The Question
Adam asks:
Who decided it was a good idea, in baseball, to denote portions of innings pitched as “.1″ and “.2″? Some broadcasts use the proper notation of 1/3 and 2/3 innings pitched, but some—sometimes both are used on the same game!—use the mixed up .1 and .2. What’s a tenth of an inning anyway? Clearly one out is one third of an inning pitched.
The Answer
This is an interesting question. Researching the answer was difficult - yet, an answer, there is. (says Yoda).
Here’s the deal. Basically, when you see something like “3.2″ in the inning measurement system, it is in BASE 3 to the right of the decimal point, and BASE 10 to the left. Since the innings are measured in thirds (as you point out), the base for a percentage of an inning measurement is 3. Hence, “3.1″ really means “3 1/3″.
Who thought of this? Someone constrained by their technology, someone who just could display fractions on their television set, someone like you and me, Adam. Technology advances, so this nomenclature is no longer “required” by the properties of the display, but, like a bad penny, it keeps turning up. When you see both types of measurement in the same game, that’s when you know that not all displays are running on the same software, or that you’ve got someone running one of the displays who subscribes to the “old school” measurement.
The Question
Shaun McQuaid, who is never afraid, don’t be delayed or I’ll be dismayed. ..
How much money could one save in gas by always staying to the inside of a curve by shifting lanes while driving on the highway? I’m not looking for an exact value, just a relative comparison between always on the outside of a curve, the middle, and always on the inside. You can ignore traffic and assume that all lanes are equal speed.
Yer Pal,
Jesse
The Answer
Let’s make a lovely little “perfect” world. In our perfect world, Boston is at the exact center of a half circle inscribed by Rte. 495 in Massachusetts. In real life, we’ll use I-495 from the intersection of I-93 in Andover, MA to the north, and I-495’s intersection with Rte. 24 in the south. This allows for an almost (meaning not really at all) perfect half-circle around Boston. Using I-90 as the diameter line, we discover that the radius of our circle is 27.5 miles, or 145200 feet.
The plan is simple - we will inscribe 2 circles, one on the “inner” lane of this simplified route, and one on the outer lane. According to my research, the most common lane width is 12 feet. Let’s assume a 3-lane highway - so, the “inner” lane has a radius of 145200 feet and the outer lane adds 24 feet to that total - 145224.
Calculating the perimeter of the circle will give us the distance traveled in each lane. Perimeter of a circle is calculated via 2 * (pi) * r, so a half circle is simple: (pi) * r. (For our estimation, pi is estimated at 3.14159).
Inner lane distance: 86.39 miles
Outer lane distance: 86.41 miles
Assuming 30 miles per gallon in your vehicle, this means:
Inner lane gas used: 2.879 gallons
Outer lane gas used: 2.880 gallons
So, in essence, by travelling only in the inner lane, you would save 0.001 gallons of gas. (Because of the tiny amount here, I ignored the “middle” lane and stuck with the right and left only).
Not quite as exciting as expected, is it?
The Question
Dear Mr. McQuaid,
Long time reader, first time questioner (is that even a word). I was recently informed that if you are driving fast enough in a convertible with the top down while it’s raining then you, and the interior of the car itself, will not get wet. Is this true? And, if it is true, how fast must you be going in order to stay dry?
Curious in Worcester,
Bisol
The Answer
It’s doable…but extremely unlikely in a convertible. The problem is that you are unlikely to achieve the required speeds in any car. Sprinkling and misting are another story….
In order for the steady rain to not fall in the car, you will need to provide some force that pushes it away (up or to the side). Generally speaking, the rain will fall downwards and into the car when it is moving at normal speeds - aerodynamic flow is not enough. There’s always going to be some rain ready to fall into the car no matter how fast you are going. If I could draw in MSPaint, I’d supply you a picture, but for our purposes, imagine raindrops falling across the screen, and your car under them.
