How to Beat a Speeding Ticket for Motorists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Game
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
308 replies · 49K views
Physics news on Phys.org
collinsmark said:
Could you explain more, please?

Why yes, good sir.

When I am out and about, people tend to buy me drinks a lot. I don't comprehend the rationale behind the whole thing, but that's the way it is. I try to repay the favor by buying drinks for the people who bought me drinks. In the end there's a whole lot drinks being bought for people, by a lot of people. 'Lots going on.

If you are in a bar, (assume you are sitting at the bar as opposed to a table), sipping on your drink, and somebody else buys you a drink, it is common (in my circles anyway) that the bartender will inform you that somebody wants to buy you a drink (it could be a stranger, a longtime friend, whoever). If you accept, the bartender will place an upside down shotglass in your vicinity and charge the other person for your next drink. It can now be said that you have a backup (or as some like to say, a buyback). When you finish your current drink and order your next one, instead of paying with cash or credit, the bartender will symbolically take the upside down shotglass as payment (although this is not truly a payment, since the drink was already purchased beforehand; it's a symbolic thing).

Why do this? If the bartender made your new drink immediately, it would get warm or go flat while you are sipping on your current drink. This way the drink isn't made until you are ready to drink it.

I've experienced this not only where I live (which is common in my local pub in the United States) but also all the way from Balina Ireland to the bar in the Narita airport (Tokyo's main international airport. Granted, that was years ago when we were doing backups at Narita, and maybe the particular bartender has moved on since then, but I'm just saying if it can happen there, it can't be too uncommon) and places in between.

By the way, if the bar buys you a drink, it's also called a "comp", but that's a more specific term. A "backup" (or "buyback") is a more general term, referring to a drink that can be purchased either by the bar or by a patron.

But whatever. Maybe it's not as common as I thought. Maybe this is a strange coincidence between me and the particular quantum reality in which we reside. let's move on with a new word then.
 
Last edited:
The finger to which I refer, although not directly related, is indirectly related, with a twist or two, to this woman:

1.jpg


hedy_lamarr2.jpg


Hedy-Lamarr-classic-movies-6630927-400-400.jpg


One might say she invented the foundation of such technologies where fingers are used (but she didn't specifically invent fingers themselves per se, so don't read too much into this).
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'm pretty sure that I know who the woman is and what she did in relation to the question, but I'm not familiar with the specific term and am not going to look it up right now. If I'm right about the premise, it will be easy enough to check later.
Meanwhile, back to your accursed previous puzzle...
I tended bar for over 20 years, and I'm an alcoholic, and I can guarantee that no such thing as your "buyback" has ever existed anywhere near my locale. Here, if someone buys you a drink it is simply delivered, or you are told about it and then it arrives when you're ready if heating/cooling is an issue. If you don't want it, you can decline but it's already bought and someone else will drink it or it goes down the sink. No "markers" are used; we Canucks have something called "memory". :-p
 
Ok. Finger, communication, Black and white photo...

The picture made me think of the time era of rotary phones.

Finger is the number of digits in a phone number. That is, it's the number of times you would need to put your finger in the rotary dial of a phone.
 
Last edited:
flatmaster said:
Ok. Finger, communication, Black and white photo...

The picture made me think of the time era of rotary phones.

Finger is the number of digits in a phone number. That is, it's the number of times you would need to put your finger in the rotary dial of a phone.

Sorry, but no. The finger in question is way more technical.

And by the way, the woman in those black and white photos is not just another, pretty face. She's a very particular woman who is credited for being the first to invent a certain class of communication technology used today in 3G/4G cellular systems, WiFi and Bluetooth. But as a reminder, don't take that too far; her device was comparatively simpler and did not involve fingers.

This use of finger here is very technical. Unless you've had education or experience in this field, you're unlikely to simply guess it.

On the other hand, an Internet search will lead you to the correct answer if your google fu is good.*

*[Quite easily as a matter of fact, with nothing more than the keywords already hinted at. (You might consider first trying to determine the name of that woman.)]
 
Last edited:
Andre said:
pianola wooden fingers?

No, a finger in this context is not made of wood. 'Definitely more high tech than that.

