[JenBurdoo] Fire one! Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - June 2010 » [JenBurdoo] Fire one! « Previous Next »

Author Message
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 3070
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 9:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 4:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 6:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 3:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were they testing firearms? Explosives? Fireworks?
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 3077
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 5:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were they testing firearms? Explosives? Fireworks? None of these, but OTRT.
Balin (Balin)
New member
Username: Balin

Post Number: 1443
Registered: 4-2010
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were they testing something for the military? Vehicles? Maybe tanks? Airplanes?
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 3078
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 3:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 6:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 9:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 11:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were they testing: a projectile? A weapon? Electronics? Is aviation involved again?
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 3080
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 12:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 8:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 12:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 1:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it a rocket? Torpedo? Does it fail? Catastrophically? Kursk disaster relevant?
Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member
Username: Jenburdoo

Post Number: 3090
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 7:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 7:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 9:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 11:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 11:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 8:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 12:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 4:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 4:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 7:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 10:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 11:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 12:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 12:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 12:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 3:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 3:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 6:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 9:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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!

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: