Jump to content

Canadian Geopub Quiz

Couparangus

By Couparangus
in Canada

Followers 16

Recommended Posts

Juicepig

+Juicepig

Posted
Posted

i looked up the answer - 0.4m is safe for anything up to 10 tonnes so I obviously have no concept of ice thickness safety... as anyone who has cached with me can testify [:lol:]

H.F.Reign

+H.F.Reign

Posted
Posted

I must admit I am finding this very interesting. I figured it was one of those things that "everyone" who ventured out there knew so I am feeling better about posting the question.

 

Just to reiterate..we are talking about a cacher on foot..not troops or logging trucks etc.

Juicepig

+Juicepig

Posted
Posted

I figured it was one of those things that "everyone" who ventured out there knew so I am feeling better about posting the question.

 

It is a really good question, but I doubt everyone who ventures out there brings an ice-boaring kit and a tape measure to actually check these things before venturing out :lol: - Again, I looked up the answer so I must abstain from this round

2happy2gether

+2happy2gether

Posted
Posted

I must admit I am finding this very interesting. I figured it was one of those things that "everyone" who ventured out there knew so I am feeling better about posting the question.

 

Just to reiterate..we are talking about a cacher on foot..not troops or logging trucks etc.

 

Troops are on foot... :lol:

The red-haired witch

+The red-haired witch

Posted
Posted

I seem to remember 15 cm of clear ice as a safe thickness

 

But because I don't want to dig through the ice to find out how thick it is, I measure in weather :lol: : "one week of under -20C temperature" signals the perfect time to do those caches in the middle of the lake... the ones on moving water will wait until I get a boat, as you can never be sure of the ice there :lol:

Bullfrog Eh-Team

+Bullfrog Eh-Team

Posted
Posted

If I'm not mistaken, it's 8 - 10 inches of good ice. There are different qualities of ice and most are not stable.

 

I know that we've done ice bridges with 2 feet and more, but that was for moving a lot of troops and equipment across large areas.

 

WOW! - 2H2G - Your 'tag line' adds considerable credibility to your response ! ("vague assumption", "debatable figures", "inconclusive experiments", "problematic accuracy").

 

I'll hold fast with my original answer of 8 cm of clear ice, for a single 'cacher' (or 'trooper'); without a 'light truck', or any assocuated 'equipment', other than winter clothing and of course, a hand-held GPS and perhaps a cuppa Timmy's.

H.F.Reign

+H.F.Reign

Posted
Posted

ok bullfrog eh I'm sending this one your way.

 

The most common figure that I am aware of is 4 inches clear ice. The absolute no go is three inches..8cm is just over the three inch mark so yes it would be a minimal requirement for crossing still water on foot.

 

JP is right, we don't take boring equipment etc with us and it's always a risk out there so please folks, be careful!

Bullfrog Eh-Team

+Bullfrog Eh-Team

Posted
Posted

JP is a regular at the pub, and [/u]almost always answers correctly! Therefore, to his tribute, a geo-puzzle - "If Alcona Beach were indeed the centre of the Northern Hemisphere (as in 'The North Pole') as JP would have us believe - The corresponding, newly adjusted 'South Pole' would be approximately 2000 km from Perth, Australia. What would the 'current' compass bearing be from Perth to the newly proposed 'South Pole' (ignoring any relevant declinations) ? Are there any OZ lurkers in the Geopub tonight ?"

Juicepig

+Juicepig

Posted
Posted

"If Alcona Beach were indeed the centre of the Northern Hemisphere (as in 'The North Pole') as JP would have us believe

 

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of 0° 0° - That would make things so much easier to remember for me and all my dissident subjects :)

 

The corresponding, newly adjusted 'South Pole' would be approximately 2000 km from Perth, Australia. What would the 'current' compass bearing be from Perth to the newly proposed 'South Pole' (ignoring any relevant declinations) ? Are there any OZ lurkers in the Geopub tonight ?"

 

295°?

Bullfrog Eh-Team

+Bullfrog Eh-Team

Posted
Posted

"If Alcona Beach were indeed the centre of the Northern Hemisphere (as in 'The North Pole') as JP would have us believe

 

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of 0° 0° - That would make things so much easier to remember for me and all my dissident subjects :)

 

The corresponding, newly adjusted 'South Pole' would be approximately 2000 km from Perth, Australia. What would the 'current' compass bearing be from Perth to the newly proposed 'South Pole' (ignoring any relevant declinations) ? Are there any OZ lurkers in the Geopub tonight ?"

 

295°?

 

JP - I believe your 'South Pole' would be about 2500 km. out of place. Shall we move Alcona Beach south ?

Bullfrog Eh-Team

+Bullfrog Eh-Team

Posted
Posted

JP - 2500 km off GZ ? I'm afraid you've just posted a DNF ?

 

I'd accept a bearing even 10 degrees off - but JP's answer isn't in the same ballpark (unless I'm lost!).

 

Are there other cachers ready to step up to the geo-bar ?

Bullfrog Eh-Team

+Bullfrog Eh-Team

Posted
Posted

225?

 

You got it Willowbrookfarm - your geo-skills are superb! I had 223 degrees east of north; but, of course there is room for a few degrees of error based on where one might place the origin within Perth, W.A. ; or which end of Alcona Beach, from which to calculate the antipode.

 

The next 'quiz' is now in your hands -

willowbrookfarm

+willowbrookfarm

Posted
Posted

I'm going to stick my neck out and test my memory of geometry and yours.

 

Two part question:

 

Assume the world is a perfect sphere with a radius of 1 unit.

 

What is the radius of the circle formed by the latitude 45 degrees north (or south)?

 

What latitude north of the equator would you be at where the radius of that latitude circle was 1/2 unit?

lewis82

lewis82

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'll say (with my terrific calculations based on a circle on paper, a ruler and an angle protractor) that the radius at 45° latitude is about 0.7 (0.697).

 

The latitude where the radius is 0.5 would be between 55 and 57 degrees (as my method didn't offer a maximum of precision).

 

But I may be wrong :santa:

 

 

(edited for spelling)

Edited by lewis82
willowbrookfarm

+willowbrookfarm

Posted
Posted

Close enough Lewis. Congrats! I'll give it to you for having all the measuring instruments and taking the time to use them.

 

For those that wish to calculate....

 

At 45 degress, you can draw a right angle triangle. The radius of the earth is 1 unit, so that is the length of the hypotenuse. And at 45 degrees, the other 2 sides of the triangle are the same length. So you can solve using the pythagorean theorum (hope I spelled that close). x squared + y squared = r squared.

 

So 2x squared = 1. Solve for x and you get about .7071

 

For the second part of the question...

 

Draw the right angle triangle with the one unknown side straight north. The other side is length 1/2 going along the latitude line. The radius is still 1. Solve for the angle between the north line and the radius line as:

 

sin(angle) = length of opposite side/length of adjacent side

sin(angle) = 0.5 /1

 

Handy dandy calculator yields 30 degrees which is the angle from 90 in this case. Subtract from 90 and the answer is 60 degrees.

 

You're up Lewis82

Bullfrog Eh-Team

+Bullfrog Eh-Team

Posted
Posted

I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that the meteorite impact 'Lac Manicouagane' would be the largest, by outside shoreline measurement. But, not by total surface area, because of the large island - or, if 'large' does reflect lake-shore - then the islands shorlines might also be considered ?

 

Obviously a 'reservoir' lake, but not an artificial lake created by hydro-electric development ? What say you ?

 

- a fascinating question, indeed. Thanks for causing me to reflect on the definition of a 'natural' lake. I enjoy Geographic/Geologic reflection.

lewis82

lewis82

Posted
Posted

Lake Saint-Jean is the third in area with 1041 sq/km. It actually was much smaller before they build the dams, but still it's not artificial (as it existed before).

 

Lake Manicouagan was much smaller too before they built the dams. The island in the centre would have appeared then. (I didn't know that). But no, it's not Quebec's largest. :rolleyes:

 

I think that even if a lake has become larger because of dams, they are still natural lakes. They can not really be called reservoirs. Lakes that didn't exist before can, however.

2happy2gether

+2happy2gether

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm going to say Allumette Lake. Mostly because it's the only lake in Quebec I know. But, it's not really just in Quebec and it really is part of the Ottawa River.

 

That is my final answer.

Edited by 2happy2gether
JDandDD

+JDandDD

Posted
Posted

I don't think my method violates the rules and it may be wrong, but looking on Mapsource maps it would appear to be Lac Mistassini. At least the maps make it appear the largest except for a couple of reservoirs up by James Bay.

 

JD

JDandDD

+JDandDD

Posted
Posted

Ok, here goes. What is the highest point in Ontario?

 

JD

 

Top of the CN tower? hehe

Thought you had me there, didn't you. :D But it would at best be 2nd.

