Jump to content

Capiert

Senior Members
  • Posts

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capiert

  1. Isn't it (=the meter) dissipating heat whether it (=the needle) swings or not, while electricity flows? I.e. It (=the needle's deflection) "costs" (continuous) power (=E/t, energy E, per time t), not just a once_only energy to keep that needle in place (beyond zero). Isn't there something wrong with James Watt's (mechanical power) definition? E.g. It's not universal. It does NOT include the static (equilibrium) case.
  2. The electromagnetic force of a D'Arsenval (spring_loaded) meter Fiv=P^0.5 is proportional to the rooted electrical_power Piv=I*V (small postscripts used) for current I voltage V, resistance R. Isn't that in conflict to James Watt's definition of mechanical_power (caution: small postscript m used) Pm=F*va (not to be confused, with the m) for (Newton's) force F=m*a mass m acceleration a, average_speed (velocity) va=(vi+vf)/2 initial_speed (velocity) vi final_speed (velocity) vf. (I mean:) Both forces Fiv=F produce mechanical displacement that can be equated. --- (Sorry for the sloppy syntax, but yours confuses me too.) Re_done that would be: The electromagnetic force of a D'Arsenval (spring_loaded) meter F_I*V=sqrt(P_I*V) is proportional to the rooted electrical_power P_I*V=I*V (small postscripts used) for current I voltage V, resistance R. Isn't that in conflict to James Watt's definition of mechanical_power (caution: small postscript m used) P_m=F*v_a (not to be confused) for (Newton's) force F=m*a mass m acceleration a, average_velocity v_a=(v_i+v_f)/2 initial_velocity v_i final_velocity v_f. (I mean:) Both forces F_I*V=F produce mechanical displacement that can be equated.
  3. Where is the nickel?! For about 65 million years ago, GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), a terrible, immense, explosion occured over the gulf of Mexico leaving (th)a(t) (great=big) crater there. All over the earth, 2 layers of iridium (sediment) (with quartz), are found in the rock sediment (clay), ruffly each (layer) are about 1 cm thick & spaced=separated about 1 cm apart. Please notice: Meteorites are (extraterrestrial (origin)) iron "nickel" rocks coming from outer space. Typical example: Sudbury mines (company) Ontario, Canada, extract the(ir meteor's) nickel from the ore; & a small percentage of that nickel has platinums; & a small percentage of those platinums is iridium. Thus iridium is an extraterrestrial metal but should be only a tiny percent of a nickel ore. But according to the iridium anomaly (hypothesis) it(s percentages pyramid) is the other way around. Instead of finding (small percentages of) iridium (mixed) in nickel (ore) sediment, we find only iridium as though nickel never existed (in the 2 layers) at all. My big question (here) is, where is(=has) the nickel (gone) for such a (so_called) meteorite (explosion)? -- Otherwise, there is no indication that the earth was "struck" by a (nickel containing) meteorite ~65 million years ago. I.e. None, =no evidence to support the meteorite (struck the earth) hypothesis. Thus the meteorite ("stuck") hypothesis does NOT make sense. =It's NON_SENSE, =NOT based on facts. No(t enough) nickel was found (by the explosion site) to validate the hypothesis (that a meteorite hit the earth). E.g. Was it a meteorite that caused the explosion? If not? What then (was the cause, for the explosion)? Instead an above earth explosion seems more possible. But that (=because) pure iridium was the fallout (dust), indicates an atomic nuclear explosion of severe (radiation) intensity. E.g. (Increasing by_products (=residue (mass), tendency) due to radiation, produces mass): I-131 (8 days), Cs-137 (30 years) & Sr-90 (29 years), Si-32 (153 years), Ir-192(m2 241 years, 2nd densest, earth metal), .. . (as ruff (approx.) idea, but those are the unstables). A kind of fusion (produced mass, similar to pair production) caused by too much (gamma) radiation. (E.g. producing larger mass (e.g. transmutation, nuclear chemistry); & it is (also) an indication of atomic mass's age. But that's another theme, on its own.) 2. I'll assume, even though iridium is the 2nd densest metal, aerosol floating would (have) be(en) possible to carry it (Ir dust) far distances, all over the earth('s surface). Otherwise, that Ir smoke would have landed locally, e.g. near the crater (to some extent); instead of throughout the whole earth's surface. But I still find it peculiar to think a meteorite struck, (that it) could have been vaporized to release its (nickel's) iridium, without a single trace, of iron, nickel nor platinums. QED.
