October 20th 2018 11:30am

An, anon, another thing, we decided that because Tesco were having a discount sale we would go and purchase a larger flat screen television for our lounge (that’s front room for you working class types) a 40″ would be perfect. We arrived and quickly selected a slightly larger 43″ at a knock down Brucey Bargain.
Arrived back home unpacked said screen to discover that it was actually smaller than we thought. It was actually 38″ instead of 43″ actually 5″ narrower than expected, A level maths has always become useful in such situations. As this rantikins unfolds some of you are way ahead of me here!
I thought I’d just give them a ring in the morning to complain but before hand peruse the net to see if there were any more unhappy customers. I discovered that since the 50s TVs were measured ‘DIAGONALLY’, this portrays their dimensions more impressively. There was no mention of this on the box with reference to a diagonal line saying 48″. Con! Con! Con! My dad must have known this! He probably did because the first TVs were round and measured diagonally but as the screens widened and became more square the diagonal measurement remained to the benefit of the manufactures and shops.
Why not just state the dimensions as 38 x 21″ actual screen size or 39 x 22″ overall dimensions? Perhaps screen width of 38″?. How the bloody hell are you supposed to measure an aperture or cabinet accurately to fit a TV? Here is the simple equation to work out your TV’s dimension from a diagonal measurement. The following formula is for the present standard aspect ratio of 16:9

Square the diagonal=(d^2).
TV Height is “Square Root” of [9x{(d^2)/25}].
TV Width is “Square Root” of [16x{(d^2)/25}].

And you all said at school, ‘When will we ever use f’king algebra in real life?’ My A Level Maths has certainly benefited here, it’s just me though isn’t it?