qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7,045 | Let's say someone is wondering about something, do a quick search and find nothing relevant, so post his question. Then some people point out that the answer already exists on some other question (and they are right!), like in [Does a magic item used as an improvised weapon count as a magic weapon?](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/98832/does-an-magic-item-used-as-an-improvised-weapon-counts-as-a-magic-weapon) the OP wants to know about whether magic items count as magic weapon too and the answer is in two other questions that wouldn't be found for a search like "improvised magic weapon".
So now the guy who posted the question got his answer, nice! But other people who will look for the same question will find the guy's question, with no answer but links to the duplicates. That's not that bad: they just have to follow the links. In some case however it can become quite bothering when you have to follow a link and then look through all the questions to find the one that is answering your problem. And then you can't really ask for more precision as the answer can be very old and you could even be off-topic.
Of course, on the example I linked the problem is very minor (there are only two answers on each questions), but I remember to have seen on stackoverflow (not rpg.se) links that send you to another question which is also closed as a duplicate, which send you to another one with more than 100 answers... etc. Obviously we are not going to have any problem of that scale, but **shouldn't we try to promote new questions that have a better title instead of old ones that won't be stumbled upon by most of people?** | 2017/04/26 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7045",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/28479/"
] | Part of the purpose of duplicates is to help people find a question's answers. We like duplicates *because* they often have different titles and ways of asking the question — it gives searchers more ways to find the information. (See also [this meta.SE FAQ](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/10841/311001), at the penultimate paragraph.)
So that part is working just as designed. Yes, having to click a link can be a minor bother, but it's built deep into the way SE works, so its not avoidable.
That said, yes, we do have a minor preference for duplicating toward the *better* question [with the better answers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/10844/153219). However, merely having a better title is not enough to count as the better question— the duplication process already takes care of differences in title for us. To count as a duplicate worth marking as duplicate forward in time instead of the usual backward, from observation it has to be the clearly superior question *and* have better answers, in order to get that kind of community support.
As for process, voting for the duplicate to be closed in the other direction is one way to start. However, that can't happen without answers. When it's already been duplicate-closed though, or more attention needs to be drawn to the matter (maybe because to get the desired “main” question answers, it needs to be reopened, or merged, or something similarly drastic), the way to make that happen is to ask a meta question about the [specific-question](/questions/tagged/specific-question "show questions tagged 'specific-question'"), proposing that we handle the duplication in a particular way.
This specific question
======================
Is this question clearly superior? Maybe. *I* like it, personally: it's clear, the example is unambiguous, it has a good title. I don't think my like of it is enough for the decision to be made though.
To get clarity on that from a broad section of the community, you might want to ask a question specifically proposing what you think we should do and why, without mixing it together with the general question of how duplicates get handled. This meta question *might* draw clear answers on the specific question instead of the general matter though, so you might still want to wait to see if a clear community consensus on the specific question develops here. If not though, a clear meta question without clutter about a more general issue is a good way to get clear, focused discussion on the specific question's handling. | ### What you describe is the stack working as advertised
>
> Let's say someone is wondering about something, do a quick search and
> find nothing relevant, so post his question. Then some people point
> out that the answer already exists on some other question (and they
> are right!), like in {the linked question}.
>
>
>
People have varying skills with using search terms, when they bother to search before asking a question. This stack's community of users have enough depth of experience, in aggregate, that the community can helpfully alert someone, and all reading the question, to this issue already being addressed by another question and answer. (Or that it probably is, depending on what one writes in comments when raising that alert).
>
> but shouldn't we try to promote new questions that have a better
> title instead of old ones that won't be stumbled upon by most of
> people?
>
>
>
As you mentioned already, we don't have the scale of problem you saw on the other stack, so while we can assist with edits as questions are posted and worked into good shape, I don't see a significant problem, in terms of scope. The editing of titles in my view ought to be done as a question arises and the text/title don't match very well. It should be self contained. |
187,812 | Before I ever asked anything on SO itself, I was active on TeX.SX . My experience there is that valid questions, which are clear enough and not missing relevant data, most often get at least 1 up-vote; and that answer-providers often up-vote the question if it's a 0-vote or sometime even if it's a 1-vote question. You could say the logic is "if it's worthy of my reply, it's worthy of not being a zero-voter".
Now, TeX.SX is a much smaller site/community of users than SO itself. And yet, here, it seems that questions have a harder time getting any upvotes at all. Is this just my impression or is there more of an upvote stinginess in the SO culture? And, more importantly, is it not worthwhile to encourage voting over 0 as a means for 'vetting' a question?
**Edit**: See also [this answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/27675/196834) to the related question on [How come so few SO questions have an answer accepted](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/27660/196834). | 2013/07/08 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187812",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/196834/"
] | *Content is King*(TM).
On average, good1 questions will receive upvotes and bad2 questions will receive downvotes.
While SO has a huge number of users, this does not necessarily mean that every good question will receive an upvote and that every bad question will receive a downvote.
However, this also means it is unlikely that "on average" good questions are not being upvoted.
1. defined as at least one standard deviation in the right direction from the mean3.
2. defined as at least one standard deviation in the wrong direction from the mean.
3. defined per tag cluster, you'll notice some tags have wildly different ideas of 'average'. | I think if a question is helpful for other users, it will get its share of upvotes. I've come across many questions that have. I don't know about the TeX site, and I've never seen it come up in a Google search but when I first became a user here it was because it came up near the top of every search I did. I would suspect there are more "inexperienced" users here because of that phenomenon, and most newer users don't really understand the voting system. Similarly, I've seen many questions get great answers, the "asker" posts a comment that says, "WOW! Awesome answer, this helped so much!", yet they never upvote or checkmark the answer. |
187,812 | Before I ever asked anything on SO itself, I was active on TeX.SX . My experience there is that valid questions, which are clear enough and not missing relevant data, most often get at least 1 up-vote; and that answer-providers often up-vote the question if it's a 0-vote or sometime even if it's a 1-vote question. You could say the logic is "if it's worthy of my reply, it's worthy of not being a zero-voter".
Now, TeX.SX is a much smaller site/community of users than SO itself. And yet, here, it seems that questions have a harder time getting any upvotes at all. Is this just my impression or is there more of an upvote stinginess in the SO culture? And, more importantly, is it not worthwhile to encourage voting over 0 as a means for 'vetting' a question?
**Edit**: See also [this answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/27675/196834) to the related question on [How come so few SO questions have an answer accepted](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/27660/196834). | 2013/07/08 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187812",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/196834/"
] | The number of questions asked every day makes a very big difference.
There are some active users browsing tags they are interested in. On smaller site there's a great chance they will eventually visit all questions asked in particular tags. On StackOverflow they will see only a tip of the iceberg.
Such active users are usually the most active voters.
Another factor is, that on each sites you have 30/40 votes a day. On smaller sites it's much more that the number of questions asked a day, making in theoretically possible to upvote (almost) all questions. On StackOverflow it's quite typical to be out of votes. | I think if a question is helpful for other users, it will get its share of upvotes. I've come across many questions that have. I don't know about the TeX site, and I've never seen it come up in a Google search but when I first became a user here it was because it came up near the top of every search I did. I would suspect there are more "inexperienced" users here because of that phenomenon, and most newer users don't really understand the voting system. Similarly, I've seen many questions get great answers, the "asker" posts a comment that says, "WOW! Awesome answer, this helped so much!", yet they never upvote or checkmark the answer. |
187,812 | Before I ever asked anything on SO itself, I was active on TeX.SX . My experience there is that valid questions, which are clear enough and not missing relevant data, most often get at least 1 up-vote; and that answer-providers often up-vote the question if it's a 0-vote or sometime even if it's a 1-vote question. You could say the logic is "if it's worthy of my reply, it's worthy of not being a zero-voter".
Now, TeX.SX is a much smaller site/community of users than SO itself. And yet, here, it seems that questions have a harder time getting any upvotes at all. Is this just my impression or is there more of an upvote stinginess in the SO culture? And, more importantly, is it not worthwhile to encourage voting over 0 as a means for 'vetting' a question?
**Edit**: See also [this answer](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/27675/196834) to the related question on [How come so few SO questions have an answer accepted](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/27660/196834). | 2013/07/08 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/187812",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/196834/"
] | The number of questions asked every day makes a very big difference.
There are some active users browsing tags they are interested in. On smaller site there's a great chance they will eventually visit all questions asked in particular tags. On StackOverflow they will see only a tip of the iceberg.
Such active users are usually the most active voters.
Another factor is, that on each sites you have 30/40 votes a day. On smaller sites it's much more that the number of questions asked a day, making in theoretically possible to upvote (almost) all questions. On StackOverflow it's quite typical to be out of votes. | *Content is King*(TM).
On average, good1 questions will receive upvotes and bad2 questions will receive downvotes.
While SO has a huge number of users, this does not necessarily mean that every good question will receive an upvote and that every bad question will receive a downvote.
However, this also means it is unlikely that "on average" good questions are not being upvoted.
1. defined as at least one standard deviation in the right direction from the mean3.
2. defined as at least one standard deviation in the wrong direction from the mean.
3. defined per tag cluster, you'll notice some tags have wildly different ideas of 'average'. |
8,377,527 | I am using T-SQL and Microsoft Management Studio 2008 R2. I want to create a database in which I can store video files.
After google search and some reading I have learned that there is a option to use "File Stream Enable Database". It was said that this kind of database should be used only when your files are larger then 2MB. I want to store video files, so I think this is suitable for my goals.
Please, give me more information about the main difference in using BLOB and FileStream Enable database or just to store the files in a given directory and to save only the url in the database table column?
Thanks in advance. | 2011/12/04 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/8377527",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1080354/"
] | Filestream was an interesting change when it came in for me; the bit that suprised me was Full Text Search was taken out of the operating system because it caused issues; but file stream put it back because Blobs caused issues.
Using Filestream is basically transparent to your application and it even backs the files up as if they were in the database - and thats the big benefit or cost over the save in database v save pointer in database.
You can insert files the same way as you did before and you can read them back in SQL in exactly the same way. The difference and benefit is that that SQL can take advantage of Windows system cache for reading and files saving its own resources to make other queries run quicker. | >
> Please, give me more information about the main difference in using BLOB and FileStream Enable
> database
>
>
>
The feature you call for is "FileStream" not "FileStream enable".
Some blogs are also around, like <http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rdoherty/archive/2007/10/12/getting-traction-with-sql-server-2008-filestream.aspx>
At kleast try reading the documentation before running around and have other people do your basic groundwork. |
16,186 | Is there any kind of tool to sketch the layout of website roughly? For example just to draw a basic sketch of the design to show others? Thanks | 2011/06/29 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/16186",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/8693/"
] | Despite how simple and effective [paper sketches](http://www.geekchix.org/blog/2010/01/03/a-collection-of-printable-sketch-templates-and-sketch-books-for-wireframing/) can be, [Balsamiq Mockups](http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups) has a great reputation for doing just what you are looking for. | [MockFlow](http://www.mockflow.com/) is a wireframing tool similar in function to Balsamiq from @dmsnell's answer, but without the literal "sketch" look, which not everyone is fond of. |
16,186 | Is there any kind of tool to sketch the layout of website roughly? For example just to draw a basic sketch of the design to show others? Thanks | 2011/06/29 | [
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/16186",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com",
"https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/users/8693/"
] | It sounds like you are looking for wireframe software. Here's a list of some to check out:
* [Lovely Charts](http://www.lovelycharts.com/) (free)
* [Pencil Project](http://pencil.evolus.vn/en-US/Home.aspx) (free)
* [Serena Prototype Composer](http://www.serena.com/products/prototype-composer/index.html) (free)
* [MockFlow](http://www.mockflow.com/)
* [Axure RP](http://www.axure.com/)
* [Balsamiq](http://www.balsamiq.com/products/mockups)
* [HotGloo](http://www.hotgloo.com/)
* [Mockingbird](http://gomockingbird.com/)
* [ProtoShare](http://www.protoshare.com/)
* [Gliffy](http://www.gliffy.com/)
* [Justinmind Prototyper](http://www.justinmind.com/)
* [JumpChart](http://www.jumpchart.com/)
* [Pidoco](https://pidoco.com/en)
* [iPlotz](http://iplotz.com/) | [MockFlow](http://www.mockflow.com/) is a wireframing tool similar in function to Balsamiq from @dmsnell's answer, but without the literal "sketch" look, which not everyone is fond of. |
64,358 | On the starting island, you can go to the beach and enter a small cave full of purple crystals.
However, there seems to be nothing there besides two easy monsters.
Is there any use for the cave at all? Do I need it for a quest, or is there some item there that I haven't found? | 2012/04/28 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/64358",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/11566/"
] | There is something in that cave if you look around carefully. A torch might be helpful to see it.
>
> Somewhere to the right side of the cave (from where you enter it) is a Hero's Crown, which gives you a permanent increase to some defensive stats.
>
>
> | You can find a treasure in there. But first you'll need to get a corresponding quest. Go to the room to the left of Carlos and open chest in it - you'll find a map. |
116,731 | I am a developer with expertise in Qt GUIs. I was assigned to it when I was a fresher in a different company. But overtime I've started to hate working on the technology.
The reason simply being that I get constant changes which are never documented (despite my effort). The timelines are not moved. When pointed out, I am told that apparently this was part of the original estimate.
Apart from the above mentioned, GUI is simply speaking given the least priority and importance while it is also the first thing the user sees.
Basically, over the 2 companies I've worked with, the teams are understaffed while expectations are high. Last but not the least, the projects are always ancient with zero documentation and large number of permutations for testing (which are unknown to everyone as GUI people don't stay). One requirement generally means a hundred more changes (the requirement to create a building in 3D also entails the ability to delete it for instance).
Also, I have a personal amazement for back-end work. I like to be the guy who creates all kinds of data structures and what not.
The problem is that my CV contains different ways for using Qt GUI. This prevents me for applying for a good C/C++ coder job (The interviewers basically state that I don't have any experience with C/C++. No technical questions asked). My current company needs more Qt people (no one is willing to learn it and the freshers whom I've trained somehow magically end up getting a better paying job in Qt at a different firm) so, they won't let me switch no matter what.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I've never seen a position for a senior developer in the field in my area. | 2018/07/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/116731",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/88492/"
] | You might need to search for more junior roles and then emphasise your knowledge in the interview stage stating that you would like to broaden your skill-set by moving into a different field.
A junior role may not pay as well as what you're earning now, but at least it gets your experience down on paper and you have the option to move upward within the company that you're moving into. Or not, as the case may be (but at least you have experience with this skill on your resume).
Basically, you might have to demote on a temporary basis yourself in order to cross to another technology. It's going to be easier to do that than to get a "good" job by blagging your way in without having some experience to demonstrate your skills. | Agree with other answers that volunteering for different kinds of work within your own team or company is a good first step.
It's quite a big jump you want to make, but another way you can try to make this change is to focus on your experience with the kind of application rather than the programming language. If you've spent a lot of time working on a product in a certain domain (for example CRM or collaboration) or with a certain application architecture (such as microservices or client-server), you may be able to apply to companies making similar software and sell your domain knowledge and expertise with that kind of application rather than with Qt GUIs.
Whatever approach you take you will probably need to accept a step down at the same time as others have suggested. |
116,731 | I am a developer with expertise in Qt GUIs. I was assigned to it when I was a fresher in a different company. But overtime I've started to hate working on the technology.
The reason simply being that I get constant changes which are never documented (despite my effort). The timelines are not moved. When pointed out, I am told that apparently this was part of the original estimate.
Apart from the above mentioned, GUI is simply speaking given the least priority and importance while it is also the first thing the user sees.
Basically, over the 2 companies I've worked with, the teams are understaffed while expectations are high. Last but not the least, the projects are always ancient with zero documentation and large number of permutations for testing (which are unknown to everyone as GUI people don't stay). One requirement generally means a hundred more changes (the requirement to create a building in 3D also entails the ability to delete it for instance).
Also, I have a personal amazement for back-end work. I like to be the guy who creates all kinds of data structures and what not.
The problem is that my CV contains different ways for using Qt GUI. This prevents me for applying for a good C/C++ coder job (The interviewers basically state that I don't have any experience with C/C++. No technical questions asked). My current company needs more Qt people (no one is willing to learn it and the freshers whom I've trained somehow magically end up getting a better paying job in Qt at a different firm) so, they won't let me switch no matter what.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I've never seen a position for a senior developer in the field in my area. | 2018/07/31 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/116731",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/88492/"
] | What you need to do is gain experience in the role you want to move into. If there are opportunities within your company to take on responsibilities that deal with the technologies, do so.
Barring that, you also have the option of doing freelance work, volunteering for charities, or participating in collaborative and/or open source projects.
Then, your options open up. Companies may or may not wish to risk taking you on in a senior role even after that, but they're not going to look at you at all if you cannot demonstrate proficiency. | Agree with other answers that volunteering for different kinds of work within your own team or company is a good first step.
It's quite a big jump you want to make, but another way you can try to make this change is to focus on your experience with the kind of application rather than the programming language. If you've spent a lot of time working on a product in a certain domain (for example CRM or collaboration) or with a certain application architecture (such as microservices or client-server), you may be able to apply to companies making similar software and sell your domain knowledge and expertise with that kind of application rather than with Qt GUIs.
Whatever approach you take you will probably need to accept a step down at the same time as others have suggested. |
12,277,270 | Does MVCContrib currently support MVC4? I am having a first look at switching a project from MVC2 to MVC4 and having some issues with Portable Areas. | 2012/09/05 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/12277270",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/517406/"
] | In case anyone else comes across this post, you could try these:
<http://nuget.org/packages/StudioDonder.MvcContrib.Mvc4/>
<http://nuget.org/packages/StudioDonder.MvcContrib.Mvc4.TestHelper/>
etc.
with the source here: <http://mvccontrib.codeplex.com/SourceControl/network/forks/ErikSchierboom/mvccontribmvc4>
For each, they say:
Note: this is a fork of the MvcContrib project that is suited for working with ASP.NET MVC 4. | I can say from experience that it "sort of" works.
I'm working on a project where we were using the Mvc.Contrib.TestHelpers assembly, and in that case, I had to download the source code from Codeplex, update the MVC references from version 3 to version 4 and rebuild the project, then reference my rebuilt version of MvcContrib.
I hope that helps :) |
32,626,287 | I used .net cache object for a windows application.I built this cache object - while loading the app. This helps us to gain performances. Everything was working OK.
Because of this success, we started implementing this caching mechanism in every other applications ; windows , service, web etc. They all are using same cache objects - but every application has a copy of its own.
In one server, we had 40 applications hosted. All of them are using Cache object. But they have their own copy of cache object. Size of one cache object is 100 MB. Serve's memory consumption is 40\*100 MB. We had to upgrade ( increase memory) the server to support the applications hosted in that server.
I need help to review the approach I am following. All of my applications ( services, web , windows) are in need of same cached object. How can I design my applications to support that? Is there any tools out there to handle this type of situations? | 2015/09/17 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/32626287",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1630853/"
] | You need to look into a distributed cache, like [redis](http://redis.io) (for which there are some nice .net client libraries, like [StackExchange.Redis](https://github.com/StackExchange/StackExchange.Redis).)
[NCache](http://www.alachisoft.com/ncache/) or [Dache](http://dache.io) or others, personally I have only used Redis.
Note, that distributed caching comes with its own set of problems and issues to look out for. For example it is generally "slower" since you have to marshal and send the cache objects to the out-of-process cache process. And your data has to be "serializable" in the first place (strings are of course the easiest thing from that perspective).
Also consider advanced failure scenarios, for example what happens when the out-of-process cache is not reachable or even down? Something like that cannot happen when you simply cache in process. | Use NCache (Open Source or Enterprise version) and check the [topologies](http://www.alachisoft.com/ncache/caching-topology.html) of how you can store cached objects and avoid failovers. It is meant for scalability therefore if your applications do increase in the future, you could add more servers at runtime.
[Redis](http://blogs.alachisoft.com/ncache/a-good-redis-alternative-open-source-distributed-cache/) in my opinion comes with its own set of problems and here is a small piece for you
*Full Disclosure: I work for NCache so ask away any question you have, i'll be happy to assist.* |
497,524 | Microsoft says the following about using Simple Recovery Model in your SQL Server database:
>
> Changes since the most recent backup are unprotected. In the event of
> a disaster, those changes must be redone.
>
>
>
In the real world, what are the most common examples of such a disaster? | 2013/04/09 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/497524",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/48212/"
] | Hard disc crash, corruption of data on the disc - anything that requires you to go to backups. | SQL Server databases consist of at least 1 data file and at least 1 log file. These files contain the data and a record of the transactions that are in the process of being committed or rolled back. All transactions are recorded to the transactions log and periodically a checkpoint occurs which makes sure that the log records are flushed to disk. This also happens when an orderly shutdown occurs: the SQL Server performs a checkpoint of all databases, closes out all internal database tracking structures, and exits the SQL Server process.
There are many things that can cause corruption but in general corruption occurs if/when anything interrupts data from being written to either of those files. This can include the following:
* Power outage - this would prevent the checkpoint from performing a checkpoint as indicated above. It can also cause problems if the SQL Server was in the middle of writing data to the disk.
* I/O Subsystem problems - this includes any of the **software** or **hardware** that is involved in reading and writing to your disks (the HBA card or drivers, fiber, SAN storage).
More info: [SQL Server 2000 I/O Basics](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc966500.aspx) |
497,524 | Microsoft says the following about using Simple Recovery Model in your SQL Server database:
>
> Changes since the most recent backup are unprotected. In the event of
> a disaster, those changes must be redone.
>
>
>
In the real world, what are the most common examples of such a disaster? | 2013/04/09 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/497524",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/48212/"
] | Hard disc crash, corruption of data on the disc - anything that requires you to go to backups. | Don't forget the most likely cause...human error. Dropping a table, etc.
Even if it is in full recovery mode, you still have to actually perform a backup or you'll effectively be running in simple recovery mode. Not doing that initial backup may easily be overlooked in a test environment. |
9,492,280 | There's an old plug-in for NetBeans called Line Tools that enabled sorting lines alphanumerically. I can't get it to work though, and I don't expect to given how old it is.
<http://plugins.netbeans.org/plugin/3857/line-tools>
The author on that page claims the features are now present in the current NetBeans, but I think he's referring to the actions "Move/Copy Selection/Line Up Down" and not the line sorting.
Is there a built-in way or any plug-ins to sort lines (by selection) in NetBeans? I've looked at NetBeans key maps and couldn't find anything of the.. sort. | 2012/02/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/9492280",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1183231/"
] | I found [Sort Line Tools](http://plugins.netbeans.org/plugin/45925/line-tools-nb-7-x-compatible) NetBeans plugin. Looks like what you (and I) need. | Try <http://plugins.netbeans.org/plugin/6896/japplis-toolbox>. There is also a function to sort lines and even more features. |
50,565,841 | I'm using the Microsoft Graph API for my application.
I read that Microsoft Teams chat is stored in the Outlook of the sender.
To retrieve all the Teams Chat I use this request <https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/me/messages> (I know that it also return me all the outlook but I use some filter to return me only Teams Chat).
Now my question is how to know which Chats belong to the same conversation, I did not find in the metadata some property to help me. | 2018/05/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/50565841",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/9684418/"
] | The Graph API for reading Teams conversations is not yet available but should be by around the end of June.
The API you are trying to use will not work. | The APIs to read messages from a Microsoft Teams channel are available in preview. I've created a multi-platform .NET Core application that demonstrates its use. You can use it to download all of the messages from a specific channel within a Team, or all the channels in a Team.
<https://github.com/tamhinsf/QuickTeams>
Here are the underlying APIs that it uses:
To read the messages in a given channel. This will return a paginated list of messages, each with a unique ID.
<https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/api-reference/beta/api/channel_list_messages>
Given a unique message ID, this will enable you to get the replies to the message.
<https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/docs/api-reference/beta/api/channel_list_messagereplies> |
64,632 | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ys09g.jpg)
SO basically my texture is showing off way to big and when i tried to fit all my unwrapped parts in the 2D editor, i had to scale them very small which caused this problem.
I have red somewhere else that i had to do: Add>Vector>Mapping and change the scale. I tried to connect the cables as the pictures showed (I have plugged it into UV now, not object as the pic shows btw) , but im sure i am missing some plugs here.
What else needs to be done?
Appreciated if it could be explained in clear steps, im only a beginner.
EDIT: here to show the multiple UV maps.. at least i think they are :)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LmRre.jpg) | 2016/10/09 | [
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/64632",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com",
"https://blender.stackexchange.com/users/31279/"
] | It could have multiple sources, two of them I could think of at the moment is that you have:
* more than one material in the Material Slots, and you're editing one that is not assigned
* more than one UV Map on the object, and the one which is currently renderable is empty
To check the material assignment, you can use the Material Tab like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pFfDa.gif)
To check the UV Maps, you can use the Mesh Data Tab, UV Maps section:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/42nry.gif)
Regarding the UV map, the one with the camera icon behind is the one that is sent down the material tree when you plug the UV output socket somewhere. To choose a different UV Map you can use the dedicated UV Map node:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Ioqo.gif)
EDIT: One more option
=====================
This happens frequently: There is a difference between Texture Preview and Material Preview. Material Preview tries to replicate the look of the final material as close as possible, so it tries to evaluate the whole node tree. Texture Preview on the other end was designed more for texturing game assets, where mapping nodes would not be so important (I guess). Texture Preview shows you what the **selected** texture node in the node tree would look like if the image was mapped onto the UV space without any mapping happening. See this little explanation here:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TEzsf.gif) | On a side note it is advisable, to load your image into the uv editor to see how the geometry matches the image.
