Ok, so I've decided that I will put all the equations in the PP before breaking them down physically.
It seems in the Deschamps's paper some equations are changed/altered from other equations from cited works. Therefore, I think it's best to put the lay of the land first (the eqns) then go back and break them down physically and by each component.
A downside about the Deschamps's paper(s) is there is NOT a nomenclature section in either parts of the papers, which is rather frustrating because I have no idea what things are before i read the papers. Meaning I have to search between both papers to figure out what each variable means, and most of the time it is not clearly stated, causing me to then search for the cited material. Then once I find (if i can find) the cited material I can figure what Deschamp'ss means, but sometimes variables/equations are different. For example, there is an equation in Deschamps's paper, which is from a different paper (the original paper). The original paper's equation is different from Deschamps's equation...NOW i have to figure out how Deschamp's got his equation, what his symbols mean, how they differ from the original paper's equation. It's a mess.
Case in point I will insert all of the equations into the PP first, then I will hash out physical meanings, variables, equations etc, which takes up most of my time...trying to figure out what things mean. Essentially, I'm learning, which is the ultimate goal of all this education right. However, I never realized how long it takes to put equations into PP, and my PP is going to be the longest PP in Microsoft PP history :)
Until next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment