General Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orion
  • 2,283 comments
  • 107,724 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
If one gets a post deleted, does their post count go down one, or does it just not show up?

If a post is deleted, the user's post count will go down by one.

It's worth noting that the post still exists, but only in a form that moderators can see.
 
There are different dialects of the same language, I know bits and pieces of both and sort of speak a mish mash of the two. One thing I noticed when I was in the UK they hated the way American's talked and I didn't understand why, it's no different from someone in London talking to a Scotsmen.
 
So you're fully conversant with all forms of it then?
Nope.


"Free" is a different word to "three". But in parts of the UK they mean the same thing.
My mistake then.



Really? Which AUP is that then? Nothing I've said so far comes from our AUP.
Well where did you get it from? If I didn't agree to it when I signed up, then why should I follow it?


I see. So my not liking you correcting me on how my language (not yours) is spoken in my country, combined with me closing some thread somewhere means that I am in a "pissy mood"?

I guess all the posts I've made today helping people out, tidying up minor errors and approving posts for the forum don't count then.
On that point I agree with you. I shouldn't have brought that up, that was indeed childish of me.

All of this was still based on my opinion.
 
There are different dialects of the same language, I know bits and pieces of both and sort of speak a mish mash of the two. One thing I noticed when I was in the UK they hated the way American's talked and I didn't understand why, it's no different from someone in London talking to a Scotsmen.

It's odd - just from the root/rowt thing earlier I noted that American (and indeed Canadian) English language is by no means uniform, even allowing for accents. Some use more "Americanised" (or "Americanized" :D ) word forms, some use more English word forms.

As with the "three" thing - "posher" accents would roll the r and say "thrrree", RP accents wouldn't and say "three" and "earthier" accents would change the th to f and say "free". We also have an oddity with "h" - some accents say "haitch" when pronouncing the letter. Some (correctly) say "aitch". Some accents omit a proximal "h" - "otel", "elicopter", "ammer" - and some add one - "houter hedge". Some even do both!


And don't even get me started on "tt"s.
 
Glass is harder (and thus more expensive) to mould into shapes like that. For mass production you just want to stamp out a bunch of jug-shaped things with a hole in the bottom, and plastic's the winner there.

So, petrol prices do not come very much into account considering the money that can be made from selling a larger amount of the product?

Thank you for the answer. Now I know.
 
Glass is harder (and thus more expensive) to mould into shapes like that. For mass production you just want to stamp out a bunch of jug-shaped things with a hole in the bottom, and plastic's the winner there.

Not to mention that since those things are usually of a considreable size and weight a bit when full (also are used in the kitchen, which means your hands may be slippery from touching all sorts of food), plastic is also used as a matter of safety, in case it it accidentally falls.
 
And of course, as we all know, programmed obsolescence is much easier to instate...

So, why would a person be banned from college basketball if he plays in two all-star high school games?
 
Why not make a Carbon Fiber blender? with a small hole to see through?

Porsche or Ferrari probably do. After all they whore their badge on lend their engineering expertise to just about everything else.
 
Why not make a Carbon Fiber blender? with a small hole to see through?

Hmmm... I'm missing the point where a carbon fiber blender is cheaper.



On the language discussion (all my popcorn's gone now), I'd just like to say that back in school I had (for 2 years) a English teacher that in words such as 'something' or 'truth' replaced the 'th' with an 's', so she said 'some-sing' or 'troos'.
Never seemed right to me, and I could not talk that way ever, meaning I (and a few others) got slapped a few times for not speaking English as she wanted us to.

Now, what I'd like to know is: the way she pronounced those words (or others with the same 'th') is used anywhere that anyone knows?
I mean, specific parts of England, Scotland, etc.
 
I also believe that carbon fibre shatters when exposed to such forces unless I am thinking of that question about carbon fibre wheels.

Interesting that this thread is so active now.
 
On the language discussion (all my popcorn's gone now), I'd just like to say that back in school I had (for 2 years) a English teacher that in words such as 'something' or 'truth' replaced the 'th' with an 's', so she said 'some-sing' or 'troos'.
Never seemed right to me, and I could not talk that way ever, meaning I (and a few others) got slapped a few times for not speaking English as she wanted us to.

Now, what I'd like to know is: the way she pronounced those words (or others with the same 'th') is used anywhere that anyone knows?
I mean, specific parts of England, Scotland, etc.

The only time I hear that is native speakers of Romance languages, where the "th" sound isn't present. It's particularly common in French speakers speaking English.
 
To chime in on the language debate, while Famine is right about the "th" sound often being replaced by "f" in some UK English dialects, the other thing that happens, in the case of the words "the" and "bothered", the "f" sound doesn't come into play, since saying "fuh" and "boffered" just sounds silly, and no-one does it. What happens is in these cases, a "v" sound is put in instead, giving us "vuh" instead of the and "bovvered" instead of bothered.

It's not uncommon to go to a working class council estate in many places in England and hearing butcherings of the language such as:

"Vuh free fings vat bovver me most abaht finkin' are: Vis, vat and vee ovver!" etc. etc. :sick:

(The three things that bother me most about thinking are: This, that and the other!) just for anyone that needed the translation! ;)

This also exposes another quirk of the English language, the pronounciation of "the" can vary from the normal "thuh" sound, to "thee" depending where it's used! :lol:
 
As with the "three" thing - "posher" accents would roll the r and say "thrrree", RP accents wouldn't and say "three" and "earthier" accents would change the th to f and say "free".
And what about the tree fellers joke?
 
And what about the tree fellers joke?

Ah, come on noo, thart's just Oirish!
clover.gif
 
Sure 'an it's a pity they'm only be two on us.
 
Famine, just out of curiosity did you catch that article I posted a few pages back? Do you know much on the subject? If not, can you stay up late tonight, prepare a report for me and have it in my PM box by 9.00am GMT.

Thx
 
EDIT: How come when I click 'Last Page' it sometimes goes to the second to last page?
I believe it has something to do with your mouse. My mouse double clicks all the time, causing double posting on some forums. :sick: You have to press the mouse, hold for 0.2 seconds, then let go if you have the same problem as me.
 
I don't think it's a mouse issue, as it has happened to me at least 2 times today, and has never happened before that I can recall.
 
Engine speed is limited mostly by valve action. Valve springs can only move so fast. When the cam lobe drops to close the valve, does the valve follow it? At high speeds it does not, and you get valve float, which really messes up things that are supposed to happen in the combustion chamber. You get flame in the intake manifold, loss of compression, blah blah blah.

That's why Formula 1 engines, and now most MotoGP as well, use pneumatic systems. The valve is closed by air pressure, not a metal spring, which allows the valve to follow the cam profile. Now you've made the bottom end the part that has to hold together.

Other engine speed problems are simply how much mass is moving, and how hard a force does it take to change that mass's direction of travel. Pistons go up and down, and connecting rods, wrist pins, and bearing have to take that load, on the order of 10,000 g's at the wrist pin (not a typo: 10 to the 4th power!) The conn rods actually stretch and compress under the load, and how much of that they can take determines when they come apart and go through the side of the block.

A Formula One engine has a very short stroke, around 40mm, specifically to limit the load on conn rods. The piston moves slower than an engine of longer stroke but smaller bore. With such a short stroke, even at 19,000 RPM the piston speed is about the same as a high-performance street car.

Engine failures aren't always parts failures directly. You have timing errors, oil loss, overheating, etc.

The obvious question is: Why do you need all those revs? Simple answer. RPM=Horsepower. The amount of power an engine produces is directly proportional to the engine's speed multiplied by the torque it produces at that speed.

This is really a bad excuse for a reply..... sorry for the lateness.

Its very interesting how you stated that F1 and Moto GP has used a pneumatic systems. But is it really expensive to develop for road cars? I mean, it would considerably make the engine last longer during high revs. Also, the shorter the stroke, the higher the revs? Its just amazing how I always wonder how Honda's and some Toyota engines manage to rev to those high 9k-10k revs without having a big displacement like a V8. How technology changes so much....... :D

As for the debate, I think thats enough. Everyone knows that English is the international language, so there should be a different dialect on how you speak English in your country. As for me, I'm happy I could speak English this well and that I don't have to speak Manglish here like I do in many other forums.... :lol:

"Why so kiansap today mah?"
"You know ah, this game I played yesterday, damn syok you know..... having really fun at it playing this game :D"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manglish
 
AI (Computer Cars) that get this sort of "boost" when they are behind you, and slow down when you're behind.
 
Hence why it's called "rubber band". Think of your car having a rubber band attached to all the other competitors. When another car gets away in front, the rubber band will stop it etc.
 
I also believe that carbon fibre shatters when exposed to such forces unless I am thinking of that question about carbon fibre wheels.

Interesting that this thread is so active now.

As long as it's not made by Red Bull and controlled by a middle aged Scotsman. Daan beware.
 
This is really a bad excuse for a reply..... sorry for the lateness.

Its very interesting how you stated that F1 and Moto GP has used a pneumatic systems. But is it really expensive to develop for road cars? I mean, it would considerably make the engine last longer during high revs. Also, the shorter the stroke, the higher the revs? Its just amazing how I always wonder how Honda's and some Toyota engines manage to rev to those high 9k-10k revs without having a big displacement like a V8. How technology changes so much....... :D

As for the debate, I think thats enough. Everyone knows that English is the international language, so there should be a different dialect on how you speak English in your country. As for me, I'm happy I could speak English this well and that I don't have to speak Manglish here like I do in many other forums.... :lol:

"Why so kiansap today mah?"
"You know ah, this game I played yesterday, damn syok you know..... having really fun at it playing this game :D"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manglish

Yes, it would be expensive.

And yes, the maximum possible engine speed IS limited by the valvetrain's ability to resist "valve float".

And no, 9000 rpms isn't really very fast when you consider your typical Formula 1 engine can hit 20,000 rpms... and hold that for about two hours at a time over two race weekends.

And YES, a short stroke DOES allow an engine to rev higher. Basically, the longer the stroke, the more force acting on the... oh, wait, wfooshee already explained it.

9000 rpm is nothing on what a typical race engine can hit. And for people who want to go that extra mile and build a high rpm screamer, your typical modifications will include shortening the stroke, increasing the compression (what compression you lose by shortening the stroke, you regain by using higher compression pistons... ) and strengthening the valve-train... which means stronger valves and stronger valve springs.... up to a point... make the valve springs too stiff and the engine will have a hard time moving them.

It's a lot of work. A lot of expensive work. Which is why your typical naturally aspirated modifier costs a hell of a lot more to build than a turbocharged set-up making the same power. For the amount of money you need to make 50% more horsepower than stock on a decent naturally aspirated motor, you could have a turbocharger making 150 - 200% more power than stock... or more.
 
Need to be in a vacuum, too, probably.

Nope, wouldn't need to be. Unlike regular friction between two materials, aerodynamic (or hydrodynamic, for that matter) only works once there is speed (regular friction also occurs when the two objects are static, yet forces work between them). Also, with speeds as minute as the ones between the two balls, it is absolutely logical to ignore air-resistance.

I also believe that carbon fibre shatters when exposed to such forces unless I am thinking of that question about carbon fibre wheels.

If you like blending metals at the sound of speed, perhaps. I don't see how CF would be too weak to hold a cup full of mashed tomatoes. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back