To be even more pedantic the chaser and the contestant were right to say "A" as 147 was the only "correct" answer on offer - the other two were even more "wrong";-)
Actually, a very valid point in retrospect to my original post,
10 pedant points for you.....
............. The answer given "Chemical elements" was correct. The mnemonic lists the elements in order of their Atomic Number. ..............
Offhand, I can't think of a single mnemonic which isn't about the order of its elements (in a general sense) rather than about their names. Hence I'd have thought it was totally unnecessary to say it was in order of anything.
The other is ambiguous. It was about the maximum break in snooker. The answer WGS gave was 147 which can be correct but it can also be 155. I wonder what would have happened if someone answered 155?
I vividly remember an incorrect question and answer featured on 'The Chase'
Question:
What is the highest break possible in Snooker?
A: 147
B: 180
C: 501
The contestant & Chaser both gave the answer A: 147.
Technically this is of course incorrect, the highest possible break in Snooker is 155 (incredibly unlikely but obviously acheiveable)
It involves a 'free ball' foul being committed whilst all 15 reds are still on the table, from this situation the highest possible break is of course 155 (1 point for the colour taken as a Red + 7 for the Black = 8 + a 147 maximum break (15 Reds, 15 Blacks and all the colours) = 155 (obviously the extra 4 points for the foul would make the score 159), but that is not part of the break
To be even more pedantic the chaser and the contestant were right to say "A" as 147 was the only "correct" answer on offer - the other two were even more "wrong";-)
There was one on University Challenge last night that I though was unfairly given wrong. The question was "'How he lives beggars belief constantly nicking old foreign necklaces' is the start of a sentence with 118 words which is a mnemonic for which scientific series?", to which the first person said "the elements". Paxo accepted the answer "The Periodic Table" from the other team. For me, the elements are a series in atomic number order, while the periodic table shows how they are grouped by chemical property in a periodic way, which the mnemonic doesn't do at all.
I thought it was a fair overruling, since "the elements" by itself could refer to anything -- classical elements, chemical elements in no particular order, etc. "The Periodic Table" is a definitive, ordered list of elements, hence the mnemonic.
However, I didn't agree with Paxo awarding the Oxbridge team points because someone said their connection was that they all began with V or whatever it was. What next -- answering that "they're all things"?
I thought it was a fair overruling, since "the elements" by itself could refer to anything -- classical elements, chemical elements in no particular order, etc. "The Periodic Table" is a definitive, ordered list of elements, hence the mnemonic.
However, I didn't agree with Paxo awarding the Oxbridge team points because someone said their connection was that they all began with V or whatever it was. What next -- answering that "they're all things"?
The question was "How he lives beggars belief constantly nicking old foreign necklaces" this sentence is a mnemonic for the symbols of which well know scientific progression? The number of words in the mnemonic total 118"
The answer given was "Chemical Elements", which is the correct answer. The well know scientific progression hinted at by the mnemonic is the progression of the elements. The Periodic Table of the Elements is a table, in two dimensions, and not a single progression. The progression of the elements was known long before the periodic table was produced.
I vividly remember an incorrect question and answer featured on 'The Chase'
Question:
What is the highest break possible in Snooker?
A: 147
B: 180
C: 501
The contestant & Chaser both gave the answer A: 147.
Technically this is of course incorrect, the highest possible break in Snooker is 155 (incredibly unlikely but obviously acheiveable)
It involves a 'free ball' foul being committed whilst all 15 reds are still on the table, from this situation the highest possible break is of course 155 (1 point for the colour taken as a Red + 7 for the Black = 8 + a 147 maximum break (15 Reds, 15 Blacks and all the colours) = 155 (obviously the extra 4 points for the foul would make the score 159), but that is not part of the break
Pedantic obviously, but technically correct
Ironically the 147 is known as a "Maximum". Anything more is a "16 Red Clearance". The 155 has been done in practice, with 151 the highest made in professional competition.
I thought it was a fair overruling, since "the elements" by itself could refer to anything -- classical elements, chemical elements in no particular order, etc. "The Periodic Table" is a definitive, ordered list of elements, hence the mnemonic.
However, I didn't agree with Paxo awarding the Oxbridge team points because someone said their connection was that they all began with V or whatever it was. What next -- answering that "they're all things"?
The question was "How he lives beggars belief constantly nicking old foreign necklaces" this sentence is a mnemonic for the symbols of which well know scientific progression? The number of words in the mnemonic total 118"
The answer given was "Chemical Elements", which is the correct answer. The well know scientific progression hinted at by the mnemonic is the progression of the elements. The Periodic Table of the Elements is a table, in two dimensions, and not a single progression. The progression of the elements was known long before the periodic table was produced.
