+Ducky Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I believe that was Sir Sandford Fleming you jokers! Quote Link to comment
+Yorkshire Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I believe that was Sir Sandford Fleming you jokers! Correct Ducky. Take it away! Quote Link to comment
+Ducky Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 (edited) All right here is a hard one for you Who is the man on the left in this picture and what did he do in 1946? Edited February 19, 2008 by Ducky Quote Link to comment
+Binrat Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Ducky is not happy with me, I solved it in 10 seconds. I will wait until everyone is stumped before I answer. Binrat Quote Link to comment
+emzernask Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 okay i took a bit longer because i couldn't find the book (be expert with map & compass). silva compass. bjorn kjellstrom. orienteering in n america Quote Link to comment
+Ducky Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 (edited) You got it emzernask and your question is... I still don't how binrat got it so fast but as he is my brother he is disqualified ha ha Edited February 20, 2008 by Ducky Quote Link to comment
+emzernask Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 okay, i'll try for a good one for my first question. who was john harrison and what was his claim to fame? Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 okay, i'll try for a good one for my first question. who was john harrison and what was his claim to fame? Hey, I've got the geocoin! He invented the marine chronometer which aided in navigation at sea. I think it was a big leap forward, otherwise why would it be on a geocoin? As for who he was: He was the guy who invented the marine chronometer! Quote Link to comment
+emzernask Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 (edited) you got it! he solved what was called the "longitude problem" by inventing the marine chronometer. the cool thing about him was that he was a carpenter not a scientist. i highly recommend the book the illustrated longitude. Edited February 20, 2008 by emzernask Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 I think we're ready for another question. Someone better ask one soon otherwise I'm going to punish you with yet another natural science one! I've got some great ones for pond scum and tree diseases. Quote Link to comment
lewis82 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I've got one... On August 16th, 1960, Joseph Kittinger reached the altitude of 31km in an helium balloon. He then jumped and fell for 14 minutes before he reached the ground again. The question is: Which speed did he reach before he opened his parachute? Quote Link to comment
+2happy2gether Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I've got one... On August 16th, 1960, Joseph Kittinger reached the altitude of 31km in an helium balloon. He then jumped and fell for 14 minutes before he reached the ground again. The question is: Which speed did he reach before he opened his parachute? 120mp/h Quote Link to comment
+ibycus Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I've got one... On August 16th, 1960, Joseph Kittinger reached the altitude of 31km in an helium balloon. He then jumped and fell for 14 minutes before he reached the ground again. The question is: Which speed did he reach before he opened his parachute? 120mp/h I happen to know that is too low... but only because I cheated... Quote Link to comment
+2happy2gether Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I've got one... On August 16th, 1960, Joseph Kittinger reached the altitude of 31km in an helium balloon. He then jumped and fell for 14 minutes before he reached the ground again. The question is: Which speed did he reach before he opened his parachute? 120mp/h I happen to know that is too low... but only because I cheated... I was going to guess in the 360's, but I remember seeing something about this and that he had to slow down considerably otherwise his parachute would have failed. Quote Link to comment
+Bullfrog Eh-Team Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) If I remember correctly, my grade eleven physics tells me he would have been falling at 32 ft. per second, or 9.69 metres per second, unless he artificially slowed his descent perhaps with retro-rockets ? Edited March 3, 2008 by Bullfrog Eh-Team Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Seven posts, and not a single notification came to my email. Hmmm. Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I've got one... On August 16th, 1960, Joseph Kittinger reached the altitude of 31km in an helium balloon. He then jumped and fell for 14 minutes before he reached the ground again. The question is: Which speed did he reach before he opened his parachute? 120mp/h I happen to know that is too low... but only because I cheated... It can't be low by very much. And 2h2g... tsk tsk! *Miles* per hour?? Quote Link to comment
danoshimano Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 If I remember correctly, my grade eleven physics tells me he would have been falling at 32 ft. per second, or 9.69 metres per second, unless he artificially slowed his descent perhaps with retro-rockets ? You are remembering acceleration due to gravity, which is 9.8 m/s^2, which means every second the speed would increase by 9.8 m/s, so after only 2 seconds, the speed would be 19.6 m/s. (Until terminal velocity is reached.) Quote Link to comment
