 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-2-2009 16:07, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Proposition #6 from my thesis: the use of FFT to extract clinically
>>>> relevant parameters should be forbidden in the field of cardiology.
>>>
>>> Uh... I was under the impression that most of the useful information
>>> in a cardiagram is in the time-domain anyway...?
>>
>> Spot on.
>
> Uh... so you're telling me I know more about cardiagrams than the people
> attempting to interpret them? o_O
Of course not. Perhaps just that you would not be confused by shiny
buttons into forgetting a basic fact. I wouldn't trust you to find a WPW
in between a bunch of infarctions and normal ECG's. The guy who wrote
that paper could do that, but would probably not be equipped to
understand how that specific potential was caused by what part of the heart.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, with no actual data to estimate with, it's kinda hard. :-P
>
> The point is you are meant to have a rough understanding of density of
> gases.
>
>> Heh. Well, I have no idea what the volume of this room is.
>
> Usually best to simplify it to a shape that it is easy to calculate the
> volume of, ie a cuboid.
This room *is* a cuboid! ;-)
>> I don't even "really" know how big a meter is. It used to be the
>> length of my arms, but they're a tad bigger now. ;-)
>
> You can estimate though, I suspect you can tell if your room is 2 metres
> long or 10 metres long, or 50 metres long. Remember you are about 2
> metres tall...
If I had to guess, I'd say this room is 3 m by 3 m by 3 m.
>> (E.g., off the top of my head Oxygen is supposed to be something silly
>> like 0.000004 g per cubic meter or something.)
>
> Wikipedia tells me it's 1.429 kg per cubic metre...
Really? Wow, that's pretty crazy... I'm *sure* when I looked it up it
was way less than that.
Ah, here we go: H2 is "0.08988 g/L". Apparently air itself is heavier
than that.
(You would, of course, *expect* air to be heavier than the lightest gas
in the universe. But not thousands of times heavier...)
>> Now, see, I was under the impression that lagging traps air, and hence
>> the "effective" surface area would still be the same.
>
> No, because the lagging has thickness, and the outer surface of the
> lagging is the effective surface area for radiating the heat. Even
> though the surface temperature will be less with the lagging, for small
> radii the surface area increase is enough to overcome the effectiveness
> of the lagging. Obviously the exact radius depends on the situation,
> but there will always be a minimum value where lagging works (below that
> it has the opposite effect than you probably imagined).
Heh. So does it matter which bird then? A hummingbird has different size
legs to an ostrich. ;-)
>> Aww, c'mon! I thought that was a really neat drawing! :-D
>
> Yes I have to admit it was pretty cool.
WIN! :-D
>> ...OK, I am now completely bemused. Apparently e^3 is roughly 20. I
>> cannot work out how that can possibly be. 2^3 is clearly 8. My head
>> hurts just thinking about it.
>
> Think about 2^3 and 3^3, then e^3 doesn't seem so bad.
If I could actually compute 3^3 mentally I'd probably agree with you. ;-)
>> As an aside, I notice the difference turns out to be especially tiny. :-P
>
> Would have been cool if e^pi = pi^e
I can't find it now, but I'm pretty damned certain there's a quote on
Bash.org where somebody claimed this was true, and some poor sap spent
hours trying to figure out why their math implementation was wrong...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-2-2009 17:01, Invisible wrote:
>
> If I could actually compute 3^3 mentally I'd probably agree with you. ;-)
What exactly is so difficult about 3x3x3?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If I could actually compute 3^3 mentally I'd probably agree with you. ;-)
>
> What exactly is so difficult about 3x3x3?
I don't know what 3x9 is? If I had pen and paper I could work it out,
it's just not something I happen to know off the top of my head.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ah, here we go: H2 is "0.08988 g/L". Apparently air itself is heavier than
> that.
>
> (You would, of course, *expect* air to be heavier than the lightest gas in
> the universe. But not thousands of times heavier...)
Only seems like a factor of 10 difference to me. You do realise that 1g/L
is 1kg/m^3...
> I can't find it now, but I'm pretty damned certain there's a quote on
> Bash.org where somebody claimed this was true, and some poor sap spent
> hours trying to figure out why their math implementation was wrong...
Yeh sounds familiar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't know what 3x9 is? If I had pen and paper I could work it out,
> it's just not something I happen to know off the top of my head.
Try 9+9, then +9 again...
On second thoughts maybe you shouldn't do a PhD :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Becuase unlike degrees, hardly anyone has a PhD, it makes you stand
>> out from the crowd (which a degree *used* to do).
>
> Hey, if *I* can actually get one, it can't be that rare.
Yes, I'm sure you daily meet people who are aware that the graph of a
function is a subset of a cartesian product, right? After all, if *you*
knew that, so must most people - right?
--
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ah, here we go: H2 is "0.08988 g/L". Apparently air itself is heavier
>> than that.
>>
>> (You would, of course, *expect* air to be heavier than the lightest
>> gas in the universe. But not thousands of times heavier...)
>
> Only seems like a factor of 10 difference to me. You do realise that
> 1g/L is 1kg/m^3...
Heh. I hadn't noticed that the mass unit was different as well as the
volume unit. ;-)
Even so, 10x higher still seems rather large. I would have expected
something more like a few percent denser.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I don't know what 3x9 is? If I had pen and paper I could work it out,
>> it's just not something I happen to know off the top of my head.
>
> Try 9+9, then +9 again...
>
> On second thoughts maybe you shouldn't do a PhD :-)
<Insert witty remark about PhD holders here>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So, what you're saying is, I'd be doing something I don't want to do,
> and being forced to get yelled at by a bunch of people? And yet you
> expect me to be "good" at this? Hmm...
There are exceptions, but generally the relationship of a graduate
student with everyone else is not an employer/employee relationship.
Hence, no shouting.
As I said, there are exceptions. And so current graduate students often
told new graduate students which professors not to become students of.
Usually, the a****les are the ones who are quite famous, so they know
there will always be students knocking on their doors. The others are
those who just don't care, in which case you wouldn't want to be their
student anyway.
--
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
