Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
SWPKO #7
14 views
Skip to first unread message
swp
Feb 7, 2014, 12:28:56 PM2/7/14
to
The contest is now (still) open to Pete, Dan Blum, Dan Tilque, Joshua Kreitzer, Mark Brader, and Erland Sommarskog.
***
#7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over Niagara Falls?
***
swp
***
#7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over Niagara Falls?
***
swp
Dan Blum
Feb 7, 2014, 1:48:20 PM2/7/14
to
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@panix.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
Erland Sommarskog
Feb 7, 2014, 2:10:59 PM2/7/14
to
swp (Stephen...@gmail.com) writes:
> ***
> #7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over
> Niagara Falls?
> ***
>
With no frigging idea, and everyone else living in the neighbourhood, I
> ***
> #7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over
> Niagara Falls?
> ***
>
need a lot of luck to not be eliminated.
25000
--
Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, esq...@sommarskog.se
Mark Brader
Feb 7, 2014, 3:31:02 PM2/7/14
to
Stephen Perry:
Hmm. There is a problem with this one too. The figure I remember
seeing is something like 210,000 ft^3/sec, which (since 10 ft = 3 m,
near enough) is 210*27 = 5,670 m^3/s.
But I think that's what the flow *would be* if 1/2 (summer daytime)
or 3/4 (other times) of it wasn't diverted for power generation, as
I mentioned in that old RQ recently. If "summer" is half the year,
"daytime" is half the day, and the river flows at the same rate in
"summer" and "winter", then this means the average flow rate actually
going over the falls is 1/2 * 1/4 + 1/4 * 3/4 = 5/16 of the natural
rate.
So I'll go with the Articles of Confederation answer
1777
and this time trust in Stephen to check out, if it matters, whether
his source -- unlike the Wikipedia article in the original round #6 --
is actually showing what it says it is.
--
Mark Brader | "For the stronger we our houses do build,
Toronto | The less chance we have of being killed."
m...@vex.net | -- William McGonagall, "The Tay Bridge Disaster"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> #7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over
> Niagara Falls?
Meters? Who are you and what have you done with Stephen Perry?
> Niagara Falls?
Hmm. There is a problem with this one too. The figure I remember
seeing is something like 210,000 ft^3/sec, which (since 10 ft = 3 m,
near enough) is 210*27 = 5,670 m^3/s.
But I think that's what the flow *would be* if 1/2 (summer daytime)
or 3/4 (other times) of it wasn't diverted for power generation, as
I mentioned in that old RQ recently. If "summer" is half the year,
"daytime" is half the day, and the river flows at the same rate in
"summer" and "winter", then this means the average flow rate actually
going over the falls is 1/2 * 1/4 + 1/4 * 3/4 = 5/16 of the natural
rate.
So I'll go with the Articles of Confederation answer
1777
and this time trust in Stephen to check out, if it matters, whether
his source -- unlike the Wikipedia article in the original round #6 --
is actually showing what it says it is.
--
Mark Brader | "For the stronger we our houses do build,
Toronto | The less chance we have of being killed."
m...@vex.net | -- William McGonagall, "The Tay Bridge Disaster"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Dan Blum
Feb 7, 2014, 4:34:05 PM2/7/14
to
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> Stephen Perry:
> > #7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over
> > Niagara Falls?
> Meters? Who are you and what have you done with Stephen Perry?
> Hmm. There is a problem with this one too. The figure I remember
> seeing is something like 210,000 ft^3/sec, which (since 10 ft = 3 m,
> near enough) is 210*27 = 5,670 m^3/s.
> But I think that's what the flow *would be* if 1/2 (summer daytime)
> or 3/4 (other times) of it wasn't diverted for power generation, as
> I mentioned in that old RQ recently. If "summer" is half the year,
> "daytime" is half the day, and the river flows at the same rate in
> "summer" and "winter", then this means the average flow rate actually
> going over the falls is 1/2 * 1/4 + 1/4 * 3/4 = 5/16 of the natural
> rate.
> So I'll go with the Articles of Confederation answer
> 1777
> and this time trust in Stephen to check out, if it matters, whether
> his source -- unlike the Wikipedia article in the original round #6 --
> is actually showing what it says it is.
The Wikipedia article in this case appears reasonably comprehensive,
> Stephen Perry:
> > #7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over
> > Niagara Falls?
> Meters? Who are you and what have you done with Stephen Perry?
> Hmm. There is a problem with this one too. The figure I remember
> seeing is something like 210,000 ft^3/sec, which (since 10 ft = 3 m,
> near enough) is 210*27 = 5,670 m^3/s.
> But I think that's what the flow *would be* if 1/2 (summer daytime)
> or 3/4 (other times) of it wasn't diverted for power generation, as
> I mentioned in that old RQ recently. If "summer" is half the year,
> "daytime" is half the day, and the river flows at the same rate in
> "summer" and "winter", then this means the average flow rate actually
> going over the falls is 1/2 * 1/4 + 1/4 * 3/4 = 5/16 of the natural
> rate.
> So I'll go with the Articles of Confederation answer
> 1777
> and this time trust in Stephen to check out, if it matters, whether
> his source -- unlike the Wikipedia article in the original round #6 --
> is actually showing what it says it is.
although I did not check it to make sure it was consistent. (I note
they claim that only 10% of the flow is used for power, but that the
rate is made lower at night for other reasons.)
swp
Feb 7, 2014, 9:02:19 PM2/7/14
to
would not try to deceive in any way on these questions.
also, I didn't use wikipedia for any of them. but I suspect that wikipedia used my sources when crafting their own articles.
swp
Pete
Feb 7, 2014, 9:30:08 PM2/7/14
to
Mark Brader
Feb 7, 2014, 10:23:53 PM2/7/14
to
Stephen Perry:
> also, I didn't use wikipedia for any of them.
Oh, good.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Here I sit, ego the size of a planet..."
m...@vex.net | --Steve Summit (after Douglas Adams)
> you're over thinking this. again. I did say in the original posting
> that I would not try to deceive in any way on these questions.
I didn't think you were *trying* to.
> that I would not try to deceive in any way on these questions.
> also, I didn't use wikipedia for any of them.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Here I sit, ego the size of a planet..."
m...@vex.net | --Steve Summit (after Douglas Adams)
Joshua Kreitzer
Feb 7, 2014, 10:37:19 PM2/7/14
to
Dan Tilque
Feb 8, 2014, 1:30:37 AM2/8/14
to
--
Dan Tilque
Helix, if everything goes according to plan, the plan has been
compromised. -- Sam Starfall in "Freefall"
swp
Feb 8, 2014, 11:48:12 AM2/8/14
to
On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:28:56 PM UTC-5, swp wrote:
>
> ***
> #7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over Niagara Falls?
> ***
My source for this question is: http://www.worldwaterfalldatabase.com/largest-waterfalls/volume/
>
> ***
> #7. What is the average annual flow rate, in m^3/sec, of water over Niagara Falls?
> ***
150 - Dan Tilque
1000 - Dan Blum
1000 - Joshua Kreitzer
1777 - Mark Brader
2407 - CORRECT ANSWER
20000 - Pete
25000 - Erland Sommarskog
Erland Sommarskog is eliminated, just as I was finally getting comfortable with spelling his name.
The contest is now open to Pete, Dan Blum, Dan Tilque, Joshua Kreitzer, and Mark Brader.
swp
swp
Feb 8, 2014, 11:51:41 AM2/8/14
to
Erland Sommarskog
Feb 9, 2014, 9:29:32 AM2/9/14
to
swp (Stephen...@gmail.com) writes:
> Erland Sommarskog is eliminated, just as I was finally getting
> comfortable with spelling his name.
What! My name is very easy to spell. Just like it sounds. :-) No artsy stuff
> Erland Sommarskog is eliminated, just as I was finally getting
> comfortable with spelling his name.
like ph or anything...
And I was really silly when I posted my answer. As I said, I know little
about Niagara, but I have been to the Iguazu falls, so it gave me some
idea, not the least of the water speed. And despite that I used 10 m/s
rather than 1 m/s. (I rode in a bode on top of the falls, and I was
surprised how calm the waters were up there.)
Anyway, it was a good thing I was ruled out. My gut reaction to the
Saturn questions was lower than Joshua's, and since was away from the
computer for 24 hours, I would have delayed the contest.
0 new messages