4 ms·
Distance per time seems like a very poor choice of unit for something that's roughly rotating about one corner of itself.
by dsfyu404ed 3y ago
Distance per time seems like a very poor choice of unit for something that's roughly rotating about one corner of itself.
- MrDunham 3y agoTrue, but radians or degrees are general more abstract. "0.24 degrees per hour" (assuming 12 work hours per day) just doesn't really ring to me... and I have a mechanical engineering degree.
- Someone 3y agoIt gets worse when you call it 14.4 (arc) minutes per hour. Ignoring the ‘arc’, that’s dimensionless. You could just call it “0.24” ;-)
- Dylan16807 3y agoI guess it depends on how you do the ignoring. "minutes" by itself usually means "minutes of hour", but I would argue that if you take "minutes of arc" and ignore the "arc" the better answer is "minutes of ____"
- jmkb 3y agoPicture an analog clock and it can be 0.008 hours/hour... about one percent of an hourhand's movement.
- em-bee 3y agomeasuring degrees doesn't seem useful anyways, because it is not the rotating speed that is impressive but the speed against the ground at the outer edge.
- OJFord 3y agoI would guess it's the length of the outermost arc, sort of makes sense with the relation to employees inside not noticing it.
- f1shy 3y agoIt was not only rotated, but also shifted: „was shifted 52 feet south“
- 1letterunixname 3y agoLet's find the 2D (3x3) translation matrix for this. For angle representation, better use gradians because radians and degrees are too easy.