TRINITY'S 1st Annual 2010/2011 Icing/ Anchoring Challenge

[DetectorGuy]

OK boys and girls, This was an individual contest but based on teamwork as ice diving can not be done solo. Nate and I worked together very well and If I did it again, Nate would be my dive buddy or I wouldn't do it at all. I can't think of anyone else that was motivated enough to get me motivated. Nate is the one that came up with the idea of using the search patterns, and to be honest with you, I did not like doing the search patterns. One drawback to doing concentric circles is that you are constantly dumping or adding air as you go up and down the side slopes. Another drawback is that when you are near 150' out, the rope is hard to keep tight enough to not swim short of your intended radius. The last drawback is that the outer radius rings are up in the heavy weeds on the shallow end and moonscape mud on the deep side. I did agree with him that doing them was the only way of knowing that we gave it our best shot and did not miss any. No stories of the one that got away here! Doing the search patterns also gave us a measure as to where we found anchors in each hole. By knowing where in each hole the anchors were found, we could adapt the next hole location a bit from the info learned on the last ones. Like a fuel gauge, we knew that once we got close to the 100' radius, we were about 1/2 way done with that hole and that the second diver would be jumping in soon. The PDF file I attached in a previous post graphically showed how our concentric circle search pattern worked on a generic hole but that drawing lacks the hard data that I like.

Here are our numbers (for the record and your information to use as you wish)

First diver would cover from 25' to 100' radius
Radius        Diameter          Circumference
25'              50'                  157'
37.5'          75'                  236'
50'              100'                314'
62.5'          125'                393'
75'              150'                471'
87.5'          175'                550'
100'            200'                628'

Second diver would cover from 112.5' to 150' radius
112.5'          225'                706'
125'            250'                785'
137.5'          275'                864'
150'            300'                943'

So here are the fun numbers:
For each hole (between the two of us) we efficiently searched 70,686 square feet (or 1.62 acres). While searching each hole (between the two of us) we swam 6,355 lineal feet (or 1.2 miles).

Over the 2010/2011 ice diving season (between the two of us) we efficiently searched 1,696,464 square feet (that is one million, six hundred and ninety six thousand, four hundred and sixty four square feet for those that are challenged when it comes to numbers) or as us farm folk like to say 38.94 acres. While searching for those elusive anchors (between the two of us) we swam 152,520 lineal feet (or 28.88 miles)

That's how we roll. If you are still having a hard time dealing with it, here is a toll free number of a counselor that can help offer condolences: 1-855-738-5677  :'( As far as putting together numbers that help you put a positive spin on efficiency or what ever... I am sure you will figure something out that helps you sleep at night. 

[DetectorGuy]

Robert would have been the deep threat had he been in from the beginning. Like he said, he found 19 anchors in 8 dives with 181 minutes of bottom time. He started Feb 26th pulling anchors on his first dive after getting certified for ice. So with those numbers he pulled an anchor every 9 1/2 minutes of bottom time. If he had been in it since the beginning and if he did get 24 ice dives in versus the 8, the interpolated count on his anchors would have been 57 anchors :o . Now the 19 anchors he did find is taking into account for the "learning curve" of being newly certified so the 19 anchors being 1/3 of his potential would be underestimated.

Good job Robert.

[Shooter]

WOW! those are some impressive #'s. That has got to be some type of record! Along with my logging dive skills, my navigational skills could use some work. Kinda like the time that in Crosby when we were diving the dump truck and Terry led the way to the other side of the lake without a dump truck :o. I kept seeing a lot of the same real estate when searching for anchors. I realized there were huge gap's that were not being covered and we were missing potential targets. I also realized that when we are called to locate a target for the Sheriff's Department, we will need to cover everything before moving on to the next search location. What a better way to practice and implement those skills. I would like to do some open water ones this summer.

Good job buddy! I would not change a thing either. Glad I was able to assist with your victory.

