- 20,783
- 28,301
Don't. Flipping a pot of dough isn't worth it.jedishrfu said:Now that know the name, I guess I can find the video or something similar.
Don't. Flipping a pot of dough isn't worth it.jedishrfu said:Now that know the name, I guess I can find the video or something similar.
what's a "HP" ??WWGD said:Windows HP
Guess Hewlett Packard.gmax137 said:what's a "HP" ??
It was for a gig.gmax137 said:My CD drives had a small pinhole that I could poke a paperclip into, to force an eject. Also in Windows explorer, select the drive and "eject"
Are those not working, @WWGD ?
For me, it was a price/quality thing.jedishrfu said:Every new thing introduced to the market goes through a period of being better than everything else and consumers deciding if it’s better enough. The VHS and Betamax wars for dominance bear out how one technology gets adopted over another..
That's me for sure.i struggles with diff eq, for example, until my roommate (pretty smart smart physicist working on his doctorate), clearly explained the integrating factor method to me. About a month worth of head scratching all came together in an instant.Mayhem said:View attachment 292115
this is my learning curve. Basically I'm super stupid for 2 months, then something clicks and I have a quasi-exponential growth in understanding. Anyone else feel this way?
Hmmm. Interesting thought, but why does it matter? The product of any number of primes is by definition not prime. Two is interesting as a prime by the fact that it is the only even prime, but it's also not that interesting.WWGD said:I was thrown off by a question while tutoring, around an hour ago. Sharp kid, while doing the standard proof of the infinitude of primes, the student asked me: if we did not consider 2 to be a prime, how would we change the proof, since the product ##p_1p_2...p_k +1 ## will always be even? I will just tell him that I leave it as an exercise for him. EDIT: I just suggested that we may just add 2 to the product , instead of one, but I am feeling too lazy to make this into a through argument.
Sometimes I got to that point and thought "Oh, I get it. I'll work out the details later."Mayhem said:learning curve
But notice I am adding 1 after the product: #p_1p_2...p_k +1#valenumr said:Hmmm. Interesting thought, but why does it matter? The product of any number of primes is by definition not prime. Two is interesting as a prime by the fact that it is the only even prime, but it's also not that interesting.
Ah, I missed that. Interesting question then, maybe. I mean, if you multiply a bunch of odd primes and add 1, the answer will be even, obviously, so perhaps I misunderstood the point.WWGD said:But notice I am adding 1 after the product: #p_1p_2...p_k +1#
valenumr said:Ah, I missed that. Interesting question then, maybe. I mean, if you multiply a bunch of odd primes and add 1, the answer will be even, obviously, so perhaps I misunderstood the point.
That was the whole issue: The "Standard Proof" of the infinitude of primes would not go throughvalenumr said:Ah, I missed that. Interesting question then, maybe. I mean, if you multiply a bunch of odd primes and add 1, the answer will be even, obviously, so perhaps I misunderstood the point.
Astronuc said:It is a serious matter to miss such a defect in a critical structure. There are signs of corrosion, and one has to wonder what else has been missed. An inspection should be based on the most highly stressed areas of the bridge, since that is where corrosion and fatigue are mostly likely. It is clear that the inspection program was deficient.
In fact, the Inspector who failed to catch interstate bridge crack fired, according to the AP.
https://apnews.com/article/business-205afe66ae13ef7cd945db9c48947da1Edit/update: ARDOT Confirms Failure in Inspection Process and Vows to Increase Redundancies to Avoid Repeat Event
https://www.ardot.gov/news/21-134/
It appears from the last paragraph that there was evidence of 'the crack' from May 2019. It's not clear to me at present, if they are saying the crack was partial or fully through the beam. If it was clear that there was a crack, then there was a complete failure in the inspection process that allowed continued operation of the bridge in that condition.
The fracture discovered on May 11th by Michael Baker International, occurred in a welded splice between two plates in the tie girder of the bridge. Upon closer examination of the specimen it was discovered that the initial fracture formed in an area of the weld where two weld repairs had been performed during fabrication. The weld repairs were more susceptible to cracking because of the type of steel and the welding method used in the fabrication of this bridge in the 1970s [probably sensitized and no post-weld heat treatment (PWHT). Inspection (NDT) methods/equipment were not as robust in the 1970s as they are now]. In all likelihood the cracking in the weld occurred within hours of its completion but was not detected by any post-weld repair fabrication testing and remained unchanged for a number of years.
In the 1980s, the potential for cracking in welds was identified at a national level because of defects found in other similar bridges, and in 1982 an ultrasonic testing inspection of the Hernando de Soto tie girder welds was performed. The defects at this weld location went undetected.
The fracture report described how the crack propagated in three phases from the cracking of the weld repairs to the eventual fracture that was discovered in May of 2021. The initial fracture occurred on the interior face of the box where it was not visible by conventional inspection. The second phase of crack propagation fractured through the remaining thickness and was later identified in the 2019 drone video. The third fracture event propagated up the remaining web, across the top flange, and arrested in the flange to web weld of the tie girder. It is likely the existing weld cracks became unstable as a result of a unique combination of low temperatures, increasing tie girder stress, and the effects of live loads (aperiodic medium to high stress with low frequency) to which the bridge had not been previously subjected.
Given the 48-year service life of this structure, the fact that the subject fracture occurred in three separate phases over several years, the recent inspection efforts to identify welding defects, and no evidence of observed fatigue crack growth during this study, it is highly unlikely that a similar fracture will occur. However, it is prudent to continue arms-length fracture critical inspections with a focus on identifying any new visible cracks at these welds. Given that all other anomalies investigated originated on the inside surface of the tie girder, ultrasonic testing should be performed on a periodic basis.
Save time and take it during.WWGD said:Just met someone , the type of " Glass in 99.9% empty". Wants to talk to me each time he sees me. I need a long nap afterwards.
ergospherical said:A fun thing to think about is, why does water fall out of an upside-down bucket, given that atmospheric pressure (##\times## interface area) pushing up on it from below is much, much larger than the weight of the water...