+H.F.Reign Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 apparently I suck at the questions...I ought to stop answering but being honest, I keep getting them on really cheesy answers! OK then: the guy just completed the oldest, still functioning, cache in quebec. Who set it? Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I want to know the answer to your other question! Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Danoshimano, I guess you have to walk in one steady direction until you hit a border line.. then, follow the line...... Quote Link to comment
+H.F.Reign Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 GrosseFamille is correct. Yup it is that simple. Hoping you know the general layout of the land where you are, you would be aware of significant linear features such as roads, rivers etc. You would aim in the direction of said feature (with assistance of the compass that you always carry with you) and walk. Unlike aiming for a singular feature where your accuracy with a compass is important and an ability to use map and compass are required, this method is simple and effective. I suspect many of us do this while caching. "I know I parked on con3 and we are east of there so if I bushwack west I should find the road and then the car!" I'm giving it to GrosseFamille now! Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 And I was just kidding! Now I have to come up with a Question! Uh.. ok.. here goes.. The question is about the 27 Earth-orbiting satellites (24 in operation and three extras in case one fails) At what altitude to they orbit (give or take 500Kms)? Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Approx 20,000kms. Just doing this on one of my assignments. Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Approx 20,000kms. Just doing this on one of my assignments. Lucky you! The figure I had was 12,000 miles (or 19,300 km).. close enough! Luc & Sweety, you're next! Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) Here's one that doesn't take too much brain power. How many GPS satellites are visible from any point on earth at any point in time? (answer can vary by 3) Edited September 28, 2006 by Luc & Sweety Quote Link to comment
+AV Dezign Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Just gps sats or all sats? Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Sorry..Edited the message. Quote Link to comment
+LeGodFather Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 How many GPS satellites are visible from any point on earth at any point in time? (answer can vary by 3)Looking for my last question this morning, I saw the answer.. but will let others answer this one.. Quote Link to comment
+geek-e Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 this is a complete guess but i will say 10.?????????????????? geek-e Quote Link to comment
+H.F.Reign Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I'm not even going to risk a guess at this as this seems to be how I get "in trouble" here Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 danoshimano got it. At any given time at any point on earth there are at least 5-8 GPS satellites visible. Your up danoshimano.. Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I actually got the last answer by looking at the picture, imagining myself on the globe, and counting the satelites that seemed as though they would be above my horizon. Next question: What do a Lady's Slipper, Mayflower, and Purple Violet all have in common? Quote Link to comment
+hidnseek Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 all flowers and provincial flowers too Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 all flowers and provincial flowers too That's it. It was the provincial flowers part I was looking for and these three are the flowers of the three Maritime provinces. Your turn, hidnseek! Quote Link to comment
+hidnseek Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Have not been keeping up with this thread so if a repeat sorry. What is the official FRS and PMR channel for geocaching and their alternatives? Quote Link to comment
+hidnseek Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 and their alternates? Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Sorry, you got me there..Didn't know there were alternatives.. Quote Link to comment
+VO2WW Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 2 is main Geocaching channel on FRS and 12 is alternative but not sure it is the same alternative one on PMR, think it is either 8 or 9???? Quote Link to comment
+hidnseek Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 2 is the primary and 12 is the alternative for FRS and 8 for PMR. According to geocaching FAQ: Do you have an FRS/PMR channel to find out if other Geocachers are in the area? Yes. The community has decided on channel 2 as the primary for both FRS and PMR, and 12 as the alternate FRS (Family Radio Service) channel and 8 for the alternate PMR (Europe). FRS and PMR radios are longer distance walkie talkies, like the Motorola Talkabout. We had been discussing this locally when this was pointed out. onto you VO2WW. Quote Link to comment
+VO2WW Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 What are five of the seven factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy? Quote Link to comment
+AV Dezign Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 (edited) whoou hou hou I know this one... 1 - losing it 2 - forgetting it at home 3 - forgetting to switch it on 4 - no batteries 5 - dropping it off the side of a mountain 6 - having it chewed by Smudge 7 - Letting your brother in law handle it Edited October 1, 2006 by AV Dezign Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Just had a quiz on this. 1) Satellite Clock 2) Receiver Clock 3) Satellite Orbit Error 4) Atmospheric Errors 5) Multipath 6) Receiver Error 7) Geometric Dilution of Precision Quote Link to comment
+VO2WW Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Okay, lets have a question from you................ Factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy include the following: Ionosphere and troposphere delays — The satellite signal slows as it passes through the atmosphere. The GPS system uses a built-in model that calculates an average amount of delay to partially correct for this type of error. Signal multipath — This occurs when the GPS signal is reflected off objects such as tall buildings or large rock surfaces before it reaches the receiver. This increases the travel time of the signal, thereby causing errors. Receiver clock errors — A receiver's built-in clock is not as accurate as the atomic clocks onboard the GPS satellites. Therefore, it may have very slight timing errors. Orbital errors — Also known as ephemeris errors, these are inaccuracies of the satellite's reported location. Number of satellites visible — The more satellites a GPS receiver can "see," the better the accuracy. Buildings, terrain, electronic interference, or sometimes even dense foliage can block signal reception, causing position errors or possibly no position reading at all. GPS units typically will not work indoors, underwater or underground. Satellite geometry/shading — This refers to the relative position of the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when the satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor geometry results when the satellites are located in a line or in a tight grouping. Intentional degradation of the satellite signal — Selective Availability (SA) is an intentional degradation of the signal once imposed by the U.S. Department of Defense. SA was intended to prevent military adversaries from using the highly accurate GPS signals. The government turned off SA in May 2000, which significantly improved the accuracy of civilian GPS receivers. Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 If the clock on a GPS satellite was off 1/1 000 000 of a second, what would be the error in distance? Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 If the clock on a GPS satellite was off 1/1 000 000 of a second, what would be the error in distance? Well, let's see... if light travels at 300,000,000 m/s then it would be 300m Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I'll give it to you. Its more like 321.86 meters but 300 is about as close as my Yellow Etrex would get me. Quote Link to comment
+AV Dezign Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I'll give it to you. Its more like 321.86 meters but 300 is about as close as my Yellow Etrex would get me. Yeah but that 21.86 meters difference is because you did not have an X series. Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I'll give it to you. Its more like 321.86 meters but 300 is about as close as my Yellow Etrex would get me. Yeah but that 21.86 meters difference is because you did not have an X series. My birthday is coming up.. Maybe I will get a surprise of a nice 60Cx.. Then no more searching 21 meters away from the cache... Quote Link to comment
+Luc & Sweety Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I'll give it to you. Its more like 321.86 meters but 300 is about as close as my Yellow Etrex would get me. Yeah but that 21.86 meters difference is because you did not have an X series. My birthday is coming up.. Maybe I will get a surprise of a nice 60Cx.. Then no more searching 21 meters away from the cache... Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 Hmmm...pedantry time again...if the speed of light is 299,792,458 through a vacuum, and slower through a medium, as V02WW discussed above, then it would travel less than 299.792,458m in one microsecond. Okay, okay, my turn for a question. Q: Why is the sky blue? Quote Link to comment
+Juicepig Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Q: Why is the sky blue? The contents of the Atmosphere scatters the light in all different directions. Higher frequencies (blues) are absorbed by the atmosphere much easier then lower frequencies (such as reds) giving the appearance of a blue sky, even though it is really just a white sky with lower frequency light being absorbed. Quote Link to comment
