Nicely explained!
My solution is essentially the same:
Formula:
10 - m/12 = m
So m = 120/13 minutes = 9 minutes 14 seconds to nearest second
And of course the same principle can be used for the other times when the hands are inclined at equal angles, ie near 5 past 11, quarter past 9, etc etc.
Well done Steve. And as Ravvie said, nicely explained.
Short and sweet Ravvie. Nicely done.
… and also when the time is just past ‘Ten to Two’
I recall browsing through my Mum’s mail order catalogue back in the early 1970s. I noticed all the watches were at about ten past ten. It forms a smile (sort of). It also looks a bit like a tick mark, unlike ten to two. I assumed both features were subliminal marketing tactics.
It amused me when digital watches became prevalent as nobody thought to tell the photographers to use a different time, so they dutifully and painstakingly set the time to 10.10.
I’m pretty sure you are right, Ravvie.
Typo or Gross Error …
Something isn’t right about the following sum. However, by adjusting or repositioning just one of the digits, you can generate an equation (or sum) that is definitely correct.
200 x 202 = 80,000
Move the first 2 from 202 and put it to the top right of the 200.
I can’t display it 100% correctly but it will be something like:-
200(squared) x 02 = 80,000
I would say it’s a typo.
A gross error would be:
200 x 144 = 7,683,200
Hi Steve, your solution definitely works - well done !
My solution is somewhat different, but follows a similar line of thought.
Nicely done Ravvie.
You have the same solution as I have !
I’m obviously being thick here - I don’t get it?
It’s me being cryptic, playing with Don’s title for the teaser to give a similar erroneous formula with an equivalent correction to the one Don was thinking of.
A gross is 144.
Hi Steve, it took me quite a while before it all ‘clicked’
Ravvie’s post is a “playful” teaser (IMHO).
It only took me a few seconds to modify his equation by re-positioning just one of his digits to give a correct equation. It helped that I used the same type of modification in my original teaser.
It was some time later that I noticed, and appreciated, his play on words to relate ‘gross’ with ‘144’. (nice one Ravvie).
Fortunately, you don’t need to know that 144 = 1 gross in order to solve Ravvie’s teaser.
BTW, your solution to my initial teaser is the first time i’ve seen it done that way. well done. Makes you unique 
Though it does help narrow it down (“Gross Error”)
I can see that 200 x 20squared = 80,000 works; presumably that was Don’s answer.
Agreed.
My “gross error” variation was similar, namely to change 144 to 14^4 (sorry, I can’t do superscripts on my phone).
It certainly was Steve. But your answer was equally valid. Well done.