  4. I don't know. I didn't see that demonstration you mentioned. Do you have any link with time point? Maybe I should have said, much less than 1 kW?
  5. discusses a man named Aldo Costa who has constructed a ferris wheel with 256 (empty, & moveable) wine bottles, (middle in Paris). The mechanism appears rather obvious (to me): the bottles on half of the wheel (vertically seen, left vs right) are (~10 cm) further out radially from the axle, than the other (half) side. The bottles are pushed up at the top (most) & bottom (most parts) of the wheel's circumference using lever rods (at the bottom) & pivots (with guide at the stand's top). Once moved (~10 cm up) each bottle (rotated) stays in position because their pivots (are not (ball) bearings but) have enough friction. So the total torques on the left versus right side of the ferris wheel are not equal, & the wheel turns (due to more torque on 1 side). I estimate the wheel could generate less than 1 kW if connected to a generator. The wheel was jammed with a crowbar to prevent it from turning (when not in use). The wheel also stops turning if 4 bottles were adjusted. My question is: what is the (exact) reason why that wheel turns? I'm NOT interested in Eric Krieg's (beliefs, nor) guesswork. Their was no wind, & that thing turns day & night (with or) without sunlight. There were no batteries, cables, chemicals nor pullies. How do they get "10 tons" of steel to (constantly) rotate (against friction)? Where exactly is (the hamster in the cage, &) the energy coming from? (Conservation of energy: energy can not be created (nor destroyed).) If you cannot debunk this (ferris wheel) with an exact answer, then I am left to conclude that the wheel functions as the inventor said, e.g. as I have explained above. I.e. It is gravity powered.
  6. Thanks for all the interesting input. The objective here was to find the arguments against the gravity push concept & give you all a chance to change my mind. But it looks like I have more questions needed to help me figure out what you are saying. I chose the lounge because I thought it was an informal (casual) peaceful (non_hostile) place to discuss anything (in a scientific matter). Sensei, what charge does a neutron have? How are neutrons, accelerated, or deflected in their particle accelerators? Does the earth have a (variable) net charge on its surface? How then can we say the atoms are (completely) neutral when we can not measure all things? E.g. position & momentum. Swansont, aren't coordinate systems convertable? It does not matter what coordinate system is used. Einstein. Your selection of coordinate system might make the numbers easier for you. (But) Orbits occur, for any coordinate system (you want to use). I did NOT disagree that Cavendish demonstrated a pull, even if you insist (only) radially. (E.g. most efficient.) Then, nothing (=no equatorial pull) should be expected (by Cavendish's experiment) if (the 2nd mass is slightly) offset from the equatorial plane? Strange, are atoms neutral? How can that be? Most of them are tied up (=bound [up]) in molecules, (& are) victims of electrostatic & magnetic fields. A lot is happening, more than meets the eye. How do you know matter is not expanding, if all matter around you (including your instruments) is also expanding? I mean, how can you exclude that possibility? If the medium (which you call space*time) is flexible, why can it not "expand" & compress? (I didn't make the rules. Bending is none other than a deformation. But wrt what? Another volume (reference)?) Push is from electrostatic repulsion. (Please don't ask me how that works. You (all would) state: like charges repel. but have NOT explained (me) why (they repel).) (Similar to water waves produced from dropping a stone into a pail of water, so the amplitude of the waves decreases further away from the source:) If each atom's volume (as wave) increased ~a millionth of its volume pro second, then adding those (volume increases=) parts, for large objects gives noticeable numbers e.g. for planets' "surface" motion (& thus push)? Are you with me? (=Can you understand?) That (volume expansion) concept affects throughout all matter (=stuff) simply because matter is a wave. The concept that the universe is running down (=dissipating) energy is well known. The energy density is decreasing, due to the volume expansion (if the amount of energy is constant). But (e.g.) drop something from a very high height. The object will be destroyed when it hits the (earth's) surface (if it does not bounce). E.g. The air's pressure is being maintained against a vacuum (from outer space). E.g. The earth has a changing climate (although mostly due to the sun light). E.g.? I doubt that the earth rotates (against friction) due to gravity('s push, disapation). But why doesn't the earth slow down to a stop? Why do galaxies's (arms) curve? Everything is moving, & getting faster, although we don't always notice it (=the acceleration). The details of gravity are probably quite hairy, but what do you mean a push does not explain gravity correctly? Please explain. You probably have some specific examples in mind that you can share.