Given your "pianola" guess, I can see you have done some research. But again, don't concentrate on her invention as she invented it. Recall the invention, as she co-designed it at the time, was comparatively basic and did not contain any fingers. Given decades of technological advancement, similar, related systems now might use fingers. Her original invention did not. Fingers are more technologically advanced than what could have been created in her day.

But because of the underlying communication principles of her idea, she is still associated with the things that use fingers. Let google be your friend. :wink: (Hint: start simple.)
 
Last edited:
Going out on a limb here... Is it a person who constantly channel/frequency hops while using a citizens band radio...?
 
collinsmark said:
*[Quite easily as a matter of fact, with nothing more than the keywords already hinted at. (You might consider first trying to determine the name of that woman.)]

I already knew who the woman was and what her invention was about, so I thought that could put me ahead a bit, but I was a little surprised to spot that the image link contained her name!

Is this something to do with capacitors containing fingers that make them easily switchable?
 
L4xord said:
Going out on a limb here... Is it a person who constantly channel/frequency hops while using a citizens band radio...?

Oh, my. Lol (I'm actually laughing out loud [I am]).

This woman's invention does involving "hopping" between different "frequencies." Yes! But not manually! :smile:

"Frequency hopping" is a type of "spread spectrum" communication. And yes, this woman's invention was the first frequency hopping device, and the spread spectrum system of any type. So she is associated with the invention of spread spectrum communication technology.

But frequency hopping is not the only type of spread spectrum system. There are others. And some of these others more readily implement fingers than do frequency hopping systems (that's where the "twist" comes in that I mentioned in post #66).

But all systems that use fingers are spread spectrum systems, and as such all systems which use fingers are associated with this woman even though they don't necessarily use frequency hopping. (Edit: and with this fact in mind, you don't really need to make the distinction when you google.)

You're not quite there yet though. I need a bit more regarding what a finger does, or at least what it is specifically part of.
 
Last edited:
Andre said:
Or is it a "have quick" finger frequency hopping channel :smile:

You're on the right track. Except in the link you provided, in the entire article there is a single use of the word finger, "...signal to interference signal power of each finger frequency hopping channel is the..." and I'm wondering if that use of finger was intentional or not. It might be a typo or editing mistake of some sort. Or more likely it could be a translation error.

Whatever the case, it doesn't explain what a finger actually is, or at least what it is part of. So, you're not quite there yet.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan Scott said:
I already knew who the woman was and what her invention was about, so I thought that could put me ahead a bit, but I was a little surprised to spot that the image link contained her name!

Yes, finding her name shouldn't be too difficult, with that.

Is this something to do with capacitors containing fingers that make them easily switchable?

Sorry, there's nothing about it that involves capacitors in particular. (No more so than any electronic device anyway.)
 
Got it but I'm overloaded a bit so I won't have time for a follow up.
 
I know the answer, Mark!
A "finger" is what I'm about to give you... :biggrin:
 
The Fourier transform of the signal will have a peak for each frequency. Each peak is a finger.
 
Danger said:
I know the answer, Mark!
A "finger" is what I'm about to give you... :biggrin:

:biggrin:

flatmaster said:
The Fourier transform of the signal will have a peak for each frequency. Each peak is a finger.

Oooh, not quite, no. (But not a bad guess.) The operation of a fingers is even more complicated than even Fourier transforms, by themselves. Even systems that use fingers and use Fourier transforms as part of their operation, a finger is still more involved than simply a peak in the frequency response.

But here is general hint that I've been trying to subtly push (or maybe not so subtly): Even if you don't know about or understand the technology, google is really good at finding this sort of stuff for you. Look back at Post #66 and find that woman's name. Also, you know you are looking for something called a "finger." With those couple of pieces of information, do a google search. You might find your answer in the first few hits (maybe even the very first hit. :wink:). Remember, this is the jargon game, so keep an eye out for a hit that contains technical jargon.

[Edit: well that method worked like a charm as of this morning, but now google hits seemed to have changed order. Try throwing in a "spread spectrum" or something, if nothing obvious comes up. You should be able to get to it that way.]
 
Last edited:
A receiver picks up not only the direct line-of-sight signal, but also reflections and echoes off of walls, furniture, and tea kettles. These reflections take a longer path and arrive after the line-of-sight signal. Each instance of the signal received is a finger. The fingers can be re-combined to make a stronger signal.
 
flatmaster said:
A receiver picks up not only the direct line-of-sight signal, but also reflections and echoes off of walls, furniture, and tea kettles. These reflections take a longer path and arrive after the line-of-sight signal. Each instance of the signal received is a finger. The fingers can be re-combined to make a stronger signal.

Oh, so close! So close indeed! 'Just a hair way! :cry:

As you mention, fingers *do* involve multipath components of a signal (multipath components being the echos, reflections, and the direct line of sight version of the signal), each finger is assigned to a different multipath component. But the "fingers" are not part of the signal itself (or multipath components themselves), rather fingers are part of the ... <== FILL IN BLANK HERE
 
collinsmark said:
Oh, so close! So close indeed! 'Just a hair way! :cry:

As you mention, fingers *do* involve multipath components of a signal (multipath components being the echos, reflections, and the direct line of sight version of the signal), each finger is assigned to a different multipath component. But the "fingers" are not part of the signal itself (or multipath components themselves), rather fingers are part of the ... <== FILL IN BLANK HERE

But the "fingers" are not part of the signal itself (or multipath components themselves), rather fingers are the parts of the receiver that take in each multi path component.

So in the following analogy, the ball is the multi-path component and the puppy catching the ball is the finger.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
flatmaster said:
But the "fingers" are not part of the signal itself (or multipath components themselves), rather fingers are the parts of the receiver that take in each multi path component.

Bingo! flatmaster wins the round.

I would have also accepted any of these terms or a wide variation of them. A finger is:
  • Part of a rake receiver (Notice in that link, down in the references section, Main Articles, History, there is a link to Hedy Lamarr. That's why as of this morning anyway, this link was the very first hit when googling "Hedy Lamarr finger".)
  • A demodulating element.
  • Part of something in a receiver that overcomes multipath fading.
  • A despreader.
  • A descrambler.
  • A fancy doohickey thing that undoes the spreading.
  • A correlator.
  • Part of the receiver in a 3G cellphone.
  • Something that demodulates a particular multipath component.
  • A "sub-receiver" in a spread spectrum system.
  • A really complicated doodad in a fancy spread spectrum receiver that uncomplicates the signal.
and maybe anything else that was close.

If you haven't guessed the woman in question is Hedy Lamarr.

Fingers, which are parts of a rake receiver were invented in 1956, but they are so complicated that it wasn't even practical to make them until the 1970s (and even then they weren't so practical).

But now if you have a 3G cellphone (such as CDMA, WCDMA phone [not GSM]), your phone contains fingers. If you are reading this thread online, while connected to the Internet by wireless LAN, it's possible that fingers are involved. And fingers or not, all of these things including Bluetooth and 4G cellular systems are loosely based in part on the invention by Hedy Lamar. (Again, some implementations of spread spectrum use fingers and some do not. But any system that does use fingers [per a rake receiver] is definitely spread spectrum.)

With that flatmaster, I hand it over to you.
 
Inspired by the original "green weenie", my word is...

"Dead Nuts"

Hint: Not at venereal disease
 
Hint: Has to do with measurement
 
flatmaster said:
Hint: Has to do with measurement

Where I come from, it means perfect as to measurement, proportions, aim, or any other subject requiring accuracy.
 
"Dead Nuts" can mean dead on, plumb, level, or exact, but it has a more specific meaning.

When making a precise series of measurements, it's important to "close the loop" to check for error. If you start at (0,0) on a cartesian grid, you should be able to take some path and return to (0,0)

If your real-world measurements of the path close the loop and return you to (0.00,0.00) then you're "dead nuts" and you know you measured well (or made two offsetting errors!).

The internet disagrees with me, but I was told that the extra zeros swinging around are the "dead nuts". Your turn Danger
 

Similar threads

Can You Avoid a Speeding Ticket with a GPS Tracker?
  • mpgriffis
  • · Replies 4 ·
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
How can I avoid getting a speeding ticket with radar?
  • karen03grae
  • · Replies 35 ·
  • Computing and Technology
2
Replies
35