 

JD

2happy2gether

+2happy2gether

Posted
Posted

Ok, here goes. What is the highest point in Ontario?

 

JD

 

Ishpatina Ridge

 

Where is that? Curious minds want to know more!

 

We did a winter ex up near Timmins back in '92, and if I'm not mistaken we bivouaced in and around this area. That name was deep in the vaults for some reason.

 

Plus I developed a website years back. It was all on useless Canadiana. Provincial high points were one of those list items in the site. If I had the capital I would restart the whole thing.

danoshimano

danoshimano

Posted
Posted

I see it! Just over 90 km north of Sudbury, pretty much in the middle of nowhere. It is in the western part of Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park, just over 30km south Gowganda. N47°19' W80°45'

moop

+moop

Posted
Posted

If you were standing at N25 08.015 E055 11.093 on 10 Nov this year, at approximately noonish, and looked to the west, what would you see?

 

That sounds about the time and location that some building under construction surpassed the CN Tower. So you would be looking at the world's tallest man-made structure.

2happy2gether

+2happy2gether

Posted
Posted

If you were standing at N25 08.015 E055 11.093 on 10 Nov this year, at approximately noonish, and looked to the west, what would you see?

 

That sounds about the time and location that some building under construction surpassed the CN Tower. So you would be looking at the world's tallest man-made structure.

 

Right location, wrong landmark.

ve1bvd

+ve1bvd

Posted
Posted

If you were standing at N25 08.015 E055 11.093 on 10 Nov this year, at approximately noonish, and looked to the west, what would you see?

 

That sounds about the time and location that some building under construction surpassed the CN Tower. So you would be looking at the world's tallest man-made structure.

 

Right location, wrong landmark.

 

How about the opening of that man-made island in Dubai...Palm Island???

 

Phil/ve1bvd

2happy2gether

+2happy2gether

Posted
Posted

It's neither of the Palm communities, and I suppose there could be a man eating lunch in this loaction, but I'm looking for an extremely famous landmark.

 

We've determined that it's not the Burj Dubai, it is a burj though, and it's often associated with gold, marble, and seven stars....hint, hint.

2happy2gether

+2happy2gether

Posted
Posted

An aeroplane flying through that goofy hotel that looks like a sailboat?

 

That goofy hotel that looks like a sailboat is the Burj al Arab...and that is the correct answer.

 

The clue had to do with the World Wide Flash Mob event on 10 Nov from 12:00 to 12:15. Theoretically, if you attended the event, and looked west, towards the Persian Gulf you would see this landmark.

 

Link to the WWFM in Dubai.

 

Over to you Couparangus, and Merry Christmas everyone.

Couparangus

+Couparangus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What a guess!! I know about this place because the wireless in the building was accomplished by one of my acquaintances.

 

Alright, its time for another natural sciences question (evil grin)...

My daughter is 7 years old and knows the answer to this one so y'all have no excuse. :D

 

Q: If you were Geocaching on the south coast of England and found an ammonite, what exactly would you have?

moop

+moop

Posted
Posted

What a guess!! I know about this place because the wireless in the building was accomplished by one of my acquaintances.

 

Alright, its time for another natural sciences question (evil grin)...

My daughter is 7 years old and knows the answer to this one so y'all have no excuse. :D

 

Q: If you were Geocaching on the south coast of England and found an ammonite, what exactly would you have?

 

I grew up (well, got bigger :D ) in that part of the world. I recall Boscombe contained the motherlode of these critters and their ilk. Visited there many times on fossil hunting expeditions.

 

A: You would be holding a fossilized crustacean. Trilobites were the coolest though. :D

Juicepig

+Juicepig

Posted
Posted

A: You would be holding a fossilized crustacean. Trilobites were the coolest though. :D

 

I don't believe an ammonite is a crustacean, so I can going to steal this one and make it a simple:

 

A: A fossil that looks similar to a snail shell

Couparangus

+Couparangus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yikes! That's four answers that I'd accept. A tie breaker is now called for! :P

 

Q: Name the younger brother of the actor in Jurassic Park whose character had the same name as a famous blues musician and his father the record producer.

 

Hint: There is a tie-in here with the first question, albeit somewhat oblique.

 

That should slow things down a little. :D

Couparangus

+Couparangus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wow. I think I did indeed grind this one down to nothing!!

 

Hint, Richard Attenborough played John Hammond in Jurassic park. His brother is generally considered to be the pioneer of the nature documentary.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 16
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...