No field work this week, the LiCor has been sent back to get fixed and recalibrated, but I had a couple of thoughts and one question on working in the field and with RA.
Question first. If it hurts RA's manly pride for me to carry heavy things or swing the machete then I'm not going to argue with him. I'll offer to do it but I'm not going to insist, it seems silly to make more work for myself and fight for it. Should I be more insistent? Am I not being feminist enough?
Most of my thoughts center on RA's apparent lousy sense of direction. When I said we needed to go a little further west for on collar and he said "I'm so turned around I have no idea where that is" I was a bit flabbergasted; west was heading towards the highway, which you could hear, also not up or down hill and we hadn't even been winding around much. He was pretty tired by then, so that was part of the problem. I'm sure he can get around with a compass; I've been with him when he was using one and I fairly sure orienteering is taught in [home country]'s army (otherwise navigating in areas without roads is much more difficult). I'm not sure if normally his sense of direction is as bad as it was out at the site or if it was a related to exhaustion, terrain, and/or not pay attention because that's what I was doing.
One of the few things I'm really good at* is visualizing in 3D. This is helpful for my job and some puzzles and I think it's why I my sense of direction isn't too bad. Drive me around for a while, stick me in the woods and I might guess north right 30% of the time (it'd be 25% of the time except when the sun is low(ish) in the sky I can get E or W, then turn 90°) but if I have a starting point, like I know the road runs generally N/S and I need to move due E to find a point (like what I was doing while placing collars) I can do it, or if I need a get back to a starting point I don't have retrace all my steps. It's like I map the route (detours around trees, thickets,... and/or from point to point) in my head, along with the lay of the land.
I used to be able to figure out what direction north (E, W, or S) most places around where I lived because most of the roads were fairly straight, for that matter I probably still can. They weren't in a grid pattern (except in DC, which was way outside my mental map anyway) but they were mostly straight. I knew which way, generally, my house faced (east) and could back track from where I was to home and figure out the cardinals. Things outside this map were connected by a much looser, cardinal-direction wise, road "network" of how you got places (like, route 7 runs through here, route 50 will take you to x and y) which could connect two destinations but not necessarily given you an idea of the distances (but possibly travel time) or which way you were going. (It never helped that sometimes to go physically south you went "north" on 495. And I only drove there for a year.)
I mostly have T-town "mapped" as a route network. Near downtown and campus the roads are regular enough that I could actually draw a map and I could include some of the more out lying roads. But when you get out of town a little ways the roads wind around so much that really keeping a clear picture of it in my head is hard, it becomes more of a general this road takes you to these roads or that place. Also there are a lot of parts of town I never drive through, no reason except I've just never needed, so those areas are completely blank in my mental map. I do have a better mental map of where different communities/places are within the county here than I did in Virginia; I think because I deal with maps of the county a lot and because of tornado warnings - I had to learn if a storm moving east near Samantha was going to threaten my house.
Do you guys have mental maps or road networks of where you drive (walk, bike,...) a lot?
*the other two primary ones being sleeping and counting to 4 (3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 12) in rhythm
Showing posts with label geekery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label geekery. Show all posts
30 July 2009
07 May 2008
Geekiest Moment
A few days ago Sarah was asking if any of us had had a Little Professor and when I clicked through to see what she was talking about I realized I'd had one. I have a positive associations with the Little Professor, although other recognizing that I'd had one I don't remember anything else (like playing calculator games). Just a few minutes ago, for no reason in particular except it is 50 minutes until State Employee Appreciation Proclamation reading and snacks, I was thinking about the geekiest thing I did as a kid.
For as long as I can remember I've taken long showers. When I'm not falling asleep in them, my mind is wandering; sometimes I'm doing both. I used to, sometimes, do math in the shower. (BTW, I find steamed up tiles are excellent righting surfaces, far superior to my current plastic tub surround.) About the same time I was playing with my brother's scientific calculator to try and figure out what ex and ln(x) meant. (And sneak some of that advanced intermediate school knowledge denied my elementary school self.) I also was trying to figure out X². My brother explained exponents to me and I knew my times tables up to 12*12, so I thought this was pretty cool.
So one morning in the shower I figured out 13² and 14² and 15² and then I wondered if there was an easy way to figure out a square without having to do all that multiplication. I proceeded to re-invented algebra. The way to do this algebraically isn't any simpler but it did allow me to figure out the square of 13 (and 14, 15, ...) without doing any multiplication by hand.
Here's what I figured out:
12²+12+13=13²=163
Little did I know that I'd just figured out that
(X+1)² = X² + 2x +1
I immediately recognized this later when I took algebra. There it is, I was a hopeless geek at 9.
For as long as I can remember I've taken long showers. When I'm not falling asleep in them, my mind is wandering; sometimes I'm doing both. I used to, sometimes, do math in the shower. (BTW, I find steamed up tiles are excellent righting surfaces, far superior to my current plastic tub surround.) About the same time I was playing with my brother's scientific calculator to try and figure out what ex and ln(x) meant. (And sneak some of that advanced intermediate school knowledge denied my elementary school self.) I also was trying to figure out X². My brother explained exponents to me and I knew my times tables up to 12*12, so I thought this was pretty cool.
So one morning in the shower I figured out 13² and 14² and 15² and then I wondered if there was an easy way to figure out a square without having to do all that multiplication. I proceeded to re-invented algebra. The way to do this algebraically isn't any simpler but it did allow me to figure out the square of 13 (and 14, 15, ...) without doing any multiplication by hand.
Here's what I figured out:
12²+12+13=13²=163
Little did I know that I'd just figured out that
(X+1)² = X² + 2x +1
I immediately recognized this later when I took algebra. There it is, I was a hopeless geek at 9.
14 December 2007
Someone check my math
Apropos of this comic, the other night I was watching the “Mythbusters” episode where they test being talked through landing a commercial airplane (plausible, it is possible to be talked down but the odds against circumstances that would lead to this are astronomical) and three parachuting “myths” all from one scene in “Point Break”. To test the length of the scene (about 90 seconds before the chute is opened) they tossed Buster out of a plane at 4000 feet (the altitude of the plane when Patrick Swayze jumped). Buster hit the ground in 31 seconds. For some reason this caused me to go get paper and pencil and start doing so calculations.
At first I couldn’t figure out why it took so long, then I remember that Buster was not falling in a vacuum. Then I did the calculations based on a terminal velocity of 120 feet per second (the number they calculated as the terminal velocity of a person in the “spread eagle” position) and Buster fell too fast. (Because being a crash test dummy he didn’t know that he could live a couple seconds longer if he’d kept his arms out wide.) So I decided to find out what Buster’s actual terminal velocity was.
Here’s where I need someone to check my math. (Sign convention: plane is at x=0 and positive x is towards the ground. This gets rid of a bunch of superfluous negative signs)
We know that:
xt= x0 + v0(t) + ½ a(t2) vt = v0 + a(t)
If:
xa = distance traveled while accelerating,
xt = distance traveled while at terminal velocity,
ta = time accelerating, and
tt = time at terminal velocity
vt = terminal velocity
a = 32ft/s2, the acceleration due to gravity
Then:
xa + xt = 4000ft,
ta + tt = 31s
And:
xa = ½(32ft/s2)( ta2),
xt = vt (tt), and
vt = (32 ft/s2)( ta)
So:
tt = 31s - ta
xt = (32 ft/s2ta)(31s- ta)
xa = ½(32ft/s2)( ta2)
(let’s drop some units to make this easier to read)
4000 = [(32 ta)(31- ta)] + ½(32)( ta2)
4000 = [(32 ta)(31) – 32ta]+ (16ta2)
4000/16 = [(32)(31ta) – 32ta2]/16+ [(16)( ta2)/16]
250 = [(62ta) – 2ta2] + [ta2]
250 = 62ta –ta2
0 = 62ta – ta2 – 250
(Rearrange into the standard order)
-ta2 + 62ta – 250 = 0
Use the quadratic equation to find ta
if ax2+bx+c=0, then x=[-b±(b2-4ac)½] /2a
ta = [-(62) ± ((62)2 – 4(-1)(-250))1/2]/2(-1)ta = [ -62± (3844 -1000)1/2]/-2
ta = [-62 ± (2844)1/2]/-2
ta = [-62 ± (53.3292)]/-2
ta = [-62 + (53.3292)]/-2, [-62 – (53.3292)]/-2
ta = (-8.6708)/-2, (-115.3291)/-2
ta = 4.3354s, 57.66
(57 seconds is longer than the whole fall took, so it can’t be the time spent accelerating)
ta = 4.3354s
vt = (32 ft/s2)( ta) = (32 ft/s2)(4.3354s) = 138.7328 ft/s
Buster’s terminal velocity was 139 ft/s
We can check this by finding the distances he fell while accelerating and while at terminal velocity and making sure they add up to 4000ft.
tt = 31s – ta = 31s – 4.3354s = 26.6646s
xa = ½(32ft/s2)(ta2) =½(32ft/s2)( 4.3354s2) = 300.7311ft
xt = vt (tt) = (138.7328ft/s)(26.6646s) = 3699.2546ft
xa + xt = 300.7311ft + 3699.2546ft = 3999.9857 feet
Not quite but close enough for government work.;)
(Actually, four decimal places is far more precise than my initial inputs, so my answer is way more precise than my inputs. Actually, I’m a huge geek. And typing math is a pain.)
