 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#522
|
|||
|
|||
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
wrote in message
... Northern AZ, not too far below Grand Canyon West. About 4500' ASL at the house. Can't have outdoor cats here unless we wanted to replace them regularly. Only occasionally have to wonder whether something might eat the dogs. Definitely not NJ. Aren't you afraid to live so close to the Sopranos? ;-) Wayne Hell, we ARE the Sopranos. If you don't believe me, we'll send Nunzio over for a visit. g 'Sorry to say, I haven't visited that area. I used to hunt javelina in AZ, but that was on the White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation. That and Phoenix are all I know about your state, although I've been told that I'd like Flagstaff a great deal. It's all quite a beautiful spectacle for someone from the East. Ed Huntress |
|
#523
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:01:42 GMT, Sunworshiper
wrote: Really? Who makes something that big and not cost a fortune? Maybe I've been out of the loop too long... http://www.wattsun.com/products/watt..._trackers.html It won't be cheap. Nice setup though. Wayne |
|
#524
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:05:20 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: wrote in message .. . Northern AZ, not too far below Grand Canyon West. About 4500' ASL at the house. Can't have outdoor cats here unless we wanted to replace them regularly. Only occasionally have to wonder whether something might eat the dogs. Definitely not NJ. Aren't you afraid to live so close to the Sopranos? ;-) Wayne Hell, we ARE the Sopranos. If you don't believe me, we'll send Nunzio over for a visit. g You know which head-to-head I'd like to see? Tony Soprano being accosted by Susie Greene. I say she can take him. :-) 'Sorry to say, I haven't visited that area. I used to hunt javelina in AZ, but that was on the White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation. That and Phoenix are all I know about your state, although I've been told that I'd like Flagstaff a great deal. It's all quite a beautiful spectacle for someone from the East. Ed Huntress AZ is neat in that it has tree-covered mountain tops, smokin' desert, and quite a bit in between. Lots of great scenery in the east though. Hard to top motorcycling on the Blue Ridge Parkway for instance. Wayne |
|
#525
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 03:13:25 -0500, "John Keeney"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: Until we know how many of those KWHs you use per month, your comparison needs modification. I reckon I use maybe 1500 KWH/month. At your 5c/KWH, that's $75/month (you guys get cheap power by the way). This equals say $1000/year. 1500 KWH/month = an average of 2.1 KW. But we have to generate this in about say, 8 hours? So we need to have 3 times that to meet the consumption. 6.3 KW To buy the modules for this would cost, as I saw the listing (where I did not see anything for $2/watt) around 2.8 * 6300 = $17500. So I am seeing a 17 year payoff at your rates (about 9 at mine! :-) As you say, that does not include any generation infrastructure, batteries etc. HOWEVER. When I moved here, it cost me $11000 to get the power put on ten years ago. IT may be more than that now. That makes a considerable difference. It brings the nett cost of installing SOLAR _panels_ (again not all the extra gear) down to around $6500. I reckon it would also make a joke of "selling the power to the authority, in that you waould have to have gear set up exactly to their requirements, at some fantastic cost. For instance, we asked to have the 33KV power _removed_ from our place. We figured they would get some poles, wire, transformer etc. Nope. The poles no longer met specs. The transformer likewise. We wanted the power taken back to the boundary, and then we would supply our own underground....$1000 to bury an earth pole at the base of the power pole. It was going to cost us $8000 to have the power _removed_. When I asked back when we first put the power in place, Solar was not worth it. It _may_ be getting closer. I have to say that there is no _way_ I would get solar panels at the prices shown. I would probably pay triple. So it recedes again. wrote in message .. . On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:46:25 -0500, "John Keeney" wrote: That's all nice, but the real question to be answered is: "What's the cost per peek watt for your cells/modules?" As low as $2 a Watt. https://www.sunelec.com/Clearance/So...r_modules.html Well, that sucks as compared to the 4-9 cents per kilowatt hour I pay monthly. At 5 cents your looking at better than 27 years ROI if the controllers & storage came for free (and no money cost). And that's for close out stock. What I was wondering was if the cells Martin was talking about comes close to this price per watt. ************************************************** ** sorry ..........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email Spike....Spike? Hello? |
|
#526
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:07:19 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths: wrote in message .. . If you want to read the gory details, they're here www.citlink.net/~wmbjk I'm not surprised they ask. It looks like a gutsy undertaking from the very start. No kidding. From the looks of the shrubbery, you aren't near New Jersey g, but it's something I'd like to see. That looks like Gunner's (or my old) back yard. ..-. Better Living Through Denial --- http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design |
