Petrol less than £1 a gallon!!!!!!

That's a fairly easy piece of mental arithmetic. 49 is one short of 50,
which is half of one hundred. 78.4 times 100 = 7840, divide by two = 3920.
78.4 is 1.6 less than 80. 3920 minus 80 = 3840 and add back the 1.6, gives
3841.6. Of course, when I was at primary school, we would have worked in
fractions. Decimals were an advanced concept.

Colin Bignell

 

Well, if you can get "genuine draught beer" in bottles and cans anything
is possible

--
Dave OSOS#24 Remove my gerbil for email replies

Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one

http://dswindell.members.beeb.net

 

I'd be surprised if you *can't* work that you in your head. It's really not
difficult, give it a try.

 

Removes shoes and socks, quick count, yup10 toes.

 

Rubbish! Give us measures we can get our hands on. A centimetre is
roughly the width of your little finger, a metre is a bit longer than a
yard, or about half the height of a tallish bloke, or a pace, but what
is a millimetre. I hate it when kitchen furniture is measured in mm,
such enormous numbers of a titchy measure just can't be reasonably
grasped, you have to translate it to something graspable, like metres or
centimetres.

Yeuch! What's wrong with miles per litre? Mind you, buy a Ural made
for export to the UK and you have the speedo rated in MPH, but the
distance counter counting Km!!!!

--
Dave OSOS#24 Remove my gerbil for email replies

Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one

http://dswindell.members.beeb.net

 

That's more than a little rich given the poorly formatted
badly thought rubbish you've been posting in this thread.

Still, nice troll.

 

Tell that to people in Munich.

 

A degree in "Electronics" before standards started to slip?

When, pray tell, was this and where?

I don't think I've ever seen a syllabus for an "Electronics"
degree. Maybe an "Electronic Engineering" degree but in
your time? Surely that was "Electrical Engineering" or
"Electrical and Electronic Engineering".

I would have thought that you'd have a head for numbers and
be able to approximate 78.4*49 to 80*50 less a bit.

More importantly I would have expected a degree in
"Electronics" should have earned you a good enough living to
be able to ignore the difference between 78.4*49 and 80*50.

Maybe your grasp of maths was so poor you didn't make a good
engineer, even with your "higher standards"

 

Or a whole bunch of other places that also had absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with the issue being discussed

Brian

 

LOL

 

Salford 1965 course code ELDF1.

a degree *D*, full time *F* course.


I do believe the course had first been run one year before.

No, the college also ran an Electrical Engineering Science Course
EESS1 but somehow I suspect that was a "sandwich" course. IIRC it was
possible to take options on the EE course which made it identical to
the electronics degree course.

Somewhere along the line I was taught a bit about estimating, can't
remember where. Maths?, Staistics? Numerical Methods? My dad taught me
some of it!

How can we know? When I complained to an eminent doctor on our
exhibition stand about pains in my feet (Because I had been standing
on soft carpet for most of the day), he said "You spend too much time
in cars". Ergo I would say nowadays we depend too much on calculators.

DG

 

Where abouts in the UK is Munich exactly.

 

What on each foot?
The big toe is really a thumb anyway.

 

I would do it as 75*50 + 3*50 2 very simple bits of multiplication
3750 + 150 or £39.00 then take away 78p so £38.22 (20p out on
the actual cost of £38.42 (rounded up)). Not that I bother with any
of it when it actually comes to filling up as I top up by cost or fill the
tank so it doesn't matter if I'm paying by the gallon or litre so long as
all the retailers state prices in the same measure comparing what we
are paying is a lot easier.

 

Surely what matters for a gambler is the stake and not the
potential return (in terms of placing the bet).

And you claimed to be an "Electronics" degree holder,
whatever that meant, shame on you.

59 times 12 is not 7.20. So you're willing to approximate
in your case rather than the 80 x 50 suggestion (based on
your 49 l tank).

I use litres every other day, find those pretty easy to work
in. My bike does about 10 miles on a litre of fuel.

A litre of fuel costs about 77p at the garage I generally
use, places charging more are expensive, places charging
less are cheap.

I don't, I scribble the miles and litres onto the receipt
and then enter it into my PC later. I also expect around
9-10 miles from a gallon when I fill up due to past
experience.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

It costs the same amount to fill my tank whether the unit
I'm buying is litres or gallons. My bike will do the same
distance whether it's been filled with litres or gallons of
petrol (provided it's the same volume of course).
Should the government decide to go back to Gallons (which
they won't) then it will certainly not be any cheaper.

But imperial measures are totally illogical.

12 inches in a foot. 3 feet in a yard.
28 grammes in an ounce. 16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in
a stone

Where's the pattern?

It's not that much.

Personally I never bother changing it back since I always
have some Euros in my wallet.

That would be stupid. I don't get 'robbed' as you put it
since I don't foolishly buy at one rate and then sell back
at another.

Yes... I'm sure it is.

Why didn't you do better with your 'Electronics' degree?

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that the UK heirachy meant
others outside the uk couldn't read it.

 

Well I had a quick 'bash' at that in my head but I couldn't get the right
answer,
however I was sober then (and thus at a disadvantage (looks spelt wrong to
me)).
However as I have had a 'few halves' let me try again.
Ok yep its 50-1 so times 50 is as you said, (I got that far) then failed.
I was taking 784 from 392 or something like that, anyway it didnt end in a 6
so
I knew I had gone wrong, so i gave up. Prehaps a little precevierence? would
have helped. Its a bit much for 99% of the population to
do in their head. ( I was certaintly the best at mental arithmatic in my
junior school).
There are too many numbers and places for most people to hold in their heads
unless you are well practised. Given the proliferation of calculators most
people
have little practice at such sums these days.
Mental arithmatic is not my strongest subject as I always forget to do
something,
I don't know how people who work in bars add up the price of a round, mind
you I wouldn't know if they were wrong anyhow.

 

I did give it a quick try and I was almost there but I dropped a factor of
ten
in my arithmatic, maybe I would have got there on a good day.
--
regards half_pint

 

It was in the 1980's I wont say exactly where because I am
paranoid, but it was at a 'decent' university.(top 20 I think).

We were given the choice of what to call it including the two
options above. (It may well have been Electronic Engineering),
I can't remember too well, I think I chose Electronics as that seemed
better for a career in Computing.

I was trying to take 784 from 392 from and I knew the answer must
end in a 6 (which it didnt appear to). I made a rather lazy attempt at it
:O)

Ha ha ha. All those sucessful British electronics companies like....err....
Marconi?
You can earn more money as plumber or a brickie. (Although
I did have a good 'spell' at earning.)
Engineering is a fairly crap career in my opinon and I know several
engineers who will back that statement up.

I have a good grasp of maths, however calculators and computers
tend to make mental arithmetic skills redundant ( as they do electronic
engineers), I am pretty good in hex though :O)
You will never see an advert for an engineer requesting good maths
skills.
Good 'customer facing' skills (bull-shitting) is the ususal requirement.
(Mind you I ought to be good at that).

 

Your point is? Do you know where I'm posting from?