|
Post by BrightonGas on Jan 1, 2019 23:29:18 GMT
When I've watched a really crap first half and then have to watch the pathetic sight of (some) of the players stepping the cones I wonder what it's supposed to achieve. I'm still wondering. We thought the same thing, he spent ages positioning them and the players hardly bothered!
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Jan 2, 2019 9:22:59 GMT
I like a girl who knows how to handle a long pole
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Jan 2, 2019 11:14:42 GMT
When I've watched a really crap first half and then have to watch the pathetic sight of (some) of the players stepping the cones I wonder what it's supposed to achieve. I'm still wondering. We thought the same thing, he spent ages positioning them and the players hardly bothered! Yep positioned to minute detail - some did half most none at all
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jan 2, 2019 12:21:00 GMT
I like a girl who knows how to handle a long pole Why?
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Jan 2, 2019 17:23:13 GMT
I think I get what you're saying here.... It's a bit like someone at the MOD saying they're no longer allowed paper clips because they need the money to build a nuclear submarine? Sigh. Let's do the math. One nuclear submarine, operationally ready but unstaffed. We will use the new Dreadnought class which replaced the old Vanguard class and is capable of carrying Trident D-5 nuclear missiles. There may be some old mariners on here that can correct me. Anyway, the cost. It’s expected that just the submarines and their infrastructure will cost an immediate £15 billion or so to build. This can be broken down as such: £0.25 billion to participate in the Trident D5 missile life extension programme. £11 billion for a class of four new submarines. £2 billion for possible refurbishing of the warheads. £2–3 billion for infrastructure This is spread over around 30 years but the new submarines and warheads is what we are interested in right now if we want a fully functional state of the art nuclear submarine and we need these costs spent to achieve that. So £13 billion in all for 4 subs £3.25 billion each A paperclip costs around £0.0055 per item. So just over half a penny each based on £5.50 for 1000 before delivery costs on Amazon. To fund our nuclear submarine project from paperclip savings.. £3,250,000,000 =325,000,000,000 pence /0.55 = 590,909,090,909.09 paperclips. (590 billion 909 million 90 thousand 9 hundred and 9) If each one is 4cm long and you chained them together (losing 2mm for the links on each one) you would have a total paperclip chain of 38mm * 590,909,090,909 = 22,454,545,454,545mm =2,245,454,545,455cm =22,454,545,455m =22,454,545km The earth circumference is 47,075km so our paperclip chain would go round the earth 477 times or if you prefer, it's near enough the exact average distance to Mars. It would weigh (at 1 gram a piece) 590,909,090,909.09 grams =590,909,091 kilos So because each sub weighs 17m kg (coverted from tonne displacement of 17200 tonnes), we might as well make it out of those paperclips. Very interesting, but as I have nearly as much time on my hands as you evidently do today I feel I must point out the major inaccuracy in your post....it all falls apart when you say “replaced” which implies that the Vanguard class have already been replaced... which of course, as everyone knows, they haven’t. Apart from that, I can’t fault the maths.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,534
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 2, 2019 18:49:23 GMT
Sigh. Let's do the math. One nuclear submarine, operationally ready but unstaffed. We will use the new Dreadnought class which replaced the old Vanguard class and is capable of carrying Trident D-5 nuclear missiles. There may be some old mariners on here that can correct me. Anyway, the cost. It’s expected that just the submarines and their infrastructure will cost an immediate £15 billion or so to build. This can be broken down as such: £0.25 billion to participate in the Trident D5 missile life extension programme. £11 billion for a class of four new submarines. £2 billion for possible refurbishing of the warheads. £2–3 billion for infrastructure This is spread over around 30 years but the new submarines and warheads is what we are interested in right now if we want a fully functional state of the art nuclear submarine and we need these costs spent to achieve that. So £13 billion in all for 4 subs £3.25 billion each A paperclip costs around £0.0055 per item. So just over half a penny each based on £5.50 for 1000 before delivery costs on Amazon. To fund our nuclear submarine project from paperclip savings.. £3,250,000,000 =325,000,000,000 pence /0.55 = 590,909,090,909.09 paperclips. (590 billion 909 million 90 thousand 9 hundred and 9) If each one is 4cm long and you chained them together (losing 2mm for the links on each one) you would have a total paperclip chain of 38mm * 590,909,090,909 = 22,454,545,454,545mm =2,245,454,545,455cm =22,454,545,455m =22,454,545km The earth circumference is 47,075km so our paperclip chain would go round the earth 477 times or if you prefer, it's near enough the exact average distance to Mars. It would weigh (at 1 gram a piece) 590,909,090,909.09 grams =590,909,091 kilos So because each sub weighs 17m kg (coverted from tonne displacement of 17200 tonnes), we might as well make it out of those paperclips. Very interesting, but as I have nearly as much time on my hands as you evidently do today I feel I must point out the major inaccuracy in your post....it all falls apart when you say “replaced” which implies that the Vanguard class have already been replaced... which of course, as everyone knows, they haven’t. Apart from that, I can’t fault the maths. Does displacement equal the steel weight? 😎
