How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".


Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

On Apr 18, 11:48*am, jeff_wisnia
wrote:
How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".

Jeff

About 10 seconds.

jsw

On Apr 18, 12:09*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:48*am, jeff_wisnia
wrote:

How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".

Jeff

About 10 seconds.

jsw

, I must be only half as smart as Jeff, 20 seconds.

CarlBoyd

Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Apr 18, 11:48 am, jeff_wisnia
wrote:

How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".

Jeff


About 10 seconds.

jsw

Jim, I see we have a common middle initial. My middle name is Arnold. I
never thought to ask why my folks picked that name but even though it
would "fit" I'm just as happy that they didn't choose Edward or Ethan. G

Jeff (Happy Passover to those celebrating it.)

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

jeff_wisnia fired this volley in
:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com fired this volley in
.70:

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

oops! I thought it was an old puzzler! (urk!)

LLoyd

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Apr 18, 11:48Â*am, jeff_wisnia
wrote:
How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".


About 10 seconds.

I don't know the answer. I'm almost certain they misspelled "canary",
though.

--
If only he'd wash his neck, I'd wring it.
-- John Sparrow

On Apr 18, 12:29*pm, jeff_wisnia
wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:48 am, jeff_wisnia
wrote:

How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".

Jeff

About 10 seconds.

jsw

Jim, I see we have a common middle initial. My middle name is Arnold. I
never thought to ask why my folks picked that name but even though it
would "fit" I'm just as happy that they didn't choose Edward or Ethan. G

Jeff (Happy Passover to those celebrating it.)

--
Jeffry Wisnia

Mine did pick Edward, though I never suffered for it in school. The S
is Edward's last name, so I had a good excuse, my grandfather's name
sandwiched into my father's.

jesw

In article , jeff_wisnia wrote:

How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".

Less than five seconds.

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

Oh hell...

I was going to get out an ancient electrical engineering
book that was full of wire droop formulas to figure it out...

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jeff_wisnia fired this volley in
:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

I want my money back.

Jon

jeff_wisnia wrote:

How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".


Jeff

About 20 seconds.

--
Steve W.

Jim Stewart wrote:

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

Oh hell...

I was going to get out an ancient electrical engineering
book that was full of wire droop formulas to figure it out...

I looked up "cantenary" (note spelling) and Wiki had the formula;
I was all set to write a program that would try test values in the
formula until I zeroed in on one that gave the answer. I wonder
if in this case it would converge? I guess I now have one more
useless thing to waste my ample "spare time" on. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote:
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

Oh hell...

I was going to get out an ancient electrical engineering
book that was full of wire droop formulas to figure it out...

I looked up "cantenary" (note spelling) and Wiki had the formula;
^^^^^^^^^ -- OOOPPPS!!!!!!!!!
I was all set to write a program that would try test values in the
formula until I zeroed in on one that gave the answer. I wonder
if in this case it would converge? I guess I now have one more
useless thing to waste my ample "spare time" on. ;-)

"Catenary," of course.

Cheers!
Rich

Bother. You're smarter than I. I was going to get out a
calculator, and start doing arcs and cosines.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote
in message
.70...

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be
exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

LLoyd

jeff_wisnia wrote:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".

It took me about a minute. I was thinking of looking up how hyperbolic trig functions
work and the equations for determining aspects of a catenary then I got it.

Wes

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

jeff_wisnia fired this volley in
m:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

LLoyd

You were not supposed to tell the answer!

Wes

"Rich Grise" wrote in
message ...
Rich Grise wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote:
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

fired this volley in
:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The
poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to
reach down 75'.

Oh hell...

I was going to get out an ancient electrical
engineering
book that was full of wire droop formulas to
figure it out...

I looked up "cantenary" (note spelling) and
Wiki had the formula;
^^^^^^^^^ -- OOOPPPS!!!!!!!!!
I was all set to write a program that would try
test values in the
formula until I zeroed in on one that gave the
answer. I wonder
if in this case it would converge? I guess I
now have one more
useless thing to waste my ample "spare time"
on. ;-)

"Catenary," of course.

Cheers!
Rich

Correction posted, _just_ in the nick of time! heh
heh .... ;)}

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote:

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

Oh hell...

I was going to get out an ancient electrical engineering
book that was full of wire droop formulas to figure it out...

I looked up "cantenary" (note spelling) and Wiki had the formula;

"Catenary" (note spelling)

Wes fired this volley in news:Yl3rp.46111
:

You were not supposed to tell the answer!

I already apologized! I thought it was an old puzzler. I worked this
weekend!
(sorry)

LLoyd

"Jon Danniken" wrote in message ...

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jeff_wisnia fired this volley in
:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

In this case, there is no "higher math". The poles must be exactly
touching for half of a 150' long rope to reach down 75'.

I want my money back.

Jon

Reply: Actually 2x the thickness of the rope. Touching, the rope could not
loop between them.

"Califbill" fired this volley in
m:

Reply: Actually 2x the thickness of the rope. Touching, the rope
could not loop between them.

Actually touching. Any thickness to the rope would prevent the bottom of
the catenary from being 75' down. It has to be a one-dimensional rope -
length only, no thickness.

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in message
. 3.70...

"Califbill" fired this volley in
m:

Reply: Actually 2x the thickness of the rope. Touching, the rope
could not loop between them.

Actually touching. Any thickness to the rope would prevent the bottom of
the catenary from being 75' down. It has to be a one-dimensional rope -
length only, no thickness.

LLoyd
Touching, could not have a loop between.

"Califbill" wrote in message
...
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in message
. 3.70...

"Califbill" fired this volley in
m:

Reply: Actually 2x the thickness of the rope. Touching, the rope
could not loop between them.

Actually touching. Any thickness to the rope would prevent the bottom of
the catenary from being 75' down. It has to be a one-dimensional rope -
length only, no thickness.

LLoyd
Touching, could not have a loop between.

I over-thought this one. Any real rope is going to have a curve at the
bottom, where the direction reverses, so it will never be quite 75' down.

However, then I realized that if the problem were that tricky, there is no
way that any distance between poles would allow the rope to reach a point
75' down. So I gave up. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
"Califbill" fired this volley in

Reply: Actually 2x the thickness of the rope. Touching, the rope
could not loop between them.

Actually touching. Any thickness to the rope would prevent the bottom of
the catenary from being 75' down. It has to be a one-dimensional rope -
length only, no thickness.

Those are the ones they use to tie up the spherical cows, right? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

I must be doing things wrong I can do this with one utility pole.

"Califbill" fired this volley in news:O-
:

Touching, could not have a loop between.

You don't get it. It's a one-dimensional "rope" It has _zero_ thickness,
so it will fit in a space of zero dimension wide.

Think two line segments, infinitely close together, and still intersecting
at the bottom.

Lloyd

Rich Grise fired this volley in news:iokfs0$n4t
:

Those are the ones they use to tie up the spherical cows, right? ;-)

Yup, and to wrap inverted torii.

LLoyd

Califbill wrote:
Actually touching. Any thickness to the rope would prevent the
bottom of the catenary from being 75' down. It has to be a
one-dimensional rope - length only, no thickness.

75 feet implies a level of precision which generously allows for a
reasonable thickness of rope - real world, 3D rope - to achieve the
specified results.

Jon

"Jon Danniken" fired this volley in
:

75 feet implies a level of precision which generously allows for a
reasonable thickness of rope - real world, 3D rope - to achieve the
specified results.


Where the heck do you figure that? A line segment can be _exactly_ any
length you wish it to be, and can be topograpically "folded" to represent
two line segments of _exactly_ half the original length... AND the two
folded sections can be infinitely close together, and still not violate any
geometric rules.

LLoyd

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:48:18 -0400, jeff_wisnia
wrote:


How many of you are good enough at high powered math to solve this
week's puzzzler?

It only took me about 10 minutes. G

Here 'tis:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzl...116/index.html

Don't reply with the answer, just tell me how long it took YOU to "get it".


Jeff


I figured the parabola equation was needed and couldn't figure on how
to plot it in the real world to make trough parabolic mirrors years
ago. I assumed the hanging chain was a parabola. Thinking back, I
wonder if that was the reason that the mirror was off a bit. I tryed
to fix it while testing the curve with a plumb bob and sighting down
the string, but started exponentially getting further off so I went
back to the original.

