**FIRST EMAIL**/FRC Game Hint #2

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Then you would be, within the formal definition associated with the cited precision, incorrect.

Yeah, I am a stickler for details. But that is what details are for.

-dave

.

Interesting!
I do believe the formal citation, from memory is, 364.4 plus or minus one ear. The plus or minus was to indicate the uncertainty of the measurement.

So, if precision is what we are after, then the the original determination of the measurement was flawed and can not be used as a basis for a precise answer.
I must say, I agree about detail. May favorite expression regarding this subject is: " Success lies in the details".

[Spylake]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Maybe. But do you remember the length of the Harvard Bridge, measured in Smoots (without looking it up)?

-dave


.

364 sounds close, within an ear or two. Hmmmmm... I wonder if the metric equivalent is 342.242026 CentiSmoots

[Spylake]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Maybe. But do you remember the length of the Harvard Bridge, measured in Smoots (without looking it up)?


-dave

.

Speaking of measurement precision. Can we assume the number of significant digits in your hints are no accident?

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Yeah, I am a stickler for details. But that is what details are for.

-dave






.

I looked up the definition for stickler. I think Dave is playing with us again.
From the American Heritage Dictionary
Stickler:

1. One who insists on something unyieldingly
2. Something puzzling or difficult.

[GRST]

Originally Posted by Spylake

364 sounds close, within an ear or two. Hmmmmm... I wonder if the metric equivalent is 342.242026 CentiSmoots

Well, if a Smoot is about 5 feet 7 inches (or 1.7 meters), then you have a discrepancy of 22.2 (sig figs included) Smoots. That is, if the 342.242026 number is a length in Smoots. That's a difference of 37.7 meters, or 123 feet. Not quite an ear, unless we have an unclear definition of 'ear.'

But if there was some standardized metric form of Smoots, maybe we could come in closer.

[MiniNerd24]

Ok I write this quick.
1. What is a Smoot?
2. What Gerbil hint?
3. What if the game were 'Smoot Scoot'?
4. Too bad we can't ask someone from a Boston historical building about the square.
5. YES!!! Three more days!!! and we finally find out if our thoughts were right!!!

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Maybe. But do you remember the length of the Harvard Bridge, measured in Smoots (without looking it up)?
-dave
.

Originally Posted by Poster 1

side tracked topic.

Originally Posted by Poster 2

off tangent topic.

Originally Posted by Poster 3

side tracked discussion.

Originally Posted by Poster 4

sherlock holmes type deductions.

etc, etc, etc...

::sigh::

And this is why I believe in the Chaos Theory (AKA: Butterfly Effect).
But it should be renamed The Dave Effect in all fairness to the inspiration of this theory here in FIRSTworld.

Just as a butterfly's wings has the potential to cause a tornado halfway around the world, Dave's postings has potential to add at least 100 more pages to this evergrowing thread... and influence a Sherlock Holmes type mind-set to anyone who reads his posts.


Congratulations Dave.
You now have a Controlled(?) Chaos Theory named in your honor.

Anyone care to log onto the FIRST wiki site and write some entries on that topic any time soon??

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

... Congratulations Dave. You now have a Controlled(?) Chaos Theory named in your honor. ...

Dave does not control chaos. Dave inspires chaos. Inspiration is what FIRST is all about.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Richard

Dave does not control chaos. Dave inspires chaos. Inspiration is what FIRST is all about.

Ahh... I stand corrected, and will agree to that one... For sure.
Thanks!

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by billbo911

Interesting!
I do believe the formal citation, from memory is, 364.4 plus or minus one ear. The plus or minus was to indicate the uncertainty of the measurement.

So, if precision is what we are after, then the the original determination of the measurement was flawed and can not be used as a basis for a precise answer.
I must say, I agree about detail. May favorite expression regarding this subject is: " Success lies in the details".

The original measurement was given as "364.4 Smoots, plus or minus an ear." With this, we knew both the precision and the tolerance of the measurement. The original measurement was accurate, within the tolerance specified (noting that tolerance was determined by the equipment used for the original measurement - a unit of precisely one Smoot). The citation of "364.4 Smoots, minus an ear" would be incorrect, in that it implies a precision that does not actually exist. Furthermore, it fails to provide any indication of an acceptable tolerance (it is noted that it could be argued that the "minus an ear" phrase could be an indication of tolerance, but in that case it over-constrains the measurement by doubling the tolerance requirement - which I would find to be intolerable ).

Why do we care about whether Smoot's ear is added or subtracted from the length of the Harvard Bridge? Because both precision and tolerance are important concepts within the engineering world, and worth understanding. Their use (or lack thereof) enables us to clearly communicate when accuracy is critical, and when "close enough" is "good enough." And in the real world, that knowledge translates very quickly into dollars (saved or required).

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

etc, etc, etc...
::sigh:: ...

Who says they are off tangent or side-tracked? I find the discussion of centi-Smoots one of the more interesting ideas in this whole thread.

-dave




.