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 2, 2019 21:06:34 GMT
Very interesting, but as I have nearly as much time on my hands as you evidently do today I feel I must point out the major inaccuracy in your post....it all falls apart when you say “replaced” which implies that the Vanguard class have already been replaced... which of course, as everyone knows, they haven’t. Apart from that, I can’t fault the maths. Does displacement equal the steel weight? 😎 Archimedes principle. The weight of an object is equal to the weight of water displaced when placed in water.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,534
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 2, 2019 21:12:06 GMT
Does displacement equal the steel weight? 😎 Archimedes principle. The weight of an object is equal to the weight of water displaced when placed in water. Displacement includes engines, people, trapped air in subs, and so on. Not just steel. Anyway, these cones, were they plastic?
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 2, 2019 22:03:37 GMT
Archimedes principle. The weight of an object is equal to the weight of water displaced when placed in water. Displacement includes engines, people, trapped air in subs, and so on. Not just steel. Anyway, these cones, were they plastic? I wasn't seriously suggesting building a nuclear submarine from paperclips Stuart, just how many paperclips it would cost. Also, a submarine isn't a submarine without the engine and so on is it? Then it would be a jar.
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Jan 2, 2019 22:09:56 GMT
Does displacement equal the steel weight? 😎 Archimedes principle. The weight of an object is equal to the weight of water displaced when placed in water. In the case of submarines displacement varies. When the submarine is on the surface, it’s dispalcment is less, as less water is displaced, buoyancy is positive. When the submarine is submerged, the displacement is greater and buoyancy is neutral or very marginally negative, however this is mainly due to flooding of ballast tanks rather than changes to steel weight. Personally, I think we should completely flood the pitch at half time so that we could bring on our subs (our £13 bn subs)
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 2, 2019 22:14:43 GMT
Archimedes principle. The weight of an object is equal to the weight of water displaced when placed in water. In the case of submarines displacement varies. When the submarine is on the surface, it’s dispalcment is less, as less water is displaced, buoyancy is positive. When the submarine is submerged, the displacement is greater and buoyancy is neutral or very marginally negative, however this is mainly due to flooding of ballast tanks rather than changes to steel weight. Personally, I think we should completely flood the pitch at half time so that we could bring on our subs (our £16 bn subs) The lower we get the higher the pressure eh
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Jan 2, 2019 22:19:53 GMT
In the case of submarines displacement varies. When the submarine is on the surface, it’s dispalcment is less, as less water is displaced, buoyancy is positive. When the submarine is submerged, the displacement is greater and buoyancy is neutral or very marginally negative, however this is mainly due to flooding of ballast tanks rather than changes to steel weight. Personally, I think we should completely flood the pitch at half time so that we could bring on our subs (our £16 bn subs) The lower we get the higher the pressure eh I think the pressure is equally high if we are near the top or low down near the bottom. Especially towards the end of the season. Mid table equals low pressure.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,534
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 2, 2019 22:30:33 GMT
Displacement includes engines, people, trapped air in subs, and so on. Not just steel. Anyway, these cones, were they plastic? I wasn't seriously suggesting building a nuclear submarine from paperclips Stuart, just how many paperclips it would cost. Also, a submarine isn't a submarine without the engine and so on is it? Then it would be a jar. I know, I was just continuing the joke.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 2, 2019 22:38:23 GMT
I wasn't seriously suggesting building a nuclear submarine from paperclips Stuart, just how many paperclips it would cost. Also, a submarine isn't a submarine without the engine and so on is it? Then it would be a jar. I know, I was just continuing the joke. I ruined it again didn't I. I always ruin it.