+Bullfrog Eh-Team Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 If I remember correctly, my grade eleven physics tells me he would have been falling at 32 ft. per second, or 9.69 metres per second, unless he artificially slowed his descent perhaps with retro-rockets ? You are remembering acceleration due to gravity, which is 9.8 m/s^2, which means every second the speed would increase by 9.8 m/s, so after only 2 seconds, the speed would be 19.6 m/s. (Until terminal velocity is reached.) 'Bummer !' - I suppose the 50 years since my Gd. 11 physics hath dulled the cerebral synapse. Quote Link to comment
+2happy2gether Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I've got one... On August 16th, 1960, Joseph Kittinger reached the altitude of 31km in an helium balloon. He then jumped and fell for 14 minutes before he reached the ground again. The question is: Which speed did he reach before he opened his parachute? 120mp/h I happen to know that is too low... but only because I cheated... It can't be low by very much. And 2h2g... tsk tsk! *Miles* per hour?? I know, I know...but can you tell me how many feet per second detonating cord detonates. Some of us are still stuck between two worlds. Quote Link to comment
+TOMTEC Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I know, I know...but can you tell me how many feet per second detonating cord detonates. Some of us are still stuck between two worlds. 25,000? TOMTEC Quote Link to comment
+bobbarley Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 300...301...302...303...304? is this like the price is right? I can just keep going and going and going. Quote Link to comment
lewis82 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 You're way too low. In normal skydiving altitudes, they can reach a maximum of 320 km/h with their head down. This is because of the of the air friction against their body. Now, at 31 km of altitude, there ain't much air. Hint, hint! Quote Link to comment
+2happy2gether Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I know, I know...but can you tell me how many feet per second detonating cord detonates. Some of us are still stuck between two worlds. 25,000? TOMTEC 8,000ish..it's not an exact science. Quote Link to comment
lewis82 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Nobody knows? One day left, and after I'll give the answer. Quote Link to comment
+bobbarley Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 You're way too low. In normal skydiving altitudes, they can reach a maximum of 320 km/h with their head down. This is because of the of the air friction against their body. Now, at 31 km of altitude, there ain't much air. Hint, hint! I will double your number as a guess. 640km/hr Quote Link to comment
lewis82 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 You're coming close. But it is still higher! Quote Link to comment
+Tech Nic Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 If he reached terminal velocity he would have reached 698.18 MPH, or 1123.58 KMH Quote Link to comment
lewis82 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 You're close enough He reached 614 mph, or 989 km/h. That's quite fast ! And he said that he didn't even feel the wind on his body... Your turn! Quote Link to comment
+Tech Nic Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 OK, thanks, I didn't think I'd get close enough. Just a side note, what if he went just a bit faster and broke the sound barrier? OK, a simple one, Using the British Grid system of coordinates, in what park would you be if you were at: 5838219 -4247074. Quote Link to comment
+Landsharkz Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Hmmm.... flipped the GPSr into British Grid and tried to input coords... It wants format -- ----- -------. Tried to enter two digits in the first two spots (separate from the rest) and it wouldn't take numerals but the only choice that popped up was the keypad for numerals . Ok, back to the drawing board - literally as well as figuratively Quote Link to comment
+Tech Nic Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 OK, thanks, I didn't think I'd get close enough. Just a side note, what if he went just a bit faster and broke the sound barrier? OK, a simple one, Using the British Grid system of coordinates, in what park would you be if you were at: 5838219 -4247074. OK, I don't think it is as simple as I thought it might be. I bet there is a lot of searching going on. I actually worked backwards to get the British Grid coordinates, and am having trouble to actually convert the British coordinates back to Lat/Lon. I will give you a hint a bit later, giving you the UTM coordinates which are easier to convert. In the meantime, if anyone comes up with the answer, let me know how you did it. Next hint coming later, I must go find a cache now. Quote Link to comment
+ibycus Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 OK, thanks, I didn't think I'd get close enough. Just a side note, what if he went just a bit faster and broke the sound barrier? OK, a simple one, Using the British Grid system of coordinates, in what park would you be if you were at: 5838219 -4247074. Out of the blue guess... Kruger National Park? Quote Link to comment
+Tech Nic Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I am not sure how the last two answers both ended up in Africa. The national park is in Canada. Quote Link to comment
+Tech Nic Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 (edited) OK, last clue. UTM coordinates: 14U E 417741 N 5632868 Anybody with a toolbox full of waypoint converters should get it quickly now. Edited March 8, 2008 by Tech Nic Quote Link to comment