The node setup is correct. Changing the scale values of the Mapping node will change the scale of the texture. This will work with object and with uv coordinates.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MKdwS.gif) |
92,147 | I'm trying to perform an OD Cost Matrix calculation on a set of points using a road network from OpenStreetMap data. The network contains lots of roads that don't connect to the rest of the network. In the case where a point snaps to such a place on the network, it can't reach any other sample points.
How do I remove these sections of road? Or if that's not possible, how could I systematically identify those areas and connect them to the rest of the network? | 2014/04/07 | [
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/92147",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19719/"
] | My solution to this was kind of a kludge, but then I was doing a small class project working with a subset of one county's roads so the network wasn't that big and I didn't need to do it as a common task. I just ran a service area analysis with the time set large enough that in theory everything should be reachable. That highlighted everything that was connected, thereby showing what wasn't. Some of them I added new connections because I needed to preserve those areas, others I simply selected and deleted the isolated roads from the dataset.
10.1 help has reference to a [Find Disconnected](http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#//002r00000033000000) tool on the Utility Network Analyst Toolbar if you have access to that.
10.2.1 also has a new tool that might do what you want, if you have access to that version or higher: [Find Disconnected Features In Geometric Network (Data Management)](http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.2/index.html#//001700000194000000) | I was looking for a possibility to delete isolated lines from OSM data, too. Unfortunately, I have a huge amount of data. And having to deal with Network Datasets anyway, I just didnt want to examine Geometric Networks. But using Michaels suggestion worked, thank you very much! I had to change 2 things: First, I had to unsplit the lines in the beginning, so that I was been able to delete also isolated parts that consists of more than 1 feature line. Second, the last step consists of a query to the lines with a joinCount of 2 (istead of a iCount of 1). My data is preprocessed OSM data, stored in a file geodatabase. Here are the detailed steps:
1. Make a copy of the roads dataset -> roads\_copy
2. Use "unsplit line" tool on roads\_copy -> roads\_unsplit
3. Use "feature vertices to points" tool on roads\_unsplit (point type: both ends) -> roads\_vert
4. Use "collect events with rendering" tool on roads\_vert (quite time intensive) -> roads\_collect (unattached ends get ICOUNT = 1)
5. Query roads\_collect: "Select from roads\_collect where ICOUNT = 1"
6. Export query result -> roads\_icount1
7. Use "spatial join" tool to join roads\_icount1 (= join features) to roads\_unsplit (= target features); choose "one\_to\_one", "keep all target features" and "intersect" -> roads\_join (isolated roads get Join\_Count = 2)
8. Query roads\_join: "Select from roads\_join where Join\_Count = 2"
9. Use "select layer by location" on original (not unsplitted!) roads; selecting features = roads\_join, relationship = "share\_a\_line\_segment\_with", selection type = "new\_selection"
10. Delete selected rows using "delete rows" tool
There you go. Maybe put it in a model. It seems a little complicated but leads to the desired result for me. |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | The two things (starting in the middle and avoiding slivers) are NOT related.
You can start in the middle and end up with idiotic cuts on both edges - or you can start in the corner and not do that...
What you SHOULD do is measure enough that you know where to put the SENSIBLE cuts on the edges, regardless if you are starting at a wall, corner, or the middle of the floor. When starting in a corner or at a wall, your very first tile might well be a cut tile. By planning, you know what cuts you are making and can place the whole and cut tiles as you like. In your case, the first two-and-a bit tiles at the door should probably be cut so that there's not a large gap at the threshold (or you need to get the door molding cut so they can slide under it.) Depending how the (invisible) far wall (opposite the door) comes out, you might want to take enough off the "door" tiles that the wall parallel to the door does not have what looks to be a 1-1/2" slice running along it.
The main argument I've seen for starting in the middle is to avoid following an irregular wall - but you can do the same thing by striking a chalk-line where the first grout line from the wall would be, and pre-cutting all the tiles for that wall if it's irregular (or if they will be half or 1/3 tiles so the far wall isn't slivers - which you'll know because you measure it.)
Based on your pictures, I'd choose the "not centered" approach, since the visible far wall is decidedly not slivers that way, but that's purely an opinion call, not "right" or "wrong." | When I tiles three adjoining rooms I wanted straight lines connecting the rooms. I didn't want the dining room to be half a tile left or right of the kitchen.
I started in the middle of the family room because it was the biggest and what would be the biggest area where any mistakes would be the most visible. Then, I laid out tiles from that center one, using the spacers, into each of the rooms BEFORE I ever started mudding. Then I shifted that center tile as needed so I had as few cuts on each wall and still had my continuous lines. It was a sort of test lay.
I think another reason you start in the middle is to divide any misalignment equally into each corner. If you start in one corner and that tile is four degrees off then all of that error will end up in the opposite corner. Start in the center and that error ends up being less obvious. I don't actually know if that's true and I haven't put a lot of time into working that out. Maybe someone can tell me if I'm not even close on that one. |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | The two things (starting in the middle and avoiding slivers) are NOT related.
You can start in the middle and end up with idiotic cuts on both edges - or you can start in the corner and not do that...
What you SHOULD do is measure enough that you know where to put the SENSIBLE cuts on the edges, regardless if you are starting at a wall, corner, or the middle of the floor. When starting in a corner or at a wall, your very first tile might well be a cut tile. By planning, you know what cuts you are making and can place the whole and cut tiles as you like. In your case, the first two-and-a bit tiles at the door should probably be cut so that there's not a large gap at the threshold (or you need to get the door molding cut so they can slide under it.) Depending how the (invisible) far wall (opposite the door) comes out, you might want to take enough off the "door" tiles that the wall parallel to the door does not have what looks to be a 1-1/2" slice running along it.
The main argument I've seen for starting in the middle is to avoid following an irregular wall - but you can do the same thing by striking a chalk-line where the first grout line from the wall would be, and pre-cutting all the tiles for that wall if it's irregular (or if they will be half or 1/3 tiles so the far wall isn't slivers - which you'll know because you measure it.)
Based on your pictures, I'd choose the "not centered" approach, since the visible far wall is decidedly not slivers that way, but that's purely an opinion call, not "right" or "wrong." | I followed the advice given here and went with the "non-centered" approach - to ensure that the threshold looked good and not start in the middle of the room. Here are the results:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AsTNH.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HuY1F.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lyAnw.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p5oln.jpg) |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | Yes, starting in the middle of the room can be a bit un-nerving. There's no reason not to begin in another location ; as long as you're comfortable with the appearance of cut tiles along the wall. For the sake of balance and uniformity It would be wise (as you noted) to begin at the most trafficked entry point working out and away into the room. I always found you get the best look from the tile if you can install full tiles to be in view when the door is open. So looking at photo #2 you see more full tiles and fewer cut tiles. This will also produce less work in that you won't be going back to the tile saw constantly and there won't be as much waste. You might want to trim the door molding so the tile can fit underneath rather than notching angled cuts. Keep your spacing along the wall as close to the joint spacing as possible if you don't intend to install wall molding (it will look neater). Any grout joint over 3/16 inches you will want to use sanded grout for a stronger grout joint. | I followed the advice given here and went with the "non-centered" approach - to ensure that the threshold looked good and not start in the middle of the room. Here are the results:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AsTNH.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HuY1F.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lyAnw.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p5oln.jpg) |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | When I tiles three adjoining rooms I wanted straight lines connecting the rooms. I didn't want the dining room to be half a tile left or right of the kitchen.
I started in the middle of the family room because it was the biggest and what would be the biggest area where any mistakes would be the most visible. Then, I laid out tiles from that center one, using the spacers, into each of the rooms BEFORE I ever started mudding. Then I shifted that center tile as needed so I had as few cuts on each wall and still had my continuous lines. It was a sort of test lay.
I think another reason you start in the middle is to divide any misalignment equally into each corner. If you start in one corner and that tile is four degrees off then all of that error will end up in the opposite corner. Start in the center and that error ends up being less obvious. I don't actually know if that's true and I haven't put a lot of time into working that out. Maybe someone can tell me if I'm not even close on that one. | LOL, that is funny. Might want to burn that book because any tile setter that wrote that is either a complete amateur or an idiot.
There are two basic problems with tile geometry: the room is not square, and the dimensions of the room are not evenly divisible by the dimensions of the tile. Solving these two problems is not trivial, even for experienced tile setters and for an amateur it is very difficult.
I would strongly suggest getting tile setting software. This software will let you experiment with different layouts and help you determine the best configuration for your space.
In general, what you want is for everything to be balanced, which means that the angles and cutoffs are the same on all sides. For example, if the tile makes a 5-degree angle with the wall on the left, then it should make a 5-degree angle with the wall on right. Having a 3-degree angle on one side and an 8-degree angle on the other is bad. Likewise, the cutoffs should be balanced. If you have a 5-inch cutoff on one side, then you should have a 5-inch cutoff on the other. Having no cutoff on one side, and a 10-inch cutoff on the other is bad because it is not balanced. |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | When I tiles three adjoining rooms I wanted straight lines connecting the rooms. I didn't want the dining room to be half a tile left or right of the kitchen.
I started in the middle of the family room because it was the biggest and what would be the biggest area where any mistakes would be the most visible. Then, I laid out tiles from that center one, using the spacers, into each of the rooms BEFORE I ever started mudding. Then I shifted that center tile as needed so I had as few cuts on each wall and still had my continuous lines. It was a sort of test lay.
I think another reason you start in the middle is to divide any misalignment equally into each corner. If you start in one corner and that tile is four degrees off then all of that error will end up in the opposite corner. Start in the center and that error ends up being less obvious. I don't actually know if that's true and I haven't put a lot of time into working that out. Maybe someone can tell me if I'm not even close on that one. | I have laid tile in maybe 100 bathrooms of this size. You start at the door wall and work your way out. Other decisions are based on where your vanity will be and where most of the traffic will be. On yours it looks like the area running straight out from the door will have the most tile traffic so I will use that fact in my answer.
* first install your threshold where you want it and parallel to the door wall. If you do a really good job of installing your threshold it will sit right at a point where you can tile straight across without cuts and your grout width next to the threshold will be uniform.
* You have a pattern. You want to offset your tiles using a horizontal pattern. In your "not centered" picture this is the way you want to do it **EXCEPT do not line your first tile with the upper left hand corner (of the pic), it should be lined up with the door wall.** This might not be true for a large room but surely is for a small bathroom as this area will be 80% of the focus.
* to line up the tile with the door wall you will have to cut out the bottom of each of your door jambs - do not cut tile around this, as it is hard and ends up looking tacky. This is a bit tricky because you want it snug as possible but you have to account for both tile and thinset. I usually just add 1/4" to tile height.
* The only time I would ever start in the middle of a small room like this would be if I was running some diagonal pattern. Since you aren't then this is moot.
* I would keep your tiles snug to the left wall (in the pics). This wall is in front of the door and is the eye line for the bathroom. Any odd/non-uniform cuts I would put on the other wall. |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | Yes, starting in the middle of the room can be a bit un-nerving. There's no reason not to begin in another location ; as long as you're comfortable with the appearance of cut tiles along the wall. For the sake of balance and uniformity It would be wise (as you noted) to begin at the most trafficked entry point working out and away into the room. I always found you get the best look from the tile if you can install full tiles to be in view when the door is open. So looking at photo #2 you see more full tiles and fewer cut tiles. This will also produce less work in that you won't be going back to the tile saw constantly and there won't be as much waste. You might want to trim the door molding so the tile can fit underneath rather than notching angled cuts. Keep your spacing along the wall as close to the joint spacing as possible if you don't intend to install wall molding (it will look neater). Any grout joint over 3/16 inches you will want to use sanded grout for a stronger grout joint. | When I tiles three adjoining rooms I wanted straight lines connecting the rooms. I didn't want the dining room to be half a tile left or right of the kitchen.
I started in the middle of the family room because it was the biggest and what would be the biggest area where any mistakes would be the most visible. Then, I laid out tiles from that center one, using the spacers, into each of the rooms BEFORE I ever started mudding. Then I shifted that center tile as needed so I had as few cuts on each wall and still had my continuous lines. It was a sort of test lay.
I think another reason you start in the middle is to divide any misalignment equally into each corner. If you start in one corner and that tile is four degrees off then all of that error will end up in the opposite corner. Start in the center and that error ends up being less obvious. I don't actually know if that's true and I haven't put a lot of time into working that out. Maybe someone can tell me if I'm not even close on that one. |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | Yes, starting in the middle of the room can be a bit un-nerving. There's no reason not to begin in another location ; as long as you're comfortable with the appearance of cut tiles along the wall. For the sake of balance and uniformity It would be wise (as you noted) to begin at the most trafficked entry point working out and away into the room. I always found you get the best look from the tile if you can install full tiles to be in view when the door is open. So looking at photo #2 you see more full tiles and fewer cut tiles. This will also produce less work in that you won't be going back to the tile saw constantly and there won't be as much waste. You might want to trim the door molding so the tile can fit underneath rather than notching angled cuts. Keep your spacing along the wall as close to the joint spacing as possible if you don't intend to install wall molding (it will look neater). Any grout joint over 3/16 inches you will want to use sanded grout for a stronger grout joint. | LOL, that is funny. Might want to burn that book because any tile setter that wrote that is either a complete amateur or an idiot.
There are two basic problems with tile geometry: the room is not square, and the dimensions of the room are not evenly divisible by the dimensions of the tile. Solving these two problems is not trivial, even for experienced tile setters and for an amateur it is very difficult.
I would strongly suggest getting tile setting software. This software will let you experiment with different layouts and help you determine the best configuration for your space.
In general, what you want is for everything to be balanced, which means that the angles and cutoffs are the same on all sides. For example, if the tile makes a 5-degree angle with the wall on the left, then it should make a 5-degree angle with the wall on right. Having a 3-degree angle on one side and an 8-degree angle on the other is bad. Likewise, the cutoffs should be balanced. If you have a 5-inch cutoff on one side, then you should have a 5-inch cutoff on the other. Having no cutoff on one side, and a 10-inch cutoff on the other is bad because it is not balanced. |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | Yes, starting in the middle of the room can be a bit un-nerving. There's no reason not to begin in another location ; as long as you're comfortable with the appearance of cut tiles along the wall. For the sake of balance and uniformity It would be wise (as you noted) to begin at the most trafficked entry point working out and away into the room. I always found you get the best look from the tile if you can install full tiles to be in view when the door is open. So looking at photo #2 you see more full tiles and fewer cut tiles. This will also produce less work in that you won't be going back to the tile saw constantly and there won't be as much waste. You might want to trim the door molding so the tile can fit underneath rather than notching angled cuts. Keep your spacing along the wall as close to the joint spacing as possible if you don't intend to install wall molding (it will look neater). Any grout joint over 3/16 inches you will want to use sanded grout for a stronger grout joint. | I have laid tile in maybe 100 bathrooms of this size. You start at the door wall and work your way out. Other decisions are based on where your vanity will be and where most of the traffic will be. On yours it looks like the area running straight out from the door will have the most tile traffic so I will use that fact in my answer.
* first install your threshold where you want it and parallel to the door wall. If you do a really good job of installing your threshold it will sit right at a point where you can tile straight across without cuts and your grout width next to the threshold will be uniform.
* You have a pattern. You want to offset your tiles using a horizontal pattern. In your "not centered" picture this is the way you want to do it **EXCEPT do not line your first tile with the upper left hand corner (of the pic), it should be lined up with the door wall.** This might not be true for a large room but surely is for a small bathroom as this area will be 80% of the focus.
* to line up the tile with the door wall you will have to cut out the bottom of each of your door jambs - do not cut tile around this, as it is hard and ends up looking tacky. This is a bit tricky because you want it snug as possible but you have to account for both tile and thinset. I usually just add 1/4" to tile height.
* The only time I would ever start in the middle of a small room like this would be if I was running some diagonal pattern. Since you aren't then this is moot.
* I would keep your tiles snug to the left wall (in the pics). This wall is in front of the door and is the eye line for the bathroom. Any odd/non-uniform cuts I would put on the other wall. |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | I followed the advice given here and went with the "non-centered" approach - to ensure that the threshold looked good and not start in the middle of the room. Here are the results:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AsTNH.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HuY1F.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lyAnw.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/p5oln.jpg) | I have laid tile in maybe 100 bathrooms of this size. You start at the door wall and work your way out. Other decisions are based on where your vanity will be and where most of the traffic will be. On yours it looks like the area running straight out from the door will have the most tile traffic so I will use that fact in my answer.
* first install your threshold where you want it and parallel to the door wall. If you do a really good job of installing your threshold it will sit right at a point where you can tile straight across without cuts and your grout width next to the threshold will be uniform.
* You have a pattern. You want to offset your tiles using a horizontal pattern. In your "not centered" picture this is the way you want to do it **EXCEPT do not line your first tile with the upper left hand corner (of the pic), it should be lined up with the door wall.** This might not be true for a large room but surely is for a small bathroom as this area will be 80% of the focus.
* to line up the tile with the door wall you will have to cut out the bottom of each of your door jambs - do not cut tile around this, as it is hard and ends up looking tacky. This is a bit tricky because you want it snug as possible but you have to account for both tile and thinset. I usually just add 1/4" to tile height.
* The only time I would ever start in the middle of a small room like this would be if I was running some diagonal pattern. Since you aren't then this is moot.
* I would keep your tiles snug to the left wall (in the pics). This wall is in front of the door and is the eye line for the bathroom. Any odd/non-uniform cuts I would put on the other wall. |
79,490 | I am tiling a small bathroom ~45sq ft. The book I am referencing suggested starting the tile in the center of the room to prevent laying any tiny fractions of tile near one side of the room. I'm working with 12x24" tiles and it looks like I might be better suited with starting the tiles at the door threshold. Is the *start at the middle* idea just a guideline that I can go ahead and break?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ouDCW.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kVMaf.jpg) | 2015/12/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/79490",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/2513/"
] | The two things (starting in the middle and avoiding slivers) are NOT related.
You can start in the middle and end up with idiotic cuts on both edges - or you can start in the corner and not do that...
What you SHOULD do is measure enough that you know where to put the SENSIBLE cuts on the edges, regardless if you are starting at a wall, corner, or the middle of the floor. When starting in a corner or at a wall, your very first tile might well be a cut tile. By planning, you know what cuts you are making and can place the whole and cut tiles as you like. In your case, the first two-and-a bit tiles at the door should probably be cut so that there's not a large gap at the threshold (or you need to get the door molding cut so they can slide under it.) Depending how the (invisible) far wall (opposite the door) comes out, you might want to take enough off the "door" tiles that the wall parallel to the door does not have what looks to be a 1-1/2" slice running along it.
The main argument I've seen for starting in the middle is to avoid following an irregular wall - but you can do the same thing by striking a chalk-line where the first grout line from the wall would be, and pre-cutting all the tiles for that wall if it's irregular (or if they will be half or 1/3 tiles so the far wall isn't slivers - which you'll know because you measure it.)
Based on your pictures, I'd choose the "not centered" approach, since the visible far wall is decidedly not slivers that way, but that's purely an opinion call, not "right" or "wrong." | LOL, that is funny. Might want to burn that book because any tile setter that wrote that is either a complete amateur or an idiot.
There are two basic problems with tile geometry: the room is not square, and the dimensions of the room are not evenly divisible by the dimensions of the tile. Solving these two problems is not trivial, even for experienced tile setters and for an amateur it is very difficult.
I would strongly suggest getting tile setting software. This software will let you experiment with different layouts and help you determine the best configuration for your space.
In general, what you want is for everything to be balanced, which means that the angles and cutoffs are the same on all sides. For example, if the tile makes a 5-degree angle with the wall on the left, then it should make a 5-degree angle with the wall on right. Having a 3-degree angle on one side and an 8-degree angle on the other is bad. Likewise, the cutoffs should be balanced. If you have a 5-inch cutoff on one side, then you should have a 5-inch cutoff on the other. Having no cutoff on one side, and a 10-inch cutoff on the other is bad because it is not balanced. |
272,516 | I saw this sentence below on the internet.
It has been 20 years since they have seen each other.
Is this right expression?
Should I collect like "It has been 20 years since they saw each other." | 2021/01/18 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/272516",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/1257/"
] | This is an example of the [Correlative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_(grammar)#Correlative_conjunctions) construction "the [comparative], the [comparative]".
The two *the's* are both required, and the comparatives (adjectives or adverbs) must occur at the beginning of their respective clauses.
It is saying that Whenever the corals have more to eat, their reefs will grow larger.
Other examples are
>
> The longer he stays there, the more tired he will get.
>
>
>
>
> The quicker you finish, the happier I will be.
>
>
> | If you want to keep similar grammatical relationships, you can't reverse that phrasing:
>
> The more [that] the corals have to eat, the larger [that] their reefs will grow.
>
>
>
In the original (meaning without any "that") we have two *contact clauses*. Those are relative clauses which work even though there is no word like "that" or "which" to introduce them.
If you think that sentences must have subjects, I have a sentence for you: "Horsefeathers and balderdash." Actually, I can provide another: "Hello." My point here is that subjects don't belong directly to sentences. Rather, they belong to clauses, existing as a part of a subject/predicate pairing. Sentences can and usually do contain clauses which contain subjects, but the idea of *"the subject of the sentence"* falls apart when you're working with compound sentences, complex sentences, and nominal sentences like "the more, the merrier" and "the bigger, the better". A sentence might contain several subjects, or it might contain no subject at all.
We can paraphrase the original as a condition/consequence pairing expressed in a complex sentence structure:
>
> If the corals have more to eat, then their reefs will grow larger.
>
>
>
The semantics here are substantially the same, despite the grammatical differences. It's not *quite* as simple a transformation as merely restoring an inversion to its canonical order. |
19,645 | I will have a routed network with both public and private subnets routed with OSPF. There will be two core routers that both have a default route to the internet.
My question is how I make sure that no traffic with a private src-addr is routed outside my OSPF-area and also how I NAT this traffic. My idea right now is to have a specific NAT-router set up in the network and then do policy based routing on the core routers.
**EDIT:**
We are using L3 switches of different brands. The aggregation layer is mostly HP5400 and the core layer will be Dell S6000-ON. In the diagram you can see a simplyfied picture of our network. Right now we plan to have a dedicated NAT router (probably a linux machine) which lives on both private and public adresses to which we direct traffic from the core switches with PBR
 | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/19645",
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/users/16331/"
] | Core Switch is ON -> Open network, i would guess they run Cumulus Operating system.
Just do the Nat on the L3 core switches.
Match private IP's leaving for the Upstream router and nat them as required. | >
> My idea right now is to have a specific NAT-router set up in the network and then do policy based routing on the core routers.
>
>
>
As long as you can set up a rule based on the combination of source (private) and destination (outside your network) that overrides normal routing and sends packets to the NAT box this should work fine as a means of bringing outgoing traffic to the NAT box. Incoming traffic can be brought to the NAT box by normal IP routing.
Having only a single NAT box is a calculated risk. It makes the NAT box a single point of failure but it also means that re-routes won't break established sessions. |
58,593 | I just built an HTPC / homeserver, I used ubuntu 10.04 lucid lynx and combined it with xbmc.
The hardware I'm using is Asus e35m pro (embedded low voltage cpu and HD6310 gpu).
However if I run 1080p video footage, everything starts to stutter. I checked with htop from an ssh connection and noticed one of the cores goes into 100% load.
I was wondering why it does not use the GPU instead ? (I have installed proprietary drivers from ATI). Do I have to change settings ?
Is it XBMC related, ubuntu related or does ATI just not support hardware video decoding on their GPU on linux ? | 2011/08/25 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/58593",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/17053/"
] | I am not sure who to point the finger at, but what essentially happened is that NVIDIA provided one API to do this with their cards and ATI provided one for theirs. As you can guess they are not the same, so in order for programs to take advantage of this, they have to be coded to support it.
From what I can find, this is not currently in the stable release of XBMC (Dharma 10.1), but lucky for you is in branch for the next release. Your options at this point are to either wait for the Eden edition, or jump ahead and get a nightly build of XBMC. Obviously the nightly build can be unstable, and you have to accept that as part of the risk if you choose to so.
If you want to go the nightly route, check out [this](http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?t=99154) thread on the XBMC forums that gives you a couple different options and ways to get it installed.
Oh, also apparently if you are willing to go the Windows (ducks just in case somebody gets mad, sorry) route, the zacate seems to work pretty well on that platform also. | I have same hardware and this thread was big help for me. Especially xbmc from lars-opdenkamp repository.
