| Author | Message | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3070 Registered: 5-2003 |
If only the tests had been more stringent, the first problem would have been obvious from the start. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 1418 Registered: 4-2010 |
Tests = school exams? Blood test? Urine test? Drug test? Testing equipment? Was the problem with the test itself? With what was being tested? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3076 Registered: 5-2003 |
Tests = school exams? Blood test? Urine test? Drug test? Testing equipment? This. Was the problem with the test itself? With what was being tested? This. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 1427 Registered: 4-2010 |
Were they testing firearms? Explosives? Fireworks? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3077 Registered: 5-2003 |
Were they testing firearms? Explosives? Fireworks? None of these, but OTRT. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 1443 Registered: 4-2010 |
Were they testing something for the military? Vehicles? Maybe tanks? Airplanes? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3078 Registered: 5-2003 |
Were they testing something for the military? Yes. Vehicles? No. Maybe tanks? Airplanes? | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 1446 Registered: 4-2010 |
Were they testing something to be worn? Bulletproof vests? Armor of some sort? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3079 Registered: 5-2003 |
Were they testing something to be worn? Bulletproof vests? Armor of some sort? None of these. And to avoid misleading... Were they testing firearms? Yopish. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2206 Registered: 9-2009 |
Were they testing: a projectile? A weapon? Electronics? Is aviation involved again? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3080 Registered: 5-2003 |
Were they testing: a projectile? Thisish. A weapon? This. Electronics? No. Is aviation involved again? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2210 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is the projectileish thing fired out of a gun? Or is it self-propelled? Or propelled in some other fashion? Is it guided? Ballistic? Did the first problem cause a second problem? Does it explode? Is it supposed to? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3089 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is the projectileish thing fired out of a gun? Not exactly. Or is it self-propelled? Yes. Or propelled in some other fashion? At first. Is it guided? No. Ballistic? No. Did the first problem cause a second problem? No. Does it explode? Not always, but that's another puzzle. Is it supposed to? Yes. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2220 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is it a rocket? Torpedo? Does it fail? Catastrophically? Kursk disaster relevant? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3090 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is it a rocket? Torpedo? This. Does it fail? Yes. Catastrophically? No. Kursk disaster relevant? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2231 Registered: 9-2009 |
Does it fail to: move? Go straight? Explode? Does it in fact turn around and come back? Does it fail in certain conditions? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3092 Registered: 5-2003 |
Does it fail to: move? No. Go straight? Thisish. Explode? No. Does it in fact turn around and come back? No. Does it fail in certain conditions? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2247 Registered: 9-2009 |
Does it: turn? Sink? Float? Change direction unexpectedly? Density of freshwater vs saltwater relevant? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3096 Registered: 5-2003 |
Does it: turn? Sink? This. Float? Change direction unexpectedly? Density of freshwater vs saltwater relevant? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2248 Registered: 9-2009 |
Does ti sink because it't too heavy? Takes on water? Some component is damaged by water? Because it propels itself downwards? Is this the "first problem"? Which would have been obvious, had they: put it in water? Tested its propulsion system in water? Fired it in water and watched the trajectory? Was the original design flawed? Or did they make changes without taking everything important into account? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3098 Registered: 5-2003 |
Does ti sink because it't too heavy? This. Takes on water? Some component is damaged by water? Because it propels itself downwards? Is this the "first problem"? Yes. Which would have been obvious, had they: put it in water? Tested its propulsion system in water? Fired it in water and watched the trajectory? They did these things, but... Was the original design flawed? In this sense, no. Or did they make changes without taking everything important into account? Yes. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2264 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did they not retest the torpedo properly after making the modifications? Was the weight improperly calculated or measured? Or did they think it wouldn't matter like it did? Was the center of gravity also changed relevantly? Did they put in a heavier warhead? Or a better but heavier propulsion system? Or did they add something that was not in the original design? Or did they scale up the design without taking into account that all things don't neccessarily scale the same way? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3100 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did they not retest the torpedo properly after making the modifications? Correct. Was the weight improperly calculated or measured? No. Or did they think it wouldn't matter like it did? They should have. Was the center of gravity also changed relevantly? Irr. Did they put in a heavier warhead? Yesish. Or a better but heavier propulsion system? No. Or did they add something that was not in the original design? No. Or did they scale up the design without taking into account that all things don't neccessarily scale the same way? No. You're pretty close. As a hint, a cost-cutting measure was involved. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2269 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did they reuse parts of an older design? Rather than using the new design made specifically for the torpedo? Did they reuse old parts? Is reuse relevant at all? Did they use a cheaper but heavier material? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3103 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did they reuse parts of an older design? Rather than using the new design made specifically for the torpedo? Did they reuse old parts? Is reuse relevant at all? Did they use a cheaper but heavier material? No to all. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2290 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was the exterior changed from the original design? Was a different warhead used? The relevant changes were done to the warhead, correct? Or the structure supporting it? Was it a nuclear torpedo? Or a regular one? Or a specialized one? A nuclear torpedo design adapted for regular use? Or vice versa? Was it designed to be fired from a sub? Or ship? Or dropped from aircraft? Relevant? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3107 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was the exterior changed from the original design? No. Was a different warhead used? Yes. The relevant changes were done to the warhead, correct? Yes. Or the structure supporting it? No. Was it a nuclear torpedo? Or a regular one? Or a specialized one? This, though for the purposes of this puzzle it's not important. A nuclear torpedo design adapted for regular use? Or vice versa? Neither. Was it designed to be fired from a sub? This. Or ship? Or dropped from aircraft? Relevant? No; while submariners noted the most problems, variants of this torpedo were also built for surface ships and aircraft. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2292 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was a cheaper but heavier explosive used? Was a cheaper but weaker explosive used, leading to more explosive being needed? Was the warhead a shaped charge? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3108 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was a cheaper but heavier explosive used? Yope. Was a cheaper but weaker explosive used, leading to more explosive being needed? No. Was the warhead a shaped charge? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2294 Registered: 9-2009 |
Only the explosive is relevant, correct? Was more than one explosive used? Did the explosive absorb moisture? Or otherwise gain weight after manufacture? Or was it too heavy to begin with? Was it: solid? Liquid? Slurry? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3109 Registered: 5-2003 |
Only the explosive is relevant, correct? Yes. Was more than one explosive used? Did the explosive absorb moisture? Or otherwise gain weight after manufacture? Or was it too heavy to begin with? No. Was it: solid? This. Liquid? Slurry? No to the rest. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2299 Registered: 9-2009 |
Clarifying here: the torpedo was designed to use a certain explosive? But they decided to use a cheaper explosive? Was this explosive more dense? Or did they have to use more of it? The weight of the finished warhead was higher after the design change, correct? Because of the use of a different explosive? Because of a design change related to the explosive? Such as the detonator? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3110 Registered: 5-2003 |
Clarifying here: the torpedo was designed to use a certain explosive? Yes. But they decided to use a cheaper explosive? Was this explosive more dense? Or did they have to use more of it? The weight of the finished warhead was higher after the design change, correct? It's not a design change. Because of the use of a different explosive? Because of a design change related to the explosive? Such as the detonator? I think you've got an FA here, and I'm not sure how you got it. As a hint, please distinguish in future between the test article and the finished product. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2303 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did they use a dummy warhead when testing? To save money? And the dummy was lighter than the real warhead? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3111 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did they use a dummy warhead when testing? To save money? And the dummy was lighter than the real warhead? Yes to all. *********************** Deep Spoilers: *********************** The US Navy's Mark 14 torpedo was developed during the Depression, which meant penny-pinching. The warhead was expensive, so a dummy was used for testing -- one which was significantly lighter than the production version. While the test torpedoes ran perfectly well, the production versions were so heavy that they routinely ran ten or more feet deeper than set, which meant they usually traveled well under the ships they were intended to hit. Setting the depth to zero helped, but made the torpedo easily visible to its targets. Don't look up the Mark 14, because more puzzles are coming! |
