Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Someone with critical thinking skills might reflect upon what they've said. I'm trying to trigger that activity.
You'll write, 'X is.' And we say, 'bunk!'
Twenty-eight days later you'll write, ' X & Y is.' Finally providing the qualifier we would have expected to see in the original remark, twenty-eight days earlier.
If you'd prefaced your original comment with the information you come up with 28-dayes later, we'd all have been far ahead. But you didn't. You don't appear to know the difference, so it won't mean anything to you, as it does to us.
And so it makes us the bad guy for calling you on it. And none of your compatriots appear to know the difference either. Triply complicating the situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completing the course in Thermodynamics would solve a lot of your issues. I can't take the course for you. And I can't understand it for you either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can tell you with extremely high confidence, that you'd be in a far better position to write ( and argue ) about cooling systems if you had some background in thermodynamics. That's why it's a mandatory part of the engineering curriculum. If nothing else, just study the 2nd Law.
You're close to the goal line. A little more training camp will get you into the inzone, no problem.
|
So all that guff is just saying: no, I won't tell you my theory?
Many of your threads are simply a waste of space. This one is a classic example.
Thankfully, it appears that less and less people are now bothering with them - which can only be positive, as consequently there will be far less confusion in aerodynamic understanding.