SabreSpace Sunday Magazine Brain Bender

[Stoner]

A question was sent in by little Harry Neale of Sarnia, Ontario:

 

What is the greatest distance a puck can travel before entering the net, shot by the attacking team from inside its offensive zone, without being deflected? I have a bet with my grandpa that it's 59 and a half feet! Am I right?

[deluca67]

A question was sent in by little Harry Neale of Sarnia, Ontario:

 

What is the greatest distance a puck can travel before entering the net, shot by the attacking team from inside its offensive zone, without being deflected? I have a bet with my grandpa that it's 59 and a half feet! Am I right?

Blue line to goal line is 64 feet.

[carpandean]

Slightly over 78 ft. This would be fired from the blue line at the boards into the far upper corner. If North-South is goal-to-goal and East-West is side board to side board, then the travel in three dimensions is:

 

N-S: 64 ft (blueline to goal line)

E-W: 0.5(85 ft) + 0.5(6 ft) = 45.5 ft (half the rink width + half the goal width)

Vertical: 4 ft (goal height)

 

Using the Pythagorean theorem twice (or directly with the three-dimensional version, de Gua's theorem), the total distance is 78.63 ft, but the corners are rounded on the net and you can't actually shoot it from right on the boards, so I say 78 ft.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I'm a nerd. :thumbsup:

[inkman]

Another homework thread. I'll take my 2.01 GPA (my actual graduating GPA :o ) and move on to another thread.

[carpandean]

[SwampD]

Slightly over 78 ft. This would be fired from the blue line at the boards into the far upper corner. If North-South is goal-to-goal and East-West is side board to side board, then the travel in three dimensions is:

 

N-S: 64 ft (blueline to goal line)

E-W: 0.5(85 ft) + 0.5(6 ft) = 45.5 ft (half the rink width + half the goal width)

Vertical: 4 ft (goal height)

 

Using the Pythagorean theorem twice (or directly with the three-dimensional version, de Gau's theorem), the total distance is 78.63 ft, but the corners are rounded on the net and you can't actually shoot it from right on the boards, so I say 78 ft.

Yes, I'm a nerd. :thumbsup:

You forgot about putting an arc on it. Then the distance depends on how high the arena is.

[carpandean]

You forgot about putting an arc on it. Then the distance depends on how high the arena is.

Depends on if "distance" is net change in position (how I defined it) or actual length of path traveled (no real answer.) Do we count bank shots?

[Midnight]

Slightly over 78 ft. This would be fired from the blue line at the boards into the far upper corner. If North-South is goal-to-goal and East-West is side board to side board, then the travel in three dimensions is:

 

N-S: 64 ft (blueline to goal line)

E-W: 0.5(85 ft) + 0.5(6 ft) = 45.5 ft (half the rink width + half the goal width)

Vertical: 4 ft (goal height)

 

Using the Pythagorean theorem twice (or directly with the three-dimensional version, de Gau's theorem), the total distance is 78.63 ft, but the corners are rounded on the net and you can't actually shoot it from right on the boards, so I say 78 ft.

Yes, I'm a nerd. :thumbsup:

 

{Later: Composed as #7 was posted} A puck flipped upwards, that peaks and then falls into the net, could go further. Playing outdoors, it could be quite a distance.

[carpandean]

A puck flipped upwards, that peaks and then falls into the net, could go further. Playing outdoors, it could be quite a distance.

See post #7.

[SwampD]

Depends on if "distance" is net change in position (how I defined it) or actual length of path traveled (no real answer.) Do we count bank shots?

The original question was "the distance the puck travels", not "what is the distance between where the puck was shot and where it entered the net."

[inkman]

Slightly over 78 ft. This would be fired from the blue line at the boards into the far upper corner. If North-South is goal-to-goal and East-West is side board to side board, then the travel in three dimensions is:

 

N-S: 64 ft (blueline to goal line)

E-W: 0.5(85 ft) + 0.5(6 ft) = 45.5 ft (half the rink width + half the goal width)

Vertical: 4 ft (goal height)

 

Using the Pythagorean theorem twice (or directly with the three-dimensional version, de Gau's theorem), the total distance is 78.63 ft, but the corners are rounded on the net and you can't actually shoot it from right on the boards, so I say 78 ft.

