Science of the Bleedin' Obvious
Neil Pugh
'Science of the Bleedin' Obvious'. I thought I should share this one
with you:
"In an announcement that will rock the world of hiking and hill-walking,
it has been revealed that heading in a straight line up the side of a
mountain is not the best thing to do."
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/eart
h/2008/03/08/sciobvious108.xml>
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
http://www.blacknail.org.uk/
The online organ of the Black Nail Fellwalking and Climbing Club
Gordon H
>The 'Telegraphs' science section has an occasional report on the
>'Science of the Bleedin' Obvious'. I thought I should share this one
>with you:
>
>"In an announcement that will rock the world of hiking and
>hill-walking, it has been revealed that heading in a straight line up
>the side of a mountain is not the best thing to do."
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/eart
>h/2008/03/08/sciobvious108.xml>
>
>Regards,
ROTFL!
I heard or saw something about that last week on either radio or TV.
Obviously scientists do not indulge in hill walking.
--
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)
dino
> The 'Telegraphs' science section has an occasional report on the
> 'Science of the Bleedin' Obvious'. I thought I should share this one
> with you:
>
> "In an announcement that will rock the world of hiking and hill-walking,
> it has been revealed that heading in a straight line up the side of a
> mountain is not the best thing to do."
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/eart
> h/2008/03/08/sciobvious108.xml>
Link breaks for me across two lines. This one works for anyone
experiencing the same:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xg23x
Good article too :)
Neil Pugh
<nom...@nomail.com> writes
>
>Link breaks for me across two lines. This one works for anyone
>experiencing the same:
>
In theory the two angled brackets should hold it together.
Did you click the original post or the follow-up?
If the former we need a new theory!
dino
> In message <63iko4F...@mid.individual.net>, dino
> <nom...@nomail.com> writes
>>
>> Link breaks for me across two lines. This one works for anyone
>> experiencing the same:
>>
>
> In theory the two angled brackets should hold it together.
>
> Did you click the original post or the follow-up?
>
> If the former we need a new theory!
Clicked the original but I'm using Thunderbird and it could be the way
either it or your own NG reader wraps lines.
Graculus
news:GZwdWmCW...@plus.com...
> The 'Telegraphs' science section has an occasional report on the 'Science
> of the Bleedin' Obvious'. I thought I should share this one with you:
>
> "In an announcement that will rock the world of hiking and hill-walking,
> it has been revealed that heading in a straight line up the side of a
> mountain is not the best thing to do."
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/eart
> h/2008/03/08/sciobvious108.xml>
>
utterly pointless research projects.
Bill Grey
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>The 'Telegraphs' science section has an occasional report on the
>'Science of the Bleedin' Obvious'. I thought I should share this one
>with you:
>
>"In an announcement that will rock the world of hiking and
>hill-walking, it has been revealed that heading in a straight line up
>the side of a mountain is not the best thing to do."
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/eart
>h/2008/03/08/sciobvious108.xml>
>
>Regards,
Ah! Now I can see where I've been going wrong (duh)
He must be right he's a professor.
What's the best way to come down a hill though?
--
Bill Grey
mi...@askme.co.uk
wrote:
>The 'Telegraphs' science section has an occasional report on the
>'Science of the Bleedin' Obvious'. I thought I should share this one
>with you:
>
>"In an announcement that will rock the world of hiking and hill-walking,
>it has been revealed that heading in a straight line up the side of a
>mountain is not the best thing to do."
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/eart
>h/2008/03/08/sciobvious108.xml>
>
>Regards,
They missed out the obvious deeper bit of research into the subject
... is it best to start with a zig .. or start with a zag?
I think it depends on which is the stronger leg of the walker.
Gordon H
Sit down on a grassy slope, pull the tails of your cagoule up between
your legs, lean back and slide down.
That's how we got down from Cat Sty Cam(SP?) after doing Striding Edge.
Watch out for rocks!
Roger
from Bill Grey <w...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> He must be right he's a professor.
He is a Merkin professor though and the Merkins are much more generous
with that title than UK universities. And he must be more than a little
dim if he thinks zig-zaging is a complicated motion.
--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.