  7. You're on. (Unlike you) I see (vertical) gravity as a push. (But that's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.) (I see that) there are (really) 2 types of gravity: vertical & horizontal. It's rather obvious (that) the Cavendish experiment is a horizontal pull. I interpret that (pull) as vertically moving (e.g. accelerating) charges of atoms are electromagnetically attracted together. But has it ever occurred to you why you can NOT shield against gravity vertically? Perhaps because that might only be the acceleration of matter moving upwards. Thus any other reasoning is missing (as nonsense). (E.g. because there is nothing there to shield against.?) Hubble provided us with an interesting perspective: The universe appears to be expanding. & if so why do NOT matter waves in that (weak) vacuum also expand? (E.g. osmosis: moving from higher concentration to lower). Maybe you can convince me why vertical gravity should NOT be a push? Btw Asmov's Fantastic Voyage, of shrinking things for a period would be possible if we could (find a way to) restrict matter's expansion.
  8. So decreasing the carbs (=carbohydrates) is a good strategy, to start with? That would mean fermenting more (CO2) gas than alcohol, & toasting (or burning) your bread to burn off energy. But what can we do with butter (fat)? I thought the trend nowadays was good vs bad bacteria. The bad 1's make people thick or fat because they are so efficient using the food molecules. (Yes) ok, so what sort of (grain?) molecule is responsible for that: (stupidity)? alcohol?; but fat? Malt sugar?, or is there some other specific chemical compound? Or should I be asking, what molecules are missing to prevent that process? PS I've also noticed 2 different distilled (liquer) alcohols. 1 caused a mental collapse, (e.g. 1 particular gin (others not), so a sugar was probably involved); while most rums allow maintaining consciousness to the same percentage intake. What could be responsible for the 2 different affects? Chemical tampering?; Surely not age, because many (old) scotches are reknown for their quality. What determines the alcohol's efficiency?
  9. Please, explain (a bit). I mean not as well as others. Don't some starches or sugars go straight to fat (production). What is in beer that makes people thick (=fat)?
  10. Yes, (chemicals=molecules, their reaction's) complexity influencing (which) speed (=rate) thus tilting which (tendency) direction, thick or thin. Thanks red is well loved in China.
  11. I get the idea the body can't deal well with (some) molecules like fructose or starch & so stores them as fat. (Versus e.g. glucose.) Instead muscle is broken down easier (or let's say faster, than those difficult fat deposits). During childhood & teens those specific fat deposits might not become noticeable. But later (in life, accumulating) things like "beer bellys" & "bread baskets" become noticeable on some human bodies. Those rounding curves don't get smaller on their own (either). The (natural) tendancy seems to be: getting "fatter" (no matter how hard trying to reduce (fat) weight). Considering: (many processed) foods have fructose (_glucose sirup) added as a sales gimick to get people to eat them (more). Youtube video "Sugar the bitter truth". & that some livestock are eating those foods too, to recycle the waste(d food)s, thus getting more fat. ..& reused. Then the getting fatter tendancy in life, might be explained. E.g. recognized (partially). & a thorough natural fat reduction of the final last fat pounds seems like mission impossible. The bad bugs (=bacteria) are being fed ("faster") by refined (=pure) carbohydrates, meaning they have no stumbling blocks (like vitamins, minerals, ..& other complex things) & we feed on their (bacterial) waste products. What I've observed is various mild acids help reduce body fat: Lemon juice (citric acid) in water, black or green tea (tannic acid), apple cider vinegar (acetic acid), green coffee extract (chlorophylic acid). Some also (reduce) hunger. Ascorbic acid (=Vitamin C (+Zn, time release) + sausage seems to produce muscle! Excess protein? Anti_bacterial? Or is the saltpeter affecting that? Fat is made of fatty acid(s) & glycerin. Maybe the (acidic) pH tips the scale & the body tries to rid or eliminate fat (osmotically: higher concentration to lower? seems doubtful). Competative acidity, as solvent? Or just too much acid sensed, & reserves must be reduced? Maybe (also) bitter (toxifies) body fats, so the body wants to get rid of it, throwing out the fat (bound to bitter) too? I'd be interested in what we could naturally add to e.g. beer; bread; butter which would NOT ruin their flavour, but would also reduce body fat. (Sweet) Beer's strategy with bitter hops does NOT seem to be enough when also eating too. Martin Luther's wife probably boiled the (toasted (=roasted)?) bread crumbs (pieces left over from the mass's loaves) & let it sit (weeks?) to ferment, for beer. ? Otherwise she did NOT rebake the bread pieces & the (fresh=grape juice) wine had the yeast, & she (had) only put the crumbs into water. Cheers
  12. Hi Looking at your data, it looks a little screwy when fully charged (& then discharging) between 26.7 V - 25.8 V = 0.9 V difference is not much mileage (1.8 Miles). ~2 Miles/V. But between 25.7 V - 24.4 V =1.3 V difference you're getting almost a straight line & travelled 13.24 Miles ! You're getting (very) ruffly ~10 Miles per (that) volt discharged. So you can throw away (=forget) the first top 1 volt (as overcharge); or else you have typing errors in the table. Let y=Voltage x=miles b=25.7 V (starting voltage, after the 1st 2 Miles) m=-0.1 V/Mile (slope) y=m*x+b =(-0.1 V/Mile)*13.2 Miles + 25.7 V =24.4 V. That's NOT a curve, so (I guess) it probably will not help you. If you insist on x being the total mileage (but ignore the first 2 miles), maybe y=~(-0.1 V/Mile)*(x-1.8 Miles) + 25.7 V, for when x=1.8 .. 17.1 Miles. I hope that helps a bit. Mofa's_Miles_vs_Battery_Voltage_test data_2018_05_22_2305_PS_Wi.xls
  13. What do you need or want to see. I set up the equation, I'm an interpreter. What doesn't work? The crux is probably angle. Do you have an equation (e.g. y wrt) for angle (not a Taylor series) that I can deal with? I'll assume you have interpretted mass "defects" differently from me. Do you mean (various) communication delays (against their synchronizations)? I can't quite imagine what the problem(s) is. Analogy, math multiple (or fraction, depending on how you want to do the math, is) to ruffly the G period. The result is closer to G than A. It's only a comparison.
  14. Sorry I didn't get your pun. Now I've got it. All I can say is math fractions to the musical note frequencies can be calculated as periods, even though those periods are not acoustic notes. See above again, please. The G is an annalogy. Please excuse my mistakes. Or worse per year. Pity.
  15. 1 siderial day~86164 s (23 h 56 m 4 s) stars side divided by 2^41 gives 389.425 Hz (as harmonic, but lower than concert pitch (A4 440 Hz) G4 391.995 Hz). http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-notenames.htm That frequency has a period, (&) it'(i)s a rythem, which is part of (the) music, The drummer has to hold (=maintain) the beat (rythem) (synchronized) to keep the song working right. Rythems are sub_harmonics. Seen from the rythem (=lower frequency, perspective), the musical notes are the harmonics (octaves, of (the) circle of 5ths (=3x the fundamentals, =2nd harmonics). (Sorry, I didn't catch the pun. ?) Yeh, the French didn't have digital watchs back then, & more than 5 (decimal) digits is needed to do (=convert, time) seconds well. I think we get by, don't we? Everybody knows what 24 hrs is, just to get to work. It's only a (math) conversion (for atomic clocks). But that( all i)'s only a precusor (=substitute) for binary decimal time.
  16. Thanks for the links. Btw The "decimal (earth) day" (=24 hrs, which is a lowered musical G) could also be used as a (new alternative) notation for time, with the same (decimal) method. Unfortunately, that does NOT work well for an earth year (which is a musical C#, +/-2 days).* Maybe a (small) "d" prefix, (could be used, indicating (earth) "day"); not to be confused with (large) "D" (Diameter), hieroglyphic. The only thing missing now for (new) standards of "space"(&)time orientation**, would be maybe a (simple) hydrogen wave"length". *1900 Planck believed the atom was musical =harmonically constructed. (I can't find the (German) quote.) ** Better sequenced: (angle) length time. (To be thorough=consistent.)
  17. Hi Strange thanks for the links. Please continue. You sound like you have an interesting life. What do you do?
  18. Unfortunate, that you didn't notice I used 4 (*1/4=1), so you complain when you don't understand. Because it is a well known & used standard. Habit? But since you don't know my preference, it would not have been acceptable (for e.g. you). You are (conservative, &) NOT interested in anything new that will also do the job. It's (a compacter syntax, &) just another (syntax) way to express angle. 1 cycle=360 degrees, so you can imagine o.5=180 degrees o.25=90 degrees. The o (for circle) comes before the decimal (dropping the redundant zero); as most left side (unlike the raised degree symbol written (on the) right above) o1=360 degrees o2=720 degrees. o1.25=450 degrees. It's useful when discussing wavelength's & their phase angle delay, as a non_integer composite=combination (without plus symbol). Unfortunately, I have to tell you (to your discuss[ion]=discussed=disgust) I made it up, = I created it because I have NOT found it anywhere else, & I know how much you do NOT like my creations=works=efforts. But you asked for it. No. Not related. Should I call you Father (=Daddy, or Rev(erend), for your belief (in Physics))? Please suggest a few. You've got a pretty good idea where I stand, or at least you think you do. You can not stop my head from turning off, when there are so=too many counter intuitive ideas, as a mess. Mission impossible, & your learning strategy is old outdated. Nowadays you hook people with curiosity, NOT old fashsioned dicipline. Many many decades ago, teachers stopped beating (up) their pupils. Nowadays a bit of psychology is used, marketing & advertizing. Humour & entertainment are important. "Thou shalt not bore." 11th commandment of TV, Radio, & profit_see. Ok daddy.