If you wanted to go fast enough to repel the rain, you’d need to create a shock wave powerful enough to shift the rain away from the vehicle. This requires some major speed, and the only way to do it reliably is to approach and break the sound barrier. The compressed air from your vehicle traveling at above the speed of sound should be enough to shift the rain away from car and keep you dry. Of course, you are dealing with other risks, such as the air damaging your head…
Now, if it’s just sprinkling or misting, that’s another story. The aerodynamic flow of air over the roof of the car is probably enough to divert most of the rain in that case. The speed required is proportional to the size of the raindrops. But a hard rain won’t be shifted by anything less than a shock wave…
The Question
Becky asks:
Why does every gas station charge an extra $.009 per gallon? I vaugly remember hearing something about taxes. However, why don’t the stations just round it up and keep the extra fraction of a cent? Personally, I’m happy they don’t round up, but it bothers me that they use a nonexistant monitary unit.
Also, is there anything else in the world that is sold like this?
The Answer
It’s an intriguing question, isn’t it? Why would anyone do this? And what else does this?
First, let’s answer the “why”.
It turns out, the reason that gas stations add tenths of a cent on to their price is purely marketing; nothing to do with taxes, nothing to do with esoteric gasoline laws - it’s simply a marketing ploy. Gas stations feel that customers are more likely to select them if they advertise their price as $2.899 than $2.90. And nothing prohibits them from doing so. Also, keep in mind that gas stations round UP the final price, so if your final pump price is $32.982, it’s really $32.99. (There may be exceptions to this rule, but I haven’t found them).
So, the “why” is pure marketing.
Interestingly enough, in 1786, a unit of currency was legislated into legality, equal to “1000th of a dollar” or “a tenth of a cent”, known as a “Mill”. However, this currency was never minted by the federal government. Some states and local townships did use the mill for some time to settle taxes on really cheap stuff, but the practice fell out of use fairly quickly.
The mill is still legal today, but you’d be hard-pressed to find it commonly used in sales anywhere other than gas stations. HOWEVER, many municipalities use the mill when calculating their property tax. Property tax can be expressed in terms of mills per dollar. For example, a millage rate for property taxes of 2.094 mills per dollar will cost the homeowner of a $200,000 dollar home 0.002094 * 200000 = $418.80. (The mill rate for my town is currently 9.93, assessed bi-annually).
So, there’s more than just gas that uses the mill, but not much more. Enjoy your mill knowledge!
The Question
Meghan asks:
Can sound kill?
The Answer
Yes! Sound can indeed kill. And here’s how.
Let’s talk about the different kinds of sonic weaponry. One of the prevailing sonic weapons that people hear about are the kind that generates an extremely low frequency reverberation, which is called subsonics. This weaponry generates a sound wave of less than 20 Hz, which is in tune with the resonant frequency of the organs in the human body and can cause them to vibrate. Intensify the energy of this sound wave, and you’ll get nausea, pain, loss of balance, and other severe discomfort. Intensify it enough, and there is the possibility that your organs could rupture.
It is known that the frequency of 0.56 Hz is the resonant frequency of the human eyeball, so a powerful enough emitter could cause your eyeballs to vibrate (blurred vision, general unease, etc).
Another type of sonic weapon is based on underwater sound waves. Generally, air is not a good enough conductor of sound to allow its use as a weapon. However, underwater, it’s a different story. It’s a known fact that running navigational sonar at high amplitudes can cause attacking frogmen to become disoriented, panicked, and deter them from an attack. Finally, the use of ultrasound to disintegrate solids in water is known, and could potentially be used as a weapon.
In general, the best practice is to stay away from loud, subsonic noises in the air, and away from attacking frogmen in the sea.
The Question
Patrick asks:
Horses and broken legs.
Barbaro broke his leg in the Preakness this weekend, and all of these people are saying that after surgery, he only has a 50% chance of living. I’ve heard this before: that a broken leg is a death sentence for a horse.
My question is: why?
After surgery and screws and plates and casts, can’t they come up with some sort of arrangement that keeps the horse alive and it heals his leg?
Humans break their legs all the time, and it’s a non-issue. Why is it a big deal for horses?
Thanks in advance.
The Answer
It has to do with the nature of the beast. No, really.