[Shooter]

:

[Terry]

:
[/quote]

                              You got a set of rolling eyes correct Nate, I've got to second that! How could I have found an anchor (a guy who only scored 4th place) in an area that you two "champions" had just searched, with your precision figured to, "half of foot" on your search patterns? John, since you ARE such a numbers guy, can you divide up that season total distance of, "28+" :-\ miles by your total time in min (approx 2200) /60 to give us MPH. Pulling a rope perpendicular in the water the whole time, I didn't think either one of you were in that good of shape. : : : : :

[DetectorGuy]

Terry, As far as you finding an anchor in an area we had just searched... Here is how that day went down:
We set up our hole just off Shadyland Point on Forest Lake and marked another hole (that we were going to use eventually) just to the West of there that was so close, the edges of the 150' radius' were touching each other. You and Joe thought we weren't on the up and up. You thought we gave you a location that was picked clean by us so you moved a ways further West to get a "fresh area" to find all the loot. That is the hole that you found your lonely anchor in. We ran the search pattern in our hole all day and came up with 7 anchors, a trolling motor, a fishing pole, and some other trinkets. While we were doing this Joe and you went to look at the sunken boat based on a tip from a fisherman. That hole skunked you because that hole had been picked clean by yours truly.

Terry, I know you are an electrician, so I will go through this slow and deliberate ;D. To travel 28.88 miles in 2116 minutes (1110 minutes for me and 1006 minutes for Nate) You need to convert the 2116 minutes into hours- 2116/60=35.26667 hours of bottom time for Nate and I. Let me know when you have that... Then take 28.88 miles traveled divided by the hours it took which is 35.26667. This equals .818904 miles per hour. I did not convert this to nautical MPH for you sea faring fellas, but I could do that too. Does that make sense? I am no spring chicken but .8 MPH is not that hard at all. I realize that you might be kinda worn out from all that cable pulling and whatnot, but us carpenters and sign makers stay pretty fit ;D

... Someday I will tell you about the time I tried out for American Gladiators back in '87.

[Hydro]

Check your numbers john I think you are very off on your calc... you are assuming a 2d radius not from a 20ft height of a cone... I can buy that you 2 dive on flat bottoms tho.. the gmen look for dynamic sloping hard bottoms. 8)

[DetectorGuy]

Fair enough. There was pathagorean theorum involved but I thought that would just confuse you even more. The starting radius of 25' shown on the map was actually the rope length (Hypotenuse) and not the horizontal Run. If we were in 15' of water stopping the diver at 25' rope length, the actual radius would be 20' and not 25'. This difference would be less with each expanding circle and negligable at 50' out ;D

What else can I clarify?

[Shooter]

Terry, As far as you finding an anchor in an area we had just searched... Here is how that day went down:
We set up our hole just off Shadyland Point on Forest Lake and marked another hole (that we were going to use eventually) just to the West of there that was so close, the edges of the 150' radius' were touching each other. You and Joe thought we weren't on the up and up. You thought we gave you a location that was picked clean by us so you moved a ways further West to get a "fresh area" to find all the loot. That is the hole that you found your lonely anchor in. We ran the search pattern in our hole all day and came up with 7 anchors, a trolling motor, a fishing pole, and some other trinkets. While we were doing this Joe and you went to look at the sunken boat based on a tip from a fisherman. That hole skunked you because that hole had been picked clean by yours truly.

Terry, I know you are an electrician, so I will go through this slow and deliberate ;D. To travel 28.88 miles in 2116 minutes (1110 minutes for me and 1006 minutes for Nate) You need to convert the 2116 minutes into hours- 2116/60=35.26667 hours of bottom time for Nate and I. Let me know when you have that... Then take 28.88 miles traveled divided by the hours it took which is 35.26667. This equals .818904 miles per hour. I did not convert this to nautical MPH for you sea faring fellows, but I could do that too. Does that make sense? I am no spring chicken but .8 MPH is not that hard at all. I realize that you might be kinda worn out from all that cable pulling and whatnot, but us carpenters and sign makers stay pretty fit ;D

... Someday I will tell you about the time I tried out for American Gladiators back in '87.

[/quote]

he might be hitting the colt 45 again  ;D




Fair enough. There was pathagorean theorum involved but I thought that would just confuse you even more. The starting radius of 25' shown on the map was actually the rope length (Hypotenuse) and not the horizontal Run. If we were in 15' of water stopping the diver at 25' rope length, the actual radius would be 20' and not 25'. This difference would be less with each expanding circle and negligable at 50' out ;D

What else can I clarify?
[/quote]

SHOCK & AWE boys, shock & awe

[arcFlash]

I'd like to see total weight of water displaced as a function of work in kilojoules. Have something by morning.