At first I couldn’t figure out why it took so long, then I remember that Buster was not falling in a vacuum. Then I did the calculations based on a terminal velocity of 120 feet per second (the number they calculated as the terminal velocity of a person in the “spread eagle” position) and Buster fell too fast. (Because being a crash test dummy he didn’t know that he could live a couple seconds longer if he’d kept his arms out wide.) So I decided to find out what Buster’s actual terminal velocity was.
Here’s where I need someone to check my math. (Sign convention: plane is at x=0 and positive x is towards the ground. This gets rid of a bunch of superfluous negative signs)
We know that:
xt= x0 + v0(t) + ½ a(t2) vt = v0 + a(t)
If:
xa = distance traveled while accelerating,
xt = distance traveled while at terminal velocity,
ta = time accelerating, and
tt = time at terminal velocity
vt = terminal velocity
a = 32ft/s2, the acceleration due to gravity
Then:
xa + xt = 4000ft,
ta + tt = 31s
And:
xa = ½(32ft/s2)( ta2),
xt = vt (tt), and
vt = (32 ft/s2)( ta)
So:
tt = 31s - ta
xt = (32 ft/s2ta)(31s- ta)
xa = ½(32ft/s2)( ta2)
(let’s drop some units to make this easier to read)
4000 = [(32 ta)(31- ta)] + ½(32)( ta2)
4000 = [(32 ta)(31) – 32ta]+ (16ta2)
4000/16 = [(32)(31ta) – 32ta2]/16+ [(16)( ta2)/16]
250 = [(62ta) – 2ta2] + [ta2]
250 = 62ta –ta2
0 = 62ta – ta2 – 250
(Rearrange into the standard order)
-ta2 + 62ta – 250 = 0
Use the quadratic equation to find ta
if ax2+bx+c=0, then x=[-b±(b2-4ac)½] /2a
ta = [-(62) ± ((62)2 – 4(-1)(-250))1/2]/2(-1)ta = [ -62± (3844 -1000)1/2]/-2
ta = [-62 ± (2844)1/2]/-2
ta = [-62 ± (53.3292)]/-2
ta = [-62 + (53.3292)]/-2, [-62 – (53.3292)]/-2
ta = (-8.6708)/-2, (-115.3291)/-2
ta = 4.3354s, 57.66
(57 seconds is longer than the whole fall took, so it can’t be the time spent accelerating)
ta = 4.3354s
vt = (32 ft/s2)( ta) = (32 ft/s2)(4.3354s) = 138.7328 ft/s
Buster’s terminal velocity was 139 ft/s
We can check this by finding the distances he fell while accelerating and while at terminal velocity and making sure they add up to 4000ft.
tt = 31s – ta = 31s – 4.3354s = 26.6646s
xa = ½(32ft/s2)(ta2) =½(32ft/s2)( 4.3354s2) = 300.7311ft
xt = vt (tt) = (138.7328ft/s)(26.6646s) = 3699.2546ft
xa + xt = 300.7311ft + 3699.2546ft = 3999.9857 feet
Not quite but close enough for government work.;)
(Actually, four decimal places is far more precise than my initial inputs, so my answer is way more precise than my inputs. Actually, I’m a huge geek. And typing math is a pain.)
27 August 2007
You there!
So I was thinking about how we lost the informal second-person pronoun the other day, thou, and about how du/you and Sie/thee are "false friends" (words in two languages that look or sound similar but have different meanings). Then realized "thee" is the accusative form, so the pair would be Sie/thou which wouldn't be confused. (Yes, I am an all around geek.) So I went to the Internet to see what I could find.
What I found on the Online Etymology Dictionary was interesting. We lost the informal form of address because it came to indicate a difference in status between the speakers (a king would address a servant as "thou" but the servant would use "you" to address a king) and not as how one addressed ones equals. As we moved away from the feudal system and everyone wanted to be treated as equals, at least socially, "thou" faded from use. We dropped the informal you as society became, in some ways, less formal!
Now in German speaking countries the formal you (Sie) is falling into disuse as society becomes more informal. It is becoming less common to use formal address when speaking with an equal whereas traditionally the formal form of address was used with almost anyone who wasn't a friend or relative. An acquittance will ask the other "Sollen wir dutzen?" (Should we use "du"?) when he feels they are now friends, at least according to my German teachers. It's similar to saying "please call me Ann" after having always referred to one another as Mrs. Jones and Ms. Smith. Just as it is always safest to be a bit formal in and use last names in English, it is still safest to use the "Sie" when speaking to an acquaintance but often they will use "du" without batting an eye, particularly in an informal setting.