<http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?t=98169> |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | Generally speaking, GUI frameworks aren't thread safe. For things like Swing(Java's GUI API), only one thread can be updating the UI (or bad things can happen). Only one thread handles dispatching events. If you have multiple threads updating the screen, you can get some ugly flicker and incorrect drawing.
That doesn't mean the application needs to be single threaded, however. There are certainly circumstances when you don't want this to be the case. If you click on a button that calculates pi to 1000 digits, you don't want the UI to be locked up and the button to be depressed for the next couple of days. This is when things like SwingWorker come in handy. It has two parts a doInBackground() which runs in a seperate thread and a done() that gets called by the thread that handles updating the UI sometime after the doInBackground thread has finished. This allows events to be handled quickly, or events that would take a long time to process in the background, while still having the single thread updating the screen. | Most GUI frameworks are not thread safe, meaning that all controls have to me accessed from the same thread that created them. Still, it's a good practice to create worker threads to have responsive applications, but you need to be careful to delegate GUI updates to the GUI thread. |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | Generally speaking, GUI frameworks aren't thread safe. For things like Swing(Java's GUI API), only one thread can be updating the UI (or bad things can happen). Only one thread handles dispatching events. If you have multiple threads updating the screen, you can get some ugly flicker and incorrect drawing.
That doesn't mean the application needs to be single threaded, however. There are certainly circumstances when you don't want this to be the case. If you click on a button that calculates pi to 1000 digits, you don't want the UI to be locked up and the button to be depressed for the next couple of days. This is when things like SwingWorker come in handy. It has two parts a doInBackground() which runs in a seperate thread and a done() that gets called by the thread that handles updating the UI sometime after the doInBackground thread has finished. This allows events to be handled quickly, or events that would take a long time to process in the background, while still having the single thread updating the screen. | Yes.
GUI applications should minimize the the number of threads that they use for the following reasons:
1. Thread programming is very hard and complicated
2. In general, GUI applications do at most 2 things at once : a) Respond to User Input, and b) Perform a background task (such as load in data) in response to a user action or an anticipated user action
***In general*** therefore, the added complexity of using multiple threads is not justified by the needs of the application.
There are of course exceptions to the rule. |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | I think in terms of windows you are limited to all GUI operations happening on a single thread - because of the way the windows message pump works, to increase responsivness most apps add at least one additional worker thread for longer running tasks that would otherwise block and make the ui unresponsive.
Threading is fundamentally hard and so thinking in terms or more than a couple threads can often result in a lot of debugging effort - there is a quote that escapes me right now that goes something like - "if you think you understand threading then you really dont" | Most GUI frameworks are not thread safe, meaning that all controls have to me accessed from the same thread that created them. Still, it's a good practice to create worker threads to have responsive applications, but you need to be careful to delegate GUI updates to the GUI thread. |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | I've seen the same thing. Ideally you should perform any operation that is going to take longer then a few hundred ms in a background thread. Anything sorter than 100ms and a human probably wont notice the difference.
A lot of GUI programmers I've worked with in the past are scared of threads because they are "hard". In some GUI frameworks such as the Delphi VCL there are warnings about using the VCL from multiple threads, and this tends to scare some people (others take it as a challenge ;) )
One interesting example of multi-threaded GUI coding is the BeOS API. Every window in an application gets its own thread. From my experience this made BeOS apps feel more responsive, but it did make programming things a little more tricky. Fortunately since BeOS was designed to be multi-threaded by default there was a lot of stuff in the API to make things easier than on some other OSs I've used. | As the prior comments said, GUI Frameworks (at least on Windows) are single threaded, thus the single thread. Another recommendation (that is difficult to code in practice) is to limit the number of the threads to the number of available cores on the machine. Your CPU can only do one operation at a time with one core. If there are two threads, a context switch has to happen at some point. If you've got too many threads, the computer can sometimes spend more time swapping between threads than letting threads work.
As Moore's Law changes with more cores, this will change and hopefully programming frameworks will evolve to help us use threads more effectively, depending on the number of cores available to the program, such as the [TPL](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163340.aspx). |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | Most GUI frameworks are not thread safe, meaning that all controls have to me accessed from the same thread that created them. Still, it's a good practice to create worker threads to have responsive applications, but you need to be careful to delegate GUI updates to the GUI thread. | Generally all the windowing messages from the window manager / OS will go to a single queue so its natural to have all UI elements in a single thread. Some frameworks, such as .Net, actually throw exceptions if you attempt to directly access UI elements from a thread other than the thread that created it. |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | Generally speaking, GUI frameworks aren't thread safe. For things like Swing(Java's GUI API), only one thread can be updating the UI (or bad things can happen). Only one thread handles dispatching events. If you have multiple threads updating the screen, you can get some ugly flicker and incorrect drawing.
That doesn't mean the application needs to be single threaded, however. There are certainly circumstances when you don't want this to be the case. If you click on a button that calculates pi to 1000 digits, you don't want the UI to be locked up and the button to be depressed for the next couple of days. This is when things like SwingWorker come in handy. It has two parts a doInBackground() which runs in a seperate thread and a done() that gets called by the thread that handles updating the UI sometime after the doInBackground thread has finished. This allows events to be handled quickly, or events that would take a long time to process in the background, while still having the single thread updating the screen. | The more threads you have in an application, (generally) the more complex the solution is. By attempting to minimise the number of threads being utilised within a GUI, there are less potential areas for problems.
The other issue is the biggest problem in GUI design: the human. Humans are notorious in their *in*ability to want to do multiple things at the same time. Users have a habit of clicking multiple butons/controls in quick sucession in order to attempt to get something done quicker. Computers cannot generally keep up with this (this is only componded by the GUIs apparent ability to keep up by using multiple threads), so to minimise this effect GUIs will respond to input on a first come first serve basis on a single thread. By doing this, the GUI is forced to wait until system resorces are free untill it can move on. Therefore elimating all the nasty deadlock situations that can arise. Obviously if the program logic and the GUI are on different threads, then this goes out the window.
From a personal preference, I prefer to keep things simple on one thread but not to the detriment of the responsivness of the GUI. If a task is taking too long, then Ill use a different thread, otherwise Ill stick to just one. |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | GUIs generally don't use a whole lot of threads, but they often do throw off another thread for interacting with certain sub-systems especially if those systems take awhile or are very shared resources.
For example, if you're going to print, you'll often want to throw off another thread to interact with the printer pool as it may be very busy for awhile and there's no reason not to keep working.
Another example would be database loads where you're interacting with SQL server or something like that and because of the latency involved you may want to create another thread so your main UI processing thread can continue to respond to commands. | Generally all the windowing messages from the window manager / OS will go to a single queue so its natural to have all UI elements in a single thread. Some frameworks, such as .Net, actually throw exceptions if you attempt to directly access UI elements from a thread other than the thread that created it. |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | The more threads you have in an application, (generally) the more complex the solution is. By attempting to minimise the number of threads being utilised within a GUI, there are less potential areas for problems.
The other issue is the biggest problem in GUI design: the human. Humans are notorious in their *in*ability to want to do multiple things at the same time. Users have a habit of clicking multiple butons/controls in quick sucession in order to attempt to get something done quicker. Computers cannot generally keep up with this (this is only componded by the GUIs apparent ability to keep up by using multiple threads), so to minimise this effect GUIs will respond to input on a first come first serve basis on a single thread. By doing this, the GUI is forced to wait until system resorces are free untill it can move on. Therefore elimating all the nasty deadlock situations that can arise. Obviously if the program logic and the GUI are on different threads, then this goes out the window.
From a personal preference, I prefer to keep things simple on one thread but not to the detriment of the responsivness of the GUI. If a task is taking too long, then Ill use a different thread, otherwise Ill stick to just one. | Generally all the windowing messages from the window manager / OS will go to a single queue so its natural to have all UI elements in a single thread. Some frameworks, such as .Net, actually throw exceptions if you attempt to directly access UI elements from a thread other than the thread that created it. |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | I've seen the same thing. Ideally you should perform any operation that is going to take longer then a few hundred ms in a background thread. Anything sorter than 100ms and a human probably wont notice the difference.
A lot of GUI programmers I've worked with in the past are scared of threads because they are "hard". In some GUI frameworks such as the Delphi VCL there are warnings about using the VCL from multiple threads, and this tends to scare some people (others take it as a challenge ;) )
One interesting example of multi-threaded GUI coding is the BeOS API. Every window in an application gets its own thread. From my experience this made BeOS apps feel more responsive, but it did make programming things a little more tricky. Fortunately since BeOS was designed to be multi-threaded by default there was a lot of stuff in the API to make things easier than on some other OSs I've used. | GUIs generally don't use a whole lot of threads, but they often do throw off another thread for interacting with certain sub-systems especially if those systems take awhile or are very shared resources.
For example, if you're going to print, you'll often want to throw off another thread to interact with the printer pool as it may be very busy for awhile and there's no reason not to keep working.
Another example would be database loads where you're interacting with SQL server or something like that and because of the latency involved you may want to create another thread so your main UI processing thread can continue to respond to commands. |
120,636 | In the past I've worked with a number of programmers who have worked exclusively writing GUI applications.
And I've been given the impression that they have almost universally minimised the use of multiple threads in their applications. In some cases they seem to have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that they use a single thread.
Is this common? Is this the generally accepted philosophy for gui application design?
And if so, why?
[edit]
There are a number of answers saying that thread usage should be minimised to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity in general is a good thing.
But if you look at any number of applications where response to external events is of paramount importance (eg. web servers, any number of embedded applications) there seems to be a world of difference in the attitude toward thread usage. | 2008/09/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/120636",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/11694/"
] | Yes.
GUI applications should minimize the the number of threads that they use for the following reasons:
1. Thread programming is very hard and complicated
2. In general, GUI applications do at most 2 things at once : a) Respond to User Input, and b) Perform a background task (such as load in data) in response to a user action or an anticipated user action
***In general*** therefore, the added complexity of using multiple threads is not justified by the needs of the application.
There are of course exceptions to the rule. | As the prior comments said, GUI Frameworks (at least on Windows) are single threaded, thus the single thread. Another recommendation (that is difficult to code in practice) is to limit the number of the threads to the number of available cores on the machine. Your CPU can only do one operation at a time with one core. If there are two threads, a context switch has to happen at some point. If you've got too many threads, the computer can sometimes spend more time swapping between threads than letting threads work.
As Moore's Law changes with more cores, this will change and hopefully programming frameworks will evolve to help us use threads more effectively, depending on the number of cores available to the program, such as the [TPL](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163340.aspx). |
1,012,431 | The title basically says it all. I have done endless hours of research trying to find out how to run a bat file from an FTP.
Long story short I have a Bat to shut down a server and I need to be able to execute said bat from an FTP. Only problem is (obviously) I can not double click and run that bat because the FTP wants to download that file. Is there any way to get that file to run from an FTP? | 2015/12/12 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1012431",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/532821/"
] | It is not fully clear what you are trying to achieve, but
* If you are trying to run the batch file on the FTP server itself: this is not possible using FTP.
* If you want to run the batch file locally then you must copy it from the FTP server to the local system (i.e. download it) and run it there. | >
> I have a .bat to shut down a server and I need to be able to execute said bat
>
>
>
Easily done...
>
> from an FTP.
>
>
>
But not from FTP. FTP is a **file transfer** protocol. It is designed to transfer files. It is not intended (or equipped) to execute commands on a server.
>
> Is there any way to get that file to run from an FTP?
>
>
>
No. Best (or worst since it is an ugly hack) you can do is to set up a job on the server which checks for the presence of a file in one of the FTP folders and then acts on it. E.g. every 1 minutes check if 'reboot\_please.txt' is present and if it is then remove the file and reboot the game server.
(You can skip removing the file tand leave that over to the user, at the risk of wondering why a game server keeps restarting every minute).
Note that you would initiate this from the server. Not from an FTP client.
A better way would be to give the users actual access to the server. How you do that depends on your current setup. Using a batch file indicates some kind of windows, but for more detailed answers we really need more information. |
590,292 | How does one define, succinctly, an interaction between two objects A and B where ideas from A are used to improve B and vice versa?
Thanks. | 2022/06/13 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/590292",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/322950/"
] | The word **symbiotic** is usually used to describe a mutually beneficial behaviour. Maybe the context of the question can help provide an appropriate suggestion.
**Symbiotic:**
characterized by or being a close, cooperative, or interdependent relationship
Example: Today, art advisers are as diverse as the clients they help. They often work alone and form intimate, symbiotic relationships with the people they serve.
Source: <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symbiotic> | I have found several examples from business blogs where the verb **cross-pollinate** is used as a metaphor for the sort of thing you are describing.
<https://www.fastcompany.com/1672519/5-ways-to-innovate-by-cross-pollinating-ideas>
<https://www.growthengineering.co.uk/cross-pollination-in-business/>
Merriam-Webster even gives the following secondary sense to the synonym **cross-fertilization**:
>
> 1a: fertilization in which the gametes are produced by separate individuals or sometimes by individuals of different kinds
>
>
> **2: interchange or interaction (as between different ideas, cultures, or categories) especially of a broadening or productive nature**
>
>
>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cross-fertilization>
Clearly these terms from biology are often used for the situation you are describing. |
2,726,231 | what's the purpose of the 'Refresh' command on the solution explorer window?
(When we select a project, the button is enabled) | 2010/04/28 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2726231",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/168882/"
] | Go to server explorer in VS, right click on server and select run query.
Do you mind telling us why it has to be run inside VS?
In addition, the database projects offers a lot of features that are worth looking at:
<http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=31764> //old article but still worth reading.
<http://www.ssw.com.au/ssw/standards/BetterSoftwareSuggestions/Images/VisualStudio_DataDude_SchemaCompare.gif>
<http://www.emadibrahim.com/2008/07/10/database-schema-compare-upgrade/> | There is a green arrow of play on the upper left corner of the window query. And down the tabs of the names of open files in VS. Just click to play and ready. |
43,730 | **Edit:** I realized I asked this very confusingly. I think what I really should have said was, are there any phonemic implications to r-coloring? Or thinking about it slightly differently, is there a phonological counterpart to r-coloring, or is it purely a phonetic feature?
I suspect it's the latter, I just wanted to see if I was missing something about, say, how the terminology is applied.
**Original post:**
I'm curious as to when a purely phonological examination might be concerned with highlighting r-coloring as a phenomenon in itself in opposition to a vowel + rhotic consonant sequence. (I'm interested particularly with English analyses.)
Insofar as English goes, I haven't yet seen an instance where one might care that *phonemically*-speaking an /ə/ followed by a rhotic consonant in the same syllable has its pronunciation impacted. (Though I'm certainly no expert!)
Other questions on SE either address this from a purely phonetic angle, e.g., [this question](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/9282/whats-the-difference-between-%C9%9A-%C9%B9%CC%A9-and-%C9%99%C9%B9), while others blur phonetics and phonemics. Answers given for the questions [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/561156/133915) and [here](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/192986/133915) imply it wouldn't be of any real concern phonemically (at least in the phonemics of American English) without explicitly saying so.
So, are there times in English when a phonemicist might need to draw attention to when an [r] (etc.) affects the quality of a vowel? Or is this always a purely phonetic distinction? | 2022/01/12 | [
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/43730",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com",
"https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/users/36274/"
] | This is the area of the theory of legal interpretation that is most interesting to linguists. My first recommended reading is *The language of judges* by Lawrence Solan, a linguist-lawyer. That work sets forth some basic principles of linguistics that are relevant to legal interpretation, including for example the "last antecedent rule" (an actually-recognized principle of interpretation). The typical situation in legal interpretation is that a certain text can have two or more readings. What a grammar might contribute to that controversy is an understanding of whether or how two interpretations are possible. To take a simple example, the phrase "old men and women" is ambiguous: "old" could refer to just "men", or to "men and women". But there is no ambiguity in "Women and old men".
In the present case, the question is what the meaning is for the following text from the contract
>
> any claim (whether sounding in rescission for undue influence or
> otherwise) that you have . . . against the . . . Society in which you
> claim an abatement of sums which you would otherwise have to repay to
> that Society . . .
>
>
>
A dictionary might be relevant to determining the meaning of individual lexical items, but no word in the text has an ambiguity that I can discern.
A grammar becomes relevant because in prior proceedings, it was noted that
>
> the wider construction of "any claim" and "abatement" led to a
> "ridiculous commercial result which the parties to the Claim Forms
> *were quite unlikely to have intended*" and that it was clear that "the
> drafting of the second paragraph of Section 3(b) was mistaken"
>
>
>
(underlining points to an aspect of pragmatics, see below).
The core linguistic question is "what is meaning". Linguists have a very expansive view of meaning, and justices are generally unaware of those nuances. One version of meaning relates to individual words, such as the meaning of "claim", "sum" or "abatement". The cited text is massively ambiguous just on grounds of lexical meaning (look up the senses of these words in the OED). I do not see any evidence that there is any serious lexical ambiguity in the paragraph, nor that purported lexical ambiguity is relevant. (Occasionally one finds ambiguities such as whether selling a gun they buying drugs with the money constitutes "using" a firearm in a drug sale). Legal interpretation operates under the fiction that parties know the *legal* meanings of words, which narrows down the possible meanings of "claim".
The second kind of meaning is compositional meaning, that is, the meaning that arises from combining word meaning plus rules of grammar. For example, the two meanings of "Old men and women" arise from the grammatically governed possibility that "old" modifies just "men", or it may modify "men and women". A grammar cannot decide this particular example, but it can decide that there is no ambiguity in "old men and a woman" or "old men and those women".
In the opinion, it is stated that
>
> According to ordinary rules of syntax, "any claim" is the antecedent
> of "that you have" and the words "or otherwise" in the adjectival
> parenthesis mean that it does not limit the breadth of "any claim." It
> follows that claims of any description are reserved as long as they
> amount to claims for an "abatement" of what is owing to the Society.
> There are various ways in which the amount owing might be abated but
> one would be on account of a set-off against the Society's liability
> for damages. Thus the syntax of the words following "any claim" points
> to a wide meaning of "abatement" which includes the effect of
> cross-claims.
>
>
>
In this case, there is a weak suggestion that perhaps "abatement" is ambiguous, but that is a linguistically ill-founded conclusion: the word is *vague*, not ambiguous. An ambiguous word has two or more definite meaning, a vague word doesn't say exactly what constitutes the the referential boundary of a word. "Green" is not ambiguous, nor is "abatement".
The point about compositional meaning, though, that "that you have" must be construed as modifying "any claim", is linguistically uncontroversial. While we don't know the exact arguments and thinking processes that preceded this opinion, there is no reasonable alternative interpretation of the scope of "that you have". It is extremely unlikely that anyone consulted an actual grammar book to determine this self-evident fact about meaning. Instead, justices generally do what linguists do in sorting out the meaning of texts: they use introspection, usually correctly. Occasionally, a party may hire a linguist to construct good linguistic arguments regarding semantics and the linguist's conclusions end up becoming constitutional law (see [Heller](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)).
A further matter of compositional meaning is the fact that "for undue influence" follows the word "rescission" in the parenthetical clause. One interpretation that *could* be (incompetently or disingenuously) proffered is that this limits the scope for possible claims to rescission (cancelling the contract) only to the case of "undue influence". The sentential matrix in which this is embedded – "whether...or otherwise" – linguistically precludes that decision, and the law itself does so likewise (e.g. misrepresentation is also a basis for a legal claim). So these are not matters of lexical meaning, these are matters of compositional meaning.
The third aspect of meaning that linguists care about is "pragmatics", that is, the strategies that individuals would use in selecting an interpretation. By providing additional context, "Old men and women" can be shown to only mean "old men and any women" (or in a different context, both men and women must be old to qualify). Insofar as the law makes every reasonable effort to avoid contractual rescission, pragmatics becomes highly relevant in determining what the intent of the parties must have been, in those cases where the words that they actually use are poorly chosen (as in this case).
In the present case, Lord Goff simply lacked specialized training of linguistic semantics, and therefore does not apparently grasp the distinction between lexical meaning and compositional meaning. It is thus natural to see this as a matter of "the meaning of words", even tough it is a matter of "the meaning of phrases". | I assume by "grammars" Hoffman means grammar reference books or perhaps style guides.
Fundamentally, the meaning of words is not the same thing as what dictionaries or other reference works say about the words. However, reference works can be assumed to contain *some* information, albeit partial and occasionally inaccurate, about the meaning of words.
The clause you bolded is likely not intended to give a *fundamental* or *comprehensive* definition of what "the meaning of words" is. As an *operational* definition of how to find "the meaning of a word", "look at what a dictionary entry says about it" has the advantage of being a fairly easy and standardized procedure. It has the disadvantage, as you point out, that it does not work for all words: some words will not be recorded by the dictionary, or will not have the relevant meaning recorded in their dictionary entries. There are other advantages and disadvantages to this and other potential methods of how to practically find out "the meaning of words/a word".
A philosophically adequate definition of what "the meaning of words" means, when dealing with the words out of context, would likely refer to something that we can't easily access such as mental representations or communities of speakers, and so would not be practical to use to actually find out the meaning of any particular word.
I think your objection to Hoffman's statement here is ultimately beside the point, as the purpose of it appears to just be an intermediate step leading to the conclusion in the last sentence of the quoted passage that the reader of a document should **not** rely only on dictionaries and grammars to interpret the meaning of the document: it is also necessary to take background into account, and certain background information may make it clear that the meaning of a document is in fact impossible to derive from just the dictionary definitions of the words used. |
1,341 | Is this a comma splice? What makes a sentence a comma splice?
>
> Being left at the altar on her wedding
> day, Pamela became furious.
>
>
> | 2010/08/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1341",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/662/"
] | There was just a [post today on Language Log](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2563) about constructions like this, known as *absolutives*. In it, Mark Liberman quotes from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language:
pages 1265-6 of CGEL, where the followed two examples are given:
>
> *His hands gripping the door*, he let out a volley of curses.
>
> *This done*, she walked off without another word.
>
>
> ...
> The [italicized] non-finites are supplements with the main clause as anchor. [The examples shown] contain a subject, and belong to what is known as the absolute construction, one which is subordinate in form but with no syntactic link to the main clause. […]
>
>
> In [none of these examples] is there any explicit indication of the semantic relation between the supplement and the anchor. This has to be inferred from the content of the clauses and/or the context.
>
>
>
A *comma splice*, on the other hand, is when two sentences are connected with a comma instead of a period. | I would say no, because "Being left at the altar on her wedding day" isn't an independent clause.
It would be considered a comma splice if you phrased it this way:
>
> Pamela was left at the altar on her
> wedding day, she was furious.
>
>
> |
1,341 | Is this a comma splice? What makes a sentence a comma splice?
>
> Being left at the altar on her wedding
> day, Pamela became furious.
>
>
> | 2010/08/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1341",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/662/"
] | I would say no, because "Being left at the altar on her wedding day" isn't an independent clause.
It would be considered a comma splice if you phrased it this way:
>
> Pamela was left at the altar on her
> wedding day, she was furious.
>
>
> | >
> Being left at the altar on her wedding day, Pamela became furious.
>
>
>
The sentence above starts with a participial phrase; in that case, it's correct to use the comma (which is the only way to separate phrases, in cases such as these).
A comma splice would occur in a sentence like the following.
>
> The Taylors won a new swimming pool, however, no one in the family knew how to swim.
>
>
>
Instead of the comma before *however*, there should be a semicolon or a period.
>
> The Taylors won a new swimming pool; however, no one in the family knew how to swim.
>
>
> |
1,341 | Is this a comma splice? What makes a sentence a comma splice?
>
> Being left at the altar on her wedding
> day, Pamela became furious.
>
>
> | 2010/08/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1341",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/662/"
] | There was just a [post today on Language Log](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2563) about constructions like this, known as *absolutives*. In it, Mark Liberman quotes from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language:
pages 1265-6 of CGEL, where the followed two examples are given:
>
> *His hands gripping the door*, he let out a volley of curses.
>
> *This done*, she walked off without another word.
>
>
> ...
> The [italicized] non-finites are supplements with the main clause as anchor. [The examples shown] contain a subject, and belong to what is known as the absolute construction, one which is subordinate in form but with no syntactic link to the main clause. […]
>
>
> In [none of these examples] is there any explicit indication of the semantic relation between the supplement and the anchor. This has to be inferred from the content of the clauses and/or the context.
>
>
>
A *comma splice*, on the other hand, is when two sentences are connected with a comma instead of a period. | >
> Being left at the altar on her wedding day, Pamela became furious.
>
>
>
The sentence above starts with a participial phrase; in that case, it's correct to use the comma (which is the only way to separate phrases, in cases such as these).
A comma splice would occur in a sentence like the following.
>
> The Taylors won a new swimming pool, however, no one in the family knew how to swim.
>
>
>
Instead of the comma before *however*, there should be a semicolon or a period.
>
> The Taylors won a new swimming pool; however, no one in the family knew how to swim.
>
>
> |
18,668 | I want to plug my iPod which in turn supplies power to an external audio amp while sending iPod audio signal to same amp.
