I refrained from commenting and then forgot, but since no-one else did....
I don't think they'd care at all. In fact would it be too rude to suggest that many may be more comfortable with converting "miles per hour" into "feet per second" than SI units .......
The IRSE papers are certainly not always error free, even in more important respects!
The examiners are certainly far more interested in overall understanding than pedantic detail. I suspect I am more pedantic than most people (and have a Physics degree) and I'd be perfectly happy with 160km/h, 160 km/h, would have no objection to 160 kph, 160 Km/hr, would raise an eyebrow at 160 KM/H but the only one that would cause me to take note would be 160 kmh; even then if it was clear from the calculations that the dimensions were actually correct then I'd not deduct marks, but if the answer was riddled with other errors then it would contribute to the circumstancial evidence of incompetence and thus be less likely to give the benefit of the doubt elsewhere.
regards,
PJW
I don't think they'd care at all. In fact would it be too rude to suggest that many may be more comfortable with converting "miles per hour" into "feet per second" than SI units .......
The IRSE papers are certainly not always error free, even in more important respects!
The examiners are certainly far more interested in overall understanding than pedantic detail. I suspect I am more pedantic than most people (and have a Physics degree) and I'd be perfectly happy with 160km/h, 160 km/h, would have no objection to 160 kph, 160 Km/hr, would raise an eyebrow at 160 KM/H but the only one that would cause me to take note would be 160 kmh; even then if it was clear from the calculations that the dimensions were actually correct then I'd not deduct marks, but if the answer was riddled with other errors then it would contribute to the circumstancial evidence of incompetence and thus be less likely to give the benefit of the doubt elsewhere.
regards,
PJW
(07-04-2009, 07:42 PM)nicklawford Wrote: Was not really sure where to put this question so here it is in ''missing categories''.
I guess I might be accused of pedantics in extremis with this question - but there are international standards. This subject came up today at work while peer checking a colleagues document.
How far would an IRSE examiner be looking at details like correct use of symbols? A knowledge of relevant standards is part of the syllabus - in answering say a question that requires a calculation of quantities of units, is an examiner looking for correct use of ISO 31-0 as well as the maths and physics e.g.
160km/h 160 kmh 160 KM/H 160 Km/hr are all not correct
160 kph is in common usage but formally incorrect
160 km/h correct
Nick
PJW