dvstwig wrote:CBeck113 wrote:@WilliamsF1 & Holms86: Not quite, since what you're naming are maximums - limits - and therefore naturally a boundary. The FiA did not specify under which condition this stipulation must be met, and left too much room for interpretation (once again). As a team you have to exploit every loophole you can find, or you don't win.
And yes, 100kg/hr is not equal to 27.7 g/s, and 27.7g/s will always be 100kg/h. Why? In saying 100kg/h, the sample is at each hour, while when saying 27.7g/s, the sample is every second.
What!?
By that logic, I could travel 200km/h in a 60km/h zone, so long as I only travel 60km during the hour...
Then, if the police pull me over when I'm doing 200, I could just say "but officer, if you sampled my speed at the beginning of this hour, I was only doing 60km/h, and at the end of this hour, I'll only be doing 60km/h"
Maybe we should start having speed limits posted as metres per second?
maybe we should, because there are enough people around who cannot "connect" the speed on the speedometer to a braking distance required for them to avoid X or Y object that suddenly appeared before their car - which is the basic reason why there are speed limits around
will it happen - no, reason - same one because of which there still are miles, inches, stones, yards etc. used in some places
I had this argument before here and even PMing to a user who thinks I fail at basic math and don't understand units and rates, on paper without any context the numbers 100kg/hr and 27.7gr/s always mean the same thing, but do they when you talk about the actual flows that you measure? Because there is no absolutely linear flow, something will always bounce and pulse somewhere, so for all and every flow that, when measured with a crude enough instrument, you will get the same reading, does that mean the flows are equal? NO! if you go into fine enough detail, you will start to notice that one of the flows has more linear than the other, and then 100kg/hr still is true for both, but 27.7gr/s not so much - because we care about the actual flows, not the number we represented it with on the piece of paper
and that is the reason why there is a clarification to the flow rule which red something like "must not exceed 100kg/h", but now reads "must not exceed 100kg/hr when measured over a period of 5ms"
there is no such thing as instant speed or instant flow in real world, it only is there on the paper in your formula that lost its context, there is no measurement device on the world that can take instant measurements of anything, everything is some sort of aproximation over a period of time - and that thought must never EVER be lost, without time component those measurements are meaningless, especially when you measure something that is quite disturbed and is fluctuating - what period of time to use then - you will ask - and the answer is - time period relevant to the cause of the measurement!
next argument - use relevant units when you want to convey to the user the precision of the measurement of anything, nice round numbers look good, but if you care about milliseconds and thousands of the grams - use relevant units or specify time period (which they did at the end)