Is it possible to wire an 1/8" (3.5mm, mini) stereo jack in such a way that when the connector is inserted, a relay coil is actuated that powers on a car audio power amp? **I have a 12V DC relay but how can I use the jack's internal switch to actuate the coil when the headphone jack's switch is essentially backward?**
This is for a boat. The only solution I can come up with is to have the relay coil normally actuated but I think this would eventually drain the battery (I haven't done the math on that).
I have this Radio Shack version headphone jack with the internal SPDT but the switches are not isolated from the audio signal and are N.C.:
<http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103451> Surely designed this way so that the audio signal is passed to the big-speaker-amp when the headphones are disconnected.
(this is where the images were to my minijack diagram and my relay diagram...oh well...I'm a new user and this is clearly spam...) | 2011/08/26 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/18668",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/5521/"
] | You want jack "C" at the bottom of this link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_%28audio%29>
The tip and sleeve switches are electrically isolated from the plug so signal is transmitted uninterrupted.
There are 1/4" jacks here (http://www.minute-man.com/acatalog/1\_4\_\_Stereo\_Jacks.html) that do this. I'm sure they have 1/8" jacks that do the same thing, but I didn't look.
I was looking for the same thing, but for switching inputs based on whether the plug was inserted in the effects return on a tube guitar amp. Can't be puttin' that signal level into the common when someone has it in their hands! | I don't believe this can easilly be done using just the jack.
You may be able to do something whereby you monitor the resistance across the terminals to determine if it's open-circuit, or look for any form of signal coming out of the jack, but that would all take constant power out of your battery and not give you the automation you're after.
You should be able to do it using the IO connector on the bottom of the iPod, however. This has both audio and power connections. (pinouts [here](http://pinouts.ru/PortableDevices/ipod_pinout.shtml)).
You could use the power output (usually used to power things like FM transmitters) to switch the relay on via a transistor. |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | There are **many** differences between the two. I will be highlighting the major ones.
A Mumin is a higher degree Muslim who:
1. Repents after every sin (s)he commits.
2. Feels sorry for every Islamic obligation (s)he either did
not perform or has missed.
3. Does believe in the message of Allah without the need of concrete evidence (such as supplementary scientific knowledge).
4. Puts Allah above everything in his/her daily life.
5. Is and known for being trustworthy.
6. Is sure of Allah's promise at heart.
7. Takes into account what Allah prefers.
8. and so on...
**Mystical Approach:** A Muslim is a Maqan of Salam (derived from m-slm), and thus carries and spreads Salam, while a Mumin is named directly with God's name. So a standard Muslim is where Salam is observed, while the heart of a Mumin fits Him.
There is lot more to the subject and you may only distinguish between the two clearly if you start taking account the difference between the words when studying the Quran. Most think they are interchangeable, but obviously they are wrong. | Assalamu alaikkum
My dear brothers & sisters, don't get confused. It’s very simple,,, I can give You supports and evidences , but right now You all have heard as posted above...
First two and last comments are completely wrong...
ISLAM is to completely submit ones will to Allah
Well now the Beginning Muslim has to believe in Allah and do good, just like everyone who lived before the Quran... It doesn't mean they haven't believed, they have believed in Allah...
But basically there are three levels of Faith...
ISLAM with five pillars of faith
IMAN with Deep Belief in 6 principles
IHSAN which means excellence
So basically anyone who testifies is a Muslim, means has submitted
But to become a true Muslim, he needs to submit his will completely,, yes, he needs to become a Muslim, then a MUMIN and a Muhsin,,,, So actual speaking a true Muslim is one who have acquired three levels of Faith,, ( do basics of ISLAM, supported by true belief or IMAN and finally excel as righteous Muslim or have IHSAN )
IN SHORT A BASIC MUSLIM WHO SIMPLY SUBMITED WILL BECOME A TRUE MUSLIM WHO HAS COMPLETELY SUBMITTED OR SURRENDERED...
OR U CAN SAY A BASIC MUSLIM BECOMES EXCELLENT MUSLIM,,, and there lies the wisdom in the religion of faith...
Never get confused reading Quran oneself... Allah has asked to follow Sadiqeen, Saliheen, Mutaqeen and the Mumineen if You have confusions...
See, I explained in simple by the will of Allah English because I follow and learn from a obedient Saadiq of Allah who is also related to the family of Muhammed Rasool (SAWS) .
In Shaa Allah... jazakallah khair
(Never write insha Allah, because it means WE CREATED ALLAH... so write In-Shaa-Allah) |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | There are two narrations of Hadith Jibreel, when angel Jibreel comes to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in human form and asks him some questions.
These questions include:
* What is Islam (who are Muslims?)
* What is Eman (who are Mu'mins?)
* What is Ihsaan?
The two narrations switch up the order of Islam vs. eman. Therefore, some scholars have said that Islam (basic Islam) is the lower level, and eman (becoming a mu'min) is a higher level of faith. Others say the opposite.
The first opinion is supported by the language. Allah mentions "the ones who believe" in a verb form in many ayaat of Qur'an. In contrast, "mumin" is a noun, a person who believes; someone for whom belief is a strong aspect of their personality. | Assalamu alaikkum
My dear brothers & sisters, don't get confused. It’s very simple,,, I can give You supports and evidences , but right now You all have heard as posted above...
First two and last comments are completely wrong...
ISLAM is to completely submit ones will to Allah
Well now the Beginning Muslim has to believe in Allah and do good, just like everyone who lived before the Quran... It doesn't mean they haven't believed, they have believed in Allah...
But basically there are three levels of Faith...
ISLAM with five pillars of faith
IMAN with Deep Belief in 6 principles
IHSAN which means excellence
So basically anyone who testifies is a Muslim, means has submitted
But to become a true Muslim, he needs to submit his will completely,, yes, he needs to become a Muslim, then a MUMIN and a Muhsin,,,, So actual speaking a true Muslim is one who have acquired three levels of Faith,, ( do basics of ISLAM, supported by true belief or IMAN and finally excel as righteous Muslim or have IHSAN )
IN SHORT A BASIC MUSLIM WHO SIMPLY SUBMITED WILL BECOME A TRUE MUSLIM WHO HAS COMPLETELY SUBMITTED OR SURRENDERED...
OR U CAN SAY A BASIC MUSLIM BECOMES EXCELLENT MUSLIM,,, and there lies the wisdom in the religion of faith...
Never get confused reading Quran oneself... Allah has asked to follow Sadiqeen, Saliheen, Mutaqeen and the Mumineen if You have confusions...
See, I explained in simple by the will of Allah English because I follow and learn from a obedient Saadiq of Allah who is also related to the family of Muhammed Rasool (SAWS) .
In Shaa Allah... jazakallah khair
(Never write insha Allah, because it means WE CREATED ALLAH... so write In-Shaa-Allah) |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | There are two narrations of Hadith Jibreel, when angel Jibreel comes to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in human form and asks him some questions.
These questions include:
* What is Islam (who are Muslims?)
* What is Eman (who are Mu'mins?)
* What is Ihsaan?
The two narrations switch up the order of Islam vs. eman. Therefore, some scholars have said that Islam (basic Islam) is the lower level, and eman (becoming a mu'min) is a higher level of faith. Others say the opposite.
The first opinion is supported by the language. Allah mentions "the ones who believe" in a verb form in many ayaat of Qur'an. In contrast, "mumin" is a noun, a person who believes; someone for whom belief is a strong aspect of their personality. | There are **many** differences between the two. I will be highlighting the major ones.
A Mumin is a higher degree Muslim who:
1. Repents after every sin (s)he commits.
2. Feels sorry for every Islamic obligation (s)he either did
not perform or has missed.
3. Does believe in the message of Allah without the need of concrete evidence (such as supplementary scientific knowledge).
4. Puts Allah above everything in his/her daily life.
5. Is and known for being trustworthy.
6. Is sure of Allah's promise at heart.
7. Takes into account what Allah prefers.
8. and so on...
**Mystical Approach:** A Muslim is a Maqan of Salam (derived from m-slm), and thus carries and spreads Salam, while a Mumin is named directly with God's name. So a standard Muslim is where Salam is observed, while the heart of a Mumin fits Him.
There is lot more to the subject and you may only distinguish between the two clearly if you start taking account the difference between the words when studying the Quran. Most think they are interchangeable, but obviously they are wrong. |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | These words have related but different meanings, and the same word may not have exactly the same literal meaning in all places in Quran. Let me give an example.
In verse 49:14, Quran states that:
>
> قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
>
>
> The [desert] Arabs said: "We believe."
>
> Say: "You haven't believed [yet], but you [should] say: 'We have submitted [to Islamic rule]', for the belief hasn't entered your hearts [yet]. And if you obey God and his messenger, he will not belittle anything from your deeds, for God is oft-forgiving [and] most merciful."
>
>
>
On the other hand, in verse 2:131, Quran states:
>
> إِذْ قَالَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ أَسْلِمْ ۖ قَالَ أَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
>
>
> When his Lord said to him [Ibrahim]: "Submit [your will to me]". He said: "I submit [my will] to [you] the Lord of the universe."
>
>
>
It is the same word but the context of these verses shows that it has different meanings.
In the first one it tells those who were claiming to be "believers" that they are not yet, that they have only "submitted" *to Islamic rule politically*. This is what people mean by "Muslim" means these days, in Quran's terminology they are "followers of the scared laws given to our prophet Mohammad (PBUH)" as "الذین آمنوا" and they are not called "Muslim", "Muslim" in Quran's terminology is a person who has fully submitted to the will of God like Ibrahim, as in the second verse. It is clear that Ibrahim (PBUH) is a believer, but God asks him to submit fully *to God's will*, which he does.
So when Quran calls a particular person "مسلم" it means that person has submitted to God's will completely like Ibrahim. A "مومن" is a lower level compared to this where one's heart believes in God and hereafter and sacred books and prophets and ..., it doesn't mean the person has reached the the level of "مسلم" as Ibrahim (PBUH) did yet. In this sense the word is not related to following the rules of Islam as a religion but to the higher level concept of *submission to the will of God*. The word is used for followers of other religions, e.g. in verse 3:52 it is used about Jesus's (PBUH) apostles and in verse 2:136 the sons of Issac (PBUH) say that they are Muslims.
In other contexts, particularly to followers of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) it sometimes has the first meaning and not the second one (particularly in its verb form "to submit" "أسلم" and not noun "submitted") i.e. the person is submitted to following orders of the prophet and Islamic rules, the person might not be even a real believer at all let alone being a "Muslim" in the sense Ibrahim was.
One should look at the context to see if the intended meaning is the first one (followers of the religion brought by the prophet) or it is the second one (internal characteristic of a person in relation to God's will), and one should also be mindful that how we use these words today might not reflect how Quran uses them. | I quote from The Teachings of Hajj by Shaykh 'Abdur-Razzaaq ibn ‘Abdil-Muhsin al-Badr:
Al-Imaam Ahmad reported in his Musnad that Fadaalah ibn ‘Ubayd narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) said during the Farewell Hajj,
>
> **“Shall I not inform you about the *Mu’min*? He is the one whom people
> trust with their wealth and lives. The *Muslim* is he from whose tongue
> and hand the people are safe. The *Mujaahid* is he who struggles with
> his own soul to obey Allaah. The *Muhaajir* is he who abandons misdeeds
> and sins.”** *Musnad Ahmad (6/21); graded saheeh by al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (549).*
>
>
>
This Hadeeth, which is part of the Prophet’s (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) bequest and teachings to his Ummah imparted during the Farewell Hajj, explains the perfection of these
Concepts: **Eemaan, Islaam, Jihaad, and Hijrah**. It also explains who rightfully deserves to be described by these traits, upon which rests happiness in this world and the Hereafter. Additionally, it gives comprehensive definitions of them.
1. The ***Mu’min*** is he whom people trust with their lives and property. Once Eemaan settles firmly and fills the heart, it demands of a person to fulfill the duties of Eemaan, among the most important of which are: taking care of trusts, dealing with others honestly, and making sure to not oppress others with respect to their lives and property. When someone consistently does these things, people know him to be that way, and they place confidence in him and trust him with their lives and wealth because they know that he
Protects what he is entrusted with.
This is one of the foremost things dictated by *Eemaan* as the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wassalam) said:
>
> **“There is no Eemaan for one who cannot be trusted.”** *Musnad Ahmad (3/135), Ibn Hibbaan (194); from Anas ibn Maalik (radiallahu anhu). Graded saheeh li-ghayrihi by al-Albaanee in Saheeh Mawaarid ath-Tham’aan (42).*
>
>
>
2. The ***Muslim*** is he from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe. That is because true Islam is submission to Allah, complete servitude devoted to Him, and giving the Muslims their rights. One’s Islam cannot be complete until he loves for the Muslims what he loves for himself. This can only come about when they are safe from any harm emanating from his tongue and hand, and this is the very root of this obligation. If others are subject to
harm from his tongue and hand, how can he be fulfilling his obligation to his Muslim brothers? How could someone who extends his hand and tongue with harm and enmity against the Muslims possibly be truly practicing Islaam? Thus, their being safe from his verbal or physical harm forms the very essence of completing his Islaam.
This also implies that the Mu’min is a level higher than the Muslim because if someone is trusted with the lives and wealth of others, then the Muslims would obviously be protected from his tongue and hand. Had they not been safe from him to begin with, they would not have trusted him. However, just because they feel safe from him does not mean that they necessarily trust him. He may not harm them, yet they do not place full confidence in him, fearing that he may have withheld his harm due to some ulterior motive or fear, and
not due to having Eemaan in his heart.
Thus, the Prophet (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) defined the Muslim with an outward quality, namely, others being safe from him, whereas he defined the Mu’min with an inner quality, namely, that others trust him with their lives and wealth, and the latter trait is superior to the former.
The Shaykh also similarly explains Mujaahid and Muhaajir but it is not relevant to question. But if you are interested you can read this book - [Teachings of Hajj](http://abdurrahman.org/hajj/teachings_of_hajj_en.pdf) by Shaykh 'Abdur-Razzaaq ibn ‘Abdil-Muhsin al-Badr. |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | I quote from The Teachings of Hajj by Shaykh 'Abdur-Razzaaq ibn ‘Abdil-Muhsin al-Badr:
Al-Imaam Ahmad reported in his Musnad that Fadaalah ibn ‘Ubayd narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) said during the Farewell Hajj,
>
> **“Shall I not inform you about the *Mu’min*? He is the one whom people
> trust with their wealth and lives. The *Muslim* is he from whose tongue
> and hand the people are safe. The *Mujaahid* is he who struggles with
> his own soul to obey Allaah. The *Muhaajir* is he who abandons misdeeds
> and sins.”** *Musnad Ahmad (6/21); graded saheeh by al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (549).*
>
>
>
This Hadeeth, which is part of the Prophet’s (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) bequest and teachings to his Ummah imparted during the Farewell Hajj, explains the perfection of these
Concepts: **Eemaan, Islaam, Jihaad, and Hijrah**. It also explains who rightfully deserves to be described by these traits, upon which rests happiness in this world and the Hereafter. Additionally, it gives comprehensive definitions of them.
1. The ***Mu’min*** is he whom people trust with their lives and property. Once Eemaan settles firmly and fills the heart, it demands of a person to fulfill the duties of Eemaan, among the most important of which are: taking care of trusts, dealing with others honestly, and making sure to not oppress others with respect to their lives and property. When someone consistently does these things, people know him to be that way, and they place confidence in him and trust him with their lives and wealth because they know that he
Protects what he is entrusted with.
This is one of the foremost things dictated by *Eemaan* as the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wassalam) said:
>
> **“There is no Eemaan for one who cannot be trusted.”** *Musnad Ahmad (3/135), Ibn Hibbaan (194); from Anas ibn Maalik (radiallahu anhu). Graded saheeh li-ghayrihi by al-Albaanee in Saheeh Mawaarid ath-Tham’aan (42).*
>
>
>
2. The ***Muslim*** is he from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe. That is because true Islam is submission to Allah, complete servitude devoted to Him, and giving the Muslims their rights. One’s Islam cannot be complete until he loves for the Muslims what he loves for himself. This can only come about when they are safe from any harm emanating from his tongue and hand, and this is the very root of this obligation. If others are subject to
harm from his tongue and hand, how can he be fulfilling his obligation to his Muslim brothers? How could someone who extends his hand and tongue with harm and enmity against the Muslims possibly be truly practicing Islaam? Thus, their being safe from his verbal or physical harm forms the very essence of completing his Islaam.
This also implies that the Mu’min is a level higher than the Muslim because if someone is trusted with the lives and wealth of others, then the Muslims would obviously be protected from his tongue and hand. Had they not been safe from him to begin with, they would not have trusted him. However, just because they feel safe from him does not mean that they necessarily trust him. He may not harm them, yet they do not place full confidence in him, fearing that he may have withheld his harm due to some ulterior motive or fear, and
not due to having Eemaan in his heart.
Thus, the Prophet (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) defined the Muslim with an outward quality, namely, others being safe from him, whereas he defined the Mu’min with an inner quality, namely, that others trust him with their lives and wealth, and the latter trait is superior to the former.
The Shaykh also similarly explains Mujaahid and Muhaajir but it is not relevant to question. But if you are interested you can read this book - [Teachings of Hajj](http://abdurrahman.org/hajj/teachings_of_hajj_en.pdf) by Shaykh 'Abdur-Razzaaq ibn ‘Abdil-Muhsin al-Badr. | Assalamu alaikkum
My dear brothers & sisters, don't get confused. It’s very simple,,, I can give You supports and evidences , but right now You all have heard as posted above...
First two and last comments are completely wrong...
ISLAM is to completely submit ones will to Allah
Well now the Beginning Muslim has to believe in Allah and do good, just like everyone who lived before the Quran... It doesn't mean they haven't believed, they have believed in Allah...
But basically there are three levels of Faith...
ISLAM with five pillars of faith
IMAN with Deep Belief in 6 principles
IHSAN which means excellence
So basically anyone who testifies is a Muslim, means has submitted
But to become a true Muslim, he needs to submit his will completely,, yes, he needs to become a Muslim, then a MUMIN and a Muhsin,,,, So actual speaking a true Muslim is one who have acquired three levels of Faith,, ( do basics of ISLAM, supported by true belief or IMAN and finally excel as righteous Muslim or have IHSAN )
IN SHORT A BASIC MUSLIM WHO SIMPLY SUBMITED WILL BECOME A TRUE MUSLIM WHO HAS COMPLETELY SUBMITTED OR SURRENDERED...
OR U CAN SAY A BASIC MUSLIM BECOMES EXCELLENT MUSLIM,,, and there lies the wisdom in the religion of faith...
Never get confused reading Quran oneself... Allah has asked to follow Sadiqeen, Saliheen, Mutaqeen and the Mumineen if You have confusions...
See, I explained in simple by the will of Allah English because I follow and learn from a obedient Saadiq of Allah who is also related to the family of Muhammed Rasool (SAWS) .
In Shaa Allah... jazakallah khair
(Never write insha Allah, because it means WE CREATED ALLAH... so write In-Shaa-Allah) |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | There are two narrations of Hadith Jibreel, when angel Jibreel comes to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in human form and asks him some questions.
These questions include:
* What is Islam (who are Muslims?)
* What is Eman (who are Mu'mins?)
* What is Ihsaan?
The two narrations switch up the order of Islam vs. eman. Therefore, some scholars have said that Islam (basic Islam) is the lower level, and eman (becoming a mu'min) is a higher level of faith. Others say the opposite.
The first opinion is supported by the language. Allah mentions "the ones who believe" in a verb form in many ayaat of Qur'an. In contrast, "mumin" is a noun, a person who believes; someone for whom belief is a strong aspect of their personality. | I quote from The Teachings of Hajj by Shaykh 'Abdur-Razzaaq ibn ‘Abdil-Muhsin al-Badr:
Al-Imaam Ahmad reported in his Musnad that Fadaalah ibn ‘Ubayd narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) said during the Farewell Hajj,
>
> **“Shall I not inform you about the *Mu’min*? He is the one whom people
> trust with their wealth and lives. The *Muslim* is he from whose tongue
> and hand the people are safe. The *Mujaahid* is he who struggles with
> his own soul to obey Allaah. The *Muhaajir* is he who abandons misdeeds
> and sins.”** *Musnad Ahmad (6/21); graded saheeh by al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (549).*
>
>
>
This Hadeeth, which is part of the Prophet’s (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) bequest and teachings to his Ummah imparted during the Farewell Hajj, explains the perfection of these
Concepts: **Eemaan, Islaam, Jihaad, and Hijrah**. It also explains who rightfully deserves to be described by these traits, upon which rests happiness in this world and the Hereafter. Additionally, it gives comprehensive definitions of them.
1. The ***Mu’min*** is he whom people trust with their lives and property. Once Eemaan settles firmly and fills the heart, it demands of a person to fulfill the duties of Eemaan, among the most important of which are: taking care of trusts, dealing with others honestly, and making sure to not oppress others with respect to their lives and property. When someone consistently does these things, people know him to be that way, and they place confidence in him and trust him with their lives and wealth because they know that he
Protects what he is entrusted with.
This is one of the foremost things dictated by *Eemaan* as the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wassalam) said:
>
> **“There is no Eemaan for one who cannot be trusted.”** *Musnad Ahmad (3/135), Ibn Hibbaan (194); from Anas ibn Maalik (radiallahu anhu). Graded saheeh li-ghayrihi by al-Albaanee in Saheeh Mawaarid ath-Tham’aan (42).*
>
>
>
2. The ***Muslim*** is he from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe. That is because true Islam is submission to Allah, complete servitude devoted to Him, and giving the Muslims their rights. One’s Islam cannot be complete until he loves for the Muslims what he loves for himself. This can only come about when they are safe from any harm emanating from his tongue and hand, and this is the very root of this obligation. If others are subject to
harm from his tongue and hand, how can he be fulfilling his obligation to his Muslim brothers? How could someone who extends his hand and tongue with harm and enmity against the Muslims possibly be truly practicing Islaam? Thus, their being safe from his verbal or physical harm forms the very essence of completing his Islaam.
This also implies that the Mu’min is a level higher than the Muslim because if someone is trusted with the lives and wealth of others, then the Muslims would obviously be protected from his tongue and hand. Had they not been safe from him to begin with, they would not have trusted him. However, just because they feel safe from him does not mean that they necessarily trust him. He may not harm them, yet they do not place full confidence in him, fearing that he may have withheld his harm due to some ulterior motive or fear, and
not due to having Eemaan in his heart.
Thus, the Prophet (Salallahu alayhi wassalam) defined the Muslim with an outward quality, namely, others being safe from him, whereas he defined the Mu’min with an inner quality, namely, that others trust him with their lives and wealth, and the latter trait is superior to the former.
The Shaykh also similarly explains Mujaahid and Muhaajir but it is not relevant to question. But if you are interested you can read this book - [Teachings of Hajj](http://abdurrahman.org/hajj/teachings_of_hajj_en.pdf) by Shaykh 'Abdur-Razzaaq ibn ‘Abdil-Muhsin al-Badr. |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | These words have related but different meanings, and the same word may not have exactly the same literal meaning in all places in Quran. Let me give an example.
In verse 49:14, Quran states that:
>
> قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
>
>
> The [desert] Arabs said: "We believe."
>
> Say: "You haven't believed [yet], but you [should] say: 'We have submitted [to Islamic rule]', for the belief hasn't entered your hearts [yet]. And if you obey God and his messenger, he will not belittle anything from your deeds, for God is oft-forgiving [and] most merciful."
>
>
>
On the other hand, in verse 2:131, Quran states:
>
> إِذْ قَالَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ أَسْلِمْ ۖ قَالَ أَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
>
>
> When his Lord said to him [Ibrahim]: "Submit [your will to me]". He said: "I submit [my will] to [you] the Lord of the universe."
>
>
>
It is the same word but the context of these verses shows that it has different meanings.
In the first one it tells those who were claiming to be "believers" that they are not yet, that they have only "submitted" *to Islamic rule politically*. This is what people mean by "Muslim" means these days, in Quran's terminology they are "followers of the scared laws given to our prophet Mohammad (PBUH)" as "الذین آمنوا" and they are not called "Muslim", "Muslim" in Quran's terminology is a person who has fully submitted to the will of God like Ibrahim, as in the second verse. It is clear that Ibrahim (PBUH) is a believer, but God asks him to submit fully *to God's will*, which he does.
So when Quran calls a particular person "مسلم" it means that person has submitted to God's will completely like Ibrahim. A "مومن" is a lower level compared to this where one's heart believes in God and hereafter and sacred books and prophets and ..., it doesn't mean the person has reached the the level of "مسلم" as Ibrahim (PBUH) did yet. In this sense the word is not related to following the rules of Islam as a religion but to the higher level concept of *submission to the will of God*. The word is used for followers of other religions, e.g. in verse 3:52 it is used about Jesus's (PBUH) apostles and in verse 2:136 the sons of Issac (PBUH) say that they are Muslims.
In other contexts, particularly to followers of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) it sometimes has the first meaning and not the second one (particularly in its verb form "to submit" "أسلم" and not noun "submitted") i.e. the person is submitted to following orders of the prophet and Islamic rules, the person might not be even a real believer at all let alone being a "Muslim" in the sense Ibrahim was.
