Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
MATHEMATICS
34 Answers
How do you calculate the litres of oil in a tank from the dimensions of width and length and height of oil level and hence the current volume of the tank.
This was no problem to me in school days but memory is shortened when you get older. Also I think you would need to know the SG of heating oil as well .... best of luck and let me know your calculations please ..
This was no problem to me in school days but memory is shortened when you get older. Also I think you would need to know the SG of heating oil as well .... best of luck and let me know your calculations please ..
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by INQUISITOR63. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Good grief! The original question:
"How do you calculate the litres of oil in a tank from the dimensions of width and length and height of oil level and hence the current volume of the tank."
Nothing said about mass. Nothing said about Specific Gravity. Nothing said about needing to calculate the mass of the tank and/or the fluid. So the first half dozen answers provided an accurate answer to the question (after the amendments).
So yes, prof, there is a remote possibility that Inquisitor may have wanted to know about these calculations, but I would have thought (s)he may have mentioned it somewhere along the line. Further as (s)he was having difficulty recalling how to perform the volume calculation I rashly assumed that was all that was required.
Sorry about your pedantic dislike of my grammar. You are quite correct in that my sentence was badly constructed.To avoid use (or misuse) of the semi-colon, perhaps "A litre of water is the same IN VOLUME as a litre of mercury." How does that grab you? Or does that strike as a bit untidy or perhaps tautological? (No, hang on, it is not a tautology. Scrub that out). It seems I'm totally unable to express myself in comprehensible English. I wonder how many others did not understand what I was getting at.
"How do you calculate the litres of oil in a tank from the dimensions of width and length and height of oil level and hence the current volume of the tank."
Nothing said about mass. Nothing said about Specific Gravity. Nothing said about needing to calculate the mass of the tank and/or the fluid. So the first half dozen answers provided an accurate answer to the question (after the amendments).
So yes, prof, there is a remote possibility that Inquisitor may have wanted to know about these calculations, but I would have thought (s)he may have mentioned it somewhere along the line. Further as (s)he was having difficulty recalling how to perform the volume calculation I rashly assumed that was all that was required.
Sorry about your pedantic dislike of my grammar. You are quite correct in that my sentence was badly constructed.To avoid use (or misuse) of the semi-colon, perhaps "A litre of water is the same IN VOLUME as a litre of mercury." How does that grab you? Or does that strike as a bit untidy or perhaps tautological? (No, hang on, it is not a tautology. Scrub that out). It seems I'm totally unable to express myself in comprehensible English. I wonder how many others did not understand what I was getting at.
Think I opened up a can of worms here ......... or is it a tank of milli- milometre thingis ?
Or maybe a "clutter" of confused brains full of the above drivel.
Joking really ....... much obliged to you all.
Learning on this .... measurements give Volume and SG gives weight ( who needs it ? ) and metric is still a pain in the ass ! Whatever happened to pounds shillings and pence ? It'll come back - you'll see !!, when the Euro goes back to the Drachma ... !!!!!!!!
Or maybe a "clutter" of confused brains full of the above drivel.
Joking really ....... much obliged to you all.
Learning on this .... measurements give Volume and SG gives weight ( who needs it ? ) and metric is still a pain in the ass ! Whatever happened to pounds shillings and pence ? It'll come back - you'll see !!, when the Euro goes back to the Drachma ... !!!!!!!!
New Judge, let's look at the question again. Do you see the part- sentence "Also I think you would need to know the SG of heating oil as well"? I'm sure you're aware that SG means Specific Gravity. Therefore, your assertion that "Nothing said about Specific Gravity" is plainly incorrect as the OP does mentuion it. Yes or No?
I am grateful that you concede that there was a remote possibility that the OP required the SG in order to calculate the total mass of the tank. I'm afraid that I'm satisfied that the OP did indeed mention it somewhere along the line as you put it by raising the issue of SG in the original question, albeit a very brief mention.
I am pleased that you are prepared to admit that I may have been correct on this issue.
Turning to the issue of pedantry New Judge, science tends to be exact and precise and leaves little room for impreciseness. If you desire to consider that my correction of your sentence is pedantic, you a perfectly at liberty to do so so. However, to a scientist a litre of water is not the same as a litre of mercury. I regret I am unable to discuss the feelings of other professions regarding your sentence, which clearly are identical to those of lay persons.
As you state, your correction is not tautological and I'm grateful for you're alternative. Your corrected sentence is simplistic but does indeed fit the bill.
I, along with every other reader of this post, have no idea how many others did not understand what you were getting at despite knowing their own views on the matter. At the end of the day New Judge, your assertion was incorrect. That's it, pure and simple.
I am grateful that you concede that there was a remote possibility that the OP required the SG in order to calculate the total mass of the tank. I'm afraid that I'm satisfied that the OP did indeed mention it somewhere along the line as you put it by raising the issue of SG in the original question, albeit a very brief mention.
I am pleased that you are prepared to admit that I may have been correct on this issue.
Turning to the issue of pedantry New Judge, science tends to be exact and precise and leaves little room for impreciseness. If you desire to consider that my correction of your sentence is pedantic, you a perfectly at liberty to do so so. However, to a scientist a litre of water is not the same as a litre of mercury. I regret I am unable to discuss the feelings of other professions regarding your sentence, which clearly are identical to those of lay persons.
As you state, your correction is not tautological and I'm grateful for you're alternative. Your corrected sentence is simplistic but does indeed fit the bill.
I, along with every other reader of this post, have no idea how many others did not understand what you were getting at despite knowing their own views on the matter. At the end of the day New Judge, your assertion was incorrect. That's it, pure and simple.
