The "What in the world is that ? ! ? !" thread - Feb 28, 2010

<p>About three weeks ago, we started up the first in the series of "What in the World Is That ? ! ? !" threads:<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Vh60</p>

<p>This thread has had a good run with numerous images offered to tease us and about 100 responses. My sense is that responses are slowing down because the the thread is no longer easily visible because it has rolled off the lists of threads which are sorted by thread start date, not by last date of last activity. Thus, only people searching for this thread and know its exact name, or people who requested an email alert will know that it still is alive and well. Anyway, the bottom line is that I think it's time for the second installment in this series and I'm going to ask Josh to close the 1st thread. Below, I've repeated the rules for messages in this thread. Have fun. </p>

<p>Tom M.<br>

--------------------------<br>

Rules / Guidelines:</p>

<p>1. The idea is to post a relatively normal image in which the main subject or some other area of the image can't immediately be identified, but the image hasn't been intentionally (or stupidly ;-) ) underexposed, blurred or distorted just to qualify for submission to this thread. Thus, photo-micrographs, other ultra-close shots, unusual subjects or heavily shadowed / cropped / made-up subjects, foggy environments, unusual perspectives, intentional motion blur done for artistic purposes, and images with similar effects are all likely candidates for posting here. Obviously everyone has to operate on the honor system to make the above rule work.<br /> <br /> 2. The maximum image size is 700 px in the longest dimension and 300kB max file size. EXIF and IPTC data may provide clues, so you may want to strip them out before posting your image. However, please don't manually change the EXIF data to try to intentionally mislead people. <br /> <br /> 3. Everyone can immediately post one and only one image to the thread. If there might be a question as to exactly what people should be trying to identify in your image, a short comment is appropriate, e.g., "ID the third dog silhouette from the left. I'm looking for the stage name of this famous dog, not just the breed."<br /> <br /> 4. Other folks, the "guessers", should then post their guesses in a very short message, e.g., "@Tom_Mann - That just has to be Lassie". Be sure that it is clear which image / poster your guess pertains to. <br /> <br /> 5. No "guesser" should ever post more than 3 messages (ie, new guesses, discussion, complaints about obscurity, etc.) about any one image. This is to prevent discussion any one image from monopolizing the thread. <br /> <br /> 6. The person who posted each image should acknowledge each of the guesses made about his/her image. This can be done either individually, or in a summary posting. Be especially prompt in replying to the 1st correct guess. If no one seems to be "getting it", the original poster of the image can give written (not photographic) hints. The original poster of an image can post as many messages as it takes to respond to others, give hints, etc.<br /> <br /> 7. The reward for the first correct guess is that both the person who guessed correctly and the original poster of the image can now each post a new image for discussion. <br /> <br /> <br /> 8. If it looks like no one can correctly ID a given image, I'll ask the OP to provide the correct identification. <br /> <br /> <br /> 9. Periodically, I'll start up a new thread to gather a new group of obscure images to identify. :-)<br /> <br /> <br /> The goal behind the above rules is to try to keep the thread fun and lively so that lots of folks get a chance to post their images and guesses, but no one can monopolize the thread by posting image after image. Similarly, discussion of any one image should never become so prolonged that it effectively derails the thread.<br>

---------------</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tom,</p>

 

<p>I really like the idea of periodically refreshing the thread. Hopefully it’ll become a regular

feature!</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p><div></div>

<p>The carrier links on an IBM Selectric typewriter!? No idea, actually.</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

 

<p>It’s not a typewriter.</p>

 

<p>That does remind me, though…my parents “forced” me to take typing in high

school. We learned on manual typewriters…Olivetti, I think. I finished that semester somewhere

around 35 WPM.</p>

 

<p>I then decided all on my own to take the second semester, where we moved up to the amazing

Selectric II. By the end of that semester, I was typing regularly over 80-85 WPM. I haven’t

checked my speed in years (decades?), but it’s only gotten faster over the years. (I think…hope?)</p>

 

<p>I am most grateful to my parents for their initial insistence.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Ben - Thanks for your kind comments. Yes, I think that quite a few people enjoy this sort of thing, so I would also like to see it kept alive. Unfortunately, about a week ago, I had to go out of town on business so, other than periodically making sure the thread was running on track, I haven't had time to post any of my own images. Now that I'm back, I'll see what I can dig up.</p>

<p>@Ben - The drive mechanism on an ink jet (or similar) printer?</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

 