One should look at the context to see if the intended meaning is the first one (followers of the religion brought by the prophet) or it is the second one (internal characteristic of a person in relation to God's will), and one should also be mindful that how we use these words today might not reflect how Quran uses them. | There are **many** differences between the two. I will be highlighting the major ones.
A Mumin is a higher degree Muslim who:
1. Repents after every sin (s)he commits.
2. Feels sorry for every Islamic obligation (s)he either did
not perform or has missed.
3. Does believe in the message of Allah without the need of concrete evidence (such as supplementary scientific knowledge).
4. Puts Allah above everything in his/her daily life.
5. Is and known for being trustworthy.
6. Is sure of Allah's promise at heart.
7. Takes into account what Allah prefers.
8. and so on...
**Mystical Approach:** A Muslim is a Maqan of Salam (derived from m-slm), and thus carries and spreads Salam, while a Mumin is named directly with God's name. So a standard Muslim is where Salam is observed, while the heart of a Mumin fits Him.
There is lot more to the subject and you may only distinguish between the two clearly if you start taking account the difference between the words when studying the Quran. Most think they are interchangeable, but obviously they are wrong. |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | There are two narrations of Hadith Jibreel, when angel Jibreel comes to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in human form and asks him some questions.
These questions include:
* What is Islam (who are Muslims?)
* What is Eman (who are Mu'mins?)
* What is Ihsaan?
The two narrations switch up the order of Islam vs. eman. Therefore, some scholars have said that Islam (basic Islam) is the lower level, and eman (becoming a mu'min) is a higher level of faith. Others say the opposite.
The first opinion is supported by the language. Allah mentions "the ones who believe" in a verb form in many ayaat of Qur'an. In contrast, "mumin" is a noun, a person who believes; someone for whom belief is a strong aspect of their personality. | You may also like to look at [here](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/2739/584) which says:
Muslim has a **general meaning** (*submission to Allah*) and a **specific meaning** (*commonly used now by people around the globe*).
The **specific meaning** still has a large scope as it starts from apparent submission to Allah with minimal state of confession in uniquness of Allah and that the holiness Muhammad --peace be upon him-- in His prophet, to the maximal state of being completely and thoroughly submitted to Allah like the holy prophet was:
>
> قُلْ إِنَّ صَلَاتِي وَنُسُكِي وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِي لِلَّهِ رَبِّ
> الْعَالَمِينَ
>
>
> Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my
> death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds [6:162]
>
>
>
But being Mu'min is having faith in heart, it's a good state of being Muslim, both in its general and specific meaning of Muslim, so we both have a believer Christian and a believer Muslim. This attribute further measures the degree someone is Muslim (submitted to Allah, in general or in Islam the last version of the heavenly religion):
>
> قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا
> أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ وَإِن
> تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ
> شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
>
>
> The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye
> (only) say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' For not yet has
> Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He
> will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
> Most Merciful." [49:14]
>
>
>
although it rather seems that the Christians and other people of book hardly can be considered as Mu'min, most of them can at most be Muslims and at the beginning of being submitted to God, although doing hard worships as well. That's because what they believe in God and His prophet is close to Kufr and Shirk. And if they remedy such ideas then they will commonly convert to Islaam and if they don't live much after remedying their beliefs to convert and die they might be still considered as Mu'min (even although not converted according to the rules of Islam). I rather prefer to skip this issue as I have very small evidences on this issue, and Allah knows best. But let bring these verses that may help:
>
> يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى
> اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ
> رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ
> مِّنْهُ **فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ** وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ
> انتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ
> أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي
> الْأَرْضِ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا
>
>
> O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of
> Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more
> than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary,
> and a spirit proceeding from Him: **so believe in Allah and His
> messengers**. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you:
> for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above
> having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth.
> And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [4:171]
>
>
> وَإِنَّ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَمَن **يُؤْمِنُ** بِاللَّهِ وَمَا
> أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِمْ خَاشِعِينَ لِلَّهِ لَا
> يَشْتَرُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ
> أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ
>
>
> And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who
> **believe** in Allah, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to Allah: They will not sell the Signs of
> Allah for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and
> Allah is swift in account. [3:199]
>
>
> لَيْسُوا سَوَاءً مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ أُمَّةٌ قَائِمَةٌ يَتْلُونَ
> آيَاتِ اللَّهِ آنَاءَ اللَّيْلِ وَهُمْ يَسْجُدُونَ
>
>
> Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion
> that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night
> long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. [3:113]
>
>
> وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ مَنْ إِن تَأْمَنْهُ بِقِنطَارٍ يُؤَدِّهِ
> إِلَيْكَ وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ إِن تَأْمَنْهُ بِدِينَارٍ لَّا يُؤَدِّهِ
> إِلَيْكَ إِلَّا مَا دُمْتَ عَلَيْهِ قَائِمًا ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ
> قَالُوا لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ سَبِيلٌ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى
> اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
>
>
> Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard
> of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a
> single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest
> demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith)
> with these ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against Allah, and
> (well) they know it. [3:75] [*and honesty, truthfulness and
> trusteeship are among the most important measures of Iman according to
> Ahadeeth, even more important measures than prayer and fast and etc.*]
>
>
>
And at a last point, Iman itself has several ranks and it will be measured by Taqwa if I'm not wrong:
>
> **يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا آمِنُوا** بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي
> أَنزَلَ مِن قَبْلُ وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ
> وَرُسُلِهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا
>
>
> **O ye who believe! Believe** in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which
> He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His
> Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far
> astray. [4:136]
>
>
> **يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَآمِنُوا** بِرَسُولِهِ يُؤْتِكُمْ كِفْلَيْنِ مِن رَّحْمَتِهِ وَيَجْعَل لَّكُمْ
> نُورًا تَمْشُونَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
>
>
> **O ye that believe! Fear Allah, and believe** in His Messenger, and He will bestow on you a double portion of His Mercy: He will provide
> for you a Light by which ye shall walk (straight in your path), and He
> will forgive you (your past): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most
> Merciful.
>
>
>
There are many verses that Allah tells the believers to believe, to fear Allah, and warn them, but there is no where that Allah warns a Mutaqqi who fears Allah as this fear is itself a mean to save the Mu'min.
**PS**. there may exists gaps in this answer, so feel free to fill them. Also bear in mind that the writer of the answer is not a scholar/expert and can easily make mistakes, although tries to prevent errors. |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | These words have related but different meanings, and the same word may not have exactly the same literal meaning in all places in Quran. Let me give an example.
In verse 49:14, Quran states that:
>
> قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
>
>
> The [desert] Arabs said: "We believe."
>
> Say: "You haven't believed [yet], but you [should] say: 'We have submitted [to Islamic rule]', for the belief hasn't entered your hearts [yet]. And if you obey God and his messenger, he will not belittle anything from your deeds, for God is oft-forgiving [and] most merciful."
>
>
>
On the other hand, in verse 2:131, Quran states:
>
> إِذْ قَالَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ أَسْلِمْ ۖ قَالَ أَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
>
>
> When his Lord said to him [Ibrahim]: "Submit [your will to me]". He said: "I submit [my will] to [you] the Lord of the universe."
>
>
>
It is the same word but the context of these verses shows that it has different meanings.
In the first one it tells those who were claiming to be "believers" that they are not yet, that they have only "submitted" *to Islamic rule politically*. This is what people mean by "Muslim" means these days, in Quran's terminology they are "followers of the scared laws given to our prophet Mohammad (PBUH)" as "الذین آمنوا" and they are not called "Muslim", "Muslim" in Quran's terminology is a person who has fully submitted to the will of God like Ibrahim, as in the second verse. It is clear that Ibrahim (PBUH) is a believer, but God asks him to submit fully *to God's will*, which he does.
So when Quran calls a particular person "مسلم" it means that person has submitted to God's will completely like Ibrahim. A "مومن" is a lower level compared to this where one's heart believes in God and hereafter and sacred books and prophets and ..., it doesn't mean the person has reached the the level of "مسلم" as Ibrahim (PBUH) did yet. In this sense the word is not related to following the rules of Islam as a religion but to the higher level concept of *submission to the will of God*. The word is used for followers of other religions, e.g. in verse 3:52 it is used about Jesus's (PBUH) apostles and in verse 2:136 the sons of Issac (PBUH) say that they are Muslims.
In other contexts, particularly to followers of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) it sometimes has the first meaning and not the second one (particularly in its verb form "to submit" "أسلم" and not noun "submitted") i.e. the person is submitted to following orders of the prophet and Islamic rules, the person might not be even a real believer at all let alone being a "Muslim" in the sense Ibrahim was.
One should look at the context to see if the intended meaning is the first one (followers of the religion brought by the prophet) or it is the second one (internal characteristic of a person in relation to God's will), and one should also be mindful that how we use these words today might not reflect how Quran uses them. | Assalamu alaikkum
My dear brothers & sisters, don't get confused. It’s very simple,,, I can give You supports and evidences , but right now You all have heard as posted above...
First two and last comments are completely wrong...
ISLAM is to completely submit ones will to Allah
Well now the Beginning Muslim has to believe in Allah and do good, just like everyone who lived before the Quran... It doesn't mean they haven't believed, they have believed in Allah...
But basically there are three levels of Faith...
ISLAM with five pillars of faith
IMAN with Deep Belief in 6 principles
IHSAN which means excellence
So basically anyone who testifies is a Muslim, means has submitted
But to become a true Muslim, he needs to submit his will completely,, yes, he needs to become a Muslim, then a MUMIN and a Muhsin,,,, So actual speaking a true Muslim is one who have acquired three levels of Faith,, ( do basics of ISLAM, supported by true belief or IMAN and finally excel as righteous Muslim or have IHSAN )
IN SHORT A BASIC MUSLIM WHO SIMPLY SUBMITED WILL BECOME A TRUE MUSLIM WHO HAS COMPLETELY SUBMITTED OR SURRENDERED...
OR U CAN SAY A BASIC MUSLIM BECOMES EXCELLENT MUSLIM,,, and there lies the wisdom in the religion of faith...
Never get confused reading Quran oneself... Allah has asked to follow Sadiqeen, Saliheen, Mutaqeen and the Mumineen if You have confusions...
See, I explained in simple by the will of Allah English because I follow and learn from a obedient Saadiq of Allah who is also related to the family of Muhammed Rasool (SAWS) .
In Shaa Allah... jazakallah khair
(Never write insha Allah, because it means WE CREATED ALLAH... so write In-Shaa-Allah) |
18 | In the Quran, two terms are used to refer to those on the straight path (suratal mustakeem): *muslim* and *mumin*.
What are some similarities and differences between "muslim" and "mumin"?
In the Quran, it is said that Mumins are the ones who will be salvaged. But I don't remember such a promise for Muslims. Also, I know that the Mumin is coming from the Arabic root "١من" which means "safety". But safety from exactly what?
Are Mumins a subset of Muslims, or are they superset? It is no doubt that these two sets have intersection, but does one of them completely encapsulate the other, or do they have different elements (people)? | 2012/06/19 | [
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/18",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com",
"https://islam.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | These words have related but different meanings, and the same word may not have exactly the same literal meaning in all places in Quran. Let me give an example.
In verse 49:14, Quran states that:
>
> قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
>
>
> The [desert] Arabs said: "We believe."
>
> Say: "You haven't believed [yet], but you [should] say: 'We have submitted [to Islamic rule]', for the belief hasn't entered your hearts [yet]. And if you obey God and his messenger, he will not belittle anything from your deeds, for God is oft-forgiving [and] most merciful."
>
>
>
On the other hand, in verse 2:131, Quran states:
>
> إِذْ قَالَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ أَسْلِمْ ۖ قَالَ أَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
>
>
> When his Lord said to him [Ibrahim]: "Submit [your will to me]". He said: "I submit [my will] to [you] the Lord of the universe."
>
>
>
It is the same word but the context of these verses shows that it has different meanings.
In the first one it tells those who were claiming to be "believers" that they are not yet, that they have only "submitted" *to Islamic rule politically*. This is what people mean by "Muslim" means these days, in Quran's terminology they are "followers of the scared laws given to our prophet Mohammad (PBUH)" as "الذین آمنوا" and they are not called "Muslim", "Muslim" in Quran's terminology is a person who has fully submitted to the will of God like Ibrahim, as in the second verse. It is clear that Ibrahim (PBUH) is a believer, but God asks him to submit fully *to God's will*, which he does.
So when Quran calls a particular person "مسلم" it means that person has submitted to God's will completely like Ibrahim. A "مومن" is a lower level compared to this where one's heart believes in God and hereafter and sacred books and prophets and ..., it doesn't mean the person has reached the the level of "مسلم" as Ibrahim (PBUH) did yet. In this sense the word is not related to following the rules of Islam as a religion but to the higher level concept of *submission to the will of God*. The word is used for followers of other religions, e.g. in verse 3:52 it is used about Jesus's (PBUH) apostles and in verse 2:136 the sons of Issac (PBUH) say that they are Muslims.
In other contexts, particularly to followers of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) it sometimes has the first meaning and not the second one (particularly in its verb form "to submit" "أسلم" and not noun "submitted") i.e. the person is submitted to following orders of the prophet and Islamic rules, the person might not be even a real believer at all let alone being a "Muslim" in the sense Ibrahim was.
One should look at the context to see if the intended meaning is the first one (followers of the religion brought by the prophet) or it is the second one (internal characteristic of a person in relation to God's will), and one should also be mindful that how we use these words today might not reflect how Quran uses them. | You may also like to look at [here](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/2739/584) which says:
Muslim has a **general meaning** (*submission to Allah*) and a **specific meaning** (*commonly used now by people around the globe*).
The **specific meaning** still has a large scope as it starts from apparent submission to Allah with minimal state of confession in uniquness of Allah and that the holiness Muhammad --peace be upon him-- in His prophet, to the maximal state of being completely and thoroughly submitted to Allah like the holy prophet was:
>
> قُلْ إِنَّ صَلَاتِي وَنُسُكِي وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِي لِلَّهِ رَبِّ
> الْعَالَمِينَ
>
>
> Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my
> death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds [6:162]
>
>
>
But being Mu'min is having faith in heart, it's a good state of being Muslim, both in its general and specific meaning of Muslim, so we both have a believer Christian and a believer Muslim. This attribute further measures the degree someone is Muslim (submitted to Allah, in general or in Islam the last version of the heavenly religion):
>
> قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا
> أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ وَإِن
> تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ
> شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
>
>
> The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye
> (only) say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' For not yet has
> Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He
> will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
> Most Merciful." [49:14]
>
>
>
although it rather seems that the Christians and other people of book hardly can be considered as Mu'min, most of them can at most be Muslims and at the beginning of being submitted to God, although doing hard worships as well. That's because what they believe in God and His prophet is close to Kufr and Shirk. And if they remedy such ideas then they will commonly convert to Islaam and if they don't live much after remedying their beliefs to convert and die they might be still considered as Mu'min (even although not converted according to the rules of Islam). I rather prefer to skip this issue as I have very small evidences on this issue, and Allah knows best. But let bring these verses that may help:
>
> يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى
> اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ
> رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ
> مِّنْهُ **فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ** وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ
> انتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ
> أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي
> الْأَرْضِ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا
>
>
> O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of
> Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more
> than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary,
> and a spirit proceeding from Him: **so believe in Allah and His
> messengers**. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you:
> for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above
> having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth.
> And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [4:171]
>
>
> وَإِنَّ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَمَن **يُؤْمِنُ** بِاللَّهِ وَمَا
> أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِمْ خَاشِعِينَ لِلَّهِ لَا
> يَشْتَرُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ
> أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ
>
>
> And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who
> **believe** in Allah, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to Allah: They will not sell the Signs of
> Allah for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and
> Allah is swift in account. [3:199]
>
>
> لَيْسُوا سَوَاءً مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ أُمَّةٌ قَائِمَةٌ يَتْلُونَ
> آيَاتِ اللَّهِ آنَاءَ اللَّيْلِ وَهُمْ يَسْجُدُونَ
>
>
> Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion
> that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night
> long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. [3:113]
>
>
> وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ مَنْ إِن تَأْمَنْهُ بِقِنطَارٍ يُؤَدِّهِ
> إِلَيْكَ وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ إِن تَأْمَنْهُ بِدِينَارٍ لَّا يُؤَدِّهِ
> إِلَيْكَ إِلَّا مَا دُمْتَ عَلَيْهِ قَائِمًا ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ
> قَالُوا لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ سَبِيلٌ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى
> اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
>
>
> Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard
> of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a
> single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest
> demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith)
> with these ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against Allah, and
> (well) they know it. [3:75] [*and honesty, truthfulness and
> trusteeship are among the most important measures of Iman according to
> Ahadeeth, even more important measures than prayer and fast and etc.*]
>
>
>
And at a last point, Iman itself has several ranks and it will be measured by Taqwa if I'm not wrong:
>
> **يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا آمِنُوا** بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي
> أَنزَلَ مِن قَبْلُ وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ
> وَرُسُلِهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا
>
>
> **O ye who believe! Believe** in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which
> He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His
> Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far
> astray. [4:136]
>
>
> **يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَآمِنُوا** بِرَسُولِهِ يُؤْتِكُمْ كِفْلَيْنِ مِن رَّحْمَتِهِ وَيَجْعَل لَّكُمْ
> نُورًا تَمْشُونَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
>
>
> **O ye that believe! Fear Allah, and believe** in His Messenger, and He will bestow on you a double portion of His Mercy: He will provide
> for you a Light by which ye shall walk (straight in your path), and He
> will forgive you (your past): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most
> Merciful.
>
>
>
There are many verses that Allah tells the believers to believe, to fear Allah, and warn them, but there is no where that Allah warns a Mutaqqi who fears Allah as this fear is itself a mean to save the Mu'min.
**PS**. there may exists gaps in this answer, so feel free to fill them. Also bear in mind that the writer of the answer is not a scholar/expert and can easily make mistakes, although tries to prevent errors. |
1,041,829 | I'm currently running squid-deb-proxy to cache apt-related downloads, I was wondering if the same could be done with snaps as well. | 2018/05/30 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/1041829",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/57463/"
] | The squid-deb-proxy works because the files are served over plain HTTP, and generally do not require authentication (ones that do are usually over HTTPS and tend to not be cached).
Snaps however, are served over HTTPS due to the inherent requirements of authenticating to the store, and the possibility that some snaps are for purchase, and similar situations. To cache the data via a proxy, you will need to break the TLS connection by creating a certificate which you own, and which can be seen as valid by *snapd* when it attempts to verify the certificate. | At the first glance Ubuntu has [Snap Store Proxy](https://docs.ubuntu.com/snap-store-proxy/en/) but then if you'd look closer into it you'll realise they expect that:
* you shall tinker with Postgresql
* configure some un-explained "domain name"
* generate keys and then *register* this proxy
* wait till they *approve it*
and only then you'd be able to save time and traffic with caching… "For evaluation purposes, [we automatically grant the use of up to 5 devices.](https://docs.ubuntu.com/snap-store-proxy/en/register)" |
110,671 | I ended up breaking the high E string because using an electronic tuner and my ear, it clearly wasn't changing at all. Kept tightening the string and eventually it broke behind the nut. To look into this more I flattened the G and B strings and was wondering why the pitch wasn't changing. I looked behind the nut and see the strings are dangling while the portion of the strings that are on the fret board are as tight as before. The only thing that makes sense to me is that there is a problem with the nut, but I don't see how looking at it would help unless I took it apart...
The guitar is an Ibanez with a floyd rose.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QC8fA.png) | 2021/02/09 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/110671",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/64416/"
] | The instrument in question is an Ibanez with a Floyd Rose tremolo system, which allows you to provide vibrato without changing tuning.
They have a locking nut, with three hex bolts holding the string in position. Once the nut is tightened, the tension between the nut and tuner is immaterial. It should hold tuning even when the string is broken.
For *most* Floyd Rose systems, there are fine tuners on the bridge that allow you to tune up without opening the locking nut.
**ETA:** [Here is the site for Floyd Rose, which should have catalog pages which show both the versions with and without fine-tuners, as well as support pages which help with the care and feeding of your guitar bridge.](https://floydrose.com/) Ibanez uses a variant, the [Edge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibanez_Edge). I'm not sure the differences, both legal and technical, but they should be similar enough to get you through restringing and tuning. | If you want to tune the guitar using the machine heads, you need to loosen the three screws at the nut. They're holding the strings tight, which is why what you did happened. The top string you simply tightened from the nut to the machine head - no wonder it broke where it did. The other two, you loosened, but that only loosened them from machine head to nut. So they stayed at the same pitch.
Loosen off the nut, don't take off the bar though, just enough for the strings to slide through. Tune the guitar as normal then. There are usually some fine tuners by the bridge. Try to get those at about their central point. Tune, tighten the locking nut.
Don't touch the machine heads again, but any fine tuning can be done at the bridge end. |
44,568 | I have a new Xenyx 802 mixer and am trying to set it up to mix audio for some video projects (for input into my cannon camera).
I'm having trouble getting a clean sound however and even when there are no inputs into the mixer, my headphones are registering static.
The static happens regardless of whether the mixer is getting power directly from the wall socket or an extension chord.
The static increases whenever any of the input levels or gains are increased, even when no inputs are attached.
I'm new to this and don't know if this is the mixer, my headphones, my adapter, nearby EM interference, or what?
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7tbOl.jpg) | 2018/07/17 | [
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/44568",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com",
"https://sound.stackexchange.com/users/25100/"
] | You might want to read [This PreSonus Article](https://www.presonus.com/learn/technical-articles/Balanced-Unbalanced) But you should be fine to connect a balanced TRS to TS. But are you really needing 10-12 mic inputs? you'd be better off buying a mixer with more inputs. But in any case here are some clips from the article.
>
> These days, most equipment is designed so that balanced and unbalanced
> connections in a system can be mixed successfully, but different input
> and output circuits require different ways of making two wires out of
> three (or one wire out of two, if you don’t count the shield).
>
>
> The proper way to connect this type of active-balanced output to an
> unbalanced input is to simply leave pin 3 disconnected. Signal voltage
> appears between pins 1 and 2, which is just what our unbalanced input
> wants. This is another instance where you’ll probably need to modify
> or custom-build a cable if the output is on an XLR connector.
>
>
> If you have this type of balanced output on a TRS jack, you can
> usually use a TRS-TRS cable to connect it to an unbalanced input. A TS
> (unbalanced) jack at the input makes no connection to the plug’s ring,
> which will leave it floating, as we desire. However, some
> manufacturers thoughtfully use a TRS jack for an unbalanced input,
> wiring the jack’s ring contact to ground. This assures that you’ll get
> signal between the unbalanced input and ground when using TRS-TRS
> cable to make the connection from a balanced output.
>
>
> | >
> Behringer U-Phoria UMC202HD
>
>
>
That's a peculiar choice, it does far more than you need (AD/DA conversion). And the 1/4" outputs are connected to the DA converter, not directly to the inputs.
This means you will have lag between the inputs and the 1/4" outputs, and you'll need to connect the interface to a computer for these outputs to work.
You could use the Phones output, it looks like that has a direct connection. A simple TRS jack->2x TS jack cable is enough to connect this to the mixer.
As an alternative, an analog [microphone preamplifier](https://www.sweetwater.com/c662--Preamps) (link goes to a random selection) contains everything you need for your application.
But either way, the drawback of your approach is that you now have 2 inputs that share 1 gain setting, 1 EQ and 1 fader.
The Behringer offers individual gains, so that's not a big issue. But having to share 1 EQ and 1 fader means you're limited in what you can use these channels for. |
382 | If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well? And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?
I've wondered this for a while, sometimes I want a wide band antenna just for listening, and I am not clear about this relationship. | 2013/10/27 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/382",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/121/"
] | >
> If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well?
>
>
>
**No.**
Assuming we're talking about a characteristic impedance of 50 ohms, a 50 ohm resistor (otherwise known as a dummy load) will show a SWR of 1:1, although it will almost certainly perform very poorly as either a receive or transmit antenna.
The low SWR simply tells you that there are no impedance mismatches along the path from the transmitter (antenna analyzer in the case of your question) to the antenna feedpoint, at the current operating frequency.
>
> And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?
>
>
>
**Yes and no.**
*Yes,* a SWR of 1:1 means that [you aren't losing signal to impedance mismatch reflections](https://ham.stackexchange.com/q/55/29).
*No,* another issue is how efficient the antenna is at picking up the (desired) signal, preferably (especially in the case of directional antennas) while rejecting undesired signals as well. An antenna that is 5% of a full half-length dipole isn't going to pick up as much RF as the full-length dipole, let alone a full-sized directional antenna pointed in the proper direction, simply due to the much smaller physical (antenna aperture) size.
**Generally speaking,** if an antenna analyzer or (other) transmitter shows that the antenna output presents a SWR of 1:1, then *what you have* is probably about as good as it gets. *That does not necessarily mean that what you have is a good antenna setup* as exemplified by the extreme example of a dummy load. | "If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well?" - It means for this antenna for the frequency you've tested on the antenna is as good as it gets.