Horses stand up. That’s what they do. They stand. They stand to eat. They stand to move. They stand to sleep. If a horse isn’t standing, it’s either freshly born, or very sick. Hence, a horse that breaks its leg is in very rough shape indeed. A horse, by nature, is moving around and stamping and the like. When a horse breaks a leg, the only way for it to heal is for the horse to not stand on it - and 3 legs just doesn’t cut it. So, the horse has to be in a body-sling, which supports most of its weight, and then it has to be willing to not thrash around for the months it takes for the leg to heal.
Horses don’t have good blood flow to their lower legs. If the circulatory system of the leg is damaged when the break occurs, chances are good that the blood flow will be reduced to the point where infection is more likely. And since horses are so large, to kill an infection you would need to fill the horse with huge amounts of antibiotics, which will kill the horse’s intestinal bacteria and give the horse massive diarrhea (while it can’t move around). Not a pleasant thought. On the other hand, the anasthetic may give the horse massive constipation, to even things out. But when the horse comes out of the anasthesia, it might thrash a bit. Horses have been known to break their other legs when they come out of it and thrash wildly. (This can be offset by floating your horse in a giant pool of warm water so it can thrash to its heart’s content, but finding a large enough pool of warm water can be troublesome). Finally, if the horse favors the unbroken legs, and puts most of its weight on them, then a condition known as “laminitis” can develop, where the hoofs detach from the bone and drive themselves into the soft flesh of the leg. Then the horse can’t stand, which means it is very sick, and it gets deadly sores on its skin.
For all of these reasons, coupled with the age of the horse and its relative health, many times a broken leg is a death sentence. Many owners do not have the resources required to handle all the issues associated with a broken leg, and others simply feel that the chances of success are too slim to risk putting the horse through all these painful and/or uncomfortable activities.
But I hear that Barbaro is doing well! And he did get the “suspended in giant pool of warm water” treatment. So, go Barbaro! Get well soon!
REBUTTAL!!!
Jes indicates:
“Having raised horses, I can testify to the fact that they can and do occasionally sleep laying down and not just when sick. They like to take naps in the sunshine, much like cats.”
It’s true! They do lie down to sleep from time to time. BUT for the most part, they spend life on their feet. Still, I feel the need to confess to the fact that my original sentence (preserved above) may have been misleading. Thanks Jes!
The Question
Jon Abad asks:
Does soda go bad?
I just got a Mountain Dew out of the coke machine and there is a “For Best Taste, Drink by this date” thing on the side like with certain american beers.
So my question to the all powerful Oz (aka McQuaid) is can soda go bad while its in the can? What’s its shelf life? Will it outlive us all?
The Answer
Yes —– and no!
First off, the ingredients in soda are generally water, carbon dioxide, sugar (or sugar replacement), and flavoring. Luckily, none of these will “go bad” in the traditional sense (microorganisms taking over the can and poison the drinker).
Let’s look at the ingredients individually and see what we can see.
- WATER
Water will not go bad. And since the can is sealed, it won’t evaporate. No problem here.
- CARBON DIOXIDE
The carbon dioxide WILL eventually percolate out of the can through osmosis. This means that eventually, the soda will go flat. Does this constitute “going bad”? I think not - the soda is still consumable, you just may not want to. This could indicate why the “best taste by” date is given on your can of Mountain Dew.
- SUGAR
Usually a growth medium for everything, the sugar in the can is protected by being vacuum sealed in, and by being in solution. Shouldn’t be a problem here. BUT….
- SUGAR SUBSTITUTE
Aspartame is under fire by certain groups who state that it breaks down into methanol and formaldhyde in the small intestine, and that is unhealthy. While it is undisputed that this occurs, some state that the levels are not toxic, since alcoholic beverages do the same thing. There is evidence both ways.
In any case, the argument is that the aspartame decomposes into methanol and formaldhyde if left in a metal can for too long. This probably ruins the taste of the soda if it does occur.
- FLAVORING
The flavoring components are usually matched with preservatives, so there’s no chance of them causing the soda to go bad.
In summary, I’d believe the label - for best TASTE, drink before the date on the can. Otherwise, the soda may be flat, taste too much like the can (from slowly eroding aluminum molecules away), or be otherwise compromised.
The Question
I was recently informed of the site http://www.phillies2008.com
is this for real, or an april fools joke, or what?