  19. What do you mean there? That 1 doesn't look useful (=interesting, for my intentions). Those look interesting. Yes if you mean the binary relations. That's the interesting thing, orientation. The do's & don't's. I firmly believe, we learn from our mistakes (too); & if we have learned our lesson in life well, (then) we will NEVER make the same mistake again. The do's & don't are both ends of the arrow. The don't (=errors) reinforce & confirm which direction correct should be. E.g. "Which direction is warmer", not necessarilly hot, (if you want to put it into child's language). I generally stumble into every pothole that is possible. But that's subjective testing. At least I'm reassured I don't have to go that way again in the future. I suppose (with a few clues) we (=I) can evaluate which direction is right. Indicatores exist. But I suppose your problem is you are impatient with such a method because it does NOT fit you timing scheme, & expectations. We're all learning, & each at their own speed. Each person has there own strengths & weaknesses. You may be an ace in physics, & the fastest bunny on 2 feet; but an absolute looser in some other faculty, or quality of life. That's all part of being human. I thought they were a convenient unit for calculating stellar distances, (similar to the way wavenumbers are convenient notation). The degree is also NOT my preference. Decimal cycle is. How can non_sense be ignorant? (when People are). What purpose is info (to me) if I can NOT use it. I can only digest info that "I" am capable of. What is the purpose to learn things I will never use nor need? Should education be infinite for a finite life? I think it is meaningful to attack=tackle things from where we are. Are you trying to play the parental role? Yes, that is an interesting proposal. But who can afford it, where do I find it? & will I be bored? (Boredom is a diluted form of pain, & is (emotional) stress, & noticed as uncomfortable. Boredom is NOT rewarding, & turns off the mind, so the message doe NOT sink in. I doubt that I am a masochist; although being here sometimes I have my doubts. Especially with the software.) I wouldn't be this way if I didn't get bored or loose track (in all the confusion). You guys blew it with a (scattered=) "non"_unified field. Oh! Now we're getting subjective. (I prefer my 6th.)
  20. I don't follow you there. Would you like to state a few examples (please)? Maybe it would occur to me then, why they would NOT be interesting to me & why I prefer my selection, in order to explain (to you) my preferences. 1 reason (=goal) is also to establish the (decimal) cycle (notation, syntax) for angle. I suspect I might better interpret binary angle (for myself). Said differently, looking at things from a different perspective (in a simpler syntax) I might get an aha (experience). I'm not cean on the astronomical radian syntax, because it is redundant. I.e. there is too much (garbage=luggage) there. We live with many metric & decimal units. But NOT everything is done=measured so to that=those standards. I prefer to experiment with other( method)s, & simplifying. Quite right. If I can follow (=understand, or comprehend) 1 component, then the 2nd component is (almost) guaranteed (to be similar, (but) just delayed by 90 degrees e.g. 1/4 of a cycle. Thus the 1/4 selection (& the factor 4) is not random but instead with intention. You simply had not recognized that it was (so, for my choice). Yes, but I still can NOT follow only the parts to my satisfaction. Yes, that's why I am disappointed & pursue my search to make it (=Cartesian x & y) work=fit as I would like to have=see it. Maybe you could explain what you mean there? I assume you mean angular speed (there, e.g. polar coordinates); & (there, you mean) the vectors (e.g. Cartesian x vs y components) of the ((polar) angular) speed. I hope that helps (you, as an explaination)? Does it?
  21. If that's not clear, I mean the non_linear ("part of") acceleration is maximum at 50 degrees. I.e. Excluding the linear (acceleration) portion. It is a more dynamic part of acceleration. I do NOT know its properties well enough yet. I.e. Changes of changes (of changes..). That's understandable (for me) til here. But the y "component" (of the mark on the rotating disc) has non_linear acceleration. So that statement sounds ambiguous, & confusing. (COM & COE Balance without trig.). The y_component's speed(s) & acceleration(s). A disc rotating at constant angular speed has x & y components which are variable (changing) speeds. I'm curious how I can solve (what values) the angle, the speed & the accelerations (are) for a single component, e.g. y component. Later they get applied to the mass in the disc. E.g. a single atom on the circumference. Both components are at 90° to each other, but you use the 3rd axis (virtually) for problems like that. I want irrational exponent(ial) acceleration capability.
