The Losers

RE: The Losers

__steve__ — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:37:07 GMT

In , our next lesson we will discuss the differences between electrical currents and ocean currents, and which one a wet swimmer should stay away from. I know this one, has to do with DC wiring. If you pour half a glass of drinking water into the ocean (ground) and drink the rest AND AT THE SAME TIME piss into the ocean you don't damage anything. You connect to the ground (ocean) with parallel streams. If you piss first into your glass, THEN pour half in the ocean and drink the rest it gets disgusting. But that's exactly what you are doing if you share the same connection (glass, groundstrap) to ground (ocean) between high current and low current signals.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Fri, 21 May 2004 15:09:51 GMT

I saw at picture of the Berlin pool in Kiefer. He swam in it during the 1936 olympics. It look as modern as some of the pools I swam in as a kid.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:46:34 GMT

More stuff for the pool length measurers' guild.;)

RE: The Losers

MegSmath — Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:15:29 GMT

I haven't been to the Berlin pool, but the pool at the University of Kentucky, where I swim, has a moveable floor. It's usually kept at 4 feet, and the Wellness Program has water aerobics classes at this depth. But for a meet, the floor is dropped to 6 feet. In theory, they can raise the floor up to deck level, so that a person in a wheelchair can get into the pool that way, but that's so time-consuming that I think they just use the "sling" (for lack of a better word) to accommodate these people. Meg Smath

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:26:02 GMT

Sorry Michael, I did not mean anything personal about it. It is a reference to the Freudian concept that people have remnants of the psychological development stage of that name. Most people have some aspect of it, *too much* is a problem. For example, It is likely I may be, and my wife claims so, when I insist on hospital-cornering my bed every night. Totally unnecessary and a waste of time, but I am compelled, and I wouldn't legislate it. I take no offense if someone calls me anal, it is a statement of fact. The term does have unfortunate implications, to some, in this society, however. Besides, *I* was the one that brought the 'sag' subject up, so the original reference, and my reference, was to me. At least so I interpreted it. That is very interesting about the Berlin pool. I wonder how often it breaks down and how expensive it would be make now? Did you see it in operation, or at two different depths? I have seen much smaller platforms that move up and down in deep pools, but they took up wall and deck space. They are designed for people with certain handicaps, I think.

RE: The Losers

Michael Heather — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:44:26 GMT

I did not see the pool at two different depths, but I believe it was still capable of moving when I swam there in 1986. I was intrigued by the joints in the bottom and what they might do during the transition,but did not get a detailed explanation of the operation. It was a spacious 50 meter pool, in a great large enclosure with flag standards all about the walls (no flags anymore), and grandstand seating on one side (maybe both, it has been a long time). Anyone else been to this pool?

RE: The Losers

Michael Heather — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:07:54 GMT

As long as the pools are long enough, there is no issue. Anal references are not only uncalled for, but misplaced as to the recipient(s). Adolph Hitler had no problem making a pool to satisfy most needs way back in the 1930's. The solution was to make a moveable bottom. This was a multi purpose training pool for military cadets, and I suppose it was used for competition also. The pool still exists today in Berlin as part of what used to be the Andrews barracks (U S Army). The bottom is moved by a combination of mechaical and hydraulic gizmos that can raise or lower the bottom of one end of the pool from 2 1/2 meters deep to about 1 meter. And, I suppose, anything in between. When I swam in it, it was kept at a lovely 21-22C (73-77F degrees). I yam what I yam (ach du lieber!)

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:50:16 GMT

As said by Fisch: "I honestly mean no offense to anyone, but this business about steel tape sag vs fiberglass sag is pretty anal. "Just lay the tape on the side of the pool edge (or both sides and divide by two) and that would be plenty close for me. No sag if the tape is supported by concrete. Can we all agree that trying to get the measurement accurate to 2 mm (or 1 Angstrom) is anal?

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:20:36 GMT

In shallow pools waves (turbulence) reflects from the bottom of the pool and slows swimmers down. It is generally understood that the deeper the pool the better (as in faster), but at some depth making the pool any deeper will not make any significant difference. That is why I, personally, am not particularly troubled by the difference in depth between the two Hawaii pools as far as speed is concerned. Also, racing starts into a shallow pool is a hazard that people are more aware of (concerned about?) then they were 40 years ago. If you read a blurb for a meet that says "fast pool" they usually mean "deep." (and not "short" :) ) There is always a conflict in pool design between those that want to make the best competitive pool (usually deeper than 2 meters, at least) and those that want a flexible design that can accomodate swim lessons, water aerobics, rehabilitation, and other things that are best in water that can be stood in.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:02:49 GMT

Fascinating thread here! Just to pick up on something Wayne mentioned, how does the depth of a pool have an effect? I have wondered about this. At my old swim club in Austin, the 4 foot deep pool got a couple of inches more shallow in the center, and I would often scrape my hands on the bottom which was no fun, but otherwise I am clueless what effect pool depth has. Tom.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:59:05 GMT

I honestly mean no offense to anyone, but this business about steel tape sag vs fiberglass sag is pretty anal. Just lay the tape on the side of the pool edge (or both sides and divide by two) and that would be plenty close for me. No sag if the tape is supported by concrete.

RE: The Losers

Michael Heather — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:06:38 GMT

To Michael Moore, Thanks for holding me up as a pillar of righteousness, but I didn't say I would not compete in a short pool. I'll compete anywhere, almost. But if it (the course) is not a legal length, I would not think of submitting any times for official recognition. When I was in high school, there were two schools in the conference that were 100 feet long, and our times for a 50 (really 66 2/3 yds) were dismal. So were the 100 and 200 IM times. And they were all recorded as official, as far as I know. Ugh. I yam what I yam

RE: The Losers

ljlete — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:50:17 GMT

To Mike Heather: You Said: "When I was in high school, there were two schools in the conference that were 100 feet long" Either the schools were really wide or they didn't have a very large student body. By the way, how long were the pools? :) Leo

RE: The Losers

Rob Copeland — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:26:19 GMT

To Jim mea culpa!! I sent the calculation of the parabola to the Rules folks only as an example of how little the sag would effect the total calculation for measuring a pool. I should have invoked the catenary curve calculation instead. However, without knowing the weight of the tape and the tension at the end points, I did not know how best to calculate the exact sag, so I sort of winged it and used the next best calculation. And in case anyone is interested in knowing the difference between a parabola and a catenary curve (yea right) there is a good explanation at: www.nas.com/.../hanging.htm In , our next lesson we will discuss the differences between electrical currents and ocean currents, and which one a wet swimmer should stay away from.

RE: The Losers

michaelmoore — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:54:25 GMT

For a different thread I was thinking about sag when measuring a pool. I remembered from high school geometry the pathagorian theorem (If I spelled it correctly it is only by luck). I assumed that the sag would be close to a straight line (I think it is really a curve). Assume that you have a 10mm sag, create a right triangle, one side is 10mm one leg is 12500mm and from that compute the hypotenuse (if I spelled that correctly I have hit the daily double). The length of the hypotenuse is barely longer than the 12500mm leg and so small as to be not measurable. (I think the co-efficient of expansion or the stretch of the tape would be more significant, but I will wait for the engineers to let me know). As I said this was 10th grade geometry, by 12th grade I was more interested in getting a date on Saturday night than studying and really forgot analytic geometry. Rob Copeland wrote back "a true 25 meter pool is measured with a 0.1 meter sag, in the tap, the length on the tape would read 25.001066663 meters" According to Rob, the formula used to calculate the segment of a parabola is s = sqrt+* ln)/(c/2)] Where: s = tape distance, h = midpoint sag and c = true pool length. To Mike Heather who measures the SPMA pools and would not compete in a pool that was one Angstrom short. "You da man." I once made a telescope lens where the lens was configured to a 1/10 wavelength of light or somewhere around 500 angstroms (as I recall). I know what it took to get the right interference pattern to be that close, but to get it an even smaller distance, I doff my hat. :-) michael

RE: The Losers

jim thornton — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:41:54 GMT

Most of what I learned in math class in yesteryear has become Edgar Allen Poe-esque "forgotten lore" but I do remember that the shape of hanging lines is the so-called catenary curve. This is different from parabolas, but how it varies, I have no idea. Anyhow, someone who understands the mathematics of catenary curves should be able to compute the fudge factor inherent in any degree of sagging, I would think.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:07:16 GMT

In our LMSC the approach to measurement, rightly or wrongly, has been to assume that, since all the pools we use are regularly used for USS and/or college competition, they are the correct length. In the only instance I'm aware of that a Masters-motivated measurement has taken place, it was done, years ago, "by the (USMS) book" - that is, by rank, though responsible, amateurs with a fibreglass tape usually used for measuring track and field courses. That tape was chosen over a similar steel tape because there seemed to have no appreciable sag compared to the steel tape. The pool was judged to be within the required specifications.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:48:37 GMT

That is a cool tape. One way it could work is that at the appropriate tension, the 'mis-measurement' as a consquence of the sag is a constant fraction of the total length. Then the marks on the tape are made slightly farther apart than the nominal length of meters. If one person can hold the zero position of the tape I doubt that the tape will stretch much. That would mean that Michael's tape could not be used if it were supported (or laid on the ground.) I wonder how much its measurements differ from that of a regular steel tape.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:06:10 GMT

Michael Heather is Chairman of the SPMA subcommittee on pool measurement. Along with Steve Schofield they have measured pools within SPMA for over a dozen years. Perhaps we can call upon Michael to write up a procedure for measuring pools using steel or fiberglass tape measures. We can call this a "Guideline for pool measurement" and along with laser measurement our LMSC's can begin to fix this problem and make masters swim meets a level playing field. There are so many variables in a swim meet, such as pool depth, lane line size, starting block height, even water purity that I think we have enough rules to cover everything. We just need to clarify and close any loop holes. If we do our job as a governing body the swimmers will never know, nor need to know all the rules and tolerances for pool design. And those who swam in 24.98 meter pools can have solace that they will allways have the world records for that distance. SPMA has a swimmer who will always hold the 300 meter backstroke record. Wayne McCauley SPMA Chairman

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:00:37 GMT

Did you know that if the water temperature changes from 90 F to 70 F a 50 meter concrete pool will get about 5 mm shorter? (No wonder those southerners get faster in the winter!) Anyway, if you measure your pool empty, be sure the sun is not shining on it, and the concrete is a uniform 80 degrees F.

RE: The Losers

Michael Heather — Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:36:55 GMT

To those who care about measuring pools with a (steel) tape: In the mid 1980's, one of the members of the Southern Pacific LMSC went to England on a holiday, and picked up a metric steel tape for our use in measuring 50M pools. This tape has a spring loaded tensioner that clinches the tape, and the instructions were to pull to a certain number of Newtons at a particular tempurature, depending upon the length of the pool. one party pulls at one end and another holds the zero at the other. I am giving the engineer who came up with the idea the credit for taking into consideration the elastic effect of the tape weighed against the gravitational forces at the specified temperature, without feeling a particular need for any floatation devices to be used. I do not pretend to know if the same type of device would be appropriate for use with a fibreglass measuring tape. Undoubtedly the coefficient of elongation is vastly different, and the specific gravity may be much less.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:58:30 GMT

Hi Michael Heather, Like Wayne, I would be very interested in the measurement procedure, as I politely asked for in another thread. What is the proper tensioner, and how do you know the stretch is compensated by the sag? Why did you let the relatively ignorant conversation of people who need information go on so long without your insight and experience? A lot of people will be measuring pools and they will need good guidance - evidently you can give it. I tried to start a new thread to discuss this topic of how to measure a pool, but that thread did not go anywhere. Someone with your expertise and strong opinions could certainly have contributed. I've asked similar questions before with no answer, but do you have any evidence, including anecdotal, that FINA knows about, cares about, or has acted on length discrepancies of 4 mm? I stand by my understanding of how to specify dimensions - I do it professionally. If I were your engineer I would listen to you, and write the length as you want it (ignoring pad thickness, for now) as 25.0000000000 (-0.0000000001 +0.15) meters, Then tell the contractor something different, perhaps 25.010 (+/-.005) and you would be little wiser. That would be the average length. I would need to give another specification for the differences from lane to lane. Actually, I do have a FINA story. Way back when, a swimmer lost an olympic race by a couple of thousandths of seconds. After that, it was decided to record only hundreths of seconds, and allow ties if the times were the same. Why? Because the "dimensional tolerances" could not be maintained from lane to lane! These are the differences in length that we are now talking about. Meanwhile, could you explain your first sentence? Who is a liberal (or was that a gratuitous and irrelevant insult at people who, as far as I know, have not contributed to this discussion)? What are liberals (or engineers) trying to give away? Trying to clarify the meaning of a measurement definition is giving something away? Asking for advice is giving something away? Or were you bringing up the dead horse of the NW zone meet (but still, what would be given away?). Wayne, I assume your comment about enough rules was addressed to my suggestion about the timing pads. I am only trying to make everything consistent and avoid loopholes. If we really care about 1mm (or one angstom) than we should certainly be concerned about the width of pads, and whether they are used or not. I imagine many pools would be OK with watches, but not OK with pads, so I see my suggestion as a way to make more pools available for meets. Incidently, I am surprised a market for timing pads ever developed. Before pads, I assume pools were designed for the nominal length (25 y, 25 m, 50 m). But to add a pad would make the pool too short, so there could be no 'legacy' market, and they could only be put in pools that were designed for them. But there were no suppliers of pads . . .

RE: The Losers

Frank Thompson — Thu, 14 Feb 2002 03:44:27 GMT

Phil, The swimmer your talking about in your FINA story was Tim Mckee, the great swimmer from the Univ. of Florida and USA, in the 400 IM in the 1972 Olympics in Munich, against Gunner Larsson from Long Beach State and swimming for the country of Sweden. You are right in your story. This race would go down as one of the closest in Olympic history and result in an international rule change. Both swimmers were clocked at 4:31.98 exact time to the hundredth. The timing device, which was by Omega was dismantled and upon inspection was found that Larson had touched two-thousandths of a second ahead of Mckee so officials determined Larson won and he was awarded the Gold medal. What was strange is that both swimmers were listed with the identical time in the record books. After the Olympics it was argued that pool walls and lanes could vary slightly making it unfair to measure time to the thousandth of a second. This is the only swimming race in Olympic history this has happened (tieing to the hundreth) and not awarding two Gold medals. It happened two times since then in the Olympics, the recent one being the Gary Hall and Anthony Ervin 50 Meter Free in 2000, and in the Women's 100 Free in 1984, with Nancy Hogshead and Carrie Steinseifer. All four of these swimmers were awarded the Gold Medal. One of my friends and Michigan Masters teammates, Larry Day (World Record Holder in the 100 and 200 Meter Fly 50-54) is currently representing Tim as an Attorney to get FINA to overturn this decision and award him a Gold Medal. Like anything the wheels of justice move slow and its very hard to overturn anything regarding the Olympics with FINA. This goes for Rick Demont, 1976 Olympic Women that were awarded silver medals against the East German women, namely Shirley Babashoff, and others. I saw Tim McKee at the 1983 Short Course Nationals, in fact he swam as a masters swimmer and won the 400 IM, keeping Jim McConica from sweeping 1st place in 6 events in taking 2nd place in the 400 IM and winning by .69 seconds over Jim. I think he still lives in Fort Lauderdale but has not competed in many years.

RE: The Losers

Michael Heather — Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:30:43 GMT

It had to be engineers (or liberals) that wanted to give away what wasn't theirs (or there) to give. I have spent 25 years dealing with (and sometimes enlightening) engineers, and with all respect, this has gotten far from the issue. If the pool is short, you don't report. By the way, steel tapes are just fine, thank you, if you use the proper tensioner in the proper manner while measuring. The stretch is accounted for in the sag (or vice versa), and everyone is happy. And I doubt that FINA would be happy accepting times from a pool that was 4MM short (that's 5/32 of an inch), even if the resolution was explained to them. Resolution be damned, I would rather swim in a pool that was 6 inches long (and I have, on occasion) than one that was one angstrom short. The latter would just seem wrong.

RE: The Losers

Former Member — Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:39:40 GMT

Jeff - you are correct sir - especially your remark about the coarseness of tape measurement. Now, lets take that a bit further. Steel tape introduces inherent inaccuracies (the measurement will ALWAYS be longer than the actual pool length) due to problems cited by others in actually getting the tape straight (tape sag due to no flat surface to lay it on). When a person uses a steel tape and measures 25.01, there is a very real possibility that the ACTUAL length of the pool is well under 25.00, even under 24.996. It is entirely possible, even likely, that many of the pools that have been measured as "correct" by steel tape, are, in fact, too short - especially LC pools. Fibreglass tapes can be made in such a way as to allow them to float on the water surface and thus dramatically reduce such error. I know the one we have is NOT of the floating variety and therefore measures the pool SOME amount longer than it actually is - but certainly not as badly as with a steel tape. Laser measurement, done by properly trained people eliminates the "tape sag" problem and is a more accurate method. Why is this not allowed? Are there any known situations where a pool measured by steel tape and found to be "long enough" have subsequently been remeasured by more accurate methods and found to be too short?