sjordan2 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) Do I get college credit for attending this thread? The last formula I could proof to 100 pages was E=mc2, but this one befuddles me. Edited December 5, 2011 by sjordan2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkman Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) So if a gallon of water weighs 8 pounds (just a guess)... don't 10 gallons weigh 80 pounds and vice versa? That is correct. But a 10 gal cube is not ten times wider, longer, and higher, than a 1 gal cube. If you put a layer of gallon cubes on a pallet, ten wide, ten deep, you already have 100 gallons. Stack those ten high, and you end up with 1,000 gallons, i.e. 8,000 pounds. Argumentum e contrario: A 1000 gallon tank truck weighing 8,000 pounds would be a 1 gallon tank truck weighing 8 pounds in 1:10 scale. In 1:25 scale, it would be an 8.195 ounces tank truck weighing 0.512 pounds Edited December 5, 2011 by Junkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Cates Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Variables, proportions, demensions, blah blah blah blah blah...It's all relative. When it really comes down to it, that 1/25 Camaro or that block of steel, will weigh what ever you want it to weigh. If I believe I only weigh 200lbs, that is how much I weigh. I don't care if that scale with all those contraptions and doodads in it says 300lbs. Reality is only what you perceive it to be people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoparWoman Jamie Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 When I joined this forum I was told there would be no math... Boy did someone steer you in the wrong direction, Harry! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxer Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 The exact result with my formula is 0.24096 lbs, so I'd consider it close enough. I have a Ph.D. in physics, if that counts for anything, and I say you are correct. hahah ... that's cool, Christian. I was a practical engineer ... consulted for real people .. so I rounded off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moparmagiclives Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 ...thats why my 1:24 Delorian is still sitting on my bench, with my calculations..it will never reach 88.8 mph !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjordan2 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Variables, proportions, demensions, blah blah blah blah blah...It's all relative. When it really comes down to it, that 1/25 Camaro or that block of steel, will weigh what ever you want it to weigh. If I believe I only weigh 200lbs, that is how much I weigh. I don't care if that scale with all those contraptions and doodads in it says 300lbs. Reality is only what you perceive it to be people! I'm cool with that. Who cares about accuracy, truth, reality, professional knowledge, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkman Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) hahah ... that's cool, Christian. I was a practical engineer ... consulted for real people .. so I rounded off. I get it.... Engineer: The glass is neither half full, nor half empty. It is over dimensioned by the factor of 2 of it's optimal efficiency. Physicist: The glass is 1/2 x (glass full - glass empty) which means: The glass is neither half full, nor half empty. It is a superposition of two different states, that is, half full and half empty. Randomly measuring the liquid in the glass revealed that half of the time it was found that the glass was half full, and half of the time it was found that the glass was half empty. This is the most accurate result the examined scenario allows. Now dump the water and hand me the Scotch. Edited December 5, 2011 by Junkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjordan2 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 My glass is 1/3 full. SOAMES, BRING THE BLOODY BOTTLE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelmartin Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 ok, I think I get it. Volume is three-dimensional, not two-dimensional. Bingo! The easy way to do it is to calculate the cube root of the weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbowser Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Wow. No wonder you guys paint what can't be seen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaronw Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) The Junkman already kind of did this, but lets break out the math blocks they use in my son's school. If you have a cube that is 25 blocks tall, 25 blocks wide and 25 blocks deep you will have a total of 15,625 blocks total. If you scale that down to 1/25 scale you will be left with only 1 block. You have to divide each side by 25 (25x25x25 = 15,625 / 15,625 = 1 block), not the total number of blocks by 25 (15,625 / 25 = 625 blocks). Not trying to be demeaning by using counting blocks just seems like the easiest way to explain it. Trivial yes, but I have actually seen people try to calculate the scale weight / volume (tank size etc) so it is actually useful to know how it is done. Edited December 5, 2011 by Aaronw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Funny- I know one of those 'dead serious' replica stock modelers. Whenever he shows off his latest model and lists all the things he did to it to make it as realistic as possbile, I pick it up and tell him- "Scale weight is off. I shouldn't be able to pick it up with one hand." It used to amuse him, now I think it just annoys him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachinistMark Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Machinists : If we didnt have common sense, We'd be engineers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbwelda Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 right on junkman, and well stated. physics is a study in unempirical, counter-intuitive thinking. i got that from the one semester i subjected myself to its study. its great to see it being applied in real life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 So... is 40 weight oil still 40 weight in 1:25 scale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moparmagiclives Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 So... is 40 weight oil still 40 weight in 1:25 scale? It is, but you get ripped of on the price, its not a full quart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkman Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 It is, but you get ripped of on the price, its not a full quart. Is a Dollar still a Dollar in 1:25th scale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moparmagiclives Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 That depends on whos selling it....and how old it is. If its still in the wraper I hear its worth more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperStockAndy Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 That depends on whos selling it....and how old it is. If its still in the wraper I hear its worth more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 It is, but you get ripped of on the price, its not a full quart. Seems like it would be VERY difficult to pour 1:1 40 weight into a 1:25 scale oil fill, even with the aid of a funnel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxer Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 That depends on whos selling it....and how old it is. If its still in the wraper I hear its worth more i/m sure they spent more on designing the wrapper than filling the can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moparmagiclives Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Seems like it would be VERY difficult to pour 1:1 40 weight into a 1:25 scale oil fill, even with the aid of a funnel! Warm it up ??? i/m sure they spent more on designing the wrapper than filling the can. Thats how you know you got ur self something made in America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 This has turned into a very interesting (and educational) thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperStockAndy Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 This has turned into a very interesting (and educational) thread! Yeah, too bad though when you have the people like me that suck at math! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.