  22. The linear part is a straight line drawn from 0 degrees (value y=0) to 90 degrees (value y=1) using the fraction of a cycle (angle theta in degrees divided by 360 degrees) then multiplied by 4. Let the decimal angle A=theta/(360 degrees). That linear (straight) line('s y value) is 4*theta/(360 degrees). The non_linear part (=Difference) dif=(Sin (theta) - (4*theta/(360 degrees)) is simply the sin of the angle theta (then) minus the linear part. I've split them in 2 so I can look at each separately. I haven't seen non_linear (acceleration) physics delt with much. I also have NOT seen a simple equation for angle, either. Most are Taylor series. You probably know I do NOT like endless series very much. E.g. The sooner you start to solve them (by counting to infinity), the sooner you will be finished. I don't like approximations (for precision) either unless I am lazy, &/or (when) things are too complicated. The main reason is I do not (yet) have a (simple) continuum between linear & rotational motion. So I have split up the structure (of motion) to interogate more. Physics has split things into non_ & Eulclidian geometry to get around that big problem. I.e. built a wall, not a bridge. I see the problem similar to the Stern_Gerlach experiment. An electron moving thru a (static) magnetic where the intensity changes wrt position, is acted on like a moving magnetic field exists to push the electron either up or down depending on which side of the (gradient) change (left or right) is an increasing or decreasing magnetic field. Shoot the beam only into 1 half of the gradient (either left or right side) then the beam will go in only 1 direction either up or down; but it won't split into 2. I attempted to break up the acceleration into its (linear & non_linear) components, also. At least you're honest. The formulas are repeated in the cells, & produce trackable results to figure things out if needed, e.g. a working example if doubt arise. The results speak for themselves, we get the same results with more (e.g. 6) decimal accuracy. =So my values are NOT wrong, but instead confirm yours. 0.011111 Linear +0.006341 non_linear =0.017451 total 0.555556 -0.544444 =0.011112 linear 0.210489 -0.210265 =0.000224 non_linear 0.01222 linear +0.000224 non_linear =0.011336 total I'm sorry, but I still can't trust it completely yet. I can't say I can enjoy that statement for variable (non_constant) acceleration. SIN_minus_4DA_max_50_degrees_2018_05_21_1552_PS_Wi_(6_Decimals).xlsx
  23. I.e. For the ideal body mass. We can round k~18 for simplicity.
  24. Scalability[edit] BMI is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the square of the height. So, if all body dimensions double, and mass scales naturally with the cube of the height, then BMI doubles instead of remaining the same. This results in taller people having a reported BMI that is uncharacteristically high, compared to their actual body fat levels. In comparison, the Ponderal index is based on the natural scaling of mass with the third power of the height. However, many taller people are not just "scaled up" short people but tend to have narrower frames in proportion to their height. Carl Lavie has written that, "The B.M.I. tables are excellent for identifying obesity and body fat in large populations, but they are far less reliable for determining fatness in individuals."[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index BMI scales poorly. It's poorly proportioned for the human body. I'll assume most people are neither round like a ball, nor flat like a pancake. Sensei, the same wiki page (chart) also include BMI=25 as normal (limit), as well as overweight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index So there is chaos in (either wiki? &/or) BMI. International variations[edit] These recommended distinctions along the linear scale may vary from time to time and country to country, making global, longitudinal surveys problematic. Hong Kong[edit] The Hospital Authority of Hong Kong recommends the use of the following BMI ranges:[16] Category BMI (kg/m2) from to Underweight 18.5 Normal Range 18.5 23 Overweight—At Risk 23 25 Overweight—Moderately Obese 25 30 Overweight—Severely Obese 30 The waist to height ratio indicates fatness better. That only needs some factor(ing coefficient) to set the ratio to 1=100%. but use k=18.1 (instead of 20) we will get: sqrt(1.9)*1.9*1.9*18.1 = 90 kg.
  25. 0.011 Linear +0.00634 non_linear =0.01734 total 0.556 -0.544 =0.012 linear 0.21049 -0.21027 =0.00022 non_linear 0.012 +0.00022 =0.01222 total I suspect you are complaining about the inconsistent number of decimal places & rounding errors in excel. How do you deal with non_linear acceleration? (Numerically). Especially when your calculus is an approximation?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.