[Eric O]

Here is my stab at it. I think most people are correct in saying that the first 2 numbers are coordinates which take you to Copley Square. The last digit is actually an elevation. The question is in what units?

Well, I believe it is in Cubits. To make sense of it all, 342.242026 Royal Egyptian Cubits is about 587.391732 feet or about 58 stories. What is at an elevation of 58 stories in Copley Square? Well....this:

A mass damper system in the John Hancock Tower

Welcome back dynamic stabilization....

[JoeXIII'007]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Why do we care about whether Smoot's ear is added or subtracted from the length of the Harvard Bridge? Because both precision and tolerance are important concepts within the engineering world, and worth understanding. Their use (or lack thereof) enables us to clearly communicate when accuracy is critical, and when "close enough" is "good enough." And in the real world, that knowledge translates very quickly into dollars (saved or required).

...

Who says they are off tangent or side-tracked? I find the discussion of centi-Smoots one of the more interesting ideas in this whole thread.

-dave

I wonder what those game hint numbers translate to when using smoots... if anything...

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The original measurement was given as "364.4 Smoots, plus or minus an ear." With this, we knew both the precision and the tolerance of the measurement. The original measurement was accurate, within the tolerance specified (noting that tolerance was determined by the equipment used for the original measurement - a unit of precisely one Smoot). The citation of "364.4 Smoots, minus an ear" would be incorrect, in that it implies a precision that does not actually exist. Furthermore, it fails to provide any indication of an acceptable tolerance (it is noted that it could be argued that the "minus an ear" phrase could be an indication of tolerance, but in that case it over-constrains the measurement by doubling the tolerance requirement - which I would find to be intolerable ).

.

I see your point and must acknowledge, in fact, my equation was in error.

I had made an assumption, for which I must apologize, that the weather conditions on that October day in 1961 (class of 1962) would have been quite warm. You see, where I live on the west coast, October afternoons can easily be in the mid 80's to upper 90's. I chose to use the "Smoot = (1/(364.4-ear))*(Harvard Bridge length)" equation assuming there would have been quite a bit of expansion of the bridge due to the temperature. Not knowing along which axis the ear was measured, I assumed,(there I go again), it's length. Approximating a 5' 7" tall man's ear to be 2.25", I figured this would be close enough to account for the assumed expansion. I then subtracted this amount, incorrectly I might add, to account for the assumed expansion. When in fact, instead of subtracting it from the divisor, it should have been subtracted from the product to yield a length that had been corrected for temperature. In other words, if my assumption was correct, the equation should have been Smoot = ((1/364.4)*(Harvard Bridge length)) - ear.

Now, based on your need for accuracy and tolerance, the equation would be:
Smoot = (1/(364.4 +/- ear))*(Harvard Bridge length), correct?

There, have I smeared enough mud on this to cover my error???

[Cactus_Robotics]

I Havent Been Really Keeping Up on Here & Dont Want To Go Through 40+ Pages But... Has anyone Mentioned, Copley Square is near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. If the lat/lon is of a statue there, maybe the 3rd number is the heading that points from the statue to the finish line?

MIT was also founded here, prior to moving to Cambridge.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by billbo911

I see your point and must acknowledge, in fact, my equation was in error.

I had made an assumption, for which I must apologize, that the weather conditions on that October day in 1961 (class of 1962) would have been quite warm. You see, where I live on the west coast, October afternoons can easily be in the mid 80's to upper 90's. I chose to use the "Smoot = (1/(364.4-ear))*(Harvard Bridge length)" equation assuming there would have been quite a bit of expansion of the bridge due to the temperature. Not knowing along which axis the ear was measured, I assumed,(there I go again), it's length. Approximating a 5' 7" tall man's ear to be 2.25", I figured this would be close enough to account for the assumed expansion. I then subtracted this amount, incorrectly I might add, to account for the assumed expansion. When in fact, instead of subtracting it from the divisor, it should have been subtracted from the product to yield a length that had been corrected for temperature. In other words, if my assumption was correct, the equation should have been Smoot = ((1/364.4)*(Harvard Bridge length)) - ear.

Now, based on your need for accuracy and tolerance, the equation would be:
Smoot = (1/(364.4 +/- ear))*(Harvard Bridge length), correct?

Ahhh, I think we may have identified the source of the confusion. You had assumed that the length of "an ear" in the original measurement was a 2.25 inches, the size of a five-foot-seven-inch-tall man's ear. However, in this particular case, the original lore reveals that the "ear" is allegedly the width of the ear hole in the football helmet that Smoot was while lying prone upon the bridge. So, an approximation of 1.0-1.5 inches may be more correct. This interpretation may be further supported when considering the effects of the local weather at the time the measurement was made. A football helmet would be a suitable form of protection against inclement weather during such an excursion, and makes for a plausible rationale for the difference in the tolerance coefficient.

There, have I smeared enough mud on this to cover my error???

I dunno about mud, but we have both smeared a lot of SOMETHING on this topic!

-dave


.