Slark
I thought what they'd done is develop a mathematical model of the 'zig-zag'
approach to climbing hills?
That seems to me to quite useful - in 3d simulations for example.
Graham
robert
at certain power levels (and probably stride length and rate)therefore
when climbing hills one should stay within this efficient band by
controlling the rate of ascent ie zigzagging. QED !
Tom Crispin
Not at all.
In the southern hemisphere it's best to start with a zag, whereas in
the northern hemisphere it's best to start with a zig. The advantage
is most noticable nearer the poles. At the equator (or on a line
between the tropics depending on the time of year - if you want to be
pedantic) it makes little or no difference.
It's all to do with the Earth's rotation.
Chris Malcolm
> The message <tN07csDHxD1HFwa$@graigroad.demon.co.uk>
> from Bill Grey <w...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>> He must be right he's a professor.
> He is a Merkin professor though and the Merkins are much more generous
> with that title than UK universities. And he must be more than a little
> dim if he thinks zig-zaging is a complicated motion.
He knows that everyone knows that zigzagging is easier. The question
is whether it is only easier because of the kind of legs and feet
we've got, or whether in addition it is also more efficient in the
sense of using less energy. He has shown that it uses less energy in
total.
What it seems was not so bleeding obvious was what he actually
discovered :-)
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Chris Malcolm
No, more that that, what he claims to have shown is that in addition
to it being easier to stay within your efficient stride etc., it is in
addition more efficient in terms of the total energy expended in
getting up the hill, i.e. you gain more by the increase of efficiency
in each step than you lose by travelling a longer distance in total.
PeterC
zag-zigs?
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.
PeterC
>>I think it depends on which is the stronger leg of the walker.
>
> Not at all.
>
> In the southern hemisphere it's best to start with a zag, whereas in
> the northern hemisphere it's best to start with a zig. The advantage
> is most noticable nearer the poles. At the equator (or on a line
> between the tropics depending on the time of year - if you want to be
> pedantic) it makes little or no difference.
>
> It's all to do with the Earth's rotation.
First used in the 19th.C by that well-known hill-walker,
Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis.
Bob Mannix
news:ejzkevbjjeeq$.14jgodlw0tw6t.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:36:39 +0000, Bill Grey wrote:
>
>> In message <GZwdWmCW...@plus.com>, Neil Pugh
>> <ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>The 'Telegraphs' science section has an occasional report on the
>>>'Science of the Bleedin' Obvious'. I thought I should share this one
>>>with you:
>>>
>>>"In an announcement that will rock the world of hiking and
>>>hill-walking, it has been revealed that heading in a straight line up
>>>the side of a mountain is not the best thing to do."
>>>
>>><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/eart
>>>h/2008/03/08/sciobvious108.xml>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>
>> Ah! Now I can see where I've been going wrong (duh)
>>
>> He must be right he's a professor.
>>
>> What's the best way to come down a hill though?
>
> zag-zigs?
Solely in terms of efficiency - fall
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
robert
>> All they seem to have done is show that the human body is most efficient
>> at certain power levels (and probably stride length and rate)therefore
>> when climbing hills one should stay within this efficient band by
>> controlling the rate of ascent ie zigzagging. QED !
>
> No, more that that, what he claims to have shown is that in addition
> to it being easier to stay within your efficient stride etc., it is in
> addition more efficient in terms of the total energy expended in
> getting up the hill, i.e. you gain more by the increase of efficiency
> in each step than you lose by travelling a longer distance in total.
>
I never trust newspapers to report the finding of research papers
accurately - they select the most newsworthy bits and often ignore the
most important bits - reading the original paper in full is well
worthwhile if you can bujt can be difficult.
Roger
from Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> contains these words:
> > He is a Merkin professor though and the Merkins are much more generous
> > with that title than UK universities. And he must be more than a little
> > dim if he thinks zigzagging is a complicated motion.
> He knows that everyone knows that zigzagging is easier. The question
> is whether it is only easier because of the kind of legs and feet
> we've got, or whether in addition it is also more efficient in the
> sense of using less energy. He has shown that it uses less energy in
> total.
