Bob Park
What ever happended to the French avoirdupois
What is the the highest frequency that can be generated?
What is the speed of field response?

What's New -- Friday, September 10, 2004
What is the Nature of Physics?
what monster could be inside a photon
What are the industrial application of mass produced hydrogen and oxygen?
What does a Accelerometer do? What instrument can I use
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 8 Apr 05 Tucson, AZ
Detect the content of milk, what sensor can I use?

NEWER

pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER