**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat Oct 05 03:01:28 2019 Oct 05 03:03:49 the "IOT' image is an interesting concept. Oct 05 03:04:02 i was happier to just go for the really cut down console image Oct 05 03:04:08 much much less stuff Oct 05 03:43:51 yeah Oct 05 18:14:11 set_: leaving v4.14.x as the default for 9.x is just me trying to leave a really stable v4.14.x-9.x setup.. For 10.x it's v4.19.x, but I'll swap out 5.4.x when that's ready.. Oct 05 19:58:49 Okay. Oct 05 19:59:25 I got it. Do you think me upgrading to 4.19.x on 9.x is a mistake? Oct 05 21:09:47 Nope...no mistake. I tested all my old fun-loving source. It done works, still! Oct 05 21:15:13 hey... Oct 05 21:15:47 Can you figure this paste out, https://pastebin.com/w4GUj61M, even if there are not two portions to solve the equation? Oct 05 21:16:03 I am beating myself up over this physics question. Oct 05 21:16:36 Ugh, physics in U.S. measurements :) Oct 05 21:16:37 Anyway...if you have an extra 15 minutes, please let this brother know something. Oct 05 21:16:41 Ha! Oct 05 21:16:48 So much easier in metric. Oct 05 21:16:55 Lots of .'s and conversions. Oct 05 21:17:40 There is one in metric but I wanted to try w/ lbf, e.g. which I assume lbf is pound per foot. Oct 05 21:17:54 no, pounds*feet. pound/feet would be pounds per foot Oct 05 21:18:04 Oh. Oct 05 21:18:08 like kilowatt-hours. Times, not divided by. Oct 05 21:18:16 Oh! Oct 05 21:18:30 so, lbf is basically lb * f! Oct 05 21:18:33 Yes. Oct 05 21:18:36 Nice. Oct 05 21:18:41 If they're using it correctly. Presumably they are. Oct 05 21:18:47 Did you read the equation already? Oct 05 21:18:53 it should really be lb-ft. Oct 05 21:18:57 isn't lbf pounds-force ? Oct 05 21:18:58 Right! Oct 05 21:18:59 I have it pulled up but didn't look carefully. Oct 05 21:19:04 Oh. Oct 05 21:19:08 Let me see. Oct 05 21:19:22 F is force, not f Oct 05 21:19:28 it is indeed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force) Oct 05 21:19:32 in metric, capitalization is highly significant Oct 05 21:19:44 wikipedia says lbf, not lbF Oct 05 21:19:46 as a unit, F would be farad in metric :P Oct 05 21:19:58 yes. it's why "ft" should be used. or feet should be abandoned :) Oct 05 21:20:01 I vote for the latter! Oct 05 21:20:08 lemme actually look at the paste Oct 05 21:20:11 My book states lower case "f" as in lbf. Oct 05 21:20:13 Okay. Oct 05 21:20:31 pounds * force = blah Oct 05 21:20:35 I get it now. Oct 05 21:20:35 nah they actually do mean pounds force Oct 05 21:20:42 so they're being sloppy. Oct 05 21:20:43 Okay. Oct 05 21:20:49 no it's the correct unit for it Oct 05 21:21:04 I thought f was farads and F was force Oct 05 21:21:18 "force" is not a unit Oct 05 21:21:29 "pounds force" is just the name and lbf is its abbreviation Oct 05 21:21:32 it's not a composite unit Oct 05 21:21:55 it's the Imperial/U.S. Newton I guess Oct 05 21:22:02 So, w/out two comparing "portions" to my equation, like x = 58 and y = 4.5, where would I start? Oct 05 21:22:08 (also F is farad, f is not a unit, it's the femto prefix) Oct 05 21:22:15 ahh, yes Oct 05 21:22:27 femtofarads, fF! Oct 05 21:22:31 fortissimo, ff! Oct 05 21:23:11 They had some physics stuff earlier in the book but that portion had more than one unit for comparison. Oct 05 21:23:46 lb * f = whatever <<<< This idea? Oct 05 21:23:52 ugh, "Pound-force should not be confused with foot-pound, a unit of energy, or pound-foot, a unit of torque... nor should these be confused with pound-mass..., a unit of mass". Oct 05 21:24:51 set_: lbf is not lb*f, it's just lbf Oct 05 21:25:11 I got it now. lbm = 4 pounds of mass. Oct 05 21:25:13 Right. Oct 05 21:25:18 like I said, "pounds force" is just its name and "lbf" is the abbreviation Oct 05 21:25:31 yeah, pounds mass is usually just called pounds and written lb though Oct 05 21:25:37 So, it would just be lbf * lbm = x.xx Oct 05 21:25:38 I've never seen "lbm" written like that Oct 05 21:25:43 what Oct 05 21:25:51 Sorry. Oct 05 21:26:01 I got that wrong. Ae * lbm. Oct 05 21:26:36 I'm a bit puzzled by the question though Oct 05 21:26:46 Oh? Oct 05 21:26:57 by definition, a mass of 1 lb in standard gravity exerts a force of 1 lbf Oct 05 21:27:05 so there's nothing to compute Oct 05 21:27:55 Okay, except for the 4 lbm section * Ae, i.e which Ae = 9.82? Oct 05 21:28:19 So, I could compute nothing and end up w/ nothing since this question seems to be unreasonable. Oct 05 21:28:25 Ha. Oct 05 21:28:35 Ae is 9.82 m/s^2 = 1 lbf/lb Oct 05 21:28:45 I wonder if it might be easier to convert it to metric, do it in metric, and convert it back Oct 05 21:28:48 that constant is usually called g btw Oct 05 21:28:49 might be easier to follow the logic Oct 05 21:28:51 no it's not Oct 05 21:29:10 in imperial the conversion is literally: return x; Oct 05 21:29:10 There is a metric section later on w/ this same equation. Oct 05 21:30:33 32.2 ft/sec**2 = 9.82 m/sec**2 Oct 05 21:30:34 Okay. Oct 05 21:30:55 9.8 is what we were taught in high school Oct 05 21:31:01 guess it wasn't precise :) Oct 05 21:32:03 So, if I am just inputing Ae * 4 = the answer --->> 32.2 * 3 = x.xx Oct 05 21:32:05 ... Oct 05 21:32:08 Then, that would be it. Oct 05 21:32:37 let's try doing it in metric: 1 lb = 0.45359237 kg, F = 0.45359237 kg * 9.80665 m/s^2 = 4.44822 N = 1 lbf Oct 05 21:32:43 and for imperial or for millimeter/centimeter/meter and so on...I guess I just use 9.82. Oct 05 21:32:48 Okay. Oct 05 21:32:49 it's not 9.82 Oct 05 21:33:00 Conversion! Oct 05 21:33:11 I got it now. Oct 05 21:33:11 anyway, this shows that the calculation is pointless: the input was 1, the output is 1 Oct 05 21:33:17 Ha. Oct 05 21:33:23 which is what we already knew, since that's the definition of lbf Oct 05 21:33:44 Not everyone knew it. Some people need to work on these things. Oct 05 21:33:51 <<<<<< ! Oct 05 21:34:31 basically, the exercise you pasted was written by someone who either doesn't know physics, or isn't used to using imperial units, or just had a brain fart that day Oct 05 21:34:42 I am doing these equations w/ C++. That is what the book calls to be used to perform all these operations. Oct 05 21:34:43 ... Oct 05 21:34:53 That Bronson fellow is a professor now! Oct 05 21:35:10 Phd. if you are nasty. Oct 05 21:35:22 being a professor doesn't mean you don't make mistakes Oct 05 21:35:36 Anyway...I totally forgot to convert things. I should I have known. Oct 05 21:35:47 I thought it was a typo at first. Oct 05 21:36:13 I've had an exam where one of the exercises was to prove a certain thing, and I proceded to disprove it by giving an obvious counterexample Oct 05 21:36:15 PhotoJim and @zmatt: Would you like to see the m/sec**2 section? Oct 05 21:36:41 Or are you all bored to death already? Oct 05 21:37:12 if it's quick :) have to leave for a few minutes for a CFL game Oct 05 21:37:15 I generally don't *want* to look at your code. *you* however might, and if you paste a link I probably will :P Oct 05 21:37:20 :s/for a few/in a few/ Oct 05 21:37:23 Canadian Football League? Oct 05 21:37:27 set_: no problem with v4.19.x on 9.x (it's all the extra stuff for x15's opencl that' tied to v4.14.x in 9.x that i'm not upgradeing..) Oct 05 21:37:39 I don't know C++, but can probably follow along well enough Oct 05 21:38:10 PhotoJim: I know you have to leave but is the CFL a Canadian Football League? Oct 05 21:38:23 the one and only :) Oct 05 21:38:36 Winnipeg Blue Bombers (9-5) @ Saskatchewan Roughriders (9-4) Oct 05 21:38:37 Nice. Do you remember Rocket Ismael? Oct 05 21:38:42 I do. Oct 05 21:38:44 ya! Oct 05 21:38:45 Nice. Oct 05 21:38:49 Raghib by birth :) Oct 05 21:39:00 He was my favorite in college. Oct 05 21:39:08 He was electric. the CFL game really suited him. Oct 05 21:39:12 wasn't here long though. Oct 05 21:39:28 our field is significantly larger than the NFL's, so it really favours fast, agile athletes. Oct 05 21:39:37 Anyway. @zmatt: I will not post. PhotoJim: I did not know that. Oct 05 21:39:45 He was fast. Oct 05 21:40:17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_Canadian_football if you're curious. I like our game a lot better. No fair catches; more exciting timing rules. Oct 05 21:40:29 Okay. Oct 05 21:40:33 I should read up. Oct 05 21:40:51 check out a game sometime. there will be some things that look strange at first :) Oct 05 21:41:04 like everyone but the offensive line can be in motion before and at the snap. Oct 05 21:41:12 Okay. you got it. Odd. Oct 05 21:41:34 See, our game says stay still unless you are the player, single player in motion. Oct 05 21:41:46 right. Oct 05 21:41:49 Yep. Oct 05 21:41:51 our defenses are one yard off the ball, too. Oct 05 21:41:54 but only three downs. Oct 05 21:41:56 12 players. Oct 05 21:41:59 Dang. Oct 05 21:42:17 field 10 yards longer between goal lines, end zones twice as deep. goalposts on the line, not back of end zone. Oct 05 21:42:34 Hmm. Oct 05 21:42:41 one foot in bounds for a completed pass. Oct 05 21:42:43 I have never actually seen that played out. Oct 05 21:43:07 no fair catches. must give kick returners a 5-yard berth, else penalty. (unless you're onside. punter, and anyone behind, can go for the ball legally.) Oct 05 21:43:40 no touchbacks. single point scored instead (except for kickoffs, must be conceded by the receiving team, no score if end zone kicked through) Oct 05 21:43:54 the longer field means there are almost always kick returns on kickoffs. has to be 30 yards further to go out the back. Oct 05 21:43:58 err, 20 Oct 05 21:44:19 Right. How is the width of the field/ Oct 05 21:44:38 65 yards instead of 53 1/3 Oct 05 21:44:41 Dang. Oct 05 21:44:54 That creates for some serious hitting. Oct 05 21:45:37 https://www.riderville.com/2017/06/30/riders-face-bombers-grand-opening-mosaic-stadium/ old article, but you can see a good photo of our stadium at the top Oct 05 21:45:41 you can see how big the field is Oct 05 21:45:46 Okay. Oct 05 21:46:12 my tickets are just off the bottom of the photo near the centre :) Oct 05 21:46:22 6-yard line, 22 rows back Oct 05 21:46:26 season tickets Oct 05 21:47:08 US fields are apparently 57600 square feet (5350 sq m) and ours are 87,750 (8512) Oct 05 21:47:15 (err 8152) Oct 05 21:48:01 Hey PhotoJim: Thank you for this info. It has been nice to discuss this w/ you. I need to make a call. This fellow said, "I will call you." Did he call. No! Am I going to bust his donkey loving face for this. Yesssss! Oct 05 21:48:22 <--- party pooper Oct 05 21:48:34 yep, time for me to get ready for the game Oct 05 21:48:40 let me know what you think if you watch a game :) Oct 05 21:48:45 nice chatting :) Oct 05 21:53:00 Okay. Oct 05 21:53:02 Later. Oct 05 21:55:16 +rcn-ee[m]: I saw your post earlier. Sorry for the wait. Okay about the explanation. opencl stuff. got it. Oct 05 21:55:42 morning. Oct 05 22:03:58 Up, up, and Otay! Oct 05 22:04:19 set_, in deed. Oct 06 00:52:54 https://pastebin.com/8JBRjCy9 is what I decided not to show you earlier from the paste w/ the Gary Bronson text. If you are still interested, please view it. Oct 06 00:52:55 ... Oct 06 00:54:02 The C++ source is easy and does not go into examining the standard to imperial exchange. Oct 06 00:54:12 This is what I configured. Oct 06 00:54:50 It basically compares two values, multiplies them, and prints to console and ends. Oct 06 00:56:05 https://pastebin.com/w4GUj61M was the link w/ the ideas relative to the Bronson text. Oct 06 00:56:49 128.8 lbs was what I received from my simple program. I can look in the back of the book if necessary to see if they have answers. Oct 06 00:58:59 Nope. No answers at the end of the text. Oct 06 00:59:00 Boo! Oct 06 01:00:11 Is it that easy or am I missing something? Sometimes I am way off and sometimes I get close enough to be called partially correct. **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sun Oct 06 01:46:35 2019 Oct 06 02:04:05 It got harder and I got lucky. Yea boy! Bronson! Oct 06 02:04:18 BBBW computin'. Oct 06 02:08:10 Alright. Movin' on! Oct 06 02:12:59 So how precise do your numbers need be set? Oct 06 02:13:13 double only Oct 06 02:14:35 GenTooMan: I just had to solve for M. So, M = F / Ae. M was a cin after a cout of "Enter your weight." Oct 06 02:14:38 If that makes any sense. Oct 06 02:15:11 set_: as long as you're aware that the calculation itself is wrong :P Oct 06 02:15:33 I think this is just for C++ practice. I think! Oct 06 02:15:43 I could find later that this book is way too awesome. Oct 06 02:15:43 Well ... actually I was referring to the number of significant digits but OK. Oct 06 02:15:48 double Oct 06 02:15:51 also, pounds is not a unit of weight, you probably meant pounds-force Oct 06 02:16:22 Two digits. Oct 06 02:17:10 I had a difficult time w/ cin b/c of the lack of endl; at the end of that statement. Oct 06 02:17:39 I do not need endl; at the end of cin >> F; Oct 06 02:17:42 Oops. Oct 06 02:19:00 There is a funny section too: Your weight on Mars is: 50.24. Oct 06 02:19:40 That is for someone who weighs about 190 lbs. Oct 06 02:22:32 mass is the same but force changes. Oct 06 02:22:42 GenTooMan: Oct 06 02:22:42 Sorry. Oct 06 02:23:23 GenTooMan: The gravitational force on Earth is 32.2 ft/sec^2 in this book. Oct 06 02:23:45 It Oct 06 02:24:24 Sorry. Acceleration of force due to Earth's gravity. Oct 06 02:26:02 Dang it. Acceleration of Earth's gravity is 32.2 ft/sec^2. The book also states that the imperial comparison, which is mostly wrong, is 9.82 m/sec^2. Oct 06 02:26:03 ... Oct 06 02:26:29 Forget me. I am staying incorrect. Oct 06 02:26:49 not sure if that is correct let's cgs 9.80665 m/s2 and english 32.17405 ft/s2 Oct 06 02:27:07 Okay. Oct 06 02:27:21 Yea. 9.81 is closer than 9.82. Oct 06 02:27:35 The books calls for 9.82 m/sec^2 for some reason. Oct 06 02:28:05 the issue is a bit strange because at the equator it's less and the poles greater and their are different densities in places. Oct 06 02:28:15 I round up for feet divided by seconds squared. Oct 06 02:28:26 Right. Oct 06 02:29:31 I have noticed that this excursion into reading has lead me on a path to remember my old class. The solar system part to some class. Oct 06 02:29:32 ... Oct 06 02:29:38 Dude. So much has changed. Oct 06 02:29:49 I gave the conventional standard values. However it can be tricky because you do need local gravitational constants when doing experiments and such. Oct 06 02:29:59 oh. Oct 06 02:30:00 Okay. Oct 06 02:30:04 I Oct 06 02:30:42 am trying to be clear about it. Having had to do testing before you need to account for all sorts of things. Most people wouldn't think of. Oct 06 02:31:42 Yep. C++ gets complicated quickly when using so much neat mathmatical formulas and ideas relative to specific subjects. Oct 06 02:32:11 Sounds too me they are having you just give how much force one feels given an assumed constant gravity field. Oct 06 02:32:52 I am only on 12 to 16 lines and already my C++ skills are bashing in my thought process. nice! Oct 06 02:32:58 Yea. It is generalized. Oct 06 02:33:31 It is a well-rounded, general example of acceleration of gravity on Earth. Oct 06 02:34:02 They have one w/ Mars and the Moon has well. Oct 06 02:36:31 Mars = 12.54 ft/sec^2 && Moon = 5.33 ft/sec^2 Oct 06 02:36:49 That is the A3 or the acceleration of gravity on those planets. Oct 06 02:36:58 A3 = Ae, sorry. Oct 06 02:38:44 I guess accounting for these accelerations on those structures gave the NASA people some hard times when bustin' through the atmosphere. Oct 06 02:38:58 Bzzt. Zoom! Oct 06 02:51:22 so no compensation for latitude obviously. Oct 06 02:51:49 Well I'll leave you to it. Oct 06 02:55:45 GenTooMan: Nope. I just moved on to Civil Engineering in C++. This book is a general overview of different subjects. Oct 06 02:57:03 well that's better than unCivil engineering. Had to deal with that a few times. :D Oct 06 02:57:31 Boy! Oct 06 02:58:00 This book wants me to calculate a wooden beam's maximum load. Oct 06 02:58:27 and w/ C++, i.e. yea boy! **** ENDING LOGGING AT Sun Oct 06 02:59:57 2019