Posted by z on July 2, 2009, 11:09 pm
> I'm sorry John, I didn't mean for anyone to run the calculations, just
> explain the use of the "[ ]".
>
thats like throwing a meaty bone to a pack of dogs and asking them not to
chew it :)
Posted by vaughn on July 2, 2009, 9:46 pm
You have been rare lately John. Good to see you back.
Vaughn
Posted by z on July 2, 2009, 11:03 pm
> Vaughn,
>
>>Just change those square brackets to round ones.
> That worked for me in the past but using this spread-sheet expression:
> (34000 / 1.9) * (1 - (1 / 2) * (101.8 / 132)^2) = 12,573
>
> where their example is:
> (34,000/1.9)[1 - (1/2)(101.8/132)^2] = 10,994
>
> Different results, and since these formulas where taken from some
> college physics department, I have to be interpreting that formula
> incorrectly.
>
you can always use different cells for each section of the calc and use
another cell to do the final numbers referencing the cells in the
equation.. that way you can watch each part to see if there are some funny
numbers cropping up.
best of luck!
-z
Posted by Curbie on July 3, 2009, 12:21 am
z,
On a side note, have you ever visited OtherPower.com hydro page?
I read over there a lot and someone asked if anyone was using a
WindBlue generator, so I pointed him at your site and you.
Vaughn,
You where right about just replacing the square brackets with
parentheses (see below) thanks for your help.
Neon John,
You where right about the formula being wrong, I was really wrong in
thinking a university physics department couldn't post simple math
errors, I can't believe one of the student haven't pointed that out.
The next example that they give uses a larger column with the same
formula:
(34000 / 1.85) * (1 - (1 / 2) * (69.3 / 132)^2) = 15,845
My spread-sheet agrees those results using the same formula with new
variables so it seems that the results given for the first formula
(the one you hand calculated) was wrong. I sent the instructor an
email like you suggested before I ran into this latest discovery. Be
interesting to see how they handle this?
Thanks Neon John,
Curbie
Posted by Neon John on July 3, 2009, 10:42 am
wrote:
>My spread-sheet agrees those results using the same formula with new
>variables so it seems that the results given for the first formula
>(the one you hand calculated) was wrong. I sent the instructor an
>email like you suggested before I ran into this latest discovery. Be
>interesting to see how they handle this?
Kewl. Be sure to post the reply. Interesting to see if he weasles or
admits the mistake.
>Thanks Neon John,
You be welcome.
>Curbie
> explain the use of the "[ ]".
>