You are drawing a completely artificial distinction between 'easier' and
'using less energy'
I suspect that the nature of the terrain matters as well and there will
be situations where zigzagging is the better option only because someone
has taken the trouble to clear a path. Rhythm is important in walking
and if you can't maintain a rhythm on the diagonal you might be better
off taking really small steps and tackle the slope head-on.
> What it seems was not so bleeding obvious was what he actually
> discovered :-)
"People recognize that zigzagging, or switchbacks, help," says Professor
Llobera of the University of Washington, "but they don't realise why
they came about."
They came about because it is easier that way.
But to be fair to Llobera he is also quoted as saying:
"I think zigzagging is something people do intuitively,"
The person who wrote the piece for The Telegraph is an ignoramus. There
is a more measured piece* to be found at Timesonline which indicates
Llobera's field is anthropology and he collaborated with "Tim Sluckin,
Professor of Applied Mathematical Physics at the University of
Southampton". Sluckin being an English professor will be a good deal
more elevated in his field than Assistant Professor Llobera.
*Although 'walking 20 times as far' seems to be a ridiculous over
estimate unless it is to get round a hill rather than to go over it.
To take a practical example suppose you really brave and are on a 45
degree slope which you wish to meander up at a slope of 1 in 10. At that
slope you gain 100 feet in height by walking 1000 feet. The alternative
straight up the slope is 100 feet if only the horizontal component is
considered (as it should be).
1 in 20 is almost imperceptible. 1 in 10 is still a gentle slope and I
suspect I wouldn't bother to zigzag even on a 1 in 5 but having been
unable to track down the actual study referred to I don't know what the
optimum was found to be (if there is just one optimum value which
probably isn't the case).
Peter Clinch
> He knows that everyone knows that zigzagging is easier.
Not everyone.
Coming out of the Grand Canyon some years ago up the switchbacks of the
Bright Angel Trail, my companion (working as a ranger, but off duty at
the time) asked a couple of guys taking "short cuts" to desist as it
caused excessive erosion. They were dickheads, and carried on, saying
"but it works!"
We beat them to the top very easily though we weren't in any hurry (it's
not a good place to hurry...). We decided we'd go and get some ice
creams, wander back to the top and be eating them as they topped out
while pointing out how well their strategy had worked. We finished our
ice creams and got bored of waiting for them to finish, but we could
still make them out, quite a way down, still persisting with their
"short cuts".
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Broadback
anyway. Any decent sailor will tell you it is a curve.
Bob Mannix
news:63kphdF...@mid.individual.net...
Any decent numerate person will tell you the shortest distance between two
points is always a straight line :o) - the shortest route may not be. The
problem, from the sailor's perspective, is that the earth (or sea in their
case) gets in the way. Thus the shortest distance to travel would always be
a curve (due to the actual earth's curvature, heading "straight" for the
other point) or a double curve (depending on where one is on the globe) -
the curve due to the earth's curvature and another formed by taking a "great
circle" route. Hardly an issue climbing a hill though!
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person Broadback <w...@towill.plus.com> said
<snip>
>The shortest distance between 2 point is not always a straight line
>anyway. Any decent sailor will tell you it is a curve.
Nope, that's just the shortest distance navigable =in his vessel=. A
tunneller would go for the straight line.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
11,020 Km walked. 2,118 Km PROWs surveyed. 38.3% complete.
Theo
"Bob Mannix" <b1o...@mannix.org.uk> schreef in bericht
news:fr3e28$409$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
Sailors also use zigzags !
--
"Beannachd leibh"
Theo
Hillwalkers tend to zagzig coming off Beinn Pubh and sometimes they fall.
Very efficient in terms of use of energy ;-)
Peter Clinch
> Sailors also use zigzags !
Not if it's a beam reach, a following wind or something between straight
to where they're going they don't...
Bill Grey
<stopspamnow@anycosts.?.invalid> writes
>> Any decent numerate person will tell you the shortest distance between two
>> points is always a straight line :o) - the shortest route may not be. The
>> problem, from the sailor's perspective, is that the earth (or sea in their
>> case) gets in the way. Thus the shortest distance to travel would always
>> be a curve (due to the actual earth's curvature, heading "straight" for
>> the other point) or a double curve (depending on where one is on the
>> globe) - the curve due to the earth's curvature and another formed by
>> taking a "great circle" route. Hardly an issue climbing a hill though!