The Answer
It’s no joke. George Phillies is indeed seeking the office of President of the United States as a long-standing member of the Libertarian party. His main competition for the Libertarian nomination is Lance Brown, CEO for People’s Forums. His web site was recently updated and looks a lot more professional and serious than the original version released in April.
Wikipedia has a good amount of information on the subject of third-party candidates for President
There’s also an article on Phillies himself at Wikipedia.
I never had the experience of Phillies at professor during my WPI education, so I don’t have any information on his teaching, but now we can find out everything we could ever dream about his Presidential platform. Brushed by fame, indeed.
The Question
Tom asks:
Have you ever noticed the signs on the highway which say “Begin Measured Mile”/”End Measured Mile”? What is the purpose of these signs? Aren’t the normal mileposts markers measured as well?
The Answer
It comes down to the type of road you are driving on. Interstate highways ALWAYS have the “measured mile” signposts - they are present by rule. However, state highways (such as Rte. 24 in Massachusetts, for example) and US highways (such as Rte. 1)aren’t regulated as strictly. For them, certain areas may not have the “measured mile” signposts, or the signposts may not start at the state border or the beginning of the road.
In cases such as this, the sign “Begin Measured Mile” lets the driver know that the mile signposts start HERE, and not at the state border or at the beginning of the road. It also indicates where the “official” US measurement begins - any other signposts showing mileage were installed by local or state authorities, not by the federals.
On a side note, on railroads, the “Begin Measured Mile” sign (paired with “End Measured Mile” sign) allow the engineer to check the accuracy of his speedometer by counting the time between the two signs and extrapolating his or her speed to compare against the speedometer’s measurement. Better safe than sorry, it seems…
NOTE: This is the second “diversion” posted as part of Defy S. McQuaid. In a diversion, no user-submitted question is answered, but instead, a topic of interest is discussed. (By interest, I mean “interest to me at the moment”, and possibly not interesting to you. Sorry.)
The Question
What is the best material choice overall when re-flooring your basement that was flooded during the torrential and continuous rains last week?
The Answer
Gee, I just happen to have a great answer for this one. Seems that’s exactly the situation I’ve been working on for the last week or so.
Last Monday (not yesterday, the one before that), I happened to go down into my finished basement as usual in the morning to check email and the like. Sitting at my computer, I noticed that the dog had followed me down the stairs. Next, I heard slurping.
It turned out that I was sitting in the only dry spot in the basement. Everything else was soaking wet.
After sucking 100+ gallons of water out of the basement, it became apparent (via the smell) that the carpet we had had down there was done for. But what to put down to replace it?
Here are the options:
Nothing. Just leave it open concrete
PRO: Do nothing. No work.
CON: HUGE downgrade. No way.
Replace the carpet
PRO: Carpet is nice to stand on. Also, the tack strips are already there.
CON: If water happens again, it has to be replaced again. This is expensive. (I NEVER had water down there before, and they ARE saying this is a “100 year storm”, but I don’t trust them.) Also, carpet in a basement can only be musty after a while.
Install wood floor or laminate
PRO: Well, it will look nice. Expensive though.
CON: Well, if it floods again, it’s done. Even if the laminate is moisture-resistant, it can’t stand up to actual water. Also, it’s expensive. And you have to put foam under it, which will absorb water.
Install linoleum
PRO: Linoleum is safe. If it floods again, you mop it up.
CON: Good linoleum is expensive ($2+/sq. ft). Cheap linoleum is not, but you still have to have it installed, which is expensive. More expensive than carpet.
Install your own vinyl tile
PRO: Cheap!
CON: Cheap looking! Also, work. I’m tired now. Seems like a bit of a downgrade.
Install indoor/outdoor carpet (glue down)
PRO: If it gets wet, it dries without dying. Also, it’s inexpensive ($0.62/sq. ft.) and installation is cheap too if you’ve removed your carpet already (which I have). Also, you can do the stairs instead of leaving the sea-foam green old stained carpet on it. Also, you don’t have to install it yourself.
CON: …..still waiting…..nope, ain’t got one.
I assume that you, the gentle reader, can ascertain my choice.
Next week: Back to your regularly scheduled answers!