+TheGertridgeExplorers Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) Hmmm...pedantry time again...if the speed of light is 299,792,458 through a vacuum, and slower through a medium, as V02WW discussed above, then it would travel less than 299.792,458m in one microsecond. Okay, okay, my turn for a question. Q: Why is the sky blue? The other wavelengths of light are reflected off of dust particles in the atmosphere. Blue is a longer wavelength and can travel through the atmosphere with less reflection than the other colours. (this was an exam question in university - Remote Sensing I think) -Donna G ** Hmmm juicepig beat me to it - university was a loooong time ago! Edited October 4, 2006 by TheGertridgeExplorers Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 You both are really close. What I need is a definition of "contents" of the atmosphere which cause the Tyndall Effect or Rayleigh Scattering. There's an opportunity for some sniping here!! Quote Link to comment
+TOMTEC Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) The contents of the Atmosphere scatters the light in all different directions. Higher frequencies (blues) are absorbed by the atmosphere much easier then lower frequencies (such as reds) giving the appearance of a blue sky, even though it is really just a white sky with lower frequency light being absorbed. The other wavelengths of light are reflected off of dust particles in the atmosphere. Blue is a longer wavelength and can travel through the atmosphere with less reflection than the other colours. (this was an exam question in university - Remote Sensing I think) Ah, you're both wrong! It's partially my fault... There are a number of high power spotlights scattered all over the world that are aimed up into the atmosphere to create a gigantic "ceiling-bounce" effect. As most of these lights are HID powered, it creates a Blue tint... See, many years ago the sun was destroyed by an Anonymous Superpower Unit for not sharing it's energy supply. Flashoholics all over the world banded together to recreate the effect of the sun with their powerful beams. Unfortunately, during the GHAGAFAP V event, Fizbot managed to capture evidence of us "playing" with the system, so now the secret was out. So yeah... that's why the sky is blue! Zing! TOMTEC P.S. Due to popular demand, we often add red or orange filters during the power down stage, which people have come to know as a "sunset" Edited October 4, 2006 by TOMTEC Quote Link to comment
+VO2WW Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 ...............You both are really close. What I need is a definition of "contents" of the atmosphere which cause the Tyndall Effect or Rayleigh Scattering. Molecules of gases make up the atmosphere. They are over a thousand times smaller than the wavelength of light. The degree to which the shortest wavelengths of light are scattered by very small particles is some 10 times greater than it is for the longest ones which is why the color of scattered sunlight is heavily in favor of the bluer end of the spectrum. Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 I do believe we have a winner! Nice work my east-coast amateur friend! The common misconception is that water and/or dust in the air cause the blue-sky effect. Quote Link to comment
+VO2WW Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Thank you. Lets continue with the sky, specifically Stars and Planets. What distingushes them from each other? Quote Link to comment
+Juicepig Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Fusion? Stars are genrally undergoing fusion reactions, while planets aren't. The sun is a star as it is undergoing fusion, Jupiter is a planet, as it it doesn't have the mass to start a fusion reaction, hence it remains dormant (a planet) Planets can be orbiting stars, but aren't necessarily (in the case of rogue planets), and stars sometimes orbit other stars. Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Thank you. Lets continue with the sky, specifically Stars and Planets. What distingushes them from each other? Stars remain fixed in the sky, relatively speaking. Planets move across the sky. Quote Link to comment
+AV Dezign Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Planets don't twinkle, stars do! Quote Link to comment
+VO2WW Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 (edited) What distingushes Planets from Stars is that Planets don't stay put. The word 'planet' comes from a Greek word meaning wanderer. This is the best way to tell by looking in the sky with the naked eye. Six of them are visible with the naked eye. Yes their make up is different than stars, and yes stars twinkle. Planets when at maximun brightness are the first and last to be visible in the sky. The position of a planet can change from night to night. Take it away danoshimano Edited October 5, 2006 by VO2WW Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 Methinks Juicypig and Dano are both correct. Quote Link to comment
+Juicepig Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 What? do people hate me or something? Sheesh.. Quote Link to comment
+Landsharkz Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Methinks Juicypig and Dano are both correct. Ditto... Mr. LS rattled off the same answer as the very clever Juicypig, and then concurred with Danodude too. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.