Jump to content

Canadian Geopub Quiz

Couparangus

By Couparangus
in Canada

Followers 16

Recommended Posts

1701eh

+1701eh

Posted
Posted

I saw one of those chains on the tv show "worst jobs in history", I wish I could remember exactly how long it was...

 

Given that the British didn't tend to use nice number like 10 or 100, I'll guess it was 64 yards long, so that would be 1:46080.

 

No.

Here is a hint. Many road allowances/ Right of Ways were originally 1 chain wide.

 

- Donna G

 

I'll guess that the chain is 33' then which would work out to 1/7920

Link to comment
TheGertridgeExplorers

+TheGertridgeExplorers

Posted
Posted

I saw one of those chains on the tv show "worst jobs in history", I wish I could remember exactly how long it was...

 

Given that the British didn't tend to use nice number like 10 or 100, I'll guess it was 64 yards long, so that would be 1:46080.

 

No.

Here is a hint. Many road allowances/ Right of Ways were originally 1 chain wide.

 

- Donna G

 

I'll guess that the chain is 33' then which would work out to 1/7920

 

You are getting closer. You are "half" right :blink:

Link to comment
1701eh

+1701eh

Posted
Posted

I saw one of those chains on the tv show "worst jobs in history", I wish I could remember exactly how long it was...

 

Given that the British didn't tend to use nice number like 10 or 100, I'll guess it was 64 yards long, so that would be 1:46080.

 

No.

Here is a hint. Many road allowances/ Right of Ways were originally 1 chain wide.

 

- Donna G

 

I'll guess that the chain is 33' then which would work out to 1/7920

 

1/15840

 

You are getting closer. You are "half" right :blink:

Link to comment
1701eh

+1701eh

Posted
Posted

 

I'll guess that the chain is 33' then which would work out to 1/7920

 

 

1/15840

 

You are getting closer. You are "half" right :blink:

 

1701eh is correct. 1 chain = 66 feet (or 4 rods) giving a scale of 1:15840 - I'm so happy we switched to Metric!

 

- Donna G

 

I knew about the 66' road allowance and thus my guess that it might have been 33' previously.

 

I'll have to think of a question now...

Link to comment
1701eh

+1701eh

Posted
Posted

Ok, here we go again....

 

First, let's establish some 'Facts' (don't shoot me if they are not official)

 

Vancouver, BC

is located at N49 15.710 W123 06.809

 

Smooth Rock Falls, ON (north of Timmons)

is located at N49 15.710 W081 37.417

 

If you were to take the shortest, direct route (as the crow flies; not limited by roads) between these two points, roughly how much would your north coordinate change during the trip?

Link to comment
TheGertridgeExplorers

+TheGertridgeExplorers

Posted
Posted

I think I know this one!!! 2 degrees?

 

As for the chains, I'm sorry I missed that one as I would've got it. :blink:

I learned long ago that the reason the concession roads are 1.25 miles is because that makes 'em 6,600ft which is 100 chains.

 

It's also an easy way to figure out how many sq ft in an acre:

 

1 acre = 1 chain x 10 chains = 66 ft x 660 ft = 43560 sq ft

 

- Donna G

Link to comment
1701eh

+1701eh

Posted
Posted

I think I know this one!!! 2 degrees?

 

As for the chains, I'm sorry I missed that one as I would've got it. :blink:

I learned long ago that the reason the concession roads are 1.25 miles is because that makes 'em 6,600ft which is 100 chains.

 

Drat! I was hoping to see a guess of 'It wouldn't change cause it's the same north...'

 

It is actually closer to 1 degree, 53 minutes and you would pass just south of Yorkton, SK

 

The point here was that a straight line between two points is not always a straight line on a map. The only route that did not have a variation of the north would be between two points on the equator. You can try this for yourself if you have access to an old world globe. Most of you will have seen this if you've ever looked at the flightpaths map for an airline. The routes are usually the most direct route, but they appear curved on a flat map.

 

Some people in Southern Ontario might not be aware that all of the cities in western Canada are actually more north than Timmins is (and we know how far north Timmins is, right? Wayyyyy up there...)

 

Take it away CA...

Link to comment
TOMTEC

+TOMTEC

Posted
Posted

Woohoo! I guess I was close enough. Lemme think of an easy one, and I'll make it a one-parter to keep things moving.