|
#527
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30inch OD Circumference)
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:07:19 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: wrote Thanks Ed. Very flattering coming from you. The satisfaction is hard to put into words. Fortunately I don't have to do it very often.... most people just want to know what possessed us to even conceive of the project. :-) I'm not surprised they ask. It looks like a gutsy undertaking from the very start. It snuck up on us. We had a bunch of wants, but couldn't afford most of them. When real estate agents suggested property that was "only" 3 miles from power, we had to say "too far". But once we discovered we could handle off-grid living, a whole bunch of possibilities became affordable. Now 3 miles was too *close*. Hell, 10 miles was too close, some developer might actually put in the wires. Main objective was to move in next to the best neighbors. After a lifetime of exhaustive review, I've decided that snakes are the preferred species. :-) From the looks of the shrubbery, you aren't near New Jersey g, but it's something I'd like to see. Northern AZ, not too far below Grand Canyon West. About 4500' ASL at the house. Can't have outdoor cats here unless we wanted to replace them regularly. Only occasionally have to wonder whether something might eat the dogs. Definitely not NJ. Aren't you afraid to live so close to the Sopranos? ;-) Wayne My parents live somewhat south of you but north of Phoenix. They had a dog snatched off the front step by a Mexican Eagle - The dog was about 6 pounds and was easy pray I guess. Took a while before mom got another dog, but she has a Sony Electronic one as well - I think she had some plans. They have a watering hole - a.k.a. pond without fish - they were fished out. But all sorts of walking stuff come in for a drink at sunrise. The way they feel now - moving in from a ranch in Texas - protect what wonders and hope they get the rats and vermin in the process. Development is moving closer so help isn't a bad thing. They like living on the edge in their middle 80's. Martin -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
|
#528
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:11:26 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
I hope without making a bigger deal of this, my experience is that lectures are nothing but books-on-tape. If it can be delivered in a big lecture, there is no excuse for delivering it in a classroom at all. If it requires some visual aids, it could be done better on videotape. That isn't teaching. That's presenting. I think that depends a lot on the lecturer. I wasn't fortunate enough to attend one of Feynman's lectures, but I've talked to students who did, and they say they were extraordinary. I do have first hand experience with lectures by Milton Friedman, and they were extraordinary. Perhaps videotape could convey the same experience, though I doubt it. But if it could, what a great teaching tool it would be. OTOH, I've suffered through way too many lectures where the teacher merely recited a textbook. So I know what you mean about "talking books". That's more than dull, especially since I can read far faster than a person can talk, while maintaining what is probably greater comprehension than can be gotten from a bore droning along at 1/10th the information rate. Gary |
|
#529
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
... On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:11:26 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: I hope without making a bigger deal of this, my experience is that lectures are nothing but books-on-tape. If it can be delivered in a big lecture, there is no excuse for delivering it in a classroom at all. If it requires some visual aids, it could be done better on videotape. That isn't teaching. That's presenting. I think that depends a lot on the lecturer. I wasn't fortunate enough to attend one of Feynman's lectures, but I've talked to students who did, and they say they were extraordinary. I do have first hand experience with lectures by Milton Friedman, and they were extraordinary. Perhaps videotape could convey the same experience, though I doubt it. But if it could, what a great teaching tool it would be. I had the interesting experience of being part of two such pioneering programs, and they worked very well. As a 9-11 year-old I was a student in Washington County, Maryland, which had a huge experimental video project funded by the Ford Foundation. Almost all of our classes included a lecture delivered by a superior teacher from a CATV studio in Hagerstown (this was pre-videotape). It was excellent, and the presentation included some advanced production that couldn't have been delivered in a classroom. At Michigan State, starting in 1966, we had a pioneering videotaped lecture program. My big, intro Economics class was taught by an excellent presenter and economist (Al Mandlestam) to a class of around 350. All of the lectures were taped and re-run throughout campus several times each week. We didn't have to go to the lectures. We could watch them at off times, right in our residence-hall dorms. The program was extended to virtually all classes with big lectures. I don't know what became of the Washington County program. At the time I thought we were the wave of the future, and that all school systems would have it eventually. But I've seen only a little of it around the country. OTOH, I've suffered through way too many lectures where the teacher merely recited a textbook. So I know what you mean about "talking books". That's more than dull, especially since I can read far faster than a person can talk, while maintaining what is probably greater comprehension than can be gotten from a bore droning along at 1/10th the information rate. Particularly in public schools, the larger the class, the lower the assumption of students' least-common denominator. They tend to be slow-moving classes. Ed Huntress |