+ibycus Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I am not sure how the last two answers both ended up in Africa. The national park is in Canada. I was thinking, given that you've given the coordinates in the British Grid System (which I know nothing about, but presumably has 0,0 somewhere in England), and given the large negative value of the 'Y' coordinate, and positive X coordinate that it was reasonable that the coordinates would put you somewhere in Southern Africa. I was guessing that it would be Kruger, because its a big, famous park. 14U E 417741 N 5632868Anybody with a toolbox full of waypoint converters should get it quickly now. Aren't we supposed to be doing this without "cheating"? I could, and (now have) plugged the coordinates in to Mapsource, and get the answer instantly, but isn't that "not allowed"? Quote Link to comment
+Tech Nic Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) ibycus, I know we are not to use Google or equivalent, nor do I write the rules for this game, but since the GPS is the number one tool in this game (sport) of geocaching, I would assume you can use the GPS in locating this park. Having said that, doesn't every geocacher have, on his computer, every and all gadgets, available to him at an instants notice, so that he can be that FTF?java script:emoticon('', 'smid_26') Edited March 9, 2008 by Tech Nic Quote Link to comment
+ibycus Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Well in that case, we're looking at Riding Mountain National Park. Quote Link to comment
+ibycus Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Given that I know that is the right answer, I suppose its my turn to ask a question. In keeping with the National Parks theme, What species in Banff National Park is the most endangered? Quote Link to comment
+Juicepig Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 What species in Banff National Park is the most endangered? Upper Canadian Tree-hog? Quote Link to comment
+churchrules Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Given that I know that is the right answer, I suppose its my turn to ask a question. In keeping with the National Parks theme, What species in Banff National Park is the most endangered? Is it the Banff Spring Snail? Quote Link to comment
+Tech Nic Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 You guys must have set your clocks a few hours ahead. Anyway, Ibycus, you are indeed correct. For those of you who haven't looked at Riding Mountain National Park, take a look, in particular at the south end, at Clear Lake. There are a few caches there, and in particular GCWW1C. It is a 9 part multi and looks like a lot of thought went into this one. 14U E 417741 N 5632868 converts to N50 50.500 E100 10.100 or use your GPSr Congrats. Quote Link to comment
+ibycus Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Given that I know that is the right answer, I suppose its my turn to ask a question. In keeping with the National Parks theme, What species in Banff National Park is the most endangered? Is it the Banff Spring Snail? You got it. I remember reading an article some time ago about some guy who went swimming in one of the few pools this thing is found in. They had a hard time charging him though, as the monitoring equipment set up to observe the snails was found to be inoperative at the time of the incident. http://www.pc.gc.ca/nature/eep-sar/itm3-/eep-sar3a3_e.asp Quote Link to comment
+churchrules Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 While on the topic of endangered species, who is Madame X and where does she live when she comes to Hamilton every year? Quote Link to comment
+Yorkshire Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 14U E 417741 N 5632868 converts to N50 50.500 E100 10.100 or use your GPSr I would still like to know how to convert British Grid to Lat Long/UTM as your original question posed. Quote Link to comment
+Couparangus Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 I had to research Madame X on the web. Very cool! I'm sure someone will get this one. Is she back yet? Quote Link to comment
+Tech Nic Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 14U E 417741 N 5632868 converts to N50 50.500 E100 10.100 or use your GPSr I would still like to know how to convert British Grid to Lat Long/UTM as your original question posed. I am not sure how to convert British Grid to Lat/Lon, but the numbers in the quote are UTM coordinates converted to Lat/Lon. There are excel spreadsheets out there that will convert UTM to/from Lat/Lon. I used the geocaching.com conversion page to convert N 50 50.500 E100 10.100 to the British Grid coordinates, but it will not go backwards. Most GPSrs will handle UTM coordinates by selecting that via the setup units menu, and by selecting that, you can pan the map and find the park. Quote Link to comment
+churchrules Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I had to research Madame X on the web. Very cool! I'm sure someone will get this one. Is she back yet? She showed up today at 3:30 PM!!! I'll post her link when someone guesses the right answer. Quote Link to comment
+JDandDD Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I am not sure how to convert British Grid to Lat/Lon, but the numbers in the quote are UTM coordinates converted to Lat/Lon. There are excel spreadsheets out there that will convert UTM to/from Lat/Lon. I have been watching this question with interest and wonder how you got a Britsh Grid answer for a location in Canada. The British National Grid system only works in Great Britain. The system uses standard easting and northing positions in Great Britain and measures the positive number of meters from thsoe spots, just like UTM is all positive. That's why you can't transform back because you have been using coords outside of the working range of BNG. Also, its based on the ETRS89 datum not WGS84 (the gps standard). By the way, take some coordinates in Great Britain, use the Ordinance Survey convereter, and it will convert back and forth correctly. Coords outside of Great Britain, nothing. JD 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.