"And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?" - Perhaps not. I have a loop antenna tacked to the ceiling in a bedroom. It is fed with 300 Ohm twin-lead and works very well for all the HF frequencies. I would NOT use it to transmit with a tuner. I have no idea what the SWR is, that is ONLY important to a transmitter.
Most receivers can handle all sorts of mismatch it's the transmitter than needs the "protection" in order to push out full power. However, that said I will also say that one can work well enough with a tuner and receiver and tune for the most noise. Pick an unused frequency and use the tuner to increase the noise level. One you've maxed it out you'll have better reception for frequencies close to this one.
I hope that helps. |
382 | If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well? And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?
I've wondered this for a while, sometimes I want a wide band antenna just for listening, and I am not clear about this relationship. | 2013/10/27 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/382",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/121/"
] | >
> If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well?
>
>
>
**No.**
Assuming we're talking about a characteristic impedance of 50 ohms, a 50 ohm resistor (otherwise known as a dummy load) will show a SWR of 1:1, although it will almost certainly perform very poorly as either a receive or transmit antenna.
The low SWR simply tells you that there are no impedance mismatches along the path from the transmitter (antenna analyzer in the case of your question) to the antenna feedpoint, at the current operating frequency.
>
> And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?
>
>
>
**Yes and no.**
*Yes,* a SWR of 1:1 means that [you aren't losing signal to impedance mismatch reflections](https://ham.stackexchange.com/q/55/29).
*No,* another issue is how efficient the antenna is at picking up the (desired) signal, preferably (especially in the case of directional antennas) while rejecting undesired signals as well. An antenna that is 5% of a full half-length dipole isn't going to pick up as much RF as the full-length dipole, let alone a full-sized directional antenna pointed in the proper direction, simply due to the much smaller physical (antenna aperture) size.
**Generally speaking,** if an antenna analyzer or (other) transmitter shows that the antenna output presents a SWR of 1:1, then *what you have* is probably about as good as it gets. *That does not necessarily mean that what you have is a good antenna setup* as exemplified by the extreme example of a dummy load. | SWR aka Standing Wave Ratio is **calculated for the reflection** due to an impedance mismatch along the transmission-line. This is **more relevant to Tx** because of the power levels involved.
Ergo, SWR calculation will only be applicable to a receiver insofar as a 1:1 (or as close as may be achieved!) indicates the signal incident on the antenna is not reflected back from the receiver.
The resonant frequency/band of the antenna is the ease with which that antenna will intercept signals for that frequency/band from the air.
Best scenario is when the SWR is 1:1, and the receiver is tuned to the resonant frequency of the antenna itself. |
382 | If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well? And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?
I've wondered this for a while, sometimes I want a wide band antenna just for listening, and I am not clear about this relationship. | 2013/10/27 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/382",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/121/"
] | >
> If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well?
>
>
>
**No.**
Assuming we're talking about a characteristic impedance of 50 ohms, a 50 ohm resistor (otherwise known as a dummy load) will show a SWR of 1:1, although it will almost certainly perform very poorly as either a receive or transmit antenna.
The low SWR simply tells you that there are no impedance mismatches along the path from the transmitter (antenna analyzer in the case of your question) to the antenna feedpoint, at the current operating frequency.
>
> And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?
>
>
>
**Yes and no.**
*Yes,* a SWR of 1:1 means that [you aren't losing signal to impedance mismatch reflections](https://ham.stackexchange.com/q/55/29).
*No,* another issue is how efficient the antenna is at picking up the (desired) signal, preferably (especially in the case of directional antennas) while rejecting undesired signals as well. An antenna that is 5% of a full half-length dipole isn't going to pick up as much RF as the full-length dipole, let alone a full-sized directional antenna pointed in the proper direction, simply due to the much smaller physical (antenna aperture) size.
**Generally speaking,** if an antenna analyzer or (other) transmitter shows that the antenna output presents a SWR of 1:1, then *what you have* is probably about as good as it gets. *That does not necessarily mean that what you have is a good antenna setup* as exemplified by the extreme example of a dummy load. | Simplified answer:
*There is no relationship between SWR and receive performance.*
There is one condition for this simplification to be true: the received RF noise floor must be above your receiver's noise floor. Beyond this, anything you might do to increase the output from the antenna does nothing to increase the [signal to noise ratio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio), which is a better measure of receive performance.
SWR is a measure of the impedance mismatch between your antenna and transceiver. Whether transmitting or receiving, a higher SWR correlates with a less efficient coupling of energy between the transceiver and antenna.
This inefficiency is problematic when transmitting because it can make a lot of heat, and it limits one's ability to overcome noise at the intended receiver. We could compensate with an amplifier, but high-power amplifiers are expensive, and big, and hot, etc. However when receiving, losses are easy to overcome. The heat generated is insignificant, and at the extremely low power levels involved in receiving, amplifiers are not large or expensive or difficult to design.
Remember also that losses attenuate the signal, *and also the noise equally*. Improving the SWR will increase the power received, but this is signal and noise, and thus does nothing to make the signal more intelligible, unless both are attenuated so much that most of the noise is no longer coming from the antenna, but instead from the electronics of the receiver. At HF, low-noise amplifiers are easy to design, and the ambient [RF noise floor is relatively high](https://ham.stackexchange.com/a/9833/218), so antenna efficiency (including SWR-related losses) is not usually the limiting factor in receive performance.
If you want a wide-band antenna for receiving, then you may do well with a non-resonant antenna. Such an antenna will be very inefficient, but this easily compensated with a low-noise amplifier. Because it is not operated at resonant frequencies, bandwidth is hardly a concern. A [small loop](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna#Small_loops) or its electrical dual, the [Hertzian dipole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna#Elementary_doublet) could work. Or, consider a [Beverage antenna](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_antenna) if you want directionality, which *does* increase signal-to-noise ratio, provided it's pointing in the right direction. |
382 | If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well? And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?
I've wondered this for a while, sometimes I want a wide band antenna just for listening, and I am not clear about this relationship. | 2013/10/27 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/382",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/121/"
] | Simplified answer:
*There is no relationship between SWR and receive performance.*
There is one condition for this simplification to be true: the received RF noise floor must be above your receiver's noise floor. Beyond this, anything you might do to increase the output from the antenna does nothing to increase the [signal to noise ratio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio), which is a better measure of receive performance.
SWR is a measure of the impedance mismatch between your antenna and transceiver. Whether transmitting or receiving, a higher SWR correlates with a less efficient coupling of energy between the transceiver and antenna.
This inefficiency is problematic when transmitting because it can make a lot of heat, and it limits one's ability to overcome noise at the intended receiver. We could compensate with an amplifier, but high-power amplifiers are expensive, and big, and hot, etc. However when receiving, losses are easy to overcome. The heat generated is insignificant, and at the extremely low power levels involved in receiving, amplifiers are not large or expensive or difficult to design.
Remember also that losses attenuate the signal, *and also the noise equally*. Improving the SWR will increase the power received, but this is signal and noise, and thus does nothing to make the signal more intelligible, unless both are attenuated so much that most of the noise is no longer coming from the antenna, but instead from the electronics of the receiver. At HF, low-noise amplifiers are easy to design, and the ambient [RF noise floor is relatively high](https://ham.stackexchange.com/a/9833/218), so antenna efficiency (including SWR-related losses) is not usually the limiting factor in receive performance.
If you want a wide-band antenna for receiving, then you may do well with a non-resonant antenna. Such an antenna will be very inefficient, but this easily compensated with a low-noise amplifier. Because it is not operated at resonant frequencies, bandwidth is hardly a concern. A [small loop](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna#Small_loops) or its electrical dual, the [Hertzian dipole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna#Elementary_doublet) could work. Or, consider a [Beverage antenna](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_antenna) if you want directionality, which *does* increase signal-to-noise ratio, provided it's pointing in the right direction. | "If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well?" - It means for this antenna for the frequency you've tested on the antenna is as good as it gets.
"And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?" - Perhaps not. I have a loop antenna tacked to the ceiling in a bedroom. It is fed with 300 Ohm twin-lead and works very well for all the HF frequencies. I would NOT use it to transmit with a tuner. I have no idea what the SWR is, that is ONLY important to a transmitter.
Most receivers can handle all sorts of mismatch it's the transmitter than needs the "protection" in order to push out full power. However, that said I will also say that one can work well enough with a tuner and receiver and tune for the most noise. Pick an unused frequency and use the tuner to increase the noise level. One you've maxed it out you'll have better reception for frequencies close to this one.
I hope that helps. |
382 | If an antenna analyzer shows 1:1, does that mean it's an ideal receiver as well? And what about the converse, will a well performing receive antenna show a 1:1 SWR?
I've wondered this for a while, sometimes I want a wide band antenna just for listening, and I am not clear about this relationship. | 2013/10/27 | [
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/382",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com",
"https://ham.stackexchange.com/users/121/"
] | Simplified answer:
*There is no relationship between SWR and receive performance.*
There is one condition for this simplification to be true: the received RF noise floor must be above your receiver's noise floor. Beyond this, anything you might do to increase the output from the antenna does nothing to increase the [signal to noise ratio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio), which is a better measure of receive performance.
SWR is a measure of the impedance mismatch between your antenna and transceiver. Whether transmitting or receiving, a higher SWR correlates with a less efficient coupling of energy between the transceiver and antenna.
This inefficiency is problematic when transmitting because it can make a lot of heat, and it limits one's ability to overcome noise at the intended receiver. We could compensate with an amplifier, but high-power amplifiers are expensive, and big, and hot, etc. However when receiving, losses are easy to overcome. The heat generated is insignificant, and at the extremely low power levels involved in receiving, amplifiers are not large or expensive or difficult to design.
Remember also that losses attenuate the signal, *and also the noise equally*. Improving the SWR will increase the power received, but this is signal and noise, and thus does nothing to make the signal more intelligible, unless both are attenuated so much that most of the noise is no longer coming from the antenna, but instead from the electronics of the receiver. At HF, low-noise amplifiers are easy to design, and the ambient [RF noise floor is relatively high](https://ham.stackexchange.com/a/9833/218), so antenna efficiency (including SWR-related losses) is not usually the limiting factor in receive performance.
If you want a wide-band antenna for receiving, then you may do well with a non-resonant antenna. Such an antenna will be very inefficient, but this easily compensated with a low-noise amplifier. Because it is not operated at resonant frequencies, bandwidth is hardly a concern. A [small loop](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_antenna#Small_loops) or its electrical dual, the [Hertzian dipole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna#Elementary_doublet) could work. Or, consider a [Beverage antenna](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_antenna) if you want directionality, which *does* increase signal-to-noise ratio, provided it's pointing in the right direction. | SWR aka Standing Wave Ratio is **calculated for the reflection** due to an impedance mismatch along the transmission-line. This is **more relevant to Tx** because of the power levels involved.
Ergo, SWR calculation will only be applicable to a receiver insofar as a 1:1 (or as close as may be achieved!) indicates the signal incident on the antenna is not reflected back from the receiver.
The resonant frequency/band of the antenna is the ease with which that antenna will intercept signals for that frequency/band from the air.
Best scenario is when the SWR is 1:1, and the receiver is tuned to the resonant frequency of the antenna itself. |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | (a) Power consumption (e.g., your 20 watts) describes everything the circuit is doing, including generating heat. All electric circuits generate some heat because (at least at room temperature), all circuit paths have resistance, and where there is resistance, there's heat.
(b) LEDs are not filament lights. They're diodes (Light Emitting Diode = LED). Diodes have very, very low resistivity. Consequently, very little of the energy used is lost to heat. This is what makes them so efficient for lighting a room. Most of your power is used to generate light, not heat.
(c) Your old filament lights ("incandescent" lights) were much less efficient. For example, a 75 watt incandescent light would generate about 1,100 lumens. An LED light generating 1,100 lumens needs only about 10 watts. It's not quite this simple in reality, but you can generally say that the incandescent light is generating 65 watts of heat to light the room (it's actually only losing about 50 watts, if I remember correctly, due to illumination inefficiencies in the filament itself — but we don't care about that).
Frankly, what you really want is a quartz heating element. You want to waste as few watts as possible generating visible light. You want infrared light — check out [infrared heaters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater). | So many answers and they are all good. I am taking a compilation of these answers and posting my own answer.
No one here said it could not be done. Finding a 20 watt heater element is slim, LED are not efficient for heat, but a UV LED produces more heat than visible light LEDs. UV LEDs allow it to be visible at night with the right material.
Using a UV LED and UV absorbing black material enclosure to surround the UV LED light will make it visible with luminescent parts, light weight, reliable, cheap and abundant as a heat supply. I still am not sure if a solar cells can transfer enough light into heat from inside the balloons in place of batteries. Limits of Solar cells is 18% ish of light absorbed by solar cells is converted in electricity that would be used to produce heat from the sun. Depending on the surface area of all the parts(all in black) and the conversion of sunlight would contribute to the total heat produced. More surface area of the parts with the least amount of volume and weight of the parts is best for capturing sunlight and UV light. Like a black heat sink designed capture light and convert it into heat.
To conclude it is the inefficiency of the UV LED light and efficiency of the absorption of the parts center of the balloon from the Sun externally and UV light internally together heating the air within the balloon for lift by electricity and Sun light.
At night a black balloon would be best with a black box surrounding the UV LED. I may experiment in heating a helium/air mixture in a sealed balloon if air alone does not create enough buoyancy to create lift.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ymDTg.jpg)
Plus 1 everyone.....Thanks |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | Incandescent lights turn about 1-2% of the electric power into light, the rest is lost as heat and infrared radiation. They're pretty good as infrared heaters, though, but you don't want an infrared heater as infrared goes through air and would heat the balloon itself, not the air inside.
LEDs aren't very efficient, modern ones only turn about 25% of the electric power into visible light, and the remaining 75% of electric power becomes heat.
So LEDs are a lot more efficient than incandescents, but saying "very little of the electricity is turned into heat" is wrong, since 75% isn't "very little".
If you want to heat the air inside your balloon with electricity, the best would be a lightweight heating element, as a LED would let a significant fraction of the power escape outside the balloon as light.
This would only work if you have a very lightweight electrical power source. If you want heat, current technology isn't competitive with a butane/propane torch. Compare energy densities:
Current LiIon batteries contain 150-200 Wh/kg.
Propane contains 12000 Wh/kg thermal energy.
Batteries are great because electrical energy is a lot more useful than the heat you get when burning propane, but this doesn't apply to your case.
If your balloon is tethered, then battery weight doesn't matter, but the weight of the cable is an issue. | One can well discuss various LED efficiencies here, but this is rather missing the fundamental point in which this question is a bit absurd.
**Heat is the dumbest form of energy.**
Whatever you do when handling energy / converting it between different forms, it will always tend to slip through your fingers by just dissipating into heat, which is generally *pretty hard to make use of*. Conversely, electric energy is an pretty “sophisticated” form that can easily be used for all kind of things.
You may wonder why I say that – do not most power plants generate electricity *from* heat? Well, not actually, that's impossible according to the [second law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics). What coal power plants really do is, converting *heat flow along a temperature differential* into electricity. That is, they let heat flow into some cooling dump (usually a river's water), and through turbines are able to pull out *some* of this energy into a more useful form (rotation movement and ultimately electricity). But this process is inherently wasteful: even a well-designed modern coal plant only has a conversion efficiency of about 33%.
The other way around is always trivial: if you let current flow through pretty much *any* circuit, the energy will basically always end up as *mostly heat*. Sometimes, a bit is also converted to other energy, notably, an antenna can send out electromagnetic energy (radio waves). Mind, these are eventually *also* converted to heat, but before that happens they can travel a long way. And for LEDs it's basically the same thing: they convert a not insignificant amount of energy to *light* instead of straight to heat, but all that accomplishes is that you give the energy a bit of an extra chance to escape from the ballon unused. So, this really is a bad idea: LEDs are, by design, “unusually bad at converting electricity into heat”.
But the bad idea actually starts much earlier, by proposing electrical heating at all. As I said, electricity is precious. If you went through all the trouble of bringing energy in heavy, inefficient batteries instead of cheap, energy-packed gas cans, the last thing you want to do is just burn it to heat. There is however one trick you could pull that might *theoretically* make it worthwhile: use a [heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump). That's basically the inverse of a power plant: instead of *converting electricity into heat*, it forces a *heat flow* from the ambient air into the balloon. That way, you can on paper get a “conversion efficiency” of more than 100%.
Practically speaking, that's unfortunately not going to offset the drawbacks: heat pumps are themselves not ideally efficient, and they're heavy, adding to the weight of the batteries.
**Be sensible, heat your balloon with gas or with solar heat, not with electricity.** |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | Incandescent lights turn about 1-2% of the electric power into light, the rest is lost as heat and infrared radiation. They're pretty good as infrared heaters, though, but you don't want an infrared heater as infrared goes through air and would heat the balloon itself, not the air inside.
LEDs aren't very efficient, modern ones only turn about 25% of the electric power into visible light, and the remaining 75% of electric power becomes heat.
So LEDs are a lot more efficient than incandescents, but saying "very little of the electricity is turned into heat" is wrong, since 75% isn't "very little".
If you want to heat the air inside your balloon with electricity, the best would be a lightweight heating element, as a LED would let a significant fraction of the power escape outside the balloon as light.
This would only work if you have a very lightweight electrical power source. If you want heat, current technology isn't competitive with a butane/propane torch. Compare energy densities:
Current LiIon batteries contain 150-200 Wh/kg.
Propane contains 12000 Wh/kg thermal energy.
Batteries are great because electrical energy is a lot more useful than the heat you get when burning propane, but this doesn't apply to your case.
If your balloon is tethered, then battery weight doesn't matter, but the weight of the cable is an issue. | So many answers and they are all good. I am taking a compilation of these answers and posting my own answer.
No one here said it could not be done. Finding a 20 watt heater element is slim, LED are not efficient for heat, but a UV LED produces more heat than visible light LEDs. UV LEDs allow it to be visible at night with the right material.
Using a UV LED and UV absorbing black material enclosure to surround the UV LED light will make it visible with luminescent parts, light weight, reliable, cheap and abundant as a heat supply. I still am not sure if a solar cells can transfer enough light into heat from inside the balloons in place of batteries. Limits of Solar cells is 18% ish of light absorbed by solar cells is converted in electricity that would be used to produce heat from the sun. Depending on the surface area of all the parts(all in black) and the conversion of sunlight would contribute to the total heat produced. More surface area of the parts with the least amount of volume and weight of the parts is best for capturing sunlight and UV light. Like a black heat sink designed capture light and convert it into heat.
To conclude it is the inefficiency of the UV LED light and efficiency of the absorption of the parts center of the balloon from the Sun externally and UV light internally together heating the air within the balloon for lift by electricity and Sun light.
At night a black balloon would be best with a black box surrounding the UV LED. I may experiment in heating a helium/air mixture in a sealed balloon if air alone does not create enough buoyancy to create lift.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ymDTg.jpg)
Plus 1 everyone.....Thanks |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | One can well discuss various LED efficiencies here, but this is rather missing the fundamental point in which this question is a bit absurd.
**Heat is the dumbest form of energy.**
Whatever you do when handling energy / converting it between different forms, it will always tend to slip through your fingers by just dissipating into heat, which is generally *pretty hard to make use of*. Conversely, electric energy is an pretty “sophisticated” form that can easily be used for all kind of things.
You may wonder why I say that – do not most power plants generate electricity *from* heat? Well, not actually, that's impossible according to the [second law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics). What coal power plants really do is, converting *heat flow along a temperature differential* into electricity. That is, they let heat flow into some cooling dump (usually a river's water), and through turbines are able to pull out *some* of this energy into a more useful form (rotation movement and ultimately electricity). But this process is inherently wasteful: even a well-designed modern coal plant only has a conversion efficiency of about 33%.
The other way around is always trivial: if you let current flow through pretty much *any* circuit, the energy will basically always end up as *mostly heat*. Sometimes, a bit is also converted to other energy, notably, an antenna can send out electromagnetic energy (radio waves). Mind, these are eventually *also* converted to heat, but before that happens they can travel a long way. And for LEDs it's basically the same thing: they convert a not insignificant amount of energy to *light* instead of straight to heat, but all that accomplishes is that you give the energy a bit of an extra chance to escape from the ballon unused. So, this really is a bad idea: LEDs are, by design, “unusually bad at converting electricity into heat”.
But the bad idea actually starts much earlier, by proposing electrical heating at all. As I said, electricity is precious. If you went through all the trouble of bringing energy in heavy, inefficient batteries instead of cheap, energy-packed gas cans, the last thing you want to do is just burn it to heat. There is however one trick you could pull that might *theoretically* make it worthwhile: use a [heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump). That's basically the inverse of a power plant: instead of *converting electricity into heat*, it forces a *heat flow* from the ambient air into the balloon. That way, you can on paper get a “conversion efficiency” of more than 100%.
Practically speaking, that's unfortunately not going to offset the drawbacks: heat pumps are themselves not ideally efficient, and they're heavy, adding to the weight of the batteries.
**Be sensible, heat your balloon with gas or with solar heat, not with electricity.** | So many answers and they are all good. I am taking a compilation of these answers and posting my own answer.
No one here said it could not be done. Finding a 20 watt heater element is slim, LED are not efficient for heat, but a UV LED produces more heat than visible light LEDs. UV LEDs allow it to be visible at night with the right material.
Using a UV LED and UV absorbing black material enclosure to surround the UV LED light will make it visible with luminescent parts, light weight, reliable, cheap and abundant as a heat supply. I still am not sure if a solar cells can transfer enough light into heat from inside the balloons in place of batteries. Limits of Solar cells is 18% ish of light absorbed by solar cells is converted in electricity that would be used to produce heat from the sun. Depending on the surface area of all the parts(all in black) and the conversion of sunlight would contribute to the total heat produced. More surface area of the parts with the least amount of volume and weight of the parts is best for capturing sunlight and UV light. Like a black heat sink designed capture light and convert it into heat.
To conclude it is the inefficiency of the UV LED light and efficiency of the absorption of the parts center of the balloon from the Sun externally and UV light internally together heating the air within the balloon for lift by electricity and Sun light.
At night a black balloon would be best with a black box surrounding the UV LED. I may experiment in heating a helium/air mixture in a sealed balloon if air alone does not create enough buoyancy to create lift.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ymDTg.jpg)
Plus 1 everyone.....Thanks |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | Incandescent lights turn about 1-2% of the electric power into light, the rest is lost as heat and infrared radiation. They're pretty good as infrared heaters, though, but you don't want an infrared heater as infrared goes through air and would heat the balloon itself, not the air inside.
LEDs aren't very efficient, modern ones only turn about 25% of the electric power into visible light, and the remaining 75% of electric power becomes heat.
So LEDs are a lot more efficient than incandescents, but saying "very little of the electricity is turned into heat" is wrong, since 75% isn't "very little".
If you want to heat the air inside your balloon with electricity, the best would be a lightweight heating element, as a LED would let a significant fraction of the power escape outside the balloon as light.
This would only work if you have a very lightweight electrical power source. If you want heat, current technology isn't competitive with a butane/propane torch. Compare energy densities:
Current LiIon batteries contain 150-200 Wh/kg.
Propane contains 12000 Wh/kg thermal energy.
Batteries are great because electrical energy is a lot more useful than the heat you get when burning propane, but this doesn't apply to your case.
If your balloon is tethered, then battery weight doesn't matter, but the weight of the cable is an issue. | (a) Power consumption (e.g., your 20 watts) describes everything the circuit is doing, including generating heat. All electric circuits generate some heat because (at least at room temperature), all circuit paths have resistance, and where there is resistance, there's heat.
(b) LEDs are not filament lights. They're diodes (Light Emitting Diode = LED). Diodes have very, very low resistivity. Consequently, very little of the energy used is lost to heat. This is what makes them so efficient for lighting a room. Most of your power is used to generate light, not heat.
(c) Your old filament lights ("incandescent" lights) were much less efficient. For example, a 75 watt incandescent light would generate about 1,100 lumens. An LED light generating 1,100 lumens needs only about 10 watts. It's not quite this simple in reality, but you can generally say that the incandescent light is generating 65 watts of heat to light the room (it's actually only losing about 50 watts, if I remember correctly, due to illumination inefficiencies in the filament itself — but we don't care about that).
Frankly, what you really want is a quartz heating element. You want to waste as few watts as possible generating visible light. You want infrared light — check out [infrared heaters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater). |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | You would want to use a heating element. If you use a light (whether visible light from a LED or infrared from a quartz heating element), some of the energy is turned into light, rather than heat. If you have a transparent balloon, it escapes. If you have a black balloon, it gets turned into heat when it reaches the edge. But there's a catch. That heat is being placed right on the edge of the balloon, which is the part that is easiest to cool from the outside. To minimize heat flow out of your balloon, you want the balloon envelope to be the coolest part, not the warmest.
