When cutting from above, each piece is shortened by one half the width of the saw for each cut. Therefore of the final eight logs, six will have been cut twice ( once at each end) and two, once ( the ends of the original 8ft log remaining unsawn ). Should not the answer be that you are left with 2 logs at one foot less one half the width of the saw, and six pieces less two half widths of the saw?
Pub Quiz thread
- Thread starter colognehornet
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
When cutting from above, each piece is shortened by one half the width of the saw for each cut. Therefore of the final eight logs, six will have been cut twice ( once at each end) and two, once ( the ends of the original 8ft log remaining unsawn ). Should not the answer be that you are left with 2 logs at one foot less one half the width of the saw, and six pieces less two half widths of the saw?
Another way of looking at it would be that if the original log was cut into 8 pieces then there must have been 7 cuts, so the total length of all the pieces would be shorter than the original 8 feet, by 7 widths of the saw. If each piece was shortened by only one half of the width of the saw, then the total shortening would only be 8 x 1/2 width = 4 widths which is clearly not correct. Six pieces shortened by 1 width plus two shortened by 1/2 width equals a total shortening of 7 widths.
The log question has been cleared up already - it was cut along the length of the log.
Further clues as to the remaining question. Queen Victoria wanted something removed before she would go there - it was not done and therefore she refused. The Winston Churchill case has to do with a name. The motion in parliament has to do with something symbolic. All 3 cases have something very loosely to do with Ireland and royalty. But I'm still looking for the main connection.
Further clues as to the remaining question. Queen Victoria wanted something removed before she would go there - it was not done and therefore she refused. The Winston Churchill case has to do with a name. The motion in parliament has to do with something symbolic. All 3 cases have something very loosely to do with Ireland and royalty. But I'm still looking for the main connection.
The link is Cromwell I think. VR refused to open Manchester Town Hall unless a statue of Cromwell was removed.
Churchill wanted to name Battleships HMS Oliver Cromwell but George V said no.
Tony Banks was a republican and supported Cromwell. The motion that he proposed was to say that the House should be appalled that MI5 had wanted to use pigeons as flying bombs.
Churchill wanted to name Battleships HMS Oliver Cromwell but George V said no.
Tony Banks was a republican and supported Cromwell. The motion that he proposed was to say that the House should be appalled that MI5 had wanted to use pigeons as flying bombs.
The link was indeed Oliver Cromwell. The statue in Manchester was the first of its kind in a public place. The reference to Churchill was the battleship H.M.S. Cromwell. Both royal denials also used the excuse that the Irish could be offended. The motion put forward (fortunately defeated) was a proposal for the removal of Cromwell's statue from Westminster. Over to you Frenchie.
Two Watford players joined the Police force and later did duty at Vicarage Road.
Who were they?
Who were they?
I know that Keith Cassells became a 'local plod' so probably did a tour at The Vic - not sure who else though. Mick Henderson joined the force somewhere up north - so may have worked The Vic too?
You are half way there BB. The other one was a keeper and they played against each other at Wembley, although not for WFC.
Known to have roamed the earth for around two million years and having been the subject of thirty thousand year old cave paintings, the last of my kind died in a forest in Poland in 1627. What was I?
I'm pretty sure this is the Aurochs (or Ur ochse) a form of wild cattle and the ancestor of our modern domesticated breeds. There are plans to try to recreate a nearly identical breed using DNA from skeletons. The plans being to re release them in Polish (and some German) forests.
My mother and father only breed once per year - in my case the beginning of March. I was born blind and deaf. My eyes opened after 10-13 days and I could hear after 21 days. At home, care of the young was taken over by the entire group, despite this, only about a half of us reach adulthood. Now my sense of smell is not as good as people think - but it is said I can hear the leaves falling in autumn. My favourite country is Italy. What am I ?
No, not the Cicada. More clues. The best thing that could happen for us would be for me to mate with a Russian female. The closest we have come to this was a Russian female turning up in Luttelgeest (Netherlands) and an Italian male in Gedinne (Namur) Belgium. Some of us are in Germany and France as well. Many in Spain but they are very cut off. Italy remains the best country for us, Switzerland being very dodgy.
To elaborate on the last clue. I am talking about an endangered species which comes under the Berner Convention. Laws regarding the protection of this species are strictly interpreted in Italy whereas Switzerland is trying to modify them in any way they can. As a consequence the Italian population of this animal is increasing at a healthier rate than in other countries. Germany and Austria are also responding in a positive way (at least at the moment).
