Hockey Eng - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards

Hockey Eng

Supporting Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Hockey Eng

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
  • License
  • Discipline

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Based on this post I've already decided to register for April 2019.
  2. LOL yeah well I figured that one out, I'm not THAT gullible.
  3. I just got the survey, I really don't need my emotions messed with like that!
  4. Definitely VERY Deep in the 'second guessing myself' phase. I know there were certain questions I could have used another resource on or that I didn't adequately prepare for. There was one resource at the last second I decided not to bring that I'm sure would have answered a question. But given that it's my first attempt I'm sure this will eventually pass and I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it. Whatever happens, happens and at least I've got the experience under my belt in the worst case scenario that I have to take it again.
  5. This problem has become our White Whale...
  6. For that problem, like I said they use 'removal rate constant' which is just a first order coefficient (hour to -1 power), which matches what they have in the word problem. So you can see why there might be some confusion, lack of consistent terminology. There's no formula (not in that section of the book anyway). I wish you hadn't gone to all that trouble for the conversion, looks like a lot of work. But appreciated! Maybe we should all just chip in a couple bucks each to purchase the solutions manual, get it figured out once and for all
  7. I believe the "decay coefficient" in this instance is actually the removal reaction rate constant, used in steady state box model for calculating indoor air concentrations. You'd have to have the book in order to get the context - the problems in the book generally follow along with the topics as they are presented, and this particular problem matches up well with the discussion of steady state concentration calculations. They typically don't introduce concepts such a radioactive decay into a problem without at least brushing over it in the text. Not saying you're wrong, in fact it kind of makes sense. Just that when it comes to solving the practice problems they tend to keep them relatively in-line with the material presented. Edit - they do discuss the radioactivity of radon, but from what I'm gathering from the text, for the purposes of indoor air quality calculations it's treated as a gas rather than a radionuclide (even though the units are in pCi, which is what makes it so hard to work with, for me anyway). And hey, since you're here, do you know of any way to convert pCi to units of concentration (micrograms/cubic meter) or similar? When I was trying to solve this earlier that's where I got hung up, since the formula I was using solves for concentration (and which the problem is asking for).
  8. My testosterone is fine, I just need to uh, channel it more appropriately
  9. You are amazing, thank you!
  10. There's a solutions manual available for Cooper & Alley. It's around on the internet but I didn't bother to try and download it, and I'm not sure of the legitimacy of any of the sites that claim to have it. There's also a site called that has the solutions online. They have some of the end of chapter problems completely worked out, the rest you have to pay for. It's $20 so might be worth it down the road but not (for me) 2 days ahead of the exam. Anyway, for this particular problem they do show the first step in solving it, which is calculating the emission rate into the building. S = 90% x (radon flux) x (floor surface area) = 7,151,487 pCi/hr Go here, then in the solution box you can pick the chapter and problem # for the solution. Some have them worked out all the way others just the first step. Still pretty convenient even if only some of the answers are available. Disclaimer - I'n not affiliated with this website or company in any way.
  11. Yours is just as good if not better.
  12. Aloha. No chance you work at Mesa Water District is there? Cause that would be spooky.
  13. I feel you, in some weird way I actually look forward to studying as well. Of course once I actually get started I seem to find ways to procrastinate but that's another story.
  14. It's funny you bring that up, someone at SoPE just created and posted an index for the PE Handbook as well as a separate index for all the tables. I just asked earlier today if said person had any objections if I posted them here. So far I haven't heard a response but I can't imagine any serious issues. If there are serious errors in the Handbook they better get it fixed quick, if it's going to be the only reference allowed going forward. I've already caught a couple of errors in the EERM 3rd Edition, I emailed PPI to notify them but they don't ever send out a response or errata (I mean, why send out an errata when you can just print a new edition and charge a couple hundred for it, right?)
  • Create New...