What is more better??
- Thread starter mothakaf
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- litecigusa vapor pro
- Status
Sorry if I misunderstood. Actually, I am an English teacher, and I learned a long time ago to never correct people unless they are students. I shouldn't have overreacted: I just hate to see people's feelings hurt.
It's not a problem, Sheridan. One of the difficulties of web usage is establishing tone and whether someone is being lighthearted or serious. That's why Smilies and the whole range of emoticons came into being.
If my flippant comment was in any way offensive then I'm happy to retract it. Grammatical howlers can be amusing, though, and I don't apologise for drawing attention to them in that spirit.
There's lots of debate about that. No-one denies that they exist, however.
Yes, but they don't come from an ethereal floating rule-book in the sky, and they (or at least some of them) aren't unchanging (or we'd still be speaking the language of Beowulf; well, really some language earlier than that).
And there are also 'proscriptive' rules of grammar which can be at odds with the language itself. E.g., some rules of Latin which proscriptivists decided should apply to English.
Which of these is right?
(1) Henry and me saw the movie.
(2) Henry and I saw the movie.
And which of these is right?
(1) Henri et moi avons regardé le film.
(2) Henri et je avons regardé le film.
'Improper' English uses the same rule as 'proper' French.
Anyway lots of non-native English speakers, including very fluent non-native English speakers, sometimes say things like 'more better'. Though, that said, this doesn't mean I won't 'correct' them (in appropriate circumstances).
[But with an increasing number of Indian English speakers (who tend to use this construction), who knows in a couple hundred maybe 'more better' will be more better than better.
]Simple may mean easy...
but you don't want mix them up when talking about someones sister...
but you don't want mix them up when talking about someones sister...
Simple may mean easy...
but you don't want mix them up when talking about someones sister...
Probably most people wouldn't like you calling their sister 'simple' or 'easy'..
I don't think that anyone has said or implied that they do. What exactly is your point? If you're looking for a debate on structural generative grammar then, with respect, you probably need a Chomsky forum.
Grammar debates, eh? Whoda thunk it?
I think some of y'all need to quit being asses and just answer the question if you're able to instead of adding to your post count with the grammar police crap. Now you've established that making fun of the poster's grammar was a joke. Or was it really? In any case, not cute...not cool. There are many posters here from various parts of the world. There is no need to be derogatory.
Now let's see if we can bypass all the fluff and get some answers for this poster. And if you wanna call me on this, take it "Outside." I'd like to catch up on my reading here.
Now let's see if we can bypass all the fluff and get some answers for this poster. And if you wanna call me on this, take it "Outside." I'd like to catch up on my reading here.
I don't think that anyone has said or implied that they do. What exactly is your point? If you're looking for a debate on structural generative grammar then, with respect, you probably need a Chomsky forum.
Grammar debates, eh? Whoda thunk it?
Sure, fair enough, I was really mixing up two different points. Putting any issues on the nature of language vis a vis Chomsky...the "rules" of a language still are transitory and, moreover, different from one 'dialect' to another. Some dialects simply have more prestige and are accepted as 'standards'. So the fight I was picking was more along those lines.
But, all of that said, that won't stop me from 'correcting' these sorts of grammatical errors (i.e. 'more better') either.
I hope my participle isn't dangling 
Correction. The proper grammar would be "Who would have thought it" or "I cant believe it".Grammar debates, eh? Whoda thunk it?
And that is a wink at the end.
The ultrasonic atomizer concept is too complicated in my opinion to be used, preliminary search provides no proof that such a device exists. That is in the sense that it heats fluid turning it into vapor. Source information proves the use of ultrasonic atomizers in the sense that high frequencies transform liquid into an ultra-fine MIST only, so it seems that you would be inhaling e-liquid mist, Not actual vapor. I submit the following for your consideration.