Quite. The purpose of the Periodic Table is purely to present the existing progression to show groups of elements that have similar chemical properties. Now a mnemonic that could do that including the Lanthanides and Actinides would be impressive.
I still prefer my chemistry teacher's mnemonics: Harold, he lies below but can not order fire. Nenamgal Sipsclar. Kings can scan till five (V) cruel men feel cold nights. Cuzins gave German assassins several british something robbers.
All this would be avoided is we did not use kilowatt-hour but simply used Megajoules.
(1 kilowatt hour = 3.6 Megajoules).
It seems to me that more than half of science writers and journalists, and even a few scientists (but not engineers of course) get energy and power the wrong way round. The reason seems to be historical. In science, energy (joules) is the core quantity of interest, power (joules per second) is just the rate of transfer of energy. But the early work in this field wasn't done by scientists, it was done by engineers. In engineering, power (watts) is the quantity of interest, whereas energy (watt hours) is just how much energy piles up if you keep doing work for an hour. Many people just don't seem to get this, and annoyingly a lot of them are writing news articles or technical publications. I agree that dropping watt hours (and probably watts too) would make the problem go away, it would be a shame to lose that little historical connection, but it would be worth it.
It seems to me that more than half of science writers and journalists, and even a few scientists (but not engineers of course) get energy and power the wrong way round. The reason seems to be historical. In science, energy (joules) is the core quantity of interest, power (joules per second) is just the rate of transfer of energy. But the early work in this field wasn't done by scientists, it was done by engineers. In engineering, power (watts) is the quantity of interest, whereas energy (watt hours) is just how much energy piles up if you keep doing work for an hour. Many people just don't seem to get this, and annoyingly a lot of them are writing news articles or technical publications. I agree that dropping watt hours (and probably watts too) would make the problem go away, it would be a shame to lose that little historical connection, but it would be worth it.
But the pedants would have to find something else to complain about.
I vividly remember an incorrect question and answer featured on 'The Chase'
Question:
What is the highest break possible in Snooker?
A: 147
B: 180
C: 501
The contestant & Chaser both gave the answer A: 147.
Technically this is of course incorrect, the highest possible break in Snooker is 155 (incredibly unlikely but obviously acheiveable)
It involves a 'free ball' foul being committed whilst all 15 reds are still on the table, from this situation the highest possible break is of course 155 (1 point for the colour taken as a Red + 7 for the Black = 8 + a 147 maximum break (15 Reds, 15 Blacks and all the colours) = 155 (obviously the extra 4 points for the foul would make the score 159), but that is not part of the break
Pedantic obviously, but technically correct
I am pretty sure Alex Higgins got a 16 red clearance, starting with a free ball - but the break was less than 147
Just googled it. It was Steve James against Higgins. Higgins reportedly did get a 155, but not in a formal competition.
The question was "How he lives beggars belief constantly nicking old foreign necklaces" this sentence is a mnemonic for the symbols of which well know scientific progression? The number of words in the mnemonic total 118"
The answer given was "Chemical Elements", which is the correct answer. The well know scientific progression hinted at by the mnemonic is the progression of the elements. The Periodic Table of the Elements is a table, in two dimensions, and not a single progression. The progression of the elements was known long before the periodic table was produced.
I thought it was odd that it was disallowed but maybe 'chemical elements' was a bit vague. However I would have thought that they knew it was a reference to the periodic table but didn't see that as a 'progression'.
I thought it was odd that it was disallowed but maybe 'chemical elements' was a bit vague. However I would have thought that they knew it was a reference to the periodic table but didn't see that as a 'progression'.
I tell you, I am this close to emailing the beeb to complain.
But everyone knows what they mean so I don't lose any sleep over it.
It's not meaningless, kJ/s/hour is a rate of change of power (just like m/s/s is acceleration). It's just that that's not what people mean when they say it, they mean a quantity of energy.
My problem is with people who pathologically say kW when they mean kWh and say kWh when they mean kW, and I mean people who write articles in the scientific press. If you picked up a car magazine and more than half the motoring journalists talked about a car being able to do 120 miles and being able to go 350 miles per hour on a single tank of fuel you'd think they were ****ing idiots for not knowing the difference between distance and speed, yet this situation is endemic when it comes to kW and kWh.
It's not meaningless, kJ/s/hour is a rate of change of power (just like m/s/s is acceleration). It's just that that's not what people mean when they say it, they mean a quantity of energy.
My problem is with people who pathologically say kW when they mean kWh and say kWh when they mean kW, and I mean people who write articles in the scientific press. If you picked up a car magazine and more than half the motoring journalists talked about a car being able to do 120 miles and being able to go 350 miles per hour on a single tank of fuel you'd think they were ****ing idiots for not knowing the difference between distance and speed, yet this situation is endemic when it comes to kW and kWh.
It often comes down to a lack of understanding of basic science, this ignorance would not be accepted in the same way for something literary.
Comments
I suppose I'll have to give it you then.
Actually, a very valid point in retrospect to my original post,
10 pedant points for you.....
Offhand, I can't think of a single mnemonic which isn't about the order of its elements (in a general sense) rather than about their names. Hence I'd have thought it was totally unnecessary to say it was in order of anything.
I thought it was a fair overruling, since "the elements" by itself could refer to anything -- classical elements, chemical elements in no particular order, etc. "The Periodic Table" is a definitive, ordered list of elements, hence the mnemonic.
However, I didn't agree with Paxo awarding the Oxbridge team points because someone said their connection was that they all began with V or whatever it was. What next -- answering that "they're all things"?
The question was "How he lives beggars belief constantly nicking old foreign necklaces" this sentence is a mnemonic for the symbols of which well know scientific progression? The number of words in the mnemonic total 118"
The answer given was "Chemical Elements", which is the correct answer. The well know scientific progression hinted at by the mnemonic is the progression of the elements. The Periodic Table of the Elements is a table, in two dimensions, and not a single progression. The progression of the elements was known long before the periodic table was produced.
To clarify a kilowatt is a measure of power (energy (kiloJoules) per unit time) i.e. a kilowatt is a kilojoule per second.
A kilowatt-hour is simply the amount of energy used in one hour with a constant power of 1 kilowatt.
A kilowatt per hour is nonsense as stated above as that would mean kilojoules per unit second per unit hour which has no meaning at all.
All this would be avoided is we did not use kilowatt-hour but simply used Megajoules.
(1 kilowatt hour = 3.6 Megajoules).
Ironically the 147 is known as a "Maximum". Anything more is a "16 Red Clearance". The 155 has been done in practice, with 151 the highest made in professional competition.
I still prefer my chemistry teacher's mnemonics: Harold, he lies below but can not order fire. Nenamgal Sipsclar. Kings can scan till five (V) cruel men feel cold nights. Cuzins gave German assassins several british something robbers.
Quite annoying to the viewers watching the repeats and wondered where the 18k jackpot had disappeared to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/tv/pointless_series7_repeat
It seems to me that more than half of science writers and journalists, and even a few scientists (but not engineers of course) get energy and power the wrong way round. The reason seems to be historical. In science, energy (joules) is the core quantity of interest, power (joules per second) is just the rate of transfer of energy. But the early work in this field wasn't done by scientists, it was done by engineers. In engineering, power (watts) is the quantity of interest, whereas energy (watt hours) is just how much energy piles up if you keep doing work for an hour. Many people just don't seem to get this, and annoyingly a lot of them are writing news articles or technical publications. I agree that dropping watt hours (and probably watts too) would make the problem go away, it would be a shame to lose that little historical connection, but it would be worth it.
But the pedants would have to find something else to complain about.
I am pretty sure Alex Higgins got a 16 red clearance, starting with a free ball - but the break was less than 147
Just googled it. It was Steve James against Higgins. Higgins reportedly did get a 155, but not in a formal competition.
It's hardly pedantic to say that kilowatts per hour is meaningless nonsense. It just is.
But everyone knows what they mean so I don't lose any sleep over it. We really need a suitable Imperial unit that we can use.
I thought it was odd that it was disallowed but maybe 'chemical elements' was a bit vague. However I would have thought that they knew it was a reference to the periodic table but didn't see that as a 'progression'.
What like horse power hours? kW hours is actually a very convenient unit as it is easy to match to running a device of known power over time.
It's not meaningless, kJ/s/hour is a rate of change of power (just like m/s/s is acceleration). It's just that that's not what people mean when they say it, they mean a quantity of energy.
My problem is with people who pathologically say kW when they mean kWh and say kWh when they mean kW, and I mean people who write articles in the scientific press. If you picked up a car magazine and more than half the motoring journalists talked about a car being able to do 120 miles and being able to go 350 miles per hour on a single tank of fuel you'd think they were ****ing idiots for not knowing the difference between distance and speed, yet this situation is endemic when it comes to kW and kWh.
It often comes down to a lack of understanding of basic science, this ignorance would not be accepted in the same way for something literary.