MateoConLechuga wrote:
Nice work Kerm! 😁 I found no bugs or spelling issues when I went through it, although there may be some I missed because of my horrendous spelling. 😛 Only thing in the readme: "2015 Jan 22: Development begun": Is it began?
There's an omitted "was" in that sentence fragment: "Development [was] begun".
Quote:
In other words, it looks great! This means that the STEM ports are complete, correct? 🙂
That's correct! I plan to make a big deal about that; I think it's time to create a video or six about that fact. 😉
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Electromagnet8 wrote:
Page 32 wrote:
The coefficient of static friction can be used to determine the maximum static friction force for our story: us is the coefficient of static friction and Fn is the normal force.
This does not make sense.
Makes sense to me, but that could just be me. 😛 I believe "us" refers to mu (μ), and is the coefficient of static friction. 🙂 You're correct! Unfortunately, I can't print a mu with xLIBC. I was hoping the formula immediately following would make up for that.
Electromagnet8 wrote:
Great job on another port of of the STEM Behind Hollywood activities!
Thank you!
Quote:
I see that you copied and pasted the readme again.... The Image Credits need to be updated. SCIFRICT.8xp is also not the Body of Evidence program. 😉
Argh, hoisted by my copy-pasting again.
Quote:
Throughout the program, you either include or omit a space between the number and unit. (e.g. 12 N or 12N)
I'll do a scan through and look for that.
Quote:
On the page 3 diagram, I think the motion vector is supposed to be moved down. This picture is also used in the PDFs.
It's supposed to not be attached to the box, to make it clear it's representing a result of the forces on the box, not a force itself.
Quote:
Page 20 wrote:
The villain is a civil engineer who was formerly the lead highway engineer in the city's public works department. The villain's responsibilities included planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of roads, bridges, and tunnels in the city so that people and goods could be safely and effectively transported...
I'm not sure but there might be a verb tense error. Again, I'm not 100% sure of this one. I believe this tense is correct.
Quote:
I found no errors in the PDFs after I did a quick scan.
Awesome. Your help has been particularly consistent and invaluable. 🙂