|
#530
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
Hmmm. I see teaching as something different from you. I think the
first thing done in any teaching is the presenting, that you don't consider teaching. The second thing is determining if the student understands what is presented. This is followed by more presenting focused on whatever aspect the student did not understand. So to me presenting is the first thing and if done well the requirement to access what the student learned is not as important because the student got it the first time. And you say that you can get away with bigger classes when you don't expect much of the students. My experience was that the largest classes I ever had were in college where much more was expected of me. I think the real determination of how large a class you can have and expect reasonable results from the students is mostly dependent on age. What you are saying makes sense for first grade students. I do not think it is true for most high school students. And what I am trying to say is that there are ways to increase the amount of feedback and individual tailoring, without reducing class size. I think that presenting material in lectures to larger groups followed by having students essentially take a quiz using a computer would provide better feedback. And the individual tailoring should probably be done both by hyperlinks to additional material during the computer quiz and by the teacher. The teacher would have more time for individual and small groups if he/she did not have to present the material four times a day to four " small " classes. Dan "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:i741c.32323 I hope without making a bigger deal of this, my experience is that lectures are nothing but books-on-tape. If it can be delivered in a big lecture, there is no excuse for delivering it in a classroom at all. If it requires some visual aids, it could be done better on videotape. That isn't teaching. That's presenting. Which relates to the issue that we haven't discussed here, that a teacher can get a student to perform closer to his or her ability by closer contact. Any student will benefit from a teacher who can assess what a student is learning as he goes, and by adjusting the teaching to suit the student's learning. You can get away with larger classes when you don't expect much of students, which, of course, is a big part of our problem. Finally, I don't think you're making a fair evaluation of the data on teaching and class size. Among people who are involved with the subject and who have taken the time to really study the studies, there is no visible disagreement. If you hold everything constant -- including low expectations and a uniform method of presentation regardless of the class size -- probably you can show (probably someone *has* shown) that there is no difference in student performance. But every good teacher knows he or she is limited in how much they can teach by the amount of feedback, and the amount of individual tailoring, they can do with each student. In fact, the issue is a no-brainer to educators. The studies are things they regard as political window-dressing for a fact that's established deeply in the history of education, as well as by current events. Ed Huntress |
|
#531
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m... The teacher would have more time for individual and small groups if he/she did not have to present the material four times a day to four " small " classes. Firstly, teachers don't get fewer classes to teach just because their class sizes are smaller. That's part of the problem. In the system in my town, the smaller classes tend to be the AP and Honors classes (the very smallest are the pre-school handicapped classes, which my wife teaches), and the teachers have just as many of them as other teachers have of larger, standard classes. Secondly, I think your experience with larger classes, in which they were the faster-moving ones, is very unusual, although you're talking about college and we're talking about public primary and secondary schools here. In fact, the evidence is very strong that smaller classes produce better results in public schools. The students advance faster and learn better -- if the teachers exploit the smaller classes to tailor the presentation more closely to the needs of the students. That's not to say there aren't many other ways to improve teaching. The point is simply that smaller classes tend to produce better results. Ed Huntress |
|
#532
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 3 Mar 2004 10:08:08 -0800, Dan Caster wrote:
Hmmm. I see teaching as something different from you. I think the first thing done in any teaching is the presenting, that you don't consider teaching. The second thing is determining if the student understands what is presented. This is followed by more presenting focused on whatever aspect the student did not understand. So to me presenting is the first thing and if done well the requirement to access what the student learned is not as important because the student got it the first time. I must disagree. I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as 'teaching'. There is only 'learning'. The teacher's job is to help students learn. This requires the teacher to deal with students with diverse backgrounds, interests, abilities, attention spans, home lifes, and expectations. A brilliant presentation before a pack of beagles will yield a pack of bored beagles. No presentation, but individual attention paid to even the most reticent pupil will, at least, give that student support, a good role model, and encouragement to learn when they are ready. I came to these conclusions after a particularly horrible experience as an instructor in an in-house apprentice program. Karl Pearson -- Delete 1 from address - munged to avoid spam and worse |
|
#533
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
I didn't say anything about teaching fewer classes...... I was trying
to say that one teacher could spend less time presenting material if he/she were able to present the material to all students at the same time. Then the teacher could spend more time in small groups getting and providing feedback. I also don't remember saying anything about faster-moving classes. I said that in college there are lots of large classes. And since they seem to work well in college, I don't see why they would not work in high school and middle school( if middle school is the right word. I lived in a place and time where there were no middle schools ). We might as well drop this. I can see that neither of us is likely to change our opinions. Dan "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .net... "Dan Caster" wrote in message m... The teacher would have more time for individual and small groups if he/she did not have to present the material four times a day to four " small " classes. Firstly, teachers don't get fewer classes to teach just because their class sizes are smaller. That's part of the problem. In the system in my town, the smaller classes tend to be the AP and Honors classes (the very smallest are the pre-school handicapped classes, which my wife teaches), and the teachers have just as many of them as other teachers have of larger, standard classes. Secondly, I think your experience with larger classes, in which they were the faster-moving ones, is very unusual, although you're talking about college and we're talking about public primary and secondary schools here. In fact, the evidence is very strong that smaller classes produce better results in public schools. The students advance faster and learn better -- if the teachers exploit the smaller classes to tailor the presentation more closely to the needs of the students. That's not to say there aren't many other ways to improve teaching. The point is simply that smaller classes tend to produce better results. Ed Huntress |
|
#534
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m... I didn't say anything about teaching fewer classes...... I was trying to say that one teacher could spend less time presenting material if he/she were able to present the material to all students at the same time. Then the teacher could spend more time in small groups getting and providing feedback. It sounds like you're coming around to the value of the "small groups." How about a videotaped mass presentation, and then small classes? Certainly you can divide material into things that can be delivered as a mass lecture and things that are best taught interactively, a few students at a time. The point is, it's the small groups that make the difference. That's what the research shows. I also don't remember saying anything about faster-moving classes. Faster-moving is one way to say that more material is presented and absorbed in a given amount of time. The original complaint, or a major one, is that US high-school graduates are behind students of other countries by the time they graduate. I said that in college there are lots of large classes. And since they seem to work well in college, I don't see why they would not work in high school and middle school( if middle school is the right word. I lived in a place and time where there were no middle schools ). Remember that in college you're dealing with more mature kids and much more strongly motivated kids, and they're a selection of better-performing students to begin with. How that would work with younger kids who represent the whole population is a speculative issue. It sounds to me like an opportunity for many of them to tune out, if the classes get large enough. We might as well drop this. I can see that neither of us is likely to change our opinions. Ok. I try to avoid opinions, though. We were originally discussing the facts, based on the research. I think that part of it is quite clear. As for the speculations, they're interesting to consider, and all ideas need to be thrown into the pot. Lord knows, we could use some better ideas. But "opinion" isn't going to provide us with any answers. Only things that might be worth trying, and then more questions. Ed Huntress |
|
#535
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
When my brother went to the new high school in the 70s it was large open