>
>Sailors also use zigzags !
I know they "Tack" but I've never heard of "Tick" :-)
--
Bill Grey
Bill Grey
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>Theo wrote:
>
>> Sailors also use zigzags !
>
>Not if it's a beam reach, a following wind or something between straight
>to where they're going they don't...
>
>Pete.
"Mast"you have the last word?....:-)
--
Bill Grey
Peter Clinch
Sounds like you're having a gybe at me... ;-)
PeterC
They use tactics.
Gordon H
>
>The shortest distance between 2 point is not always a straight line
>anyway. Any decent sailor will tell you it is a curve.
I'm think our geometry teacher always used the term "curve" for any line
between two points.
The straight line is just a special kind of curve.
;-)
Gordon H
>Bill Grey wrote:
>> In message <63mrttF...@mid.individual.net>, Peter Clinch
>> <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>>> Theo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sailors also use zigzags !
>>>
>>> Not if it's a beam reach, a following wind or something between straight
>>> to where they're going they don't...
>>>
>>> Pete.
>>
>> "Mast"you have the last word?....:-)
>
>Sounds like you're having a gybe at me... ;-)
>
>Pete.
Boom-Boom!
Mark T
> Clicked the original but I'm using Thunderbird and it could be the way
> either it or your own NG reader wraps lines.
I think there's a line break in there. If this works we can keep the
theory:
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?
view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/03/08/sciobvious108.xml>
Neil
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
writes
Works for me, but so does the original (and the first follow-up).
There shouldn't be a line break in there; maybe some newsreaders insert
them? The raw message text doesn't seem to be showing a break on my
newsreader.
For what it's worth the original was posted using Turnpike, which is
usually pretty well behaved when it comes to abiding by email and
newsgroup standards.
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
ces
from Neil Pugh <ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> >Link breaks for me across two lines. This one works for anyone
> >experiencing the same:
If a link looks likely to do that I paste it into notepad, delete the
CR, then select all & copy (then paste into Firefox)!
It can be done, even without the zig zag.
Richard
Gordon H
johnhee
But then I had a bit of a ponder and came up with some further
references on it
And an associated thought if it helps anyone out in NG land?
http://walkaboutuk.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-walk-uphill.html
Bill Grey
<giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> writes
Excellent :-)
--
Bill Grey
Bill Grey
>Bill Grey wrote:
>> In message <63mrttF...@mid.individual.net>, Peter Clinch
>> <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>>> Theo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sailors also use zigzags !
>>>
>>> Not if it's a beam reach, a following wind or something between straight
>>> to where they're going they don't...
>>>
>>> Pete.
>>
>> "Mast"you have the last word?....:-)
>
>Sounds like you're having a gybe at me... ;-)
>
>Pete.
I give in I'm "pooped"..:-)
--
Bill Grey
Theo
"Bill Grey" <w...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:Hhax3LF$yu1H...@graigroad.demon.co.uk...
I know there's a rumour about all Dutch knowing how to sail but I know
NOTHING about sailing so, alas, I understand jack s... of what you're saying
(but I understand you are having fun, that's good :-)
Roger
<5a78afcb-6adc-42d5...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
from johnhee <johnh...@yahoo.co.uk> contains these words:
> http://walkaboutuk.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-walk-uphill.html
Hmm.
Anyone who has listened to my advice over the years will know that I
always stress among other things the importance of rhythm and the need
to set a pace slow enough never to need to stop for a rest. Trouble is I
don't think anyone ever listens to my advice, far less takes it. :-(
Phil Cook
Any more of this and we'll have to deck somebody....
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Phil Cook
>The message
><5a78afcb-6adc-42d5...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
>from johnhee <johnh...@yahoo.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> Well it gave me a snigger.
>> But then I had a bit of a ponder and came up with some further
>> references on it
>
>> And an associated thought if it helps anyone out in NG land?
>
>> http://walkaboutuk.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-walk-uphill.html
>
>Hmm.