Incidentally, to extract two random sentences from your last post, could you please put the following sentences in context:
"You are quite correct in that my sentence was badly constructed"
"It seems I'm totally unable to express myself in comprehensible English"
Pray, what precisely are you admitting to here?
"You are quite correct in that my sentence was badly constructed"
"It seems I'm totally unable to express myself in comprehensible English"
Pray, what precisely are you admitting to here?
jhiker, whilst I am indeed grateful to you for pointing out that I incorrectly used a contraction in the first quote rather than the correct possessive adjective, I regret to inform you that the second quote is correct.
The possessive adjective is quite appropriate for this purpose.
Further examination of my postings that evening will reveal additional minor errors of grammar. Just put it down to that very enjoyable malt I was enjoying that evening.
Nevertheless, I am grateful that you cannot find fault with the content.
The possessive adjective is quite appropriate for this purpose.
Further examination of my postings that evening will reveal additional minor errors of grammar. Just put it down to that very enjoyable malt I was enjoying that evening.
Nevertheless, I am grateful that you cannot find fault with the content.
The question:
“How do you calculate the litres of oil in a tank from the dimensions of width and length and height of oil level and hence the current volume of the tank.”
Then, a few comments about schooldays and perhaps SG being required as well. So, to be as precise as you obviously like prof, the question ended with “...volume of the tank” (and in fact should have been concluded with a question mark). There was nothing in it about calculating anything other than litres (a unit of volume). So, perhaps the suggestion by Inquisitor that SG might be required was in the form of “thinking aloud”. Who knows?
Think of an easier example:
“What is one plus one?” You might need a calculator to do this.
The question is “What is one plus one?” The phrase about the calculator is not part of the question.
Still, I’ll not quibble any further as I’ve got to go and wash my hair. I’ll try not to interrupt your flow whilst you are (or perhaps, you’re) enjoying your malt in future, as it obviously raises your level of irascibility!
Apologies in advance for any grammatical errors I may have inadvertently made. I cannot blame them on alcohol and they can only be attributable to utter ignorance.
“How do you calculate the litres of oil in a tank from the dimensions of width and length and height of oil level and hence the current volume of the tank.”
Then, a few comments about schooldays and perhaps SG being required as well. So, to be as precise as you obviously like prof, the question ended with “...volume of the tank” (and in fact should have been concluded with a question mark). There was nothing in it about calculating anything other than litres (a unit of volume). So, perhaps the suggestion by Inquisitor that SG might be required was in the form of “thinking aloud”. Who knows?
Think of an easier example:
“What is one plus one?” You might need a calculator to do this.
The question is “What is one plus one?” The phrase about the calculator is not part of the question.
Still, I’ll not quibble any further as I’ve got to go and wash my hair. I’ll try not to interrupt your flow whilst you are (or perhaps, you’re) enjoying your malt in future, as it obviously raises your level of irascibility!
Apologies in advance for any grammatical errors I may have inadvertently made. I cannot blame them on alcohol and they can only be attributable to utter ignorance.
jhiker, funnily enough I don't talk like Jeeves at all. I got to my position in the world of academia purely from hard work rather than coming from a privileged background. It was the good old Secondary Modern and Grammar schools for me rather than a public school.
I'm afraid that the ability to write and debate in this manner is part of the job.
I'm afraid that the ability to write and debate in this manner is part of the job.
New Judge, you may well be correct that Inquisitor63 was indeed thinking aloud when mention of SG was made. Furthermore, it can be considered that the pertinent question consisted of the first sentence only.
However, the OP did mention the SG and whilst I'd be the first to agree that we remain in the dark as to why it was raised, some thought should be given to possible reasons why the SG was mentioned before an answer is provided. The obvious is that the mass may have been a concern for some unknown reason.
Did you not wonder why SG was mentioned or did you automatically conclude that the OP was merely thinking aloud as you put it?
Ah well, perhaps my training allows me to analyse a question more thoroughly than others. Forgive my attentiveness.
I appreciate your effort to cite an example of a subsequent sentence not relevant to the real question. However, as I have tried to show above, in the OP's question the SG may have been relevant as we don't know if the OP was thinking aloud or not do we?
I thought Judges had their wigs laundered. I'm sure you'll be glad to know that malt tends to raise my lucidity rather than my irascibility although clearly there is an issue with my grammar during these periods which I must try to address.
I appreciate your candidness in your final couple of sentences New Judge, but don't despair as none of us can be perfect in everything we do.
Finally, I concur that we should move on.
However, the OP did mention the SG and whilst I'd be the first to agree that we remain in the dark as to why it was raised, some thought should be given to possible reasons why the SG was mentioned before an answer is provided. The obvious is that the mass may have been a concern for some unknown reason.
Did you not wonder why SG was mentioned or did you automatically conclude that the OP was merely thinking aloud as you put it?
Ah well, perhaps my training allows me to analyse a question more thoroughly than others. Forgive my attentiveness.
I appreciate your effort to cite an example of a subsequent sentence not relevant to the real question. However, as I have tried to show above, in the OP's question the SG may have been relevant as we don't know if the OP was thinking aloud or not do we?
I thought Judges had their wigs laundered. I'm sure you'll be glad to know that malt tends to raise my lucidity rather than my irascibility although clearly there is an issue with my grammar during these periods which I must try to address.
I appreciate your candidness in your final couple of sentences New Judge, but don't despair as none of us can be perfect in everything we do.
Finally, I concur that we should move on.