spaces for teaching many kids at the same time. When I went 7 years later the large rooms were divided into classrooms. It's even worse at a lower level because it's hard to keep kids (8-10 year olds) focused. I know from experience. Joel. phx Then there was the time I took a data communications course in college. They were videotaping it for later presentations and 2 classes were in side rooms with monitors (our mikes were cut off too so we couldn't even ask questions). We had the most fun mocking his mistakes. "Ed Huntress" wrote in message t... "Dan Caster" wrote in message m... I didn't say anything about teaching fewer classes...... I was trying to say that one teacher could spend less time presenting material if he/she were able to present the material to all students at the same time. Then the teacher could spend more time in small groups getting and providing feedback. It sounds like you're coming around to the value of the "small groups." How about a videotaped mass presentation, and then small classes? Certainly you can divide material into things that can be delivered as a mass lecture and things that are best taught interactively, a few students at a time. The point is, it's the small groups that make the difference. That's what the research shows. I also don't remember saying anything about faster-moving classes. Faster-moving is one way to say that more material is presented and absorbed in a given amount of time. The original complaint, or a major one, is that US high-school graduates are behind students of other countries by the time they graduate. I said that in college there are lots of large classes. And since they seem to work well in college, I don't see why they would not work in high school and middle school( if middle school is the right word. I lived in a place and time where there were no middle schools ). Remember that in college you're dealing with more mature kids and much more strongly motivated kids, and they're a selection of better-performing students to begin with. How that would work with younger kids who represent the whole population is a speculative issue. It sounds to me like an opportunity for many of them to tune out, if the classes get large enough. We might as well drop this. I can see that neither of us is likely to change our opinions. Ok. I try to avoid opinions, though. We were originally discussing the facts, based on the research. I think that part of it is quite clear. As for the speculations, they're interesting to consider, and all ideas need to be thrown into the pot. Lord knows, we could use some better ideas. But "opinion" isn't going to provide us with any answers. Only things that might be worth trying, and then more questions. Ed Huntress |
|
#536
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
I am still arguing that better schools don't necessarily require more
teachers. From my experience in teaching, I don't think that video taped presentations will work very well. With a live lecturer, you can not procrastinate on when you are going to spend time learning. With video taped presentations there would be a lot of pressure from the students to have the tape available for viewing at their convenience. And I don't think that would work. I taught a course at an extension college and told the students that if they did the homework and did well it would count for their grade. If they did not do the homework and got a good grade on the exam, they would get the exam grade. Probably more than half the class did not spend much time doing the homework. The same students (?) did not do well on the exam. They may have also flunked if I had told them that they had to do the homework. But I think they would have spent more time trying to learn or quit the class sooner. If you gave mass presentations, then had the students review the presented material on a computer. Having questions to determine if the student grasped a particular point and then hypertext to present more info to help the student get the point. Then you could schedule groups that had the same level of comprehension and use the personal interface as a reward to motivate the students. Just going to small groups means the bright kids are bored out of their skull. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Dan "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:saK1c.6308$ It sounds like you're coming around to the value of the "small groups." How about a videotaped mass presentation, and then small classes? Certainly you can divide material into things that can be delivered as a mass lecture and things that are best taught interactively, a few students at a time. The point is, it's the small groups that make the difference. That's what the research shows. Ed Huntress |
|
#537
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:10:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
brought forth from the murky depths: -snip of interesting times- I don't know what became of the Washington County program. At the time I thought we were the wave of the future, and that all school systems would have it eventually. But I've seen only a little of it around the country. Perhaps our favorite teacher's union had something to say about it. "Try to automate _us_ out of teaching positions, will they?" OTOH, I've suffered through way too many lectures where the teacher merely recited a textbook. So I know what you mean about "talking books". That's more than dull, especially since I can read far faster than a person can talk, while maintaining what is probably greater comprehension than can be gotten from a bore droning along at 1/10th the information rate. I became very hostile toward history after my 3rd grade teacher sat for hours lecturing us on her fascinating trips abroad. (She was 5'2", 160lbs, and dull as a chalkboard.) Her tests just happened to contain questions based mainly on her discourse, not actual history. ------------------------------- Iguana: The other green meat! ------------------------------- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development |
|
#538
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
John Ings wrote in message . ..