The invention concerns an ultrasonic atomizer, which is intended for an inhalation treatment apparatus for persons suffering from respiratory diseases. The ultrasonic atomizer comprises an atomizer device provided with a drug container as well as an ultrasonic oscillator connected to the container, preferably an oscillating crystal. The atomizer device is provided with a duct passing into the patient, advantageously a mouth piece and an air-inlet duct. The atomizer device comprises a pressure detector directly connected to it or a duct that is connected to the atomizer device and passes to the pressure detector and transmits the pressure of the breathing air. The pressure detector detects the changes in pressure resulting from inhalation or exhalation of the patient, whereby, starting from the beginning of the inhalation stage, atomizing can be switched on by the apparatus. The ultrasonic atomizer comprises a regulating device connected to the atomizer, by means of which said regulator the operation of the ultrasonic oscillator is regulated. The regulating device and the atomizing device are interconnected by means of an electric connection, whereby, through said connection, an electric oscillation can be supplied to the crystal present in the ultrasonic oscillator. Said electric oscillation can be converted to mechanical oscillation of the crystal. The apparatus comprises means for switching-on of said ultrasonic oscillator at least when the inhalation stage of the patient begins. Also, a timing device is provided, by means of which the duration of operation of the ultrasonic oscillator can be regulated as desired.
The invention concerns an ultrasonic atomizer, which is intended for an inhalation treatment apparatus for persons suffering from respiratory diseases. The ultrasonic atomizer comprises an atomizer device provided with a drug container as well as an ultrasonic oscillator connected to the container, preferably an oscillating crystal. The atomizer device is provided with a duct passing into the patient, advantageously a mouth piece and an air-inlet duct. The atomizer device comprises a pressure detector directly connected to it or a duct that is connected to the atomizer device and passes to the pressure detector and transmits the pressure of the breathing air. The pressure detector detects the changes in pressure resulting from inhalation or exhalation of the patient, whereby, starting from the beginning of the inhalation stage, atomizing can be switched on by the apparatus. The ultrasonic atomizer comprises a regulating device connected to the atomizer, by means of which said regulator the operation of the ultrasonic oscillator is regulated. The regulating device and the atomizing device are interconnected by means of an electric connection, whereby, through said connection, an electric oscillation can be supplied to the crystal present in the ultrasonic oscillator. Said electric oscillation can be converted to mechanical oscillation of the crystal. The apparatus comprises means for switching-on of said ultrasonic oscillator at least when the inhalation stage of the patient begins. Also, a timing device is provided, by means of which the duration of operation of the ultrasonic oscillator can be regulated as desired.
Last edited:
Furthermore,
The atomization of liquids with ultrasonic nozzles is based on the effect of producing capillary waves on the surface of a liquid on a vibrating surface. Contrary to gravitational waves, like in the oceans where gravity causes the restoring forces, in capillary waves the surface tension of the liquid is responsible for the development of waves.
These special waves occur in the range of a small wave length and a high frequency. That is why the surface tension has a significant influence on the atomization characteristic of ultrasonic nozzles.
During atomization capillary waves are transformed into droplets by increasing the amplitude until the peak of the wave is cut into a droplet. Each of these droplets then becomes part of the spray.
HOW AN ULTRASONIC NOZZLE WORKS,Since the wave length is a function of the vibration frequency, the droplet size is determined by the frequency, which means that a high vibration frequency of the ultrasonic nozzle leads to fine droplets and a low frequency results in coarser droplets.
The atomization process has a limited efficiency, which depends mainly on the viscosity of the liquid.
The atomization of liquids with ultrasonic nozzles is based on the effect of producing capillary waves on the surface of a liquid on a vibrating surface. Contrary to gravitational waves, like in the oceans where gravity causes the restoring forces, in capillary waves the surface tension of the liquid is responsible for the development of waves.
These special waves occur in the range of a small wave length and a high frequency. That is why the surface tension has a significant influence on the atomization characteristic of ultrasonic nozzles.
During atomization capillary waves are transformed into droplets by increasing the amplitude until the peak of the wave is cut into a droplet. Each of these droplets then becomes part of the spray.
HOW AN ULTRASONIC NOZZLE WORKS,Since the wave length is a function of the vibration frequency, the droplet size is determined by the frequency, which means that a high vibration frequency of the ultrasonic nozzle leads to fine droplets and a low frequency results in coarser droplets.
The atomization process has a limited efficiency, which depends mainly on the viscosity of the liquid.
- Status
Similar threads