Things that make ya go hmmm.

SW

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in message
. 3.70...

"Califbill" fired this volley in news:O-
:

Touching, could not have a loop between.

You don't get it. It's a one-dimensional "rope" It has _zero_ thickness,
so it will fit in a space of zero dimension wide.

Think two line segments, infinitely close together, and still intersecting
at the bottom.

Lloyd


Reply:
If it is zero dimension between the poles then the stated question is not
answered. Said two (2) (pair) poles.

"Jon Danniken" wrote in message ...

Califbill wrote:
Actually touching. Any thickness to the rope would prevent the
bottom of the catenary from being 75' down. It has to be a
one-dimensional rope - length only, no thickness.

75 feet implies a level of precision which generously allows for a
reasonable thickness of rope - real world, 3D rope - to achieve the
specified results.

Jon

Reply:
Not me that you quoted.

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in message
. 3.70...

"Jon Danniken" fired this volley in
:

75 feet implies a level of precision which generously allows for a
reasonable thickness of rope - real world, 3D rope - to achieve the
specified results.


Where the heck do you figure that? A line segment can be _exactly_ any
length you wish it to be, and can be topograpically "folded" to represent
two line segments of _exactly_ half the original length... AND the two
folded sections can be infinitely close together, and still not violate any
geometric rules.

LLoyd


Reply:
150' of rope is +- 12" 149.5 to 150.4.

"Califbill" fired this volley in
m:

Reply:
If it is zero dimension between the poles then the stated question is
not answered. Said two (2) (pair) poles.

You aren't dealing with the reality that two "perfect" poles of any
dimension you wish to name (length, diameter) can be positioned zero
distance apart.

You wish to name your own rules for geometry. The basic ones apply,
nonetheless.

LLoyd

"Califbill" fired this volley in
:

Reply:
150' of rope is +- 12" 149.5 to 150.4.

So, you're assuming that the author of the puzzle stipulated a
"tolerance"

Such a tolerance was not called out. In absence of one, 150' means one-
hundred-fifty feet -- NOT +- a foot.

Tolerances cut both ways. If you name one, you must use sufficient
precision to make sure your specs are met. In the absense of one, all
measurements are _exact_.

LLoyd

"Califbill" fired this volley in
:


Besides, that is a stupidly (yes, stupidly) applied idea, that you can
"pervert" the conditions of a mental puzzle, simply because you wish to do
so. The conditions named are the conditions you must deal with. If you
can't think to that "level of precision", then get out of the way of people
who can.

Gawd!

LLoyd

Califbill wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in message
. 3.70...

"Jon Danniken" fired this
volley in :

75 feet implies a level of precision which generously allows for a
reasonable thickness of rope - real world, 3D rope - to achieve the
specified results.


Where the heck do you figure that? A line segment can be _exactly_
any length you wish it to be, and can be topograpically "folded" to
represent two line segments of _exactly_ half the original length...
AND the two folded sections can be infinitely close together, and
still not violate any geometric rules.

LLoyd


Reply:
150' of rope is +- 12" 149.5 to 150.4.

Correct, although in practice a length of rope 150 feet long is usually
understood to be a little on the long side. Additionally, given that a
length of rope 150 feet long is going to stretch a bit when hanging by its
own weight, the poles need not be touching.

Jon

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

You were not supposed to tell the answer!

I already apologized! I thought it was an old puzzler. I worked this
weekend!
(sorry)

So did I and now they want me to work the Easter holiday and this is our slow time.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in message
. 3.70...

"Califbill" fired this volley in
:

Reply:
150' of rope is +- 12" 149.5 to 150.4.

So, you're assuming that the author of the puzzle stipulated a
"tolerance"

Such a tolerance was not called out. In absence of one, 150' means one-
hundred-fifty feet -- NOT +- a foot.

Tolerances cut both ways. If you name one, you must use sufficient
precision to make sure your specs are met. In the absense of one, all
measurements are _exact_.

LLoyd


Reply:
Implied by the lack of a decimal point. Go look up 'precision' in math.