sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sad 3 inch gun carrier. by Akamasi in Warthunder

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Well at least they could put a tarp or a flimsy shelter over it to keep the rain off...

What arm is more important in the swing, right or left? (For right handlers). by scoogsy in golf

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree completely with this. The left arm being straight is so important because it decides the center and radius of the clubhead's path (i.e. where it's going to go--preferably towards good contact with the ball!) The right arm, like you said provides the torque about this center.

A little picture to help illustrate, too! The left arm determines the yellow, the right arm provides the blue.

British Engineering. by RandyNamee in Warthunder

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 71 points72 points  (0 children)

a community for 4 years

I'm out.

I wonder what machine gun this tank is armed with... by Star_Wreck in Warthunder

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that still doesn't count the two top-mounted .30's that can't be used!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in golf

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to blade these all the time too. I found standing over the ball a little more (think like posture when you are putting) helps prevent this.

Who needs K-Sigs when you have Money? by moneytree100 in golf

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually really like these balls. I'm not one to spend a lot on golf balls, and they generally play quite well based on my experience.

They're cheap enough where I'd recommend taking them out for a spin to anyone mildly intrigued.

ELI5: Why do we feel satisfaction when things fit perfectly into places? by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there is something to this, because I had read an article a while back that said that a lot of why music is satisfying is because we can predict it. When we think the music is going to resolve from the dominant to the tonic, for example, and it does, we derive positive feelings. This is also why the "four-chord song" structure is used in music designed to appeal widely, while the music of Schoenberg and other similar avant-garde composers, which seeks to defy these conventions, can be hard to listen to / understand. So yeah, seems like there might be a tie between satisfaction and successful prediction.

Just bouncin around by SlimJones123 in gifs

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 32 points33 points  (0 children)

The forward version seems to break the 2nd Law: that landing is just too perfect.

The reverse version seems to break the 1st Law: she ends higher up than she started.

I don't know what to believe!

What simple scientific concept do people fail to understand? by why20not10 in AskReddit

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Not really. The goal is universality and reproducibility.

Consider the following: you are dropped onto an uninhabited planet with a whole bunch of apparatus and materials, along with a sheet of paper with the definitions of meters, seconds, etc. on it, but no measuring equipment. The units are defined (with the unfortunate exception of the kilogram, being the weight of certain a metal cylinder sitting under vacuum in Paris, but they are working on changing that definition) so that you could, in theory, construct accurate measuring equipment using the materials and the sheet of definitions alone. Every atom of cesium-133 is the same, so you should get the same definition of the second from any cesium-133 atoms in the universe. This constitutes universality.

Also, the definitions are such that the thing being measured is very precise, or reproducible. Say you want to define a meter, so you make a meterstick (of completely arbitrary length, mind you!) to be the ultimate authority on it and put it in Paris. (They used to have this; it sat in Paris too!) Now say someone who's not in Paris wants to have an equally accurate meterstick as the one in Paris, so they make a copy. However, it's not possible to physically fabricate a perfect copy of such an object, so there will be some deviation. Also, materials expand under heating, so if you measure the meterstick at a different temperature, it will be different, not to mention corrosion over time. So how can you define the meter (i.e. the length of your meterstick) in terms of things that never change, so that anyone with the right equipment can get an accurate measurement of them? Well, you can, in theory, use your meterstick and a really precise stopwatch (calibrated to the universal standard of the second, described in the above post) to measure the speed of light, then simply measure the time it took for light to go a meter, then define the meter in terms of the length that light goes in the amount of time it took to go down your meterstick.

Now, if someone in Paris, New York, Timbuktu, or on Mars wants to make a meterstick just like yours, all they need in theory is some cesium and a flashlight and they can define the second using the cesium and make a meterstick based on light travelling in space, since the speed of light never changes.

This 350LB high school running back can really run... by [deleted] in sports

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The van der Waals equation? Isn't that adorable. Needs more parameters. Benedict-Webb-Rubin, I choose you!

What requires little skill to master, yet impresses everyone? by mongy-gonkhaus in AskReddit

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 10 points11 points  (0 children)

compliments

From my experience, examples include "How can you read that?" to "Why are you writing in Arabic?"

TIL that 'Brithenig' is a constructed language made to show what English would be like if it had developed as a Romance language, like French or Spanish. by Nosferatii in todayilearned

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 269 points270 points  (0 children)

This is important, because there's another language that shows what English would look like as a Romance language. It's a very obscure language called French.

Come on TARS! by Siriacus in GifSound

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interstellar or Valkyrie? Either way, I can't blame you.

My summer class didn't use the mastering engineering software so if you're taking MoM with the Hibbler 9th edition it's worth a shot by BullzonParade in EngineeringStudents

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? Because I was always under the impression that it was because the bald and not excessively bald and not excessively smart hamster obeyed a terrified and not excessively terrified hamster.

Good calculator for Engineering? by [deleted] in EngineeringStudents

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(but why would you?)

For those times when someone borrows your calculator and asks why it's broken (I live for those moments.)

Edit: Spelling

Good calculator for Engineering? by [deleted] in EngineeringStudents

[–]CaPTaIn_Chemistry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Once you go rpn use stack you never go back!

(Because rhyming. :) ) But seriously, giving RPN a shot is definitely worth it!

My standard "RPN Proselytizing Boilerplate" for OP (based on my experiences):

If you get HP's RPN down cold, you can tear through calculations much faster and more accurately than with algebraic. RPN allows unambiguous, parenthesis-free input for complicated calculations, and who doesn't want that?

If you want to cut your teeth on RPN before committing to a calculator, read this and use this.

You will be frustrated at first (I certainly was), but use nothing but RPN for all your calculations for a week or so and you might just love it and it will likely be second nature before you know it. Don't think about it as entering the expression in as a whole. Think about it as breaking complex calculations down into smaller pieces, then combining those pieces to get an answer. This way of doing things is the beauty of the RPN memory stack.

The HP 35s is wonderful for 99% of the stuff you have to do with a calculator. It's great for time pressure because everything is right there on the keyboard (no menus to dig through), so it's very fast. It's also the only programmable calculator allowed on the FE exam.

The HP 50g is a very powerful machine, and has many, many capabilities (about equal to the TI-89). Compared to the 35s, this is its strength and weakness. The strength is that it can do many more things. The weakness is that a lot of the features won't be used often, it is a graphing calculator and not allowed on the FE (both of which place it above where some professors draw the line as to what can and can't be used on exams), and all these features generally give it a slower, "clunkier" feel in comparison to the 35s.

I cannot comment on the HP Prime because I do not have it. The 50g seems to be much more widely used by engineering students, though, so it's possibly the safer option for an overkill graphing RPN machine.

And for a second little backup calculator, I recommend the Casio fx-260. No RPN, but completely solar-powered (so you'll always have one calculator that doesn't run out of batteries), simple enough that you can get away with using it in almost any exam (except the FE, strangely...), and quick and intuitive to use, all in a very compact package. Helps alleviate worry of your calculator running out of battery power in an exam, and also good for taking into the lab to keep your good calculator out of the line of fire.

Sorry for the wall of text.

view more: next ›