Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 17: |
Line 17: |
| Someone needs to make a calculator for this. I need to use this statement but I also don't want to be flat out wrong. Like, enter in a GPS coordinate and you get sets of dates the ISS was overhead and who was in it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.140.184|172.69.140.184]] 18:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | | Someone needs to make a calculator for this. I need to use this statement but I also don't want to be flat out wrong. Like, enter in a GPS coordinate and you get sets of dates the ISS was overhead and who was in it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.140.184|172.69.140.184]] 18:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
| | | |
− | I think both the energy measurements should be in either kilojoules '''or''' megajoules, but not both. I had to re-read that back and forth a few times to sort out the decimal shifting.[[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 21:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | + | I think both the energy measurements should be in either kilojoules '''or''' megajoules, but not both. I had to re-read that back and forth a few times to sort out the decimal shifting. |
− | :Interesting how these things evolve. The original comparison was with a baseball at 100 mph (fastball; 0.17 kilojoules), comparing object of somewhat similar size, and for which "kilojoules" seemed the most informative unit. That comparison was replaced with the truck/lorry on the freeway, objects of similar energy, for which megajoules is the most informative unit ... but the edit retained the original kilojoule figure for the bottle. It's all good. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.47|162.158.91.47]] 05:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
− | | |
− | I see I'm not the first person to think a program to calculate this might be cool. [[User:Jsnider3|Jsnider3]] ([[User talk:Jsnider3|talk]]) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
− | | |
− | "...the station was apparently "over" for a ground distance of between 53.9 m and 55.7 m (177 to 183 feet). That would imply quite a large property..." That doesn't really imply anything about the size of the property, because property size, which implies an area measurement, depends on more than just a linear measurement. A rectangular property with an aspect ratio of 3:1 would be about 10000 sq ft, just under a quarter acre, a little more than 900 sq m. That's a very typical property size (and shape) for a single family home. Hardly "quite large". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.68|172.70.110.68]] 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
| |
− | :Typical response to "how big is a house and garden in the UK", via a search engine, says:
| |
− | :{{Quote|The latest analysis by Quickmove Properties reveals that the average garden size for an English home is an estimated 255 square metres, although this falls to just 81 square metres in Portsmouth}}
| |
− | :...that's just the garden, as it says. The whole plot (current new-builds) is indicated by:
| |
− | :{{Quote|The average estate house these days is built on approximately 1/12th - 1/10th of an acre about 38ft x 95ft (11.5m x 29m). This size plot may not allow for a very large garden or very good access around the house. When you view a plot always make sure you know the exact position of the boundaries.}}
| |
− | :...very much the current trend. But see {{w|Housing in the United Kingdom#Demography|the general demography}}.
| |
− | :Mine is a ''bit'' bigger than that average (3 bedroom, 2-storey, semi-detached, front and back garden, driveway, freestanding brick garage, 50ish years old rather than the current "cramming everything into a very thin plot" trend), I'm also significantly above 51°N so it wouldn't happen here at all. (London is 51.5°, the sprawling non-terraced housing of the more affluent areas of the most southern counties might work. Though [https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Sevenoaks.html some of those] are somewhat atypical.)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.79|172.70.86.79]] 17:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
| |