Thus, the solution is to have a heater element on the inside of the balloon, with a small fan blowing air across it. That way you have one hot point in the middle of the balloon (at the heater), and the heat has to slowly move to the edges (via convection) until it reaches the envelope and can exchange the heat with the outside world. | So many answers and they are all good. I am taking a compilation of these answers and posting my own answer.
No one here said it could not be done. Finding a 20 watt heater element is slim, LED are not efficient for heat, but a UV LED produces more heat than visible light LEDs. UV LEDs allow it to be visible at night with the right material.
Using a UV LED and UV absorbing black material enclosure to surround the UV LED light will make it visible with luminescent parts, light weight, reliable, cheap and abundant as a heat supply. I still am not sure if a solar cells can transfer enough light into heat from inside the balloons in place of batteries. Limits of Solar cells is 18% ish of light absorbed by solar cells is converted in electricity that would be used to produce heat from the sun. Depending on the surface area of all the parts(all in black) and the conversion of sunlight would contribute to the total heat produced. More surface area of the parts with the least amount of volume and weight of the parts is best for capturing sunlight and UV light. Like a black heat sink designed capture light and convert it into heat.
To conclude it is the inefficiency of the UV LED light and efficiency of the absorption of the parts center of the balloon from the Sun externally and UV light internally together heating the air within the balloon for lift by electricity and Sun light.
At night a black balloon would be best with a black box surrounding the UV LED. I may experiment in heating a helium/air mixture in a sealed balloon if air alone does not create enough buoyancy to create lift.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ymDTg.jpg)
Plus 1 everyone.....Thanks |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | Incandescent lights turn about 1-2% of the electric power into light, the rest is lost as heat and infrared radiation. They're pretty good as infrared heaters, though, but you don't want an infrared heater as infrared goes through air and would heat the balloon itself, not the air inside.
LEDs aren't very efficient, modern ones only turn about 25% of the electric power into visible light, and the remaining 75% of electric power becomes heat.
So LEDs are a lot more efficient than incandescents, but saying "very little of the electricity is turned into heat" is wrong, since 75% isn't "very little".
If you want to heat the air inside your balloon with electricity, the best would be a lightweight heating element, as a LED would let a significant fraction of the power escape outside the balloon as light.
This would only work if you have a very lightweight electrical power source. If you want heat, current technology isn't competitive with a butane/propane torch. Compare energy densities:
Current LiIon batteries contain 150-200 Wh/kg.
Propane contains 12000 Wh/kg thermal energy.
Batteries are great because electrical energy is a lot more useful than the heat you get when burning propane, but this doesn't apply to your case.
If your balloon is tethered, then battery weight doesn't matter, but the weight of the cable is an issue. | LEDs produce very little heat to begin with. Considering wattage is just power expenditure, you'd be better off focusing all those 20 watts on heat, not light. |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | Incandescent lights turn about 1-2% of the electric power into light, the rest is lost as heat and infrared radiation. They're pretty good as infrared heaters, though, but you don't want an infrared heater as infrared goes through air and would heat the balloon itself, not the air inside.
LEDs aren't very efficient, modern ones only turn about 25% of the electric power into visible light, and the remaining 75% of electric power becomes heat.
So LEDs are a lot more efficient than incandescents, but saying "very little of the electricity is turned into heat" is wrong, since 75% isn't "very little".
If you want to heat the air inside your balloon with electricity, the best would be a lightweight heating element, as a LED would let a significant fraction of the power escape outside the balloon as light.
This would only work if you have a very lightweight electrical power source. If you want heat, current technology isn't competitive with a butane/propane torch. Compare energy densities:
Current LiIon batteries contain 150-200 Wh/kg.
Propane contains 12000 Wh/kg thermal energy.
Batteries are great because electrical energy is a lot more useful than the heat you get when burning propane, but this doesn't apply to your case.
If your balloon is tethered, then battery weight doesn't matter, but the weight of the cable is an issue. | The quick answer is that a 20W LED light and a 20W heating element both produce 20W of heat, and inside a black (opaque) balloon, they would both produce the same amount of heat to lift the balloon.
Now, it is obvious this doesn't tell the whole story; intuition seems to suggest a heating element would be more fit for producing heat than a device intended to produce light, not to mention the differences in the weight between the devices.
A lot of people have mentioned how LED lighting isn't as efficient as many people believe.
While it is inaccurate to say LED lighting turns most of its input power into light, it's not like the claim has no basis in reality whatsoever, and I feel like this makes it a bit of a red herring in the reasoning behind the answers.
LED's usually *do* turn most of its consumed power into light (if more than half counts as most). It's the power circuitry that drives the LED that accounts for most of the power lost as heat.
I have more experience working with laser diodes than LED's, but most often over 60% of the power used in the diode is turned into radiation, while the process of modulating the current flowing through the LED is hugely less efficient.
In the simplest designs, a 20W light might have a power stage that dissipates 18W as heat while supplying 2W to the actual LED, which might produce 1.5W as visible light. Conceivably, you could argue both that the efficiency is 75% (1.5/2) and that it is 7.5% (1.5/20).
(The issues that arise when dealing with thermal dissipation are more attributable to the relatively small size of LED's rather than the amount heat being produced. I realize laser diodes are significantly different than LED's, but I'm assuming most LED's are more efficient, but I may be wrong here)
So in many cases the comparison between a 20W LED light and a 20W (resistive) heating element basically boils down to one between an expensive, unnecessarily convoluted 20W heating element and a 20W heating element, and as people have discussed already, convection would be the more important issue. I would imagine the optimal ohmic heating element in this situation would be a motor of some size with a fan attached to its spindle in a way that it cools the motor.
But, and I think this may be closer to the intent of the question, if you are asking, "assuming you could turn 20W of electricity into either 20W of light or 20W of heat, which would be more effective in producing lift in a hot air balloon?", the answer is, it depends.
You've already taken the color of the balloon into account by saying it's black. This would contain the light produced inside the balloon, but as you've stated, a black balloon would absorb the light and heat up.
To produce lift, we don't want the balloon to heat up. We want the *air* inside the balloon to heat up.
So let's make the balloon shiny, i.e. 100% reflectivity (this could be approached by using metallized mylar). Then, you keep all the light inside the balloon, and it doesn't waste heat by heating up.
Now that we have all this light energy trapped in the balloon, we just need to turn it into heat in the air. Just kidding, no we don't. The light, not being able to escape the balloon would eventually be absorbed by the molecules in the air itself. It's as it's a law or something, light will eventually turn into heat at some point, in some thing. This heats up the entire volume of the air *simultaneously*. No convection required. Light clearly wins in terms of speed in this case.
Depending on the level of material sciences, creating a balloon with near perfect reflectivity that is both light and strong enough to support whatever load it carries may be impossible.
Let's go back to black. Probably nylon, or some other fabric. Then, the balloon would heat up, absorbing light better than air, and while it would heat the air inside the balloon, it would also heat the air outside (i.e. lose heat).
But really, this is unavoidable no matter what you do. Even if you used a heating element to heat up the air inside the balloon, once the air is hot, it would heat up the balloon, which would lose heat to the outside.
The main difference would be in how long it takes initially to get the balloon off the ground. It would take some ugly calculus to model (if you heat the air with light via the balloon, you have more surface area = faster heat conduction, but you lose half to the outside and the temperature is lower, and fluid dynamics I don't even want to start thinking about), but put simply, using light would mean a longer wait before the balloon lifted off than using heat, but once the air was at the target temperature, there would be no difference in efficiency.
These thought experiments seemingly pointing to the conclusion that light and heat would be equally as efficient can probably be traced (in a very roundabout way) to one of these facts: light *is* heat, or eventually becomes heat; where there is heat, there is light; a large part of heat (or all of it, depending on the scale you think at) transmission happens through light; and most fundamentally, heat is such a vague word that it is used in countless contexts and meanings, yet it is difficult to define clearly. Also c.f. black body radiation.
None of this would work with a 20W anything, by the way. |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | Incandescent lights turn about 1-2% of the electric power into light, the rest is lost as heat and infrared radiation. They're pretty good as infrared heaters, though, but you don't want an infrared heater as infrared goes through air and would heat the balloon itself, not the air inside.
LEDs aren't very efficient, modern ones only turn about 25% of the electric power into visible light, and the remaining 75% of electric power becomes heat.
So LEDs are a lot more efficient than incandescents, but saying "very little of the electricity is turned into heat" is wrong, since 75% isn't "very little".
If you want to heat the air inside your balloon with electricity, the best would be a lightweight heating element, as a LED would let a significant fraction of the power escape outside the balloon as light.
This would only work if you have a very lightweight electrical power source. If you want heat, current technology isn't competitive with a butane/propane torch. Compare energy densities:
Current LiIon batteries contain 150-200 Wh/kg.
Propane contains 12000 Wh/kg thermal energy.
Batteries are great because electrical energy is a lot more useful than the heat you get when burning propane, but this doesn't apply to your case.
If your balloon is tethered, then battery weight doesn't matter, but the weight of the cable is an issue. | Here are some numbers to play with.
10W of energy produces 34.121416 BTU/hr if it is all converted to heat.
It takes 0.24 BTU of heat to change the temperature of one pound of air by one degree F.
So 10 W of electricity will heat 14 pounds of air by 10 degrees F. if my calculations are correct.
1 cubic foot of air at standard temperature and pressure assuming average composition weighs approximately 0.0807 lbs.
So we are talking theoretically about heating 173 cubic feet of air (a balloon 5.5 ft by 5.5 ft by 5.5 ft) by 10 degrees F. assuming no heat loss at STP.
I am not sure if raising the temperature by 10 degrees F will lift very much, very high.
**EDIT**
>
> Just to lift an adult man's weight, you'd need a balloon about 4m
> (13ft) in radius with the air inside heated to a temperature of about
> 120°C (250°F). That explains why hot-air balloons are generally so
> large.
>
>
>
From [Hot-air balloons](http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-hot-air-balloons-work.html)
Given an average human mass of 80 kg, a 1 kg LiIon battery would need perhaps 1/80th the volume, but you still have to provide a temperature differential of about 100 degrees C. |
106,821 | To generate heat electrically inside a balloon for lift would a 20 watt LED light or a 20 watt heating element make more heat to lift a small closed hot air balloon droid and solar cell?
Having a black balloon would convert the light into heat and a 20 watt LED does get hot and heat-sync would add to the total heat output. I don't know if the balloon and parts being black would matter with a heating element or material would be best to use unlike traditional open hot air balloon material?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FpDT7.jpg)
In a transparent balloon all the parts of it can be inside of it with the exception of the propellers.
<https://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/15323/could-a-hot-air-balloon-be-powered-from-the-ground-like-a-drone> | 2018/03/12 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/106821",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/27786/"
] | You would want to use a heating element. If you use a light (whether visible light from a LED or infrared from a quartz heating element), some of the energy is turned into light, rather than heat. If you have a transparent balloon, it escapes. If you have a black balloon, it gets turned into heat when it reaches the edge. But there's a catch. That heat is being placed right on the edge of the balloon, which is the part that is easiest to cool from the outside. To minimize heat flow out of your balloon, you want the balloon envelope to be the coolest part, not the warmest.
Thus, the solution is to have a heater element on the inside of the balloon, with a small fan blowing air across it. That way you have one hot point in the middle of the balloon (at the heater), and the heat has to slowly move to the edges (via convection) until it reaches the envelope and can exchange the heat with the outside world. | One can well discuss various LED efficiencies here, but this is rather missing the fundamental point in which this question is a bit absurd.
**Heat is the dumbest form of energy.**
Whatever you do when handling energy / converting it between different forms, it will always tend to slip through your fingers by just dissipating into heat, which is generally *pretty hard to make use of*. Conversely, electric energy is an pretty “sophisticated” form that can easily be used for all kind of things.
You may wonder why I say that – do not most power plants generate electricity *from* heat? Well, not actually, that's impossible according to the [second law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics). What coal power plants really do is, converting *heat flow along a temperature differential* into electricity. That is, they let heat flow into some cooling dump (usually a river's water), and through turbines are able to pull out *some* of this energy into a more useful form (rotation movement and ultimately electricity). But this process is inherently wasteful: even a well-designed modern coal plant only has a conversion efficiency of about 33%.
The other way around is always trivial: if you let current flow through pretty much *any* circuit, the energy will basically always end up as *mostly heat*. Sometimes, a bit is also converted to other energy, notably, an antenna can send out electromagnetic energy (radio waves). Mind, these are eventually *also* converted to heat, but before that happens they can travel a long way. And for LEDs it's basically the same thing: they convert a not insignificant amount of energy to *light* instead of straight to heat, but all that accomplishes is that you give the energy a bit of an extra chance to escape from the ballon unused. So, this really is a bad idea: LEDs are, by design, “unusually bad at converting electricity into heat”.
But the bad idea actually starts much earlier, by proposing electrical heating at all. As I said, electricity is precious. If you went through all the trouble of bringing energy in heavy, inefficient batteries instead of cheap, energy-packed gas cans, the last thing you want to do is just burn it to heat. There is however one trick you could pull that might *theoretically* make it worthwhile: use a [heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump). That's basically the inverse of a power plant: instead of *converting electricity into heat*, it forces a *heat flow* from the ambient air into the balloon. That way, you can on paper get a “conversion efficiency” of more than 100%.
Practically speaking, that's unfortunately not going to offset the drawbacks: heat pumps are themselves not ideally efficient, and they're heavy, adding to the weight of the batteries.
**Be sensible, heat your balloon with gas or with solar heat, not with electricity.** |
35,271,494 | I know that apps submitted to Windows Store are compiled using .NET Native. How difficult it is to reverse engineer the source codes from apps downloaded from windows store? Does it make sense to obfuscate the code first? | 2016/02/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35271494",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/475727/"
] | Even if it gets compiled in native, the behaviour of the program can be read using a native debugger, like <http://x64dbg.com/> (in assembler, of course...). The exact original code can't be read.
So in the end it depends on the complexity of your program and the patience/interest of the person doing the reverse engeneering. | if you compile it in native it is not possible to reverse engineer it.
if you compile it in managed, they are open, any decent dev can go to see your code.
hth
-g |
89,306 | I'm working on a page where you have a box of things and you can drag the things around to reposition them. You can also drag them to a specified drop zone to move them to another box. This brings up a list of all your boxes, where you select the one you want to move it to. The thing is then moved there, so for the current view it is simply removed and the "# things" counter is decremented. Simple.
However, if the user selects the box that the thing is already in, then it will appear removed and gone, until the current box is reloaded in which case it reappears.
Well, since moving a thing to the box it's already in is counter-productive, I've added the "disabled" attribute to the button that would move it to its own box. I figure this is better than outright removing the box from the list, since that might cause further confusion (where is my box? why is the "select box" dialog inconsistent here? etc.)
But naturally, this being the browser, the user can do whatever the hell they like really. Such as going into the DOM inspector and removing the "disabled" attribute, then clicking the button.
Server-side, there's already a check for "is the thing already in that box? if so, no action needed", but the JavaScript side of things will blindly continue to remove the thing from the box and decrement the counter. The thing then reappears when you reload the box.
So my question is: does this matter? If a user is tampering with the DOM, surely they must realise that this can lead to undefined or unexpected behaviour? So long as the server-side handles input appropriately (validating, DB parameter queries etc.) is there any harm in leaving this the way it is, even though it's quite bad behaviour to have it look like the thing was moved when it hasn't, because the user moved it to an invalid selection? | 2016/01/20 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/89306",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/30175/"
] | First: No, **you don't have to design UX thinking of how can the common user modify the DOM from the backdoor.**
If your system security and robustness relies on UI modifications, it's a sign of bad software design, you should validate both on the client and the server.
Disabling the current box in the target selection is okay, but it may improve it to add a clarification to avoid any confusion.
[download bmml source](/plugins/mockups/download?image=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fBYJ3z.png) – Wireframes created with [Balsamiq Mockups](http://www.balsamiq.com/products/mockups) | I see no problem in "undesirable" action taking place after the user manipulates the DOM **IF** it doesn't cause any vulnerabilities or permanent damage. In this case it will just look weird until the user reloads, that is acceptable, you took care of the real issues by checking server side. They could also manipulate the DOM to delete the item completely or create 1000 of them, you can't prepare for every possibility because as you said "the user can do whatever the hell they like really". |
254,688 | I have had major issues with upgrade to 12.10 and have reverted to 12.04. I want to install clean this time around, but would like to retain home.
Do I need to move home to a separate partition first?
I have an encrypted home, do I need to worry about this and make any special accommodations?
Is the [tutorial: UbuntuReinstallation](https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuReinstallation) on help.ubuntu.com still relevant for 12.10? | 2013/02/13 | [
"https://askubuntu.com/questions/254688",
"https://askubuntu.com",
"https://askubuntu.com/users/2692/"
] | Moving home to a separated partition will be good. Just follow [the community instructions](https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Partitioning/Home/Moving). I’ve tried it before and was successful. | Yes, you would have to move it on to a partition. But something like a USB drive. Or a CD.
I only know how to copy and paste on to a OS via CD/USB, not something like a partition. Although I think there is a way to copy and paste via partition.
I would think you would have to change the Home encryption type, but if it lets you, it's lets you.
Thanks. |
3,400 | Based on the voting results for this question, [Should cloud software be permitted in the "free software" question?](https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3397/753), recommendations for cloud software should not be allowed in that question. How should we carry out the decision?
Instead of a simple yes/no answer like the above question, I will leave this question open ended so that the best/most voted proposal is implemented.
To help start getting some of the details filled in, I have the following questions/concerns:
* Should a new question be created for cloud software, or should an existing question, such as [Looking for a FREE Cloud based 'Web Mapping Stack' Host](https://gis.stackexchange.com/q/24213/753) be used? If a new question is to be created, who creates it? A regular user, a moderator, or the [Community](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19739) user?
* Should (and can) existing answers, e.g. [the ColorBrewer recommendation](https://gis.stackexchange.com/a/12161/753), in the original question be migrated to the new question?
* Should the new question discuss only "free" solutions, or are paid solutions allowed as well?
* Should there be any ground rules set up regarding the disclosure of sign-up requirements, need for credit card/payment information, time/data/other limits, automatic fees, advertising, privacy concerns, etc.? | 2013/10/24 | [
"https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3400",
"https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/users/753/"
] | I would keep it simple:
1. Based on what looks like a decisive vote, rollback the question to the state before cloud-based became part of it. I think any of many of us can do that.
2. Leave defining any new question to whoever asks it - everyone is free to comment and upvote/downvote based on whether they think questions are clear and well scoped, and whether answers are applicable. | A new question should be created, and given that it is coming about owing to the fact that free cloud software is being excluded from the "what free (desktop) software is recommended by/for the GIS community" question, it should be something along the lines of
**"What free or open source cloud-based software is recommended by/for the GIS community?"**
Like the "desktop-only" question, it would allow GIS or non-GIS tools and allow user or developer tools -- anything that GIS folks have found useful. The only restriction: it must be free and non-desktop.
Presumably, offending answers from the "desktop-only" question should be moved. (I don't know how that works.)
As to who should ask it, I don't understand why that's an issue (I'm still inexperienced at SE). I thought anyone may ask questions. I'm happy to do it.
I'd rather not address those "ground rules" about not-quite-free stuff. It shouldn't be a problem. |
3,400 | Based on the voting results for this question, [Should cloud software be permitted in the "free software" question?](https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3397/753), recommendations for cloud software should not be allowed in that question. How should we carry out the decision?
Instead of a simple yes/no answer like the above question, I will leave this question open ended so that the best/most voted proposal is implemented.
To help start getting some of the details filled in, I have the following questions/concerns:
* Should a new question be created for cloud software, or should an existing question, such as [Looking for a FREE Cloud based 'Web Mapping Stack' Host](https://gis.stackexchange.com/q/24213/753) be used? If a new question is to be created, who creates it? A regular user, a moderator, or the [Community](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19739) user?
* Should (and can) existing answers, e.g. [the ColorBrewer recommendation](https://gis.stackexchange.com/a/12161/753), in the original question be migrated to the new question?
* Should the new question discuss only "free" solutions, or are paid solutions allowed as well?
* Should there be any ground rules set up regarding the disclosure of sign-up requirements, need for credit card/payment information, time/data/other limits, automatic fees, advertising, privacy concerns, etc.? | 2013/10/24 | [
"https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3400",
"https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/users/753/"
] | I would keep it simple:
1. Based on what looks like a decisive vote, rollback the question to the state before cloud-based became part of it. I think any of many of us can do that.
2. Leave defining any new question to whoever asks it - everyone is free to comment and upvote/downvote based on whether they think questions are clear and well scoped, and whether answers are applicable. | I have rolled the question back to the edit that preceded this entire discussion, based on the results of the vote.
Anyone should be able to ask a new question like "what cloud services does the GIS community use/recommend?" |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | Not on fixed wing aircraft, but this does happen with rotor wing aircraft and it’s the principal driving mechanism for auto rotation. The section of a rotor blade known as the driven region has an effective force of lift tipped in the direction the rotor spins, driving the rotor blades by means of the air moving through the rotor disc. | The understanding of the relationship of drag and thrust in aircraft design is crucial to the development of efficient fuel saving aircraft.
From the aircraft reference, thrust is force towards the line of flight, drag is resistance (from the air) to this path. Because they are directly linearly opposed, thrust = - drag is mathematically correct, and can be derived from the steady state formula thrust + drag = 0.
Realizing this (simple) relationship can help explain other phenomena, such as "autorotation", extremely low *net drag* of airfoils, the benefits of slats, and (putting them all together), the design of soaring birds.
All gliders seek to find an updraft greater than their rate of descent. The broad, highly cambered wing of the eagle is exactly what airliners emulate when preparing to land, allowing them to slow to around 1/3 of their cruising speed.
But what of the slotted wingtips? Could they be using the **updraft to provide thrust**? This seems to work fairly well for **auto rotating** helicopters, so...
By changing **relative wind away from flight path**, drag on a **part** of the aircraft can produce **thrust force** (negative drag) to the line of flight. This is accomplished by producing a localized **horizontal lift component** to the line of flight.
Importantly, to preserve the strict definitions, drag opposes thrust, but localized lift from induced drag can produce a thrust force in the direction of flight.
Now, to get to the point of the question, the [Blackbird](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)), and sailing against the wind in general, the key is to **extract mechanical energy from a drag force and use it to create a more efficient thrust force in the direction of travel**.
>
> Back to thrust = - drag
>
>
>
Let's add in:
>
> thrust = -drag × conversion efficiency
>
>
>
The simplest model would be an anemometer. Mechanical energy is extracted by the *difference* in **drag coefficient** between the closed and open end of a cup. You could make a Blackbird using a giant anemometer, and it would roll in any direction when there was sufficient wind.
>
> with the wind, faster than the wind
>
>
>
A bit more challenging. Now we can take the extracted energy and use it to turn a *rotating airfoil*, a propeller. Airfoils can generate many times more lift force per unit of drag.
So we turn to iceboats, which can easily sail faster than the wind
by *minimizing drag*. Energy input from the wind is *amplified* by the sail airfoil, creating a **thrust force** that "runs away" until the *total drag* (from the entire craft) = thrust (steady state).
The Blackbird propulsion seems to be a form of "autorotation" (with the inner part of the prop blade absorbing drag energy and the outer part lifting). |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | >
> Can induced drag be negative?
>
>
>
Not for the full configuration, but for parts of it.
Induced drag is part of the reaction force when a stream of air is deflected. This reaction force is split into one component, called lift, orthogonal to the initial flow direction and one parallel, called drag.
Regardless of upward or downward lift, this definition will only result in positive drag. The lowest induced drag possible is zero when zero reaction force is created. Any nonzero reaction force creates positive drag.
For a thought experiment, let's split the deflection into tiny segments, each deflecting the stream a bit more. The initial amount of deflection creates almost no drag. The next bit, however, will already start with a small deflection and add its bit to it. Relative to the initial flow direction, here the flow has already an angle and the reaction force, being orthogonal to the local flow angle, will already have positive drag. The further down we now go, each section will add more drag. The drag component of the reaction force will never be negative.
The only situation where **local** induced drag is positive is when the **local** flow hits the lift-creating surface such that bending the flow brings it closer to its initial direction of flow. This is possible on the horizontal tail of a longitudinally very stable conventional design which [creates a downforce and flies in the downwash](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11713/can-the-design-for-neutral-stability-reduce-trim-drag/11721#11721) of the wing. | By definition, drag is a force slowing the aircraft down. It is the component of all aerodynamic forces that lies parallel to the flight path of the aircraft. So understood, in thist way, NO, it can never be negative. If it was negative, it would be thrust, not drag. |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | >
> For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the
> horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord.
>
>
>
No answer has yet explicitly pointed out, that this definition of "induced drag" is incorrect. It would be interesting to know where you encountered it. In horizontal flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of *the net force generated by the wing*. | Let's approach this from another direction.
Assume that it's possible to find a wing position that generates thrust rather than drag. Thrust or drag is a matter of airflow over the surface, to generate thrust we must have a net forward airflow. Put an indicated air speed sensor in front of the wing, what does it say? Negative.
Can a plane fly backwards? No, it would stall. Thus our initial premise must be wrong--it's impossible to have a net thrust from the airframe overall. (It is possible to have it for **part** of the airframe.) |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | >
> For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the
> horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord.
