bery difficult
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yeah, the difference between my high school and college I guess. In high school, they allowed graphing calculators in order to help you visualize what you are doing. But in college, they want you to actually use your brain to figure out the solution. Even if you use the graphing calculator, you'd lose part marks because you wouldn't have shown the proper accompanying work on how you derived your answer.Winston_Churchill wrote:
sounds like basically cheating, ive never even owned a graphing calculator and only used one in high school a few times.
id rather actually learn
Does anyone here have a recommended book for brushing up on chemistry?
Inorganic or organic?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Does anyone here have a recommended book for brushing up on chemistry?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Organic.
No idea, good luckunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Organic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Could use some grammatical help.. Writing a paper in English right now, but one sentence doesn't seem right to me..
"More recently, and on a larger scale, the whole world suffered from the late-2000's recession, which effects are clearly visible in the GDP graphs."
'Which' doesn't sound right. Should it be which's (if that even exists?)
"More recently, and on a larger scale, the whole world suffered from the late-2000's recession, which effects are clearly visible in the GDP graphs."
'Which' doesn't sound right. Should it be which's (if that even exists?)
If you just want a hint, whose is the possessive for who and which. I'd rewrite that entire sentence, though.
Maybe (without any context to go on):
Spoiler (highlight to read):
"On a larger scale, the whole world suffered from the recent recession, whose effects are clearly visible in the GDP graphs."
I'm assuming the year has already been established. "On a larger scale" sounds a bit awkward in this, but that might just be me. Maybe establish scale somewhere else, replace it with elsewhere (still iffy)...something.
Maybe (without any context to go on):
Spoiler (highlight to read):
"On a larger scale, the whole world suffered from the recent recession, whose effects are clearly visible in the GDP graphs."
I'm assuming the year has already been established. "On a larger scale" sounds a bit awkward in this, but that might just be me. Maybe establish scale somewhere else, replace it with elsewhere (still iffy)...something.
Thanks
I described the 90's recession in the previous paragraph, which had a smaller impact than the 2000's recession (hence the 'on a larger scale').
I had the choice of making this paper in Dutch (which will be the choice of most students - my native language) or English. I don't think the professor will make a big deal out of a few mistakes, so hopefully it should be okay
I realize my English might sound 'weird' to a native speaker, which ofcourse is dangerous when writing a paper..
Thanks for your help.
I described the 90's recession in the previous paragraph, which had a smaller impact than the 2000's recession (hence the 'on a larger scale').
I had the choice of making this paper in Dutch (which will be the choice of most students - my native language) or English. I don't think the professor will make a big deal out of a few mistakes, so hopefully it should be okay
I realize my English might sound 'weird' to a native speaker, which ofcourse is dangerous when writing a paper..
Thanks for your help.
"the effects of which are clearly...." Is what I would put.
A recession is not a person, "whose" is wrong.
"whose effects" would be assumed to belong to "the whole world", which would mean the whole sentence would be wrong.
Post below reserved for Uzique to tell me I'm a mong.
A recession is not a person, "whose" is wrong.
"whose effects" would be assumed to belong to "the whole world", which would mean the whole sentence would be wrong.
Post below reserved for Uzique to tell me I'm a mong.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Agreed.Dilbert_X wrote:
"the effects of which are clearly...." Is what I would put.
A recession is not a person, "whose" is wrong.
"whose effects" would be assumed to belong to "the whole world", which would mean the whole sentence would be wrong.
Post below reserved for Uzique to tell me I'm a mong.
"The effects of which are clearly visible in the GDP graphs."
mongDilbert_X wrote:
"the effects of which are clearly...." Is what I would put.
A recession is not a person, "whose" is wrong.
"whose effects" would be assumed to belong to "the whole world", which would mean the whole sentence would be wrong.
Post below reserved for Uzique to tell me I'm a mong.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You're not Uzique, and I am correct.Jay wrote:
mongDilbert_X wrote:
"the effects of which are clearly...." Is what I would put.
A recession is not a person, "whose" is wrong.
"whose effects" would be assumed to belong to "the whole world", which would mean the whole sentence would be wrong.
Post below reserved for Uzique to tell me I'm a mong.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X wrote:
"the effects of which are clearly...." Is what I would put.
A recession is not a person, "whose" is wrong.
You'd think that, but it isn't the case. "Whose" may be used as a non-person possessive, and is really less clumsy than "of which."PrivateVendetta wrote:
Agreed.
"The effects of which are clearly visible in the GDP graphs."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whose
It is one of the oddball rules of English that a lot of students have a hard time accepting as fact. I don't really feel like turning this thread into another 2 vs 288 if anyone still a problem with "whose," though.