 

What was the name of the terrestrial-based navigation system that was in wide use before the advent of GPS? Bonus points for its frequency of operation.

I'm thinking it must be LORAN which operated somewhere around 100kHz or so... Supprisingly, a buddy of mine still has this installed on his boat!

 

TOMTEC

Link to comment
TOMTEC

+TOMTEC

Posted
Posted (edited)

Alrighty... here's a question for all you night cachers.

 

You have just achieved scotopic vision, (i.e. your eyes are fully dark adapted and you have become colour blind) What is the ideal colour (or wavelength) of light that will preserve your scotopic night vision, but at the same time, still produce enough light for navigation at minimum intensity?

 

TOMTEC

Edited by TOMTEC
Link to comment
danoshimano

danoshimano

Posted
Posted

Alrighty... here's a question for all you night cachers.

 

You have just achieved scotopic vision, (i.e. your eyes are fully dark adapted and you have become colour blind) What is the ideal colour (or wavelength) of light that will preserve your scotopic night vision, but at the same time, still produce enough light for navigation at minimum intensity?

 

TOMTEC

 

Red?

Link to comment
LeGodFather

+LeGodFather

Posted
Posted

Alrighty... here's a question for all you night cachers.

 

You have just achieved scotopic vision, (i.e. your eyes are fully dark adapted and you have become colour blind) What is the ideal colour (or wavelength) of light that will preserve your scotopic night vision, but at the same time, still produce enough light for navigation at minimum intensity?

 

TOMTEC

 

Red?

It is red. Any amateur astronomer knows that! :o

Link to comment
TOMTEC

+TOMTEC

Posted
Posted

What is the ideal colour (or wavelength) of light that will preserve your scotopic night vision...

Red?

Red light will preserve your night vision, but it requires a much higher intensity of light to produce the same relative brightness to the eyes at low levels as the colour I'm looking for. Red light stimulates the cone (colour) receptors in your eye, but does not effect the rod (intensity) receptors at all. Unfortunately, a rod cell is close to 100 times more light sensitive than the cone cell. You'll keep your night vision, but the intensity of light required to see is far greater. So now that we've narrowed that down, what colour light are the rod receptors most sensitive to?

 

TOMTEC

Link to comment
TOMTEC

+TOMTEC

Posted
Posted

cyan

Yep, Cyan (often called Turquoise or Teal) produces a Bluish-Green (or Greenish-Blue) light with a wavelength of 500-520 nm. At very low intensities, the eye is more sensitive to this colour light than red. Because of this high sensitivity, it is easy to use too intense of a light for a given application. Up until recently (newer, efficient LED's), Cyan was a difficult colour to produce, so Green was often used in it's place.

 

Game on!

 

TOMTEC

Link to comment
LeGodFather

+LeGodFather

Posted
Posted

cyan

Yep, Cyan (often called Turquoise or Teal) produces a Bluish-Green (or Greenish-Blue) light with a wavelength of 500-520 nm. At very low intensities, the eye is more sensitive to this colour light than red. Because of this high sensitivity, it is easy to use too intense of a light for a given application. Up until recently (newer, efficient LED's), Cyan was a difficult colour to produce, so Green was often used in it's place.

 

Game on!

 

TOMTEC

Read all about it here.

Link to comment
graylling

+graylling

Posted
Posted

Ok I didn't have to wait for tonight to post this.

 

As we all know the North Magnetic Pole (NMP) moves a little bit each year and is presently located in northern Canada. The Geological Survey of Canada keeps track of this motion by periodically carrying out magnetic surveys to redetermine the Pole's location

 

The last survey (at least that I can find a record of) was done in 2001. What were the coords of the NMP at that time?

 

And as a bonus. What were the estimated coords in 2005??

Link to comment
LeGodFather

+LeGodFather

Posted
Posted

I think people might have to look that one up.. I would be suprised if anyone knows this..

I agree. Let's start the guessing game! :o

 

N78 13.000 W96 37.000

 

I heard it was in Canada so I went into MapSource and chose an island up there and pretty much centered with Canada and the US and rounded the coords.

 

But, then again, I could have thrown a dart on a paper map and got better coords! ;)

Link to comment
TOMTEC

+TOMTEC

Posted
Posted

Hmm, let me just ask Santa... yep, he's still located at H0H 0H0! :laughing:

 

I recall magnetic North being located somewhere around Ellesmere Island in Nunavut... the only cordinates I have on my GPS for that general area are for the airstrip at CFS Alert at N82 31.066 W62 16.833 which is likely a few hundred kilometers away... hey, it's a start!

