Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Gear Lust / Lost & Found

Rave About Your Rack Please do not post retail SPAM.

Topic Date User

Ripped daisy bartack 17-Apr-2012 At 1:25:21 PM Olbert

Message

On 17/04/2012 Davidn wrote:
>On 17/04/2012 Olbert wrote:
>>"Hey look everybody I said something utterly wrong which turned out to
>>resemble a real explanation! I wasn't 100% wrong!!"
>
>Don't you get ornery with me, you skinny pumper you!
>
>>Ummm...you were 100% wrong. That formula calculates energy, you then
>>use another formula to get force.
>
>So, if part of the calculation is right, you can still be 100% wrong??

What? No your calculation wasn't right: at no point does anything equal acceleration due to gravity multiplied by the distance. You can get the kinetic energy gained during the fall by calculating the loss in height potential energy : Mgh but that is not what you did, you just did gh for a completely different purpose so yes, you are 100% wrong.

>You get a bit funny whenever this physics stuff comes up - it's like all
>the repressed rage comes out in a rush ;)

I don't mind people having a go at the physics and getting it wrong - that's how we learn. I get the shits when people argue the physics when they don't know shit.

>Have to agree with Cruze though - none of this makes any sense anymore.

I'm not sure you read Cruze's post correctly. At no point did he say or mean anything you just said he said.

Cruze said: "thank you, I never was good at dividing by 100. So you now have a neat little measurement of 2.94 m2/s/s. Fantastic. Now what?" Let me de-construct it for you (I know literacy isn't my forte but bare with me):

"Thank you, I was never good at dividing by 100. "
He doesn't actually mean 'thank you', he's being condescending. He still thinks you're an idiot. He is sarcastic when he continues 'I was never good at dividing by 100', he actually means 'why do I need help doing something so stupidly easy?'

"So you now have a neat little measurement of 2.94m2/s/s. Fantastic."
He's being condescending again when he says 'fantastic', the measurement of 29.4m2/s/s is pretty darn useless.

"Now what?"
He's asking a rhetorical question here, he doesn't actually mean for you to answer it. He's implying that your maths was useless and get's you nowhere, and if I may add, 100% wrong.

> How about this - it broke, therefore it failed the 'will it hold' test
Thank you for your analysis. That is exactly what Miguel was looking for. He needed to know that his daizy chain failed the 'will it hold' test. I'll call up everyone and tell them no need for further analysis, Davidn has done the calculations and come up with the answers. I'll tell them the answer is 2.94 and it failed the 'will it hold test'.

>- I reckon that'd be a common sense enough approach even for Damo.
So Damo rips into you on a regular basis...he hasn't even posted on this thread, why is that relevant?