>
>
>
No answer has yet explicitly pointed out, that this definition of "induced drag" is incorrect. It would be interesting to know where you encountered it. In horizontal flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of *the net force generated by the wing*. | The understanding of the relationship of drag and thrust in aircraft design is crucial to the development of efficient fuel saving aircraft.
From the aircraft reference, thrust is force towards the line of flight, drag is resistance (from the air) to this path. Because they are directly linearly opposed, thrust = - drag is mathematically correct, and can be derived from the steady state formula thrust + drag = 0.
Realizing this (simple) relationship can help explain other phenomena, such as "autorotation", extremely low *net drag* of airfoils, the benefits of slats, and (putting them all together), the design of soaring birds.
All gliders seek to find an updraft greater than their rate of descent. The broad, highly cambered wing of the eagle is exactly what airliners emulate when preparing to land, allowing them to slow to around 1/3 of their cruising speed.
But what of the slotted wingtips? Could they be using the **updraft to provide thrust**? This seems to work fairly well for **auto rotating** helicopters, so...
By changing **relative wind away from flight path**, drag on a **part** of the aircraft can produce **thrust force** (negative drag) to the line of flight. This is accomplished by producing a localized **horizontal lift component** to the line of flight.
Importantly, to preserve the strict definitions, drag opposes thrust, but localized lift from induced drag can produce a thrust force in the direction of flight.
Now, to get to the point of the question, the [Blackbird](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)), and sailing against the wind in general, the key is to **extract mechanical energy from a drag force and use it to create a more efficient thrust force in the direction of travel**.
>
> Back to thrust = - drag
>
>
>
Let's add in:
>
> thrust = -drag × conversion efficiency
>
>
>
The simplest model would be an anemometer. Mechanical energy is extracted by the *difference* in **drag coefficient** between the closed and open end of a cup. You could make a Blackbird using a giant anemometer, and it would roll in any direction when there was sufficient wind.
>
> with the wind, faster than the wind
>
>
>
A bit more challenging. Now we can take the extracted energy and use it to turn a *rotating airfoil*, a propeller. Airfoils can generate many times more lift force per unit of drag.
So we turn to iceboats, which can easily sail faster than the wind
by *minimizing drag*. Energy input from the wind is *amplified* by the sail airfoil, creating a **thrust force** that "runs away" until the *total drag* (from the entire craft) = thrust (steady state).
The Blackbird propulsion seems to be a form of "autorotation" (with the inner part of the prop blade absorbing drag energy and the outer part lifting). |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | By definition, drag is a force slowing the aircraft down. It is the component of all aerodynamic forces that lies parallel to the flight path of the aircraft. So understood, in thist way, NO, it can never be negative. If it was negative, it would be thrust, not drag. | Let's approach this from another direction.
Assume that it's possible to find a wing position that generates thrust rather than drag. Thrust or drag is a matter of airflow over the surface, to generate thrust we must have a net forward airflow. Put an indicated air speed sensor in front of the wing, what does it say? Negative.
Can a plane fly backwards? No, it would stall. Thus our initial premise must be wrong--it's impossible to have a net thrust from the airframe overall. (It is possible to have it for **part** of the airframe.) |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | >
> Can induced drag be negative?
>
>
>
Not for the full configuration, but for parts of it.
Induced drag is part of the reaction force when a stream of air is deflected. This reaction force is split into one component, called lift, orthogonal to the initial flow direction and one parallel, called drag.
Regardless of upward or downward lift, this definition will only result in positive drag. The lowest induced drag possible is zero when zero reaction force is created. Any nonzero reaction force creates positive drag.
For a thought experiment, let's split the deflection into tiny segments, each deflecting the stream a bit more. The initial amount of deflection creates almost no drag. The next bit, however, will already start with a small deflection and add its bit to it. Relative to the initial flow direction, here the flow has already an angle and the reaction force, being orthogonal to the local flow angle, will already have positive drag. The further down we now go, each section will add more drag. The drag component of the reaction force will never be negative.
The only situation where **local** induced drag is positive is when the **local** flow hits the lift-creating surface such that bending the flow brings it closer to its initial direction of flow. This is possible on the horizontal tail of a longitudinally very stable conventional design which [creates a downforce and flies in the downwash](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11713/can-the-design-for-neutral-stability-reduce-trim-drag/11721#11721) of the wing. | >
> For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the
> horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord.
>
>
>
No answer has yet explicitly pointed out, that this definition of "induced drag" is incorrect. It would be interesting to know where you encountered it. In horizontal flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of *the net force generated by the wing*. |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | >
> Can induced drag be negative?
>
>
>
Not for the full configuration, but for parts of it.
Induced drag is part of the reaction force when a stream of air is deflected. This reaction force is split into one component, called lift, orthogonal to the initial flow direction and one parallel, called drag.
Regardless of upward or downward lift, this definition will only result in positive drag. The lowest induced drag possible is zero when zero reaction force is created. Any nonzero reaction force creates positive drag.
For a thought experiment, let's split the deflection into tiny segments, each deflecting the stream a bit more. The initial amount of deflection creates almost no drag. The next bit, however, will already start with a small deflection and add its bit to it. Relative to the initial flow direction, here the flow has already an angle and the reaction force, being orthogonal to the local flow angle, will already have positive drag. The further down we now go, each section will add more drag. The drag component of the reaction force will never be negative.
The only situation where **local** induced drag is positive is when the **local** flow hits the lift-creating surface such that bending the flow brings it closer to its initial direction of flow. This is possible on the horizontal tail of a longitudinally very stable conventional design which [creates a downforce and flies in the downwash](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11713/can-the-design-for-neutral-stability-reduce-trim-drag/11721#11721) of the wing. | Let's approach this from another direction.
Assume that it's possible to find a wing position that generates thrust rather than drag. Thrust or drag is a matter of airflow over the surface, to generate thrust we must have a net forward airflow. Put an indicated air speed sensor in front of the wing, what does it say? Negative.
Can a plane fly backwards? No, it would stall. Thus our initial premise must be wrong--it's impossible to have a net thrust from the airframe overall. (It is possible to have it for **part** of the airframe.) |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | By definition, drag is a force slowing the aircraft down. It is the component of all aerodynamic forces that lies parallel to the flight path of the aircraft. So understood, in thist way, NO, it can never be negative. If it was negative, it would be thrust, not drag. | The understanding of the relationship of drag and thrust in aircraft design is crucial to the development of efficient fuel saving aircraft.
From the aircraft reference, thrust is force towards the line of flight, drag is resistance (from the air) to this path. Because they are directly linearly opposed, thrust = - drag is mathematically correct, and can be derived from the steady state formula thrust + drag = 0.
Realizing this (simple) relationship can help explain other phenomena, such as "autorotation", extremely low *net drag* of airfoils, the benefits of slats, and (putting them all together), the design of soaring birds.
All gliders seek to find an updraft greater than their rate of descent. The broad, highly cambered wing of the eagle is exactly what airliners emulate when preparing to land, allowing them to slow to around 1/3 of their cruising speed.
But what of the slotted wingtips? Could they be using the **updraft to provide thrust**? This seems to work fairly well for **auto rotating** helicopters, so...
By changing **relative wind away from flight path**, drag on a **part** of the aircraft can produce **thrust force** (negative drag) to the line of flight. This is accomplished by producing a localized **horizontal lift component** to the line of flight.
Importantly, to preserve the strict definitions, drag opposes thrust, but localized lift from induced drag can produce a thrust force in the direction of flight.
Now, to get to the point of the question, the [Blackbird](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)), and sailing against the wind in general, the key is to **extract mechanical energy from a drag force and use it to create a more efficient thrust force in the direction of travel**.
>
> Back to thrust = - drag
>
>
>
Let's add in:
>
> thrust = -drag × conversion efficiency
>
>
>
The simplest model would be an anemometer. Mechanical energy is extracted by the *difference* in **drag coefficient** between the closed and open end of a cup. You could make a Blackbird using a giant anemometer, and it would roll in any direction when there was sufficient wind.
>
> with the wind, faster than the wind
>
>
>
A bit more challenging. Now we can take the extracted energy and use it to turn a *rotating airfoil*, a propeller. Airfoils can generate many times more lift force per unit of drag.
So we turn to iceboats, which can easily sail faster than the wind
by *minimizing drag*. Energy input from the wind is *amplified* by the sail airfoil, creating a **thrust force** that "runs away" until the *total drag* (from the entire craft) = thrust (steady state).
The Blackbird propulsion seems to be a form of "autorotation" (with the inner part of the prop blade absorbing drag energy and the outer part lifting). |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | >
> Can induced drag be negative?
>
>
>
Not for the full configuration, but for parts of it.
Induced drag is part of the reaction force when a stream of air is deflected. This reaction force is split into one component, called lift, orthogonal to the initial flow direction and one parallel, called drag.
Regardless of upward or downward lift, this definition will only result in positive drag. The lowest induced drag possible is zero when zero reaction force is created. Any nonzero reaction force creates positive drag.
For a thought experiment, let's split the deflection into tiny segments, each deflecting the stream a bit more. The initial amount of deflection creates almost no drag. The next bit, however, will already start with a small deflection and add its bit to it. Relative to the initial flow direction, here the flow has already an angle and the reaction force, being orthogonal to the local flow angle, will already have positive drag. The further down we now go, each section will add more drag. The drag component of the reaction force will never be negative.
The only situation where **local** induced drag is positive is when the **local** flow hits the lift-creating surface such that bending the flow brings it closer to its initial direction of flow. This is possible on the horizontal tail of a longitudinally very stable conventional design which [creates a downforce and flies in the downwash](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11713/can-the-design-for-neutral-stability-reduce-trim-drag/11721#11721) of the wing. | The understanding of the relationship of drag and thrust in aircraft design is crucial to the development of efficient fuel saving aircraft.
From the aircraft reference, thrust is force towards the line of flight, drag is resistance (from the air) to this path. Because they are directly linearly opposed, thrust = - drag is mathematically correct, and can be derived from the steady state formula thrust + drag = 0.
Realizing this (simple) relationship can help explain other phenomena, such as "autorotation", extremely low *net drag* of airfoils, the benefits of slats, and (putting them all together), the design of soaring birds.
All gliders seek to find an updraft greater than their rate of descent. The broad, highly cambered wing of the eagle is exactly what airliners emulate when preparing to land, allowing them to slow to around 1/3 of their cruising speed.
But what of the slotted wingtips? Could they be using the **updraft to provide thrust**? This seems to work fairly well for **auto rotating** helicopters, so...
By changing **relative wind away from flight path**, drag on a **part** of the aircraft can produce **thrust force** (negative drag) to the line of flight. This is accomplished by producing a localized **horizontal lift component** to the line of flight.
Importantly, to preserve the strict definitions, drag opposes thrust, but localized lift from induced drag can produce a thrust force in the direction of flight.
Now, to get to the point of the question, the [Blackbird](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)), and sailing against the wind in general, the key is to **extract mechanical energy from a drag force and use it to create a more efficient thrust force in the direction of travel**.
>
> Back to thrust = - drag
>
>
>
Let's add in:
>
> thrust = -drag × conversion efficiency
>
>
>
The simplest model would be an anemometer. Mechanical energy is extracted by the *difference* in **drag coefficient** between the closed and open end of a cup. You could make a Blackbird using a giant anemometer, and it would roll in any direction when there was sufficient wind.
>
> with the wind, faster than the wind
>
>
>
A bit more challenging. Now we can take the extracted energy and use it to turn a *rotating airfoil*, a propeller. Airfoils can generate many times more lift force per unit of drag.
So we turn to iceboats, which can easily sail faster than the wind
by *minimizing drag*. Energy input from the wind is *amplified* by the sail airfoil, creating a **thrust force** that "runs away" until the *total drag* (from the entire craft) = thrust (steady state).
The Blackbird propulsion seems to be a form of "autorotation" (with the inner part of the prop blade absorbing drag energy and the outer part lifting). |
91,418 | For an aircraft in straight and level flight, lift-induced drag is the horizontal component of the force perpendicular to the wing chord. Positively cambered aerofoils generate lift starting at small negative angles of attack. So, could the horizontal component of the force generated by the wing point forward? | 2022/01/22 | [
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91418",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com",
"https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/52278/"
] | Let's approach this from another direction.
Assume that it's possible to find a wing position that generates thrust rather than drag. Thrust or drag is a matter of airflow over the surface, to generate thrust we must have a net forward airflow. Put an indicated air speed sensor in front of the wing, what does it say? Negative.
Can a plane fly backwards? No, it would stall. Thus our initial premise must be wrong--it's impossible to have a net thrust from the airframe overall. (It is possible to have it for **part** of the airframe.) | The understanding of the relationship of drag and thrust in aircraft design is crucial to the development of efficient fuel saving aircraft.
From the aircraft reference, thrust is force towards the line of flight, drag is resistance (from the air) to this path. Because they are directly linearly opposed, thrust = - drag is mathematically correct, and can be derived from the steady state formula thrust + drag = 0.
Realizing this (simple) relationship can help explain other phenomena, such as "autorotation", extremely low *net drag* of airfoils, the benefits of slats, and (putting them all together), the design of soaring birds.
All gliders seek to find an updraft greater than their rate of descent. The broad, highly cambered wing of the eagle is exactly what airliners emulate when preparing to land, allowing them to slow to around 1/3 of their cruising speed.
But what of the slotted wingtips? Could they be using the **updraft to provide thrust**? This seems to work fairly well for **auto rotating** helicopters, so...
By changing **relative wind away from flight path**, drag on a **part** of the aircraft can produce **thrust force** (negative drag) to the line of flight. This is accomplished by producing a localized **horizontal lift component** to the line of flight.
Importantly, to preserve the strict definitions, drag opposes thrust, but localized lift from induced drag can produce a thrust force in the direction of flight.
Now, to get to the point of the question, the [Blackbird](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)), and sailing against the wind in general, the key is to **extract mechanical energy from a drag force and use it to create a more efficient thrust force in the direction of travel**.
>
> Back to thrust = - drag
>
>
>
Let's add in:
>
> thrust = -drag × conversion efficiency
>
>
>
The simplest model would be an anemometer. Mechanical energy is extracted by the *difference* in **drag coefficient** between the closed and open end of a cup. You could make a Blackbird using a giant anemometer, and it would roll in any direction when there was sufficient wind.
>
> with the wind, faster than the wind
>
>
>
A bit more challenging. Now we can take the extracted energy and use it to turn a *rotating airfoil*, a propeller. Airfoils can generate many times more lift force per unit of drag.
So we turn to iceboats, which can easily sail faster than the wind
by *minimizing drag*. Energy input from the wind is *amplified* by the sail airfoil, creating a **thrust force** that "runs away" until the *total drag* (from the entire craft) = thrust (steady state).
The Blackbird propulsion seems to be a form of "autorotation" (with the inner part of the prop blade absorbing drag energy and the outer part lifting). |
71,713 | I know this question may sound off-topic, but from what bones are bone picks made and how different are they from plastic, metal, wooden or rubber picks?
How difficult is it to make a bone pick and is there a minimal size beyond which the bone pick will
break or be inefficient?
I would like to make a bone pick for myself, yet not know where to start. | 2018/06/07 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/71713",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/34624/"
] | Generally, the majority of bone products are made from Cow bone, which is processed for use in musical instruments, jewelry carving and other crafting uses. Bone "blanks" can be purchased in a variety of sizes. It is also possible to clean and dry bones yourself for project work.
It is fairly easy to work with bone.
Bone can be cut with a fine toothed saw such as a hacksaw. It can be sanded and filed, and some artists use grinding stones and wheels on it. You have to be careful not to let the work get too hot as you can burn it. Finishing can be done with fine sanding and abrasive polish.
Although strong, bone can be brittle, so you wouldn't want to make the pick leading edge too thin. A steeper taper more like a "jazz" pick would likely be more resistant to chipping.
Ivory and Tortoise shell were common materials for plectrums (picks) before plastics.
You will get some tone differences from the different materials, and flexibility and wear rates differ. Bone is hard and picks made from it don't have flexibility so are more like stone or glass picks.
To get started all you need is a saw, a rough file and some sandpaper, and a bone blank big enough for the size pick you want. | Different bones (from a given animal) have different strengths. For example, the human shoulder blade is extremely strong and difficult to break, whereas less dense bones such as those in the lower arm will fracture more easily. OTOH, aside from the shock value, making your picks out of human vs. cow vs. kodiak bear bones won't matter much (tho' picks made from the jawbone of your mortal enemy would be excellent). Bird skeletons are a poor choice, as their bones are not dense at all and will break very easily.
As Alphonso pointed out, very few bones have much in the way of flexibility. |
67,869 | I have a Latin American recipe that calls for grated coconut in heavy syrup. Apparently, you can commonly buy it in cans in Latin America, but not here in the USA. Can I substitute some mixture of dry coconut and syrup? What kind of syrup, in what ratio?
I have some sweetened dry coconut and light corn syrup on hand; if there's a way to make it work with those, that would be great, but if not that's OK too :) | 2016/03/30 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44631/"
] | Typically when things are "canned in syrup" it's cane sugar and water.
I'd guess soak dried coconut in water (or coconut water) to rehydrate it; drain & save excess water, add twice as much sugar (volume or weight as you like, close enough to the same) as water, heat to dissolve, add coconut back to it, stir - should be close-ish. | Have you tried coconut cream? It is a lot thicker than coconut juice/milk. that should be a good substitute for the syrup. |
67,869 | I have a Latin American recipe that calls for grated coconut in heavy syrup. Apparently, you can commonly buy it in cans in Latin America, but not here in the USA. Can I substitute some mixture of dry coconut and syrup? What kind of syrup, in what ratio?
I have some sweetened dry coconut and light corn syrup on hand; if there's a way to make it work with those, that would be great, but if not that's OK too :) | 2016/03/30 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44631/"
] | As a Latin American, we usually use fresh grated coconut, water and sugar to make this type of filling for sweets. If fresh grated coconut is not available, desiccated grated coconut is fine, we just adjust the amount of water when making the filling to reach the desired consistency
[This recipe for the sweet](https://www.dimecuba.com/revista/comida-cubana/receta-de-dulce-de-coco-rallado/) calls for 150g of desiccated coconut for 2 cups of sugar and 2 cups of water. 1 cup is typically 240mL, or 8 fl. oz. | Have you tried coconut cream? It is a lot thicker than coconut juice/milk. that should be a good substitute for the syrup. |
444,106 | What other words can I use to replace the following:
>
> "with his mouth wide open"
>
>
>
I'm trying to describe a person who was shocked by bad news. I need to show, not tell. I have used *"with his mouth wide open"* twice and want to find another way to describe a person who is shocked. Any suggestions? | 2018/04/30 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/444106",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/181528/"
] | You could use the idiom [**someone's jaw dropped**](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/someone-s-jaw-dropped):
>
> His jaw dropped in surprise when he heard the news.
>
>
> | What would a shocked person look and sound like?
For example, you could try writing something like this, *'His eyes were wide open with fear and disbelief'*. |
25,047 | I own a condo, built in 1961. I've started remodeling and in tearing out my kitchen I discovered the wall between me and my neighbors is only that: a wall. No fire protection just drywall, regular (old) insulation and drywall. Any simple suggestions besides tearing down all the drywall?
I'll be installing Roxul Safe'n'Sound™ in the interior walls. | 2013/02/06 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/25047",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/11466/"
] | Type X drywall, which is typically 5/8" thick (as opposed to 1/2") and contains fiberglass within the gypsum is typically used for fire protection. I believe it increases the burn through time to around 1 hour, and it increases the impact resistance (there's often falling debris in a fire). For further protection, every electrical junction box should be enclosed around the back, top, and bottom with 2x4's and plywood to prevent fires from burning through the box, or a fire that starts in the box from spreading quickly to the other side. Additionally, every penetration in the wall should be sealed with fire rated caulking (it's typically orange in color, and they also have a similar expanding foam of the same color, so it's easy for the building inspector to verify you used the correct product).
The safe and sound insulation is a great addition. The only other thing you could do is to add a 1" air gap and a second wall on your side, which would help with both the spread of fire and sound, but the downside is that you'd lose almost 6" of space in your kitchen.
Realize that no structure will be fire proof, the goal is to slow the spread until the fire department can get there. And the last small fire I saw in a townhouse resulted in half a dozen engines, ladder trucks, etc, because they take the risk of a spreading fire very seriously. | The Fire separation wall between the adjoining condominium dwellings shall be one hour fire rated with fire exposure from both sides. This requires one layer of 5/8" thick fire rated, type X gypsum board on each side of the wall. If you are planning to remove existing regular gypsum board on your side, replace it with one layer of 5/8" thick, type X gypsum board, also do not forget to put sound insulation
(R13 minimum).
If you do not want to remove the existing regular drywall, place an other layer of regular
1/2" drywall over it. Note that you are going to lose 1/2" space. |
10,844 | There is only mention of tributes from Districts 1 through 12. Are children that live in the Capitol excluded from the Hunger Games? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/10844",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4651/"
] | Yes - children that live in the Capital are excluded. :)
That's actually the main point of them; Capital was revolted against, so these games are to remind them what kind of cost they pay for revolt.
From the first book:
>
> The Treaty of Treason gave us the new laws to guarantee peace and, as our yearly reminder that the Dark Days must never be repeated, it gave us the Hunger Games. The rules of the Hunger Games are simple. In punishment for the uprising, each of the twelve districts must provide one girl and one boy, called tributes, to participate. The twentyfour tributes will be imprisoned in a vast outdoor arena that could hold anything from a burning desert to a frozen wasteland. Over a period of several weeks, the competitors must fight to the death. The last tribute standing wins. Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another while we watch—this is the Capitol’s way of reminding us how totally we are at their mercy. How little chance we would stand of surviving another rebellion.
>
>
>
It's kind of meant as a constant reminder that "Capital rules; the last revolt, 75 years ago, is STILL being paid for.. Do you really want to try to dispute our rule again?" | The children from Capitol were excluded, because the games were meant to remind the defeated districts of the power of Capitol.
Spoiler alert:
At the end of the third book, the punishment for the defeated Capitol is that the children of the leadership would be forced to participate in the final Hunger Games.
>
> So, an alternative has been placed on the table. Since my colleagues and I can come to no consensus, it has been agreed we will let the victors decide ... What has been proposed is that in lieu of eliminating the entire Capitol population, we have a final, symbolic Hunger games, using the children directly related to those that held the most power.
>
>
>
Katniss is the deciding vote in favor |
10,844 | There is only mention of tributes from Districts 1 through 12. Are children that live in the Capitol excluded from the Hunger Games? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/10844",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4651/"
] | Yes - children that live in the Capital are excluded. :)
That's actually the main point of them; Capital was revolted against, so these games are to remind them what kind of cost they pay for revolt.
From the first book:
>
> The Treaty of Treason gave us the new laws to guarantee peace and, as our yearly reminder that the Dark Days must never be repeated, it gave us the Hunger Games. The rules of the Hunger Games are simple. In punishment for the uprising, each of the twelve districts must provide one girl and one boy, called tributes, to participate. The twentyfour tributes will be imprisoned in a vast outdoor arena that could hold anything from a burning desert to a frozen wasteland. Over a period of several weeks, the competitors must fight to the death. The last tribute standing wins. Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another while we watch—this is the Capitol’s way of reminding us how totally we are at their mercy. How little chance we would stand of surviving another rebellion.
>
>
>
It's kind of meant as a constant reminder that "Capital rules; the last revolt, 75 years ago, is STILL being paid for.. Do you really want to try to dispute our rule again?" | Only in the VERY LAST HUNGER GAMES. As punishment, they decide to make one last Hunger Games using the capitol children. No mention of capitol children in the games. Just tributes from 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,and 12. Right? |
10,844 | There is only mention of tributes from Districts 1 through 12. Are children that live in the Capitol excluded from the Hunger Games? | 2012/02/10 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/10844",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4651/"
] | Yes - children that live in the Capital are excluded. :)
That's actually the main point of them; Capital was revolted against, so these games are to remind them what kind of cost they pay for revolt.
From the first book:
>
> The Treaty of Treason gave us the new laws to guarantee peace and, as our yearly reminder that the Dark Days must never be repeated, it gave us the Hunger Games. The rules of the Hunger Games are simple. In punishment for the uprising, each of the twelve districts must provide one girl and one boy, called tributes, to participate. The twentyfour tributes will be imprisoned in a vast outdoor arena that could hold anything from a burning desert to a frozen wasteland. Over a period of several weeks, the competitors must fight to the death. The last tribute standing wins. Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another while we watch—this is the Capitol’s way of reminding us how totally we are at their mercy. How little chance we would stand of surviving another rebellion.
>
>
>
It's kind of meant as a constant reminder that "Capital rules; the last revolt, 75 years ago, is STILL being paid for.. Do you really want to try to dispute our rule again?" | they do not have to. But, after the second rebellion when the rebels won as punishment for the capitol they had to sent their children to fight to the death. There is no mention if this ever happened. But there was a vote and the 76th hunger games won |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.