The key to an alternative reading of the verse 1 Kings 7:23 is to be found in the very ancient Hebrew tradition (see, e.g., [Britannica 1985], [Banon 1987, pp. 52, 53]) to differently write (spell) and read some words of the Bible; the reading version is usually regarded as a correct one (in particular, it is always correct from the point of view of the Hebrew grammar, and this is why it could be easily either remembered or reconstructed from the written version), whereas the written version slightly deviates from the correct spelling. (Another approach, involving the comparison between written forms of the same words in 1 Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2 is cited in [Posamentiern, Gordan 1984]; see more about this version of the exegesis in 4). 1 Kings 7:23 Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. 7:26 Its thickness was a handbreadth; its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths. 2 Chonicles 4:2Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from rim to rim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. 4:5 Its thickness was a handbreadth; its rim was made like the rim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held three thousand baths. The letters of the Hebrew alphabets were traditionly used (well before the building of the First Temple [Guitel 1975]) for numerical purposes and, thus, have had numerical values . Using these values, one can calculate values of words (as sums of values of letters, but also in several other, less obvious and/or more involved ways); these methods became later known as gematria [Michael Munk 1983, p. 163], [Britannica 1985]. Here are the standard numerical equivalents of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet: cm = cmti8 scaled 0 Aleph=1, Beth=2, Gimel=3, Daled=4, Hea=5, Vav=6, Zain=7, CHet=8, Tet=9, Yod=10, Caf=20, Lammed=30, Mem=40, Noon=50, Samech=60, Aiin=70, Pea=80, TSadik=90, Qof=100, Reish=200, Shin=300, Tav=400. In particular, the numerical equivalent of the written version ,``QVH'', is Qof+Vav+Hea=100+6+5=111, whereas the numerical equivalent of the reading version, ``QV'', is Qof+Vav=106. Using these numerical equivalents, one defines as follows: [...] (1) Thus the Hebrew pi = 3.1415094 (1)See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/facult...l/bpi/bpi.html for math calculations whose formulas I can't reproduce in a newsgroup post. John, Would this not imply that: A) They already used the decimal system B) Had invented zero C) Could easily do long division Or A) Someone is playing fast and loose with numerology (as well as languages)and trying to fudge things just a little? Just how old is that supposed to be, anyway? -- Cliff |
|
#539
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
On 6 Mar 2004 03:09:10 -0800, (Cliff Huprich) wrote:
(1)See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/facult...l/bpi/bpi.html for math calculations whose formulas I can't reproduce in a newsgroup post. John, Would this not imply that: A) They already used the decimal system B) Had invented zero No. Like most cultures before the invention of zero and the decimal system, they used a complex series of continued fractions. See item 3. on the reference page. C) Could easily do long division No, with difficulty did long devision. The Romans for instance did long division in Roman numerals, and if you think that ain't a trick just try it! A) Someone is playing fast and loose with numerology (as well as languages)and trying to fudge things just a little? Just how old is that supposed to be, anyway? Note the site I got it from --UBC-- is a university, not a religious propaganda site with an axe to grind. The paper itself was submitted to a major university in France. Note the references at the bottom of the page. I suspect : W. M. Feldman 1965: Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy, Hermon Press, New-York. and R. J. Gillings 1972: Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs, The MIT Press, Cambridge. would be informative if you're near a university library. |
|
#540
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:13:59 GMT, Karl Pearson
brought forth from the murky depths: On 3 Mar 2004 10:08:08 -0800, Dan Caster wrote: Hmmm. I see teaching as something different from you. I think the first thing done in any teaching is the presenting, that you don't consider teaching. The second thing is determining if the student understands what is presented. This is followed by more presenting focused on whatever aspect the student did not understand. So to me presenting is the first thing and if done well the requirement to access what the student learned is not as important because the student got it the first time. I must disagree. I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as 'teaching'. There is only 'learning'. Then perhaps we should "learn" the teachers how to better "learn" the kids/adults. Some don't know how. They simply present. Some have little compassion. It takes compassion and enthusiasm to be a good, er, "learner". Having detailed knowledge of the subject doesn't hurt, either, but I'm afraid that is a secondary concern to schools nowadays. The teacher's job is to help students learn. This requires the teacher to deal with students with diverse backgrounds, interests, abilities, attention spans, home lifes, and expectations. Precisely. The teachers need to learn this in order to better teach each student. They also need to learn how to motivate unmotivated students into wanting to learn. The proper attitudes need to be there on -both- sides of the lesson. In many ways, the teacher has a harder job than the student. Luckily, they have fewer rampant hormones to deal with internally than their teen students.  ------------------------------- Iguana: The other green meat! ------------------------------- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development |
|
#541
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alternative Fuels (was Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference)
|
|
#542
|
|||
|
|||
|
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
The way I see it is that even if you are teaching just one student,
