Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Idle Science

Message In Bottle Found After 98 Years Near Shetland 107

Posted by samzenpus from the message-in-a-bottle dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A drift bottle released in June 1914 by Captain CH Brown of the Glasgow School of Navigation has been found. Part of a project to help map currents, 1,890 scientific research bottles were released around Scotland. Only 315 of them were ever recovered. From the article: 'Mr Leaper, 43, who found the bottle east of Shetland, explained: "As we hauled in the nets I spotted the bottle neck sticking out and I quickly grabbed it before it fell back in the sea. It was very exciting to find the bottle and I couldn't wait to open it."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Message In Bottle Found After 98 Years Near Shetland More

Message In Bottle Found After 98 Years Near Shetland

Comments Filter:

  • Sixpence None The Richer? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cyrano de Maniac ( 60961 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:34PM (#41185481)

    Yes, but was he awarded the promised six pence?

  • That guy likes setting that record:p

  • Neat (Score:3)

    by Formalin ( 1945560 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:35PM (#41185487)

    Bottle looks to be in pretty good shape - I can't tell what the seal is, just cork?

    I wonder if he'll get to collect the 6 pence finders fee. What's that in decimal... with interest?

    • Re:Neat (Score:4, Informative)

      by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:49PM (#41185579)

      According to this [wikipedia.org], sixpence translates to 2.5p, or 0.025L (not even going to try using the right character, /. will eat it). And according to this PDF [parliament.uk], the Pound was worth roughly 76 times more in 2005 (the year it was written) than it was in 1914. So it comes out to be about 2L, or about US$3.

      • Re:Neat (Score:4, Informative)

        by thelexx ( 237096 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @09:04PM (#41185643)

        "the Pound was worth roughly 76 times more in 2005 (the year it was written) than it was in 1914."

        Less. The pound was worth ~76 times less in 2005 than in 1914. See the graphs on pages 18 and 19.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by gman003 ( 1693318 )

          Depends on how you look at it. 76 L(1914) are only worth 1 L(2005), so in that sense it is worth less. But 1 L(1914) would buy you far more than 1 L(2005), so in that sense it is worth more.

          • Re:Neat (Score:5, Insightful)

            by thelexx ( 237096 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @09:12PM (#41185693)

            "But 1 L(1914) would buy you far more than 1 L(2005), so in that sense it is worth more."

            Think about that for a minute.

            1 in 1914 = 76 loaves of bread (just a number for example)
            1 in 2005 = 1 loaf of bread

            In absolutely no sense is it worth more now. It is very simple. If it were truly worth more now, in any way shape or form, you would be getting more than 76 loaves of bread for it.

            • Ah, my bad, I did have it backwards. Mind kept reading it as what I meant to write, not what I actually wrote.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by geekoid ( 135745 )

              you made me curious.
              In the US:
              1914 - price of bread per pound 6 cents
              2002 - 149 cents

              Calculating inflation, 6 cents in 1914 is equivalent to 107 cents in 2002.

              So we are paying more for bread, but. It s sliced, safer, higher quality, and consistent.

              • you made me curious.
                In the US:
                1914 - price of bread per pound 6 cents
                2002 - 149 cents
                Calculating inflation, 6 cents in 1914 is equivalent to 107 cents in 2002.
                So we are paying more for bread, but. It s sliced, safer, higher quality, and consistent.
                ?? Pre-sliced sucks. "Safer" is nonsense. Consistency is boring. And most important, sliced mass-produced bread is crap both nutritionally and gustatorially. Give me a good local bakery any day.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by thelexx ( 237096 )

                For sure, technological advancement SHOULD lead to a natural decrease in many prices over time. That isn't the case though because the money is losing value more quickly than the advancements are happening. The fact that even superior (let's say 5x) bread is now more than 30 cents per pound shows that pretty clearly.

                And you made me curious too! The loaf of bread on my shelf says 1lb on the label and it was a little over $2 IIRC.

          • Do you mean £? I thought you were talking about Lira for a minute. And yeah, a pre- Decimalisation quid could buy you a lot more back then.

        • Re:Neat (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @11:00PM (#41186237)

          Depends on what you are going to buy with it. Inflation isn't totally uniform. - How much did radios and other consumer electronics cost back then?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        There was no promise to pay interest, or adjust for inflation, etc. One can buy a sixpence coin on UK eBay with shipping, for a pound, so you can probably get one for less than that.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        USS3 how dumb the L use looks to a Brit.

        £.

      • Sure, they'll let it through: £ :-)

        Choose ``HTML Formatted'' in the menu below the text-entry box, and type in ``£''.

        Alternatively, just cut and paste the character, and ignore the A-ring [wikipedia.org] that /. sticks in front: £

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Inda ( 580031 )
      One night, eight years ago, down on the Cornish coast, we drank this sickly drink called Dooleys. In a moment of madness we placed a scrap of paper in the bottle with my email address and the words "Just for fun". Our small boat was pushed into the English Channel and we sailed out a mile before I lobbed the bottle overboard. Stupidity knows no bounds.