<p>Tom,</p>

 

<p>That would be it!</p>

 

<p>In fact, the picture is about life-size…it’s the carriage mechanism from a Canon

iPF8100.</p>

 

<p>Glad to have you back, and I hope the trip at least had some pleasant moments.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>OK, folks, try this ...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Tom,</p>

 

<p>That almost <em>has</em> to be a 100% crop of a flutterby…</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>What is this then ?</p><div></div>

<p>Arghhh! Mine are too easy. Nailed on the 1st try by Ben.</p>

<p>Here is the full critter.</p>

<p>Tom M.</p><div></div>

<p>@Anders - Interior of a concert hall?</p>

<p>Anders -- Some type of sound baffle in a concert hall? </p>

<p>Well, I wasn't posting when this thread got started. Anyway, I have this photo. It is obviously not a close up or an unusual angle. You'd be seeing the same things if you were standing next to them.</p>

<p><img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/415093/Photos%20-%200663.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Brian,</p>

 

<p>Are those diving bells of some sort…?</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Brian, I have no ideas as to what that is; only guess is that they remind me of some sort of 'inner tube', like a bladder for a football although the shape is all wrong.........<br>

Anyway, here is one of mine. to make it a bit easier, I will admit that it is an extreme close up, I used a macro lens and an extension tube. Oh and its the edge of something circular (and don't be distracted by the gold tones; its not jewelery of any sort!)<br>

Good Luck!</p><div></div>

<p>Tom and Steve are right in the fact that it is an interior of something, but it is not a concert hall. It is from the German parliament in Berlin.</p>

<p>Here is an odd one for you. I needed help to figure out exactly what it was, and I took the picture. <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7252426-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="524" /></p>

 

<p>@Anthea - Might it be a close up of one of these: http://www.bconnex.net/~zirgo/Trailer/RoundWireBrush.jpg?</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

<p>@Brian - Spherical pressure vessel / chemical reactor similar to those shown here: http://www.engin.umich.edu/~CRE/01chap/html/reactors/photos.htm ?</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

<p>@Stephen - A wild guess ... A circular, air-controlling louver such as one might see on the top of locomotives such as shown in the center of this image: http://www.trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib014/3985AB.GIF ?</p>

<p>Tom you got it! How the heck did you guess? Well done!</p>

<p>Anthea, I could be way off base, but from some images of electronic and mechanical components that you have posted in the past, I have a suspicion that you are an engineer. I put that guess together with thinking about the sorts of objects an engineer might have around and find interesting to photograph. To that mix, I added my own experience in photography of weird little things made of wire (see attached), and basically took a wild guess. ;-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - The attached image is so highly specific, no one could possibly guess what it is, so don't even try. But for those that are curious, it's a mass of tiny parallel copper wires embedded in epoxy and ground to a point at the end. The cross section is a bit less than 1 mm x 1 mm. It's designed to record from neurons.</p><div></div>

<p>Tom<br>

Afraid that you are way off base in this case! LOL an engineer? Perhaps in a past life....in my current life I'm actually a social worker/Phd student/tutor in the Social Work and Human Services program of my uni. Hmm, I do love all things electronic (and mechanical) and my partner (also a student) reguarly pulls apart computers, printers and other electonic gizzmos (and I hover over his shoulder and grab any interesting components to photograph) plus he is currently rebuilding his motorbike (hence the wire brush that I grabbed before he could use it because I thought it had potential as a macro) so that's why the stuff I post is so....whatever it is!<br>

This is a great idea, by the way, I wanted to be part of the fun last time but I didn't have the right timing. I did hope that another one would start up, so thanks for the fun!<br>

PS I really like the shot you attached - do you have any more like that?</p><div></div>

<p>@ Tom Mann - you were close when you guessed that it was for a train. It is a radial snow plow for clearing snow from the tracks. </p>

<p>@Anthea - Oh, well, at least I guessed that you must have had a good source for parts. :-) PS - great shot for guessing.</p>

<p>@Stephen - I think you are being too generous. Its construction looked heavy enough to be from a train, but there's no way I could have guessed that it was a radial plow because I've never seen one.</p>

<p>Anyway, below is another weird shot from my collection. Other than a bit of sharpening and cropping, this shot is almost straight from the camera and the colors are just about what one would see by eye. However, the shot was taken under slightly unusual "conditions", so, when you ID it, you also need to ID the "conditions" and explain why it looks so orange. ;-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>