You're welcome. And if your level of non-native English involves pondering stuff like "of which," I'd say you're doing fine.Jebus wrote:
I realize my English might sound 'weird' to a native speaker, which ofcourse is dangerous when writing a paper..
Thanks for your help.
I like this argument
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/wh … jects.aspx
Is a recession an inanimate object or a person?
Personifying an object is a stretch, personifying a concept a stretch too far.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/wh … jects.aspx
Is a recession an inanimate object or a person?
Personifying an object is a stretch, personifying a concept a stretch too far.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
No, the point is that whose is a possessive form of which as well as who. It merely sounds strange when used for an object because people are in the habit of avoiding it in speech.
I'm more likely to use it for animals or abstract nouns like "recession" (using the 's contraction can be confusing in some sentences unless they're rewritten) than I am for things like "car" or "rock" or "chair." These things I admit to finding other ways to word them than using whose. Especially in speech.
The fault's pretty much that of the language, whose elements can be screwy beyond belief.
[and]
The fault's pretty much the language's, the elements of which can be screwy beyond belief.
I'm more likely to use it for animals or abstract nouns like "recession" (using the 's contraction can be confusing in some sentences unless they're rewritten) than I am for things like "car" or "rock" or "chair." These things I admit to finding other ways to word them than using whose. Especially in speech.
The fault's pretty much that of the language, whose elements can be screwy beyond belief.
[and]
The fault's pretty much the language's, the elements of which can be screwy beyond belief.
Anyone know how to convert rms voltage to peak to peak?
Google seems to be chucking up several different and pretty inaccurate answers.
From the experiment it seems to be that PP=2*(rms*SQRT(2)),
however some google results and people in my lab think it's just rms*SQRT(2)
If it helps: (dmm= digital multimeter, amm= analogue multimeter)
frequency pp voltage amm rms amm pp volt dmm rms dmm pp volt
1 3 0.763 2.158089896 0.95 2.687005769
1000 3 0.9 2.545584412 1.074 3.037730732
This is using the calculation I think is right and seems to give values in the right range.
Google seems to be chucking up several different and pretty inaccurate answers.
From the experiment it seems to be that PP=2*(rms*SQRT(2)),
however some google results and people in my lab think it's just rms*SQRT(2)
If it helps: (dmm= digital multimeter, amm= analogue multimeter)
frequency pp voltage amm rms amm pp volt dmm rms dmm pp volt
1 3 0.763 2.158089896 0.95 2.687005769
1000 3 0.9 2.545584412 1.074 3.037730732
This is using the calculation I think is right and seems to give values in the right range.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
I'm kinda rusty on this stuff.
Assuming sine wave, p2p->RMS (using peak values) and on paper:
Assuming sine wave, p2p->RMS (using peak values) and on paper:
Double .707 and remove the 1/2 and 2 to start from p2p rather than p. Sorry I don't have time to check it off your measurements. I've gotta kick off.(1/2 p2p) * .707 = rms
RMS->p2p
(rms/.707) * 2 = p2p
look up raymond chang?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Does anyone here have a recommended book for brushing up on chemistry?
Nice. 2006 textbook is $6 used.
its a really good book though, goes from the complete fundamentals to pretty advanced stuff
For a sine wave : The peak-to-peak is obtained by multiplying the RMS with 2*SQRT(2)... but ONLY for sine waves.presidentsheep wrote:
From the experiment it seems to be that PP=2*(rms*SQRT(2)),
however some google results and people in my lab think it's just rms*SQRT(2)
If it helps: (dmm= digital multimeter, amm= analogue multimeter)
frequency pp voltage amm rms amm pp volt dmm rms dmm pp volt
1 3 0.763 2.158089896 0.95 2.687005769
1000 3 0.9 2.545584412 1.074 3.037730732
This is using the calculation I think is right and seems to give values in the right range.
Your measurements confirms the conversion factor... <3
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Thought so, it's some pretty basic AC experiment bullshit (so sine waves should be right) but I had to use another groups results because shit kept going wrong with ours which led to me not really understanding what's going on.
Cheers for the help.
Cheers for the help.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Looking at this again, one of the reasons for that could be confusion between peak value and peak-to-peak value.presidentsheep wrote:
From the experiment it seems to be that PP=2*(rms*SQRT(2)),
however some google results and people in my lab think it's just rms*SQRT(2)
Thought so, I'm pretty much working out what's going on in the experiment as I go, there were 4 parts to the experiment, me and my lab partner couldn't get the second part to work for us so the guys opposite offered to give us their data and for us to do the final part and they the third.
Seemed like a kinda good idea at the time but now I'm stuck not 100% understanding what's going on with half the data.
Seemed like a kinda good idea at the time but now I'm stuck not 100% understanding what's going on with half the data.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.