      A month later I recieved an email.

      The bottle had travelled all of two miles down the coast in that time, through one of the busiest shipping lanes in the wor

  • So... (Score:3)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:36PM (#41185491)
    how do they know it was near Shetland for 98 years?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I could tell you but I think it is more fun to know the answer and keep you in the dark. Also, read the article you twat.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        Whoosh. (not unexpected for an AC)

        "Message In Bottle Found After 98 Years Near Shetland" != "Message In Bottle Found Near Shetland After 98 Years".

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by icebike ( 68054 ) * on Thursday August 30, 2012 @09:04PM (#41185647)

      how do they know it was near Shetland for 98 years?

      They obviously don't. In fact, unless there are some incredibly regular local current loops this bottle could have traveled a very long way.
      These were designed to sink to some depth, (but obviously not to the bottom) and flow with the currents, and be below the depth where they
      would likely be dashed on the rocks by waves.

      Looking at a map of the Atlantic Currents [wikipedia.org] its quite possible these bottles may have covered would be up to the arctic, back down along Greenland, Labrador, delivered to the North Atlantic Drift and back to Shetland. Probably many round such trips over the years.

      • In fact, unless there are some incredibly regular local current loops this bottle could have traveled a very long way.

        Right. But this is fascinating data. Datum? The time-integrated value of ocean currents with an integration time of 98 years.

        Most people want to know the instantaneous value. Climatologists want to know the perhaps one year average. But here we have the 98 year integration. Do you know how much it would cost to build a modern electronic current meter that would have a calibration valid for 98 years?

  • On the back was written (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jailbrekr ( 73837 ) <jailbrekr@digitaladdiction.net> on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:37PM (#41185495) Homepage

    BSD Is Dying

  • ping (Score:5, Funny)

    by djl4570 ( 801529 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:53PM (#41185601) Journal
    $ping 192.168.28.1

    Pinging 192.168.28.1 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 192.168.28.1: bytes=32 time=3,092,644,800,000ms TTL=64

    Ping statistics for 192.168.28.1:
    Packets: Sent = 1, Received = 1, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 3,092,644,800,000ms, Maximum = 3,092,644,800,000ms, Average = 3,092,644,800,000ms
    $

    • Re:ping (Score:5, Funny)

      by p0p0 ( 1841106 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @09:50PM (#41185907)
      Shouldn't it be closer to:
      $ping shetland.gov

      Pinging shetland.gov with 32 bytes of data:
      Reply from shetland.gov: bytes=32 time=3,092,644,800,000ms TTL=64

      Ping statistics for shetland.gov:
      Packets: Sent = 1,890, Received = 315, Lost = 1575 (83% loss),
      Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
      Minimum = 3,092,644,800,000ms, Maximum = 3,092,644,800,000ms, Average = 3,092,644,800,000ms
      $

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I think the average ping time is shorter (from the 314 recovered bottles), just the max value being 3Ts.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by drkim ( 1559875 )

      Still, better than my ISP...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )

      I think you got the TTL wrong.

  • Obvious joke here (Score:5, Funny)

    by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Thursday August 30, 2012 @08:57PM (#41185617) Homepage

    Unfortunately, The Police could not be reached for comment.

  • Send more Rum ....

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Be sure to drink your Ovaltine...

  • Long Term Storage (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, 2012 @10:17PM (#41186029)

    Remember the story on this site about creating a time capsule to be opened in the future? And everyone was going on about various seals, gas interactions, acid free paper, etc.

    Seems like a piece of paper stuck inside a bottle can last a hundred years.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It may be important to note that the typical ocean surface temperature near the British Isles is in the mid 50s (F) year-round, but "10 feet underground" temperatures can hit 70F in the summertime. That extra 20F might cause a lot of aging.

      (Yes, I'm ignoring the damage caused by direct light/UV; underground stuff doesn't have to worry about that.)

    • Remember the story on this site about creating a time capsule to be opened in the future? And everyone was going on about various seals, gas interactions, acid free paper, etc.

      Seems like a piece of paper stuck inside a bottle can last a hundred years.

      Progress.

      I think that the use of acid to bleach paper might actually post-date the post-card in question.

  • It was very exciting to find the bottle and I couldn't wait to open it.

    Followed immediately by a crushing disappointment that it did not hold liquor.

  • Fan mail from a flounder?

  • My Whiskey and there are not enough drams to go around....therefore first posters get a wee dram and the rest can piss off!

    Topic CLOSED!

  • Hey, 1914 called, they want their.... oh.

  • The note said: (Score:3)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday August 31, 2012 @11:45AM (#41190889) Homepage Journal

    First post!

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close