Hi,
On 11/12/2009 10:57 AM, Mano wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves
<[email protected]>wrote:
On Thursday 12 Nov 2009 10:02:58 am Vamsee Kanakala wrote:
> Abishek Goda wrote:
> > Wow. I quit biology after 10th std. but if the solution is this
> > complex, then we might not be on the right track:-)
That is not a solution. I just imagined how the process would be.
> +1. Perhaps, it's easier to start looking at existing solutions and
> figure out ways to reverse-engineer them in a cost-effective way:
the best way is to eat some nuts - experience will show which are too wet
The above seems to be the existing solution. Am not sure a 'tech' solution
would beat the above anytime soon :-)
Eating nuts to test the moisture content might be the most reliable solution but
it is unscientific[1]. A quick google led me to this which might be of interest
to the OP:
"""
The moisture content of each sample was determined
using the method described by ASAE (1983), Ajibola et al.
(1990), Oje (1993), Aviara et al. (2002) and Oluwole et al.
(2004). The method involved oven drying of pod samples at
130°C with weight loss monitored on hourly basis to give an
idea of the time at which the weight began to remain con-
stant. After oven drying for about 3 h, the weight of samples
was found to remain constant. After 6 h of oven drying, the
pods were weighed using an electronic balance weighing to
0.001 g to determine the final weight. The moisture content
was determined using the formula (Oluwole et al., 2004):
M C = [(Wi - W f ) / W f ] 100 (d.b.), (1)
where: MC – moisture content (%), Wi – initial mass of pods
(g), Wf – final mass of pods (g), (d.b.) – dry basis.
"""
Taken from
http://www.international-agrophysics.org/artykuly/international_agrophysics/IntAgr_2006_21_1_179.pdf
Now, I left biology back in school and have never looked back. I just found that
link with a quick google.
http://www.google.com/search?xq=test+groundnuts+moisture+content
There might be better solutions out there.
Now about [1]:
<rant>
unscientific in the terms that it is subjective and not-experimentally
repeatable. It always annoys me when people take an unscientific approach
towards measurement. At the risk of being flamed, i'd say there is something
very Indian about this unscientific approach. Sure, India brings some of the
best scientists but our run of the mill 'engineers' by and large rely on
instinct rather then measurement and proof compared to engineers from countries
which impart better quality education.
Why am i getting so riled up ? Well, i see the same kind of reasoning when
software engineers do performance tuning and or memory tuning for their
applications. They first hit the code to see what /feels/ like it /might/ be a
performance bottle neck and then go ahead and devote large amount of time and
effort to changing it -- without even once trying to confirm their instincts. No
number collecting, no profiling ...just go by instinct ! bah !
</rant>
heh ...that said, I wish the OP luck. I agree with most people who suggested
that the OP first try to solve the problem of measurement and only once that is
done, try to use an open source tool to help with the task.
cheers,
- steve
--
random non tech spiel: http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/
tech randomness: http://lonehacks.blogspot.com/
what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, email [email protected] with
"unsubscribe <password> <address>"
in the subject or body of the message.
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
