|
Post by Vadim on Jul 18, 2008 8:01:32 GMT
[...] (Or -- go on, show us yer nozzle!) Tone >Pulls his nozzle out!< This is an example of "my" nozzle. It's based on a fire hose design by Rouse et al (1953). What I will say, however, is yes, the most "coherent" nozzles are circular, however, I have improved the design [developed?] of slot nozzles (as these are what are mainly used in grinding [crankshafts and camshafts]).
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jul 18, 2008 20:35:33 GMT
Ta. (What a big one!)
If it is a nozzle of type circular and is, within that "circular" definition constraint, shaped to produce a coherent spray pattern, then I think I'll stick with the hyphen in place.
Mayhap you should substitute "improved" for your "developed".
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 19, 2008 1:45:02 GMT
The hyphen would make it a nozzle of type coherent-circular. It don't think that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 19, 2008 7:43:19 GMT
I don't think that any hyphens are required. It may be that commas would help, for clarity. "The nozzle is developed, coherent and circular" (no Oxford commas for me, thank you).
Or it may be that we give Vadim some leeway here as this is a technical description and the normal rules of grammar, etc., are often suspended in such cases.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 19, 2008 13:43:27 GMT
"The nozzle is developed, coherent and circular" You've made his subject the object, which sits oddly with developed. Vadim's original was which still seems fine to me. We do have a tendency to overpunctuate here.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 19, 2008 13:45:16 GMT
If I wanted to mess with it (and I don't), I'd perhaps go for "Webster’s results show that the coherent circular nozzle we have developed is significantly better than ..."
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jul 19, 2008 20:35:34 GMT
That picture looks like a pat. app.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jul 20, 2008 20:39:19 GMT
If I wanted to mess with it (and I don't), I'd perhaps go for "Webster’s results show that the coherent circular nozzle we have developed is significantly better than ..." The only problem with this, Paul, is that I am not permitted to write in the 1st person. I must always use 3rd person past tense (unless I'm writing the acknowledgments). I do however, see what point you ware making. I agree, somewhat, Pete - in that if I wasn't attempting to improve my English Style etc then, well, I'd of never asked in the first place. No, it will not get me any more marks, but all your (the boards) valuable comments make me a better person (well, maybe a more knowledgeable one!). ;D
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jul 20, 2008 20:45:20 GMT
Vadim:
"He (or they) designed it"? Or did you mean the passive voice: "It was designed"?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jul 20, 2008 20:55:56 GMT
>Or did you mean the passive voice: "It was designed"?<Nah! It just happened. Tone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jul 20, 2008 21:00:47 GMT
>Or did you mean the passive voice: "It was designed"?<Nah! It just happened. Tone Darwinian engineering? It's all right, Tone; I know evolution didn't "just happen".[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 20, 2008 21:08:32 GMT
I'd of never asked in the first place Sackcloth, Vadim!
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jul 20, 2008 21:16:00 GMT
I'd of never asked in the first place Sackcloth, Vadim! Blimey, I hadn't noticed! Ashes, scourge, the lot this time, Vadim; and a thousand lines: "Would of" is meaningless; "would have" is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 20, 2008 21:22:15 GMT
Locked because, whatever the original topic was, we've started to depart from it.
|
|