the first thing you do is present a new idea to the student. It does not need to be a lecture. But for the student to learn something that he/she does not know, first the student needs to shown what there is to be learned. You could acomplish this by saying here is a book that you are to learn the ideas in the book. And let the book present the ideas. Next you need to see how well the student learned the new information. You may need to figure out some way that the student will use the new information so as to get it into the long term memory. And you need to figure out various ways to motivate the student. Teaching is an art that can be reduced to a science. Dan Karl Pearson wrote in message I must disagree. I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as 'teaching'. There is only 'learning'. The teacher's job is to help students learn. This requires the teacher to deal with students with diverse backgrounds, interests, abilities, attention spans, home lifes, and expectations. A brilliant presentation before a pack of beagles will yield a pack of bored beagles. No presentation, but individual attention paid to even the most reticent pupil will, at least, give that student support, a good role model, and encouragement to learn when they are ready. I came to these conclusions after a particularly horrible experience as an instructor in an in-house apprentice program. Karl Pearson |
|
#543
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 05:43:34 -0800, John Ings
wrote: On 6 Mar 2004 03:09:10 -0800, (Cliff Huprich) wrote: (1)See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/facult...l/bpi/bpi.html for math calculations whose formulas I can't reproduce in a newsgroup post. John, Would this not imply that: A) They already used the decimal system B) Had invented zero No. Like most cultures before the invention of zero and the decimal system, they used a complex series of continued fractions. See item 3. on the reference page. C) Could easily do long division No, with difficulty did long devision. The Romans for instance did long division in Roman numerals, and if you think that ain't a trick just try it! A) Someone is playing fast and loose with numerology (as well as languages)and trying to fudge things just a little? Just how old is that supposed to be, anyway? Note the site I got it from --UBC-- is a university, not a religious propaganda site with an axe to grind. The paper itself was submitted to a major university in France. Note the references at the bottom of the page. I suspect : W. M. Feldman 1965: Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy, Hermon Press, New-York. and R. J. Gillings 1972: Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs, The MIT Press, Cambridge. would be informative if you're near a university library. Is this your answer Cliff.. can you make that bowl or not..? MIke Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5 unit/inch depth. The diameters have a ..005 inch tolerance. And no Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl? |
|
#544
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
John Ings wrote in message . ..
On 6 Mar 2004 03:09:10 -0800, (Cliff Huprich) wrote: (1)See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/facult...l/bpi/bpi.html for math calculations whose formulas I can't reproduce in a newsgroup post. John, Would this not imply that: A) They already used the decimal system B) Had invented zero No. Like most cultures before the invention of zero and the decimal system, they used a complex series of continued fractions. See item 3. on the reference page. C) Could easily do long division No, with difficulty did long devision. The Romans for instance did long division in Roman numerals, and if you think that ain't a trick just try it! A) Someone is playing fast and loose with numerology (as well as languages)and trying to fudge things just a little? Just how old is that supposed to be, anyway? Note the site I got it from --UBC-- is a university, not a religious propaganda site with an axe to grind. The paper itself was submitted to a major university in France. Note the references at the bottom of the page. I suspect : W. M. Feldman 1965: Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy, Hermon Press, New-York. and R. J. Gillings 1972: Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs, The MIT Press, Cambridge. would be informative if you're near a university library. Johm Not the date of the papers from the later apologists (I presume) and numerologists but the date of the decimal system and zero, as contrasted to the presumed date of the original writings. Also, as it was not crossposted, you may not have seen this post: [ Subject: Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference From: cal (Ken) Date: 06 Mar 2004 18:38:21 GMT Cliff asks: John, Would this not imply that: A) They already used the decimal system B) Had invented zero C) Could easily do long division Or A) Someone is playing fast and loose with numerology (as well as languages)and trying to fudge things just a little? Just how old is that supposed to be, anyway? But you're missing the real important points Cliff. 1) IF the hebrew god created this and can't get PI accurate beyond 5 decimals, then why do so many worship him as omnipotent. 