Another cool thing is that similar to German*, the formal 2nd person singular pronoun is the same as the 2nd person plural pronoun. This is why "you" can be very confusing and why Southerners say "y'all" and New Jerseyites say "youse guys" when referring to groups of people (and, yes, sometimes individuals). There is no good way to separate the two, we even conjugate many verbs the same. (Actually we conjugate many verbs the same regardless of the subject.)
And now I have a question for you (all 2 of you regular readers) -Tell me about the pronouns in the language(s) you studied in school. Does it have a formal and informal 2nd person singular pronoun? Is the formal also the plural 2nd person? Are they both still in use? How are they commonly used? Do you even remember the pronouns in the language you studied?
Did I use "cool" enough in this post?
*In German "Sie" is the formal 2nd person singular and "sie" is also the 3rd person feminine (her) and 3rd person plural (they). With "she" verbs are conjugated differently than with "they" and "you (pl)", which are conjugated the same.
What I found on the Online Etymology Dictionary was interesting. We lost the informal form of address because it came to indicate a difference in status between the speakers (a king would address a servant as "thou" but the servant would use "you" to address a king) and not as how one addressed ones equals. As we moved away from the feudal system and everyone wanted to be treated as equals, at least socially, "thou" faded from use. We dropped the informal you as society became, in some ways, less formal!
Now in German speaking countries the formal you (Sie) is falling into disuse as society becomes more informal. It is becoming less common to use formal address when speaking with an equal whereas traditionally the formal form of address was used with almost anyone who wasn't a friend or relative. An acquittance will ask the other "Sollen wir dutzen?" (Should we use "du"?) when he feels they are now friends, at least according to my German teachers. It's similar to saying "please call me Ann" after having always referred to one another as Mrs. Jones and Ms. Smith. Just as it is always safest to be a bit formal in and use last names in English, it is still safest to use the "Sie" when speaking to an acquaintance but often they will use "du" without batting an eye, particularly in an informal setting.
Another cool thing is that similar to German*, the formal 2nd person singular pronoun is the same as the 2nd person plural pronoun. This is why "you" can be very confusing and why Southerners say "y'all" and New Jerseyites say "youse guys" when referring to groups of people (and, yes, sometimes individuals). There is no good way to separate the two, we even conjugate many verbs the same. (Actually we conjugate many verbs the same regardless of the subject.)
And now I have a question for you (all 2 of you regular readers) -Tell me about the pronouns in the language(s) you studied in school. Does it have a formal and informal 2nd person singular pronoun? Is the formal also the plural 2nd person? Are they both still in use? How are they commonly used? Do you even remember the pronouns in the language you studied?
Did I use "cool" enough in this post?
*In German "Sie" is the formal 2nd person singular and "sie" is also the 3rd person feminine (her) and 3rd person plural (they). With "she" verbs are conjugated differently than with "they" and "you (pl)", which are conjugated the same.
23 August 2007
Weekeend Assignment #180
Weekend Assignment #180: Build a Bumper Sticker
Hadn't done one of these in a while. I got a little carried away with making bumper stickers (I'm at work what else am I going to do?). Here are a few of them.While your at it - guess my profession.
I sure that one strikes fear in the heart of a reader or two.
Actual quote from my boss.
This one could be interpreted several ways.
My old car had a bunch of bumper stickers. I decided that if my niece could get arrested for protesting the death penalty, I could slap a few of my beliefs on my car. Good thing my mother has similar socio-political views as I do because it's her car now. My new car only has three right now (a Brite Blue Dot, 01-20-09, and Stop Continental Drift). I have a few more to put on there but they have ended up at the bottom a stack somewhere. When I find them again, on they will go.
For this Weekend Assignment I thought we'd do something easy. Because it's August, and that's just the wrong month to think:
Weekend Assignment #180: Go to this bumper sticker generator, and create a bumper sticker. Then post it in your journal. The generator page gives you a number of options to play with, so you should be able to have fun with it. Naturally, keep it reasonably clean; I have to link to it, after all.
Extra Credit: How many bumper stickers does your car have in real life?
Hadn't done one of these in a while. I got a little carried away with making bumper stickers (I'm at work what else am I going to do?). Here are a few of them.While your at it - guess my profession.
I sure that one strikes fear in the heart of a reader or two.
Actual quote from my boss.
This one could be interpreted several ways.
My old car had a bunch of bumper stickers. I decided that if my niece could get arrested for protesting the death penalty, I could slap a few of my beliefs on my car. Good thing my mother has similar socio-political views as I do because it's her car now. My new car only has three right now (a Brite Blue Dot, 01-20-09, and Stop Continental Drift). I have a few more to put on there but they have ended up at the bottom a stack somewhere. When I find them again, on they will go.
15 August 2007
Middle English
For your inner English-geek, may I present Scalzi Chaucer'd.
Anyone know where we can get it in Old English, too?
Anyone know where we can get it in Old English, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