Yes, I'm a nerd. :thumbsup:

Something tells me Harry Neale didn't have this gobbledie- in mind when he posed the question.

[carpandean]

The original question was "the distance the puck travels", not "what is the distance between where the puck was shot and where it entered the net."

Distance can be defined as "net change in position" without regard to the path taken. Plus, the question has no answer if taken any other way.

[carpandean]

Something tells me Harry Neale didn't have this gobbledie- in mind when he posed the question.

Whatever he had in mind (I assume it was more than just 64 ft), this is the right answer (unless you include arc/path, as mentioned above, where there is no correct answer.)

[SDS]

{Later: Composed as #7 was posted} A puck flipped upwards, that peaks and then falls into the net, could go further. Playing outdoors, it could be quite a distance.

 

Don't forget in an outdoor game a mini-tornado could touch down at the moment of the shot and the puck could be trapped within the vortex for DAYS before finally being spit out top shelf....

[SwampD]

Distance can be defined as "net change in position" without regard to the path taken. Plus, the question has no answer if taken any other way.

True, and nice math by the way. But New York is about 300 mile from Buffalo, but a car has to travel almost 400 to get there.

 

And Ink, I think this is exactly what Harry was thinking, wasn't de Gau a buddy of his growing up.

[carpandean]

wasn't de Gua a buddy of his growing up.

Let's see ... Jean Paul de Gua de Malves (1713-1785) ... could be! :thumbsup:

[Stoner]

This is wonderful. I knew it would come down to that old stay at home defenseman Pythagorus, but I had only a vague idea how.

 

I basically had an epiphany last night (great with a cup of coffee, by the way), right after ripping Harry for saying a shot from several feet above the crease was a "three-footer," that I've been calling any goal from anywhere right along the blue line a 59-footer my whole life (allowing for one foot of wiggle room) and that I've been very wrong. (And even more wrong because I missed the memo increasing the distance to 64 feet.)

 

Wow, a 78-footer.

 

Now, in reality, can a shot start from exactly 64 feet out? If we define the starting point of a shot as where it is when the puck is released from the stick, it has to be a little less than 64 feet. And a shot cannot come from right up against the boards. In rereading my question, its parenthetical construction suddenly sounds like something out of the Constitution. "A well-regulated militia..."

 

Are you taking notes ink?

[carpandean]

Now, in reality, can a shot start from exactly 64 feet out? If we define the starting point of a shot as where it is when the puck is released from the stick, it has to be a little less than 64 feet.

I just watched a Carolina defenseman take a slapper from the point near the boards (watching MSG's two-hour replay of the game.) His stick hit the puck about a foot in from the blue line and a foot from the boards. Recalculating, that's just over 77 feet if he hits the far upper corner.

[Stoner]

I just watched a Carolina defenseman take a slapper from the point near the boards (watching MSG's two-hour replay of the game.) His stick hit the puck about a foot in from the blue line and a foot from the boards. Recalculating, that's just over 77 feet if he hits the far upper corner.

 

OK smarta*s. What if Nathan Gerbe bunts the puck out of midair, knee high to a grasshopper's eye, and the puck is chocolate and has melted a little. :)

[Stoner]

Without carp's knowledge and certainly without his consent, I installed a hidden cam in his house. Here is a shot taken this morning, shortly after he read the question from little Harry Neale. There are many others available for sale only. PM me.

[deluca67]

Don't forget in an outdoor game a mini-tornado could touch down at the moment of the shot and the puck could be trapped within the vortex for DAYS before finally being spit out top shelf....

Considering the amount of debris trapped within a tornado it is more than likely the puck wold hit another object qualifying it as a deflection. :thumbsup:

[SwampD]

Without carp's knowledge and certainly without his consent, I installed a hidden cam in his house. Here is a shot taken this morning, shortly after he read the question from little Harry Neale. There are many others available for sale only. PM me.

This is what happened when he got the wrong answer one time. He blamed his compruter.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVHv3C5meyM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVHv3C5meyM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[carpandean]

Without carp's knowledge and certainly without his consent, I installed a hidden cam in his house. Here is a shot taken this morning, shortly after he read the question from little Harry Neale. There are many others available for sale only. PM me.

That's an old pic. I've since upgraded my system:

 

 

[Bmwolf21]

That's an old pic. I've since upgraded my system:

Shall we play a game?

[Stoner]

God bless the Internet.