2) IF all this stuff was invented by men who were so clever that the word meant the number accurate to 5 decimal places, then why do so many worship their invented god as an omnipotent being? Just a thought from a born only once (that I can remember) agnostic. Ken Cybercut Precision Machining- "Quality is created, not controlled." ] I suppose I should ask why their "diety" did not know of the Pythagorean Theorem, Quantum Theory, the real numbers, or, really, much about the universe at all. -- Cliff [ Now consider the tortoise and the eagle. The tortoise is a ground-living creature. It is impossible to live nearer the ground without being under it. Its horizons are a few inches away. It has about as good a turn of speed as you need to hunt down a lettuce. It has survived while the rest of evolution flowed past it by being, on the whole, no threat to anyone and too much trouble to eat. And then there is the eagle. A creature of the air and high places, whose horizons go all the way to the edge of the world. Eyesight keen enough to spot the rustle of some small and squeaky creature half a mile away. All power, all control. Lightning death on wings. Talons and claws enough to make a meal of anything smaller than it is and at least take a hurried snack out of anything bigger. And yet the eagle will sit for hours on the crag and survey the kingdoms of the world until it spots a distant movement and then it will focus, focus, focus on the small shell wobbling among the bushes down there on the desert. And it will leap... And a minute later the tortoise finds the world dropping away from it. And it sees the world for the first time, no longer one inch from the ground but five hundred feet above it, and it thinks: what a great friend I have in the eagle. And then the eagle lets go. And almost always the tortoise plunges to its death. Everyone knows why the tortoise does this. Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off. No one knows why the eagle does this. There's good eating on a tortoise but, considering the effort involved, there's much better eating on practically anything else. It's simply the delight of eagles to torment tortoises. But of course, what the eagle does not realize is that it is participating in a very crude form of natural selection. One day a tortoise will learn how to fly. ] From Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods" |
|
#546
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
On 7 Mar 2004 02:06:47 -0800, (Cliff Huprich)
brought forth from the murky depths: One day a tortoise will learn how to fly. ] From Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods" Thanks, looks interesting. Judging by the titles, this author sounds like he'll be fun to read. He's a prolific author, too. ------------------------------- Iguana: The other green meat! ------------------------------- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development |
|
#547
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
Maybe I missed it somewhere in this meandering thread, but has anyone
considered the "bowl" might be slightly tapered inwards at the top? I didn't see any statements to the contrary. And nothing said the OD and circumference were measured at the same point on the surface of the bowl. It would be trivial to make a tapered bowl shape with a 10 inch max OD and 30 inch circumference "at the top"! Maybe a hint was given early on when he said it resembled a dog dish? Many dog dishes have this shape, as it makes the dish more stable. If this is the answer, then the ratio of 3-1 was a red herring all along to drag in the "pi=3" crowd. :-) If it's not tapered in at the top, then it is impossible. A circle is the smallest perimeter enclosing any given space. (in Euclidian space, anyway). Any variation in rim shape can only make it longer, not shorter. And anyway, he already said it was "round". And one thing we can be sure of, I think, is that pi is 3! Bob |
|
#548
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
|
|
#549
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff caught trolling and telling a lie!
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:22:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:06:52 -0500, Nick Hull wrote: In article , Santa Cruz Mike wrote: Cliff.. have you figured out how a bowl can have a 10 inch diameter and a 30 inch circumference yet? Is it impossible? 1 Kings chapter 7 verse 23 (Authorised Version): "... and he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other : it was round about ... and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." That's where the nonsense came from. Ed Huntress Ed.. the nonsense came about when Cliff.. reached deep into his infinite knowledge and proclaimed that the bible claimed that PI equals 3.000000... Can you find anywhere it does? Can Cliff? No.. Cliff can't.. he made it up.. he lied.. and just can't visualize what that bowl looks like.. The truth of the matter is this: Cliff's only point was to troll and use these related passages of Jewish history as an attempt to attack God and the bible.. but Cliff screwed up.. and showed his stupidity when the fact is it is quite easy to make a tub, a bowl, a bath with those dimensions... Cliff is a card carrying member of F.A.G.... and that what happens to Folks Against God when the lie, cheat and manipulate their way around.. they get caught.. Later, Mike Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5 unit/inch depth. The diameters have a ..005 inch tolerance. And no Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl? |
|
#550
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
Bob Edwards wrote:
If it's not tapered in at the top, then it is impossible. Uh oh! Somebody said it... Fundie Fool Mike was begging Cliff to say it. Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
|
#551
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff caught trolling and telling a lie!
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:31:12 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote: Cliff is a card carrying member of F.A.G.... and that what happens to Folks Against God when the lie, cheat and manipulate their way around.. they get caught.. Hey Mike! I don't think the folks in rec.crafts.metalworking want to hear all about this anymore than they want to hear about Gunner's gun-control polemics. Now if you want a dust-up, come on over to alt.bible and we'll have at it! |
|
#552
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:44:46 -0700, Gary wrote:
Uh oh! Somebody said it... Fundie Fool Mike was begging Cliff to say it. Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) Is Cliff apologizing .... Are you next Garvey? Mike Garvey... are you still blaming the Roman Church because homosexual predators lied, cheated, and sneaked their way through seminary to seduce teenage boys? That is a good one.... Lets Call this the Wisdom of Garvey |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Clearance between router cutter and guide bush ? | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