>
>Anyone who has listened to my advice over the years will know that I
>always stress among other things the importance of rhythm and the need
>to set a pace slow enough never to need to stop for a rest. Trouble is I
>don't think anyone ever listens to my advice, far less takes it. :-(
Just how am I supposed to spot a good photo oportunity if I never stop
"to look at the view" ?
Roger
from Phil Cook <ph...@therewaslight.co.uk> contains these words:
> >Anyone who has listened to my advice over the years will know that I
> >always stress among other things the importance of rhythm and the need
> >to set a pace slow enough never to need to stop for a rest. Trouble is I
> >don't think anyone ever listens to my advice, far less takes it. :-(
> Just how am I supposed to spot a good photo oportunity if I never stop
> "to look at the view" ?
'Never need' allows for the possibility that you could stop if you wanted to.
Peter Clinch
/A vast/ amount of bad puns (actually, that's a tautology...) on a
nautical theme, deary me.
Paul Rooney
> Roger <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > The message <tN07csDHxD1HF...@graigroad.demon.co.uk>
> > from Bill Grey <w...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> >> He must be right he's a professor.
> > with that title than UK universities. And he must be more than a little
> > dim if he thinks zig-zaging is a complicated motion.
>
> He knows that everyone knows that zigzagging is easier. The question
> is whether it is only easier because of the kind of legs and feet
> we've got, or whether in addition it is also more efficient in the
> sense of using less energy. He has shown that it uses less energy in
> total.
>
> What it seems was not so bleeding obvious was what he actually
> discovered :-)
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
We've had similar discussions before, in the context of running v.
walking a given distance. But we all know that doing something too
strenuous knackers us, and is less efficient than doing it in a less
strenuous fashion. Bit like driving and mpg really. Very fit people
can and do go straight uphill. I zig-zag. But I go straight down, very
fast, topography permitting. Otoh, some of my younger friends can go
straight up but have to zig-zag down, or crawl at snail's pace with
poles, on the downhill stretch. A reckon a few million quid could
easily be spent by scientists 'researching' this one.
Paul Rooney
> robert wrote:
>
> >>> All they seem to have done is show that the human body is most
> >>> efficient at certain power levels (and probably stride length and
> >>> rate)therefore when climbing hills one should stay within this
> >>> efficient band by controlling the rate of ascent ie zigzagging. QED !
>
> >> No, more that that, what he claims to have shown is that in addition
> >> to it being easier to stay within your efficient stride etc., it is in
> >> addition more efficient in terms of the total energy expended in
> >> getting up the hill, i.e. you gain more by the increase of efficiency
> >> in each step than you lose by travelling a longer distance in total.
>
> > I never trust newspapers to report the finding of research papers
> > accurately - they select the most newsworthy bits and often ignore the
> > most important bits - reading the original paper in full is well
> > worthwhile if you can bujt can be difficult.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's a straight line when viewed from above.
Paul Rooney
Your geometry teacher was clearly a closet socialist, subverting the
youth of the day by propagating such outlandish ideas.
Gordon Brown should include compulsory study of Euclid in his drive
for Britishness.
It's no coincidence that the Empire fell apart during the same time
that teachers forgot such basics as grammar, log tables, bunsen
burners and severe canings.
Simon Challands
Roger <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message
> <5a78afcb-6adc-42d5...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> from johnhee <johnh...@yahoo.co.uk> contains these words:
>> Well it gave me a snigger.
>> But then I had a bit of a ponder and came up with some further
>> references on it
>> And an associated thought if it helps anyone out in NG land?
>> http://walkaboutuk.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-walk-uphill.html
> Hmm.
> Anyone who has listened to my advice over the years will know that I
> always stress among other things the importance of rhythm and the need
> to set a pace slow enough never to need to stop for a rest. Trouble is I
> don't think anyone ever listens to my advice, far less takes it. :-(
My problem is that a comfortable pace for me is too fast to never need
to stop for a rest. If I go slower I don't get into a rhythm. Mind
you, I'm unfit enough that I always need to stop for rests on steepish
ground no matter how slow I go.
--
Simon Challands