Comments on: Egypt: Efficiency http://globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/15/egypt-efficiency/ The world is talking. Are you listening? Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:13:24 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Zahran http://globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/15/egypt-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-1199255 Zahran Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:15:29 +0000 http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/15/egypt-efficiency/#comment-1199255 Ahmed, you need to re-check the way of applying this formula, the multiplication is hardly the way to calculate the efficiency of a nation, the algebric average can give a better result maybe here, the multiplication is to be applied when activities are like in a series of reactions , or like in the losses calculated in water like in irrigation, since Ibrahim is participating in this,if you have an irrigation system with 70% efficiency that delivers water to another system with a 70% efficiency, this would give us a 49% efficiency after both systems and 51% of the water will be lost, but if those two systems are not like in series , then our average final efficiency will be 70% in here, anyway its nice to find out you are still alive, not to mention that you are still writing, take care Ahmed, you need to re-check the way of applying this formula, the multiplication is hardly the way to calculate the efficiency of a nation, the algebric average can give a better result maybe here, the multiplication is to be applied when activities are like in a series of reactions , or like in the losses calculated in water like in irrigation, since Ibrahim is participating in this,if you have an irrigation system with 70% efficiency that delivers water to another system with a 70% efficiency, this would give us a 49% efficiency after both systems and 51% of the water will be lost, but if those two systems are not like in series , then our average final efficiency will be 70% in here, anyway its nice to find out you are still alive, not to mention that you are still writing, take care

]]> By: Ibrahim http://globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/15/egypt-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-1199223 Ibrahim Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:35:06 +0000 http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/15/egypt-efficiency/#comment-1199223 I am a close friend to Ahmed, so I might be biased to all what he writes, and I really admire his devotion to writing, provided all the work load he has.... But just one comment, as we are discussing here some engineering principles, and as an Engineer, I would like to contribute....at the beginning for any unclear ideas I may propose.... First, Their is just one concern about using multiplication as a way to sum up efficiencies...using just multiplication is based on an implied assumption that all system components (or people) are doing the same job or doing he same thing as we are calculating one number (the overall efficiency) to express how fast (or let us say Efficient) the system is... I do not believe this might be a valid assumption taking into consideration different systems configurations such as serial and parallel connections, multi-objective system approach which can not add up different quantities of different types.... To be clearer about this matter is that when we have a system that serves different goals, economic, social…etc…we are talking about different and sometimes conflicting objectives… Different in the sense that we have quantitative objectives (things can have a value, number…etc) and things that are qualitative (things that can not have a value, just a quality…good bad…) so it means if we add 3 oranges to 4 apples we end up “3 oranges to 4 apples” not 7 things…. Conflicting in the sense that some of theses goals need to be achieved with the highest values, or to the maximum extent, and the others need to me minimized…so the question is not to maximize or minimize anymore…the question is to “compromise”…because you have also constraints to achievements. Second, a simple application of the multiplication principle to the USA, Canada, or any other developed country (taking into consideration that an efficiency of 100% is merely a theoretical idea and can not be achieved) the efficiency can be as high as 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999%...Multiplication of any number that is less than 100% few times ends at the same place…(ZERO)…… Third, Taking system configuration there are ways to deal with overall efficiency (for parallel or serially connected systems) which means we might use the MIN operator than the “PRODUCT” operator…or any other operator that reflects the real behavior of the system. In Conclusion, I believe that the problem is not on the individual efficiency (only) but it is, also, in the system configuration that puts similar components into conflicting manner, using low quality components in Critical Points…so on….. Finally, SALAM KEBEER TO AHMAD… Ibrahim I am a close friend to Ahmed, so I might be biased to all what he writes, and I really admire his devotion to writing, provided all the work load he has….

But just one comment, as we are discussing here some engineering principles, and as an Engineer, I would like to contribute….at the beginning for any unclear ideas I may propose….

First, Their is just one concern about using multiplication as a way to sum up efficiencies…using just multiplication is based on an implied assumption that all system components (or people) are doing the same job or doing he same thing as we are calculating one number (the overall efficiency) to express how fast (or let us say Efficient) the system is…
I do not believe this might be a valid assumption taking into consideration different systems configurations such as serial and parallel connections, multi-objective system approach which can not add up different quantities of different types….

To be clearer about this matter is that when we have a system that serves different goals, economic, social…etc…we are talking about different and sometimes conflicting objectives…
Different in the sense that we have quantitative objectives (things can have a value, number…etc) and things that are qualitative (things that can not have a value, just a quality…good bad…) so it means if we add 3 oranges to 4 apples we end up “3 oranges to 4 apples” not 7 things….
Conflicting in the sense that some of theses goals need to be achieved with the highest values, or to the maximum extent, and the others need to me minimized…so the question is not to maximize or minimize anymore…the question is to “compromise”…because you have also constraints to achievements.

Second, a simple application of the multiplication principle to the USA, Canada, or any other developed country (taking into consideration that an efficiency of 100% is merely a theoretical idea and can not be achieved) the efficiency can be as high as 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999%…Multiplication of any number that is less than 100% few times ends at the same place…(ZERO)……

Third, Taking system configuration there are ways to deal with overall efficiency (for parallel or serially connected systems) which means we might use the MIN operator than the “PRODUCT” operator…or any other operator that reflects the real behavior of the system.

In Conclusion, I believe that the problem is not on the individual efficiency (only) but it is, also, in the system configuration that puts similar components into conflicting manner, using low quality components in Critical Points…so on…..

Finally, SALAM KEBEER TO AHMAD…

Ibrahim

]]> By: sam http://globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/15/egypt-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-1199002 sam Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:39:11 +0000 http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/15/egypt-efficiency/#comment-1199002 I love when people apply hard science to soft science. It's like applying mechanical engineering formula of fluid dynamics to Quantum reactions... you don't do it. The efficiency of people is usually less than 90% in fact far less but aggregately they usually accomplish a lot because the formula of human efficiency is a lot more complicated than their product. But good point nevertheless just a bit marred by bad support. I love when people apply hard science to soft science. It’s like applying mechanical engineering formula of fluid dynamics to Quantum reactions… you don’t do it.

The efficiency of people is usually less than 90% in fact far less but aggregately they usually accomplish a lot because the formula of human efficiency is a lot more complicated than their product. But good point nevertheless just a bit marred by bad support.

]]>