|
|
|
Post by c4h10 on Jan 2, 2019 22:42:28 GMT
I think I get what you're saying here.... It's a bit like someone at the MOD saying they're no longer allowed paper clips because they need the money to build a nuclear submarine? Sigh. Let's do the math. One nuclear submarine, operationally ready but unstaffed. We will use the new Dreadnought class which replaced the old Vanguard class and is capable of carrying Trident D-5 nuclear missiles. There may be some old mariners on here that can correct me. Anyway, the cost. It’s expected that just the submarines and their infrastructure will cost an immediate £15 billion or so to build. This can be broken down as such: £0.25 billion to participate in the Trident D5 missile life extension programme. £11 billion for a class of four new submarines. £2 billion for possible refurbishing of the warheads. £2–3 billion for infrastructure This is spread over around 30 years but the new submarines and warheads is what we are interested in right now if we want a fully functional state of the art nuclear submarine and we need these costs spent to achieve that. So £13 billion in all for 4 subs £3.25 billion each A paperclip costs around £0.0055 per item. So just over half a penny each based on £5.50 for 1000 before delivery costs on Amazon.To fund our nuclear submarine project from paperclip savings.. £3,250,000,000 =325,000,000,000 pence /0.55 = 590,909,090,909.09 paperclips. (590 billion 909 million 90 thousand 9 hundred and 9) If each one is 4cm long and you chained them together (losing 2mm for the links on each one) you would have a total paperclip chain of 38mm * 590,909,090,909 = 22,454,545,454,545mm =2,245,454,545,455cm =22,454,545,455m =22,454,545km The earth circumference is 47,075km so our paperclip chain would go round the earth 477 times or if you prefer, it's near enough the exact average distance to Mars. It would weigh (at 1 gram a piece) 590,909,090,909.09 grams =590,909,091 kilos So because each sub weighs 17m kg (coverted from tonne displacement of 17200 tonnes), we might as well make it out of those paperclips. The best bit would be that, if you ordered 590 billion+ paper clips from Amazon, it would cause havoc to their delivery system. That would teach them to cheat with their tax!
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Jan 3, 2019 1:00:14 GMT
I like a girl who knows how to handle a long pole Why? Thought I’d give the Wife a break , windows are in a sh1t state Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Jan 3, 2019 8:05:08 GMT
Archimedes principle. The weight of an object is equal to the weight of water displaced when placed in water. In the case of submarines displacement varies. When the submarine is on the surface, it’s dispalcment is less, as less water is displaced, buoyancy is positive. When the submarine is submerged, the displacement is greater and buoyancy is neutral or very marginally negative, however this is mainly due to flooding of ballast tanks rather than changes to steel weight. Personally, I think we should completely flood the pitch at half time so that we could bring on our subs (our £13 bn subs) Spotter; have you been hanging around with Neil *o*g*s Mr Weights and all that
|
|
|
Post by Blueside on Jan 3, 2019 8:19:26 GMT
In the case of submarines displacement varies. When the submarine is on the surface, it’s dispalcment is less, as less water is displaced, buoyancy is positive. When the submarine is submerged, the displacement is greater and buoyancy is neutral or very marginally negative, however this is mainly due to flooding of ballast tanks rather than changes to steel weight. Personally, I think we should completely flood the pitch at half time so that we could bring on our subs (our £13 bn subs) Spotter; have you been hanging around with Neil *o*g*s Mr Weights and all that Nooo, just wanted to get my subs joke in. happy new year shipmate!
|
|
|
Post by A Source (aka Angry Badger) on Jan 3, 2019 8:55:07 GMT
Gone through this whole thread. Only thing I've taken notice off is the fact the word 'math' has been used 🤔 Ruined my train of thought (wouldn't have amounted to much anyway) Regardless. These cones. Are they African or European? (Copyright Monty python)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2019 9:01:59 GMT
Spotter; have you been hanging around with Neil *o*g*s Mr Weights and all that Nooo, just wanted to get my subs joke in. happy new year shipmate! Blueside - Were you a Sun Dodger?
|
|