 

TOMTEC

Link to comment
graylling

+graylling

Posted
Posted

Wellsince no one seems to want to answer this one I'll pass it on to Gross Famille for another question. For reference the North Magnetic Pole was located at about N81.3 W110.8 in 2001

 

The only reason I know this is that i recently put together a quiz on geocaching and that was one of the questions.

Link to comment
LeGodFather

+LeGodFather

Posted
Posted

Wellsince no one seems to want to answer this one I'll pass it on to Gross Famille for another question. For reference the North Magnetic Pole was located at about N81.3 W110.8 in 2001

 

The only reason I know this is that i recently put together a quiz on geocaching and that was one of the questions.

Close enough? Yay! :)

 

Alright.. how much does a GPS satellite weight (in pounds, rounded to the thousands)?

Link to comment
LeGodFather

+LeGodFather

Posted
Posted

Hmmm.. you are confusing me with all your questions.. am I not the one who's asking the question here? :D

 

Seriously, I understand..

 

So, here's the new, more precise question:

 

How much does a BLOCK IIR GPS satellite weight in orbit (in pounds, rounded to the thousands of pounds)?

 

If it still too confusing, I'll change the question completly. Sorry.. :)

Link to comment
LeGodFather

+LeGodFather

Posted
Posted

Sorry, the Company I work for is in the satellite biz, and everything is in kg. :)

 

So, I'll guess 2000 lbs BOL (Beginning Of Life)

 

Chris

I too now understand Kgs better than lbs (except for my own weight!).. but my reference for this question is in pounds..

 

But, did you know that by typing "2000 Kg to lbs" in Google will get you: "2 000 kilograms = 4 409.24524 pounds"

 

And vice versa "2000 lbs to Kg" will get you: "2 000 pounds = 907.18474 kilograms"

 

Point of ref:

1Kg ≈2.20lbs

1lbs ≈0.45Kg or 454g

 

Either way.. I'll give it to you.. because, I heard it was between 3000 and 4000 pounds, but, after you guys started asking questions (orbit, fuel,..) I saw that different "models" of GPS sat weighed different.

 

Basically there are too many right answers..

 

CZ, your turn!

Link to comment
CharlieZulu

CharlieZulu

Posted
Posted

Staying with satellites.....

 

Once launched, regardless of orbit dynamics, satellites must be managed and operated from the ground. All kinds of monitoring and telemtery goes on, and just about every parameter you can think of is measured and recorded. (You would expect this to be the case, when you have a $100M asset zipping around up there.)

 

Satellites are designed for a given on-orbit life, typically measured in years. The Anik F2 bird mentioned above has a predicted on-orbit life of 15 years.

 

Q: what is the limiting factor to a satellite's on-orbit life?

Link to comment
TOMTEC

+TOMTEC

Posted
Posted

Q: what is the limiting factor to a satellite's on-orbit life?

I can think of three things... but only one that would effect the design life, and that's the fuel capacity. Without fuel, the satellite will not be able to adjust to keep in it's designated orbit. Other items could cause the satellite to fail pre-maturely are loss of battery power, and damage to the solar pannel array. But, if these continue to function, the satellite should be able to run until the tank is dry! (Then it will eventually come crashing to earth in an uncontrolled fireball!)

 

TOMTEC

Link to comment
CharlieZulu

CharlieZulu

Posted
Posted

TOMTEC is right.

 

For a GEO satellite, the on-orbit life is simply a matter of how much fuel is left in the tanks for stationkeeping once the bird reaches it final orbit position. It is then a question of watching the "fuel gauge" for the next 15 years and de-orbiting the satellite (or parking it in a different plane) just before the tank runs dry. (Remember, for commercial satellites, they are up there to make money, so the longer the better.)

 

The launch vehicle first throws the satellite into an elliptical orbit around the equator (called the Transfer Orbit), and then the ground controllers take over and fire the satellite's on-board kick motors to "circularize" the orbit. This "orbit insertion" process can take some time, and if the launch and insertion has all gone well, you will have 15 good years of service..... if all goes well!

 

The fuel used is called Hydrazine, rhymes with magazine. :)

Link to comment

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...