fizzymagic

quote:Originally posted by Rooster_KF & Double C: I think the freind should sign the 3rd or 4th page of the log book and wait to log it on the internet untill real first finders find it. I don't think the friend should log it as a find, period.

georgeandmary got FTF on my new cache, despite its location in the Tri-Valley area. And he talks smack about Bay Area geocachers in his log! You guys gonna let those Central Valley types get away with that?

georgeandmary got FTF on my new cache, despite its location in the Tri-Valley area. And he talks smack about Bay Area geocachers in his log! You guys gonna let those Central Valley types get away with that?

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: well, it's not approved yet, I'll see if it's up in the morning. I hope you like it. I can't tell if it going to be very hard or very easy. It's one of those things. I won't be home tomorrow morning, as there is a swim race at Shadow Cliffs. But if you solve the problem, come this way to look for it and get into trouble, stop by the lake and ask! We'll probably be there until noon.

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: well, it's not approved yet, I'll see if it's up in the morning. I hope you like it. I can't tell if it going to be very hard or very easy. It's one of those things. I won't be home tomorrow morning, as there is a swim race at Shadow Cliffs. But if you solve the problem, come this way to look for it and get into trouble, stop by the lake and ask! We'll probably be there until noon.

I just posted a new cache, called "IQ Test." True to its name, it is a puzzle-and-math based cache. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27121 I was inspired by George's recent Black Box. On the drive back from finding that one, I had this idea. Let me know what you think. I can't tell if it is really easy or really hard. I'm pretty sure it's one or the other! There's not a very big queue right now; it might get approved by tomorrow morning! [This message was edited by fizzymagic on June 28, 2002 at 10:29 PM.]

I just posted a new cache, called "IQ Test." True to its name, it is a puzzle-and-math based cache. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27121 I was inspired by George's recent Black Box. On the drive back from finding that one, I had this idea. Let me know what you think. There's not a very big queue right now; it might get approved by tomorrow morning. Since it involves brain work instead of simply driving speed, I figure you Central Valley types have a good shot at being FTF.

I just posted a new cache, called "IQ Test." True to its name, it is a puzzle-and-math based cache. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27121 I was inspired by George's recent Black Box. On the drive back from finding that one, I had this idea. Let me know what you think. There's not a very big queue right now; it might get approved by tomorrow morning. Since it involves brain work instead of simply driving speed, I figure you Central Valley types have a good shot at being FTF.

quote:Originally posted by CacheReward: So, you are saying that I will have better accuracy with WAAS disabled? That's what he is saying, but he is mostly wrong. To review his points: Frees up 2 channels -- this only is a problem if your unit is receiving more than 10 satellites, which I have never seen. Uses up batteries -- only applies to Garmin units with power save on. Better accuracy without it -- If the WAAS corrections are not applicable to all visible satellites, most units will only use the ones with WAAS corrections, which gives you reduced precision as reflected by the EPE on the screen. If you are near a WAAS ground reference station then your accuracy will probably be better with WAAS on, at the possible cost of reduced precision from fewer satellites used. Near you, there is one in Fort Worth and one in Houston, so for most of Texas the WAAS corrections should be quite good. It is quite clear that the poster who gave you this advice does not understand the difference between accuracy and precision. The thing you need to understand about WAAS and geocaching is that most geocaches were placed by people without WAAS, and the errors between your unit and theirs add incoherently, which means that you probably won't notice any improvement in your ability to locate geocaches with WAAS on. This fact, along with the misleading reporting of EPE done by most GPS receivers, leads people to believe that the accuracy without WAAS is better. But they are, for the most part, wrong. If you want to test the impact of WAAS on accuracy in your area, there is a simple test you can do. Find a trangulation point (not a benchmark) that you can get to from the benchmark hunting portion of this website. Make sure that the coordinates of the point are not obtained by scaling. The positions of most triangulation points are usually good to a few centimeters. Then go to the location and see how far off your GPSr is with and without WAAS corrections on. Be aware that it takes approximately 10 minutes for the WAAS system to initialize in your GPSr after it acquires the WAAS satellite. Do this experiment several times, and you should be able to see the difference, if there is any.

quote:Originally posted by jfitzpat:What if the explosion occured above the black box, or was a missile that detonated below the rocket? Regardless of the location, there is no way to know that the force was evenly distributed to the rocket's total mass (ex. crumple zones in a car). These questions are actually kinda interesting. The answer to the above concern is that it makes no difference. Since there are only 3 pieces, their geometry at the time of the explosion must be coplanar. In fact, I've had an amusing time considering how the problem as stated constrains the initial plane. It does constrain it, but not quite enough. I think, however, that one simple change can remove the ambiguity. Simply specify the speeds (magnitudes of velocities) of Pieces #1 and #2 when they hit the ground. I'm pretty happy with this solution, since it can easily be incorporated into the problem statement something like this: from the depth and characteristics of the craters formed by Pieces #1 and #2, their speeds when they hit were V1 and V2. Am I correct here? Doesn't this change completely specify the initial plane of the pieces? [This message was edited by fizzymagic on June 28, 2002 at 10:10 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by fizzymagic: I don't know how close you will be with that approach. I think that the scale of the problem is large enough that it may introduce significant errors. I was wrong. The scale is small enough that Lat/Long works fine.

It was a very powerful explosion!

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: I just developed this one. Requires a little basic physics to solve. Fizzymagic has already sent me the correct coordinates all he has to do is go get it if he wants. You're gonna get me in trouble, George. I went and got it this afternoon.

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: I just developed this one. Requires a little basic physics to solve. Fizzymagic has already sent me the correct coordinates all he has to do is go get it if he wants. You're gonna get me in trouble, George. I went and got it this afternoon.

quote:Originally posted by Jamie Z: Fizzy... I'm surprised to read in your profile that you are a physicist, but you say that m/s/s is more correct than m/s^2. That's not at all what I meant. The notation you prefer is in fact the best one; I was simply suggesting a notation that wouldn't require any HTML and would be understandable by non-experts. In any case, it is something easily looked up by anyone.

quote:Qvq abg unir gb hfr HGZ be natyrf. I don't know how close you will be with that approach. I think that the scale of the problem is large enough that it may introduce significant errors.

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: Yeah, I know, I just didn't know if I should write 9.8m/ss or 9.8 m/s^2 or if I should just leave it 9.8 and leave the units off. How about 9.8 m/s/s? That is technically right, and probably less confusing than s^2.

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: I like it. I'm not sure about the 4 stars, though; I think maybe you could have gotten away with 5, since it requires specialized knowledge. The 4 stars is probably because that's what I rated my math-based cache, which is what DisQuoi rated his in the DC area that inspired mine that inspired George. This one took me about 30 minutes to solve; much of the time was in using a website to do UTM translation. I need to write a program to do it more quickly! Anyway, great job, George!

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: I like it. I'm not sure about the 4 stars, though; I think maybe you could have gotten away with 5, since it requires specialized knowledge. The 4 stars is probably because that's what I rated my math-based cache, which is what DisQuoi rated his in the DC area that inspired mine that inspired George. This one took me about 30 minutes to solve; much of the time was in using a website to do UTM translation. I need to write a program to do it more quickly! Anyway, great job, George!

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: Fizzy has already figured out the correct coordinates, all he has to do is go get it. Unfortunately, Fizzy has to go see the dentist this morning, so he can't go get it! Yuck. Hey, Pepper, here's a FTF chance! Just a little more math!

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: Fizzy has already figured out the correct coordinates, all he has to do is go get it. Unfortunately, Fizzy has to go see the dentist this morning, so he can't go get it! Yuck. Hey, Pepper, here's a FTF chance! Just a little more math!

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat: People must be certain that a cache is missing before they ask to archive it. If it's archived and it still is there, it immediately becomes nothing more than litter. I disagree. I posted a "should be archived" note today on a cache that I think is inappropriate. This cache is located in a fairly densely wooded area, and there is no clue about how to find it. No cache description, nothing. People who have found it say the only way to do so is to tear through all the vegetation in the area until you find it by brute force. That's not what geocaching is about. If a cache is placed in such a way that people searching for it are likely to do damage, then a note indicating that the cache should be removed seems entirely appropriate.

quote:Originally posted by Ron Streeter: ...don't quite know how to take your comment...nice picture of the dead thing. From what I've seen of Mr. Vic, I think he meant it as a compliment. I thought it was a very cool picture. Interesting!

quote:Originally posted by Ron Streeter: ...don't quite know how to take your comment...nice picture of the dead thing. From what I've seen of Mr. Vic, I think he meant it as a compliment. I thought it was a very cool picture. Interesting!

quote:Originally posted by Ron Streeter: ....who's your pal, who's your buddy? Who was nice when you didn't like Pythagorus? In other words, who is deserving of a first to find on those GAITERS ! LOL I think I will put a pair of gaiters in a cache as FTF prize... To make it fair for both Central Valley and Bay Area geocachers, I will make it a cache that is mainly dependent on brainpower, kinda like Magic Trig was. That way, getting there first won't depend on driving distance... I already have the idea, and am working on the implementation now. It's going to be one of those caches that is harder to place than it will be to find! I'll let everyone know when I put it out. Should be in the next week or so.