Well, I certainly never expected to find an individual these days on the rec who actually hadn't had at least the to receive at least a high school education -- so, given that this is apparently the case I'll make a partial retraction of my former comments but note that a little googling would have undoubtedly brought up a plethora of sites containing all the "geometry explained" sites necessary to answer this and many other questions...
Last time I saw logic like that Eric Idle was saying "She's a witch !"
Boy, I guess I sure missed the mark. I saw a question to which I knew the answer, and proceeded to give it, complete with my work (haven't been able to "show my work" in ages) to the OP.
Little did I know that it was somehow inappropriate or against the rules--that we're supposed to find out for ourselves.
Instead, we get the OP's message, about three posts with the answer, another half dozen or so with information leading to the right answer and the rest of the 41 posts (to date) lambasting the OP for not knowing the answer, not knowing the underlying math, misstating the proposition, and not looking elsewhere for the answer.
What a bunch of crap.
All you people jumping on the OP on the assumption he was too lazy to look up the answer on his own are ten times worse, because you were too lazy to ignore the friggin' original post in the first place.
What a bunch of crap.
But I repeat myself.
...
...
Chill, man... :)
I was simply making a (partial) apology to OP who lambasted me for being excessively terse in the response (although I'll admit this isn't in exactly sequential order so you may have missed his reply to my post which simply provided the formula needed w/ no amplification on the assumption anyone here would have had HS math and simply needed reminding of a formula).
While I also tend to answer most anything I know, I also tend to try to point folks to the fact they could probably have found the answer quicker more than likely on their own in the case of really simple stuff or to other ways/places where more fundamental results can be found.
The rec isn't one to particularly harp on the issue of FAQ's and so on, some other ng's I frequent are very much in that mode and I probably tend to bring some of that here as well.
Isn't George correct? If an item sinks in water it displaces its own volume of water.
Eureka! and all that.
If two objects of different mass displace the same volume of water, you can determine which object is more dense than the other.
Eureka!
I'm not all that short on education, but there are a ton of big gaps. My dad was not much of a teacher. I had read at least 1500 scfi novels before I could write longhand. I have 2 years of college towards a degree in psychology but a basic understanding of math, grammar, and punctuation escape me.
Most of my paid work is pretty mundane, mostly fireplace and mantle work for the rich an famous. My artistic hobby work just brings me trouble. I carve in the style of the Haida Gwaii but I'm a pink skinned red haired transplanted American.
Anyway, I have to go float a dock...thanks for the help.
Goes back to what they teach teachers - honor the question to honor the student.
Even if both of them are a bunch of crap.
Only for floating objects. An object that is *immersed* in water displaces its volume, not its weight.
Not sure I agree with this....Automobile engines are referred to as having a DISPLACEMENT of xxx cubic inches (or liters) which is a volumetric measure.
Bruce T
Sorry about that, but the way you answered the other guys...
If you're interested, you can buy school books at a real discount on the Web from
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, the term "Homo Sapiens" is a goal, not a description. ----
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If only Archimedes had read HHGTTG, he would have known where his towel was. :-)
Oh? are you saying that it isn't true?
I think he's saying you're made of wood. Or weigh the same as a duck.
;-)
Don't have a clue, since I don't know who Eric Idle is or what he was talking about. I guess I just don't care, since he obviously has a screw loose, err, I counted them and it is actually two screws, 5 bolts, and 4 rivets loose, plus the back bumper is dragging on the ground, but it is getting sharp.
The references are to a scene in the film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". The script for the scene is here:
Aha! I've got the VCR tape but didn't remember who Erick Idle was. Actually I don't remember, or ever knew the names of the guys in the troop. I still don't remember "She's a witch." must not be very memorable, at least to me. The knights that say nicht, the frenchmen on the castle walls, and the rabbit must have been way funnier as I remember them. Particularly the rabbit. Almost as funny as Jimmy Carters attack rabbit.
Ok...without reading the REST of this thread...the volume of a cylinder is defined as the area of the END of the cylinder times the length. The area of a circle is defined as PI * radius^2 Now...since we have not been given the radius...we also know that the circumference of a circle is defined as PI * D. Doing a bit of re-arranging... radius = (Circumference /PI) / 2 Plugging some numbers in... Radius = (12.5" / 3.142) / 2 = 1.98" Now lets see if we can figure out the volume. formula: area = 1.333 * PI * (radius^2) and, plugging some numbers in: Area = (3.142 * (1.98 * 1.98)) = 12.317 sq" We know that the height of the cylinder is 22 inches, so the volume should be (Height * Area) Volume = (22 * 12.317) = 270.993 cubic inches.
Hope this makes sense... Regards Dave Mundt
Convert values to ft, go to
I think LRod posted the correct answer in post #11. Below I have reposted his thoughts on this and have added some notes in case the calculated numbers like 3.97899 might actually be 4 in true measure.
Well, the area of the circle describing the cylinder is pi*r^2, so to find r we must first determine the diameter by dividing the circumference by pi :
12.5"/pi = 3.97899" (diameter) (*true measure might be 4")The radius then is 3.97899/2 = 1.989" (true measure might be 2")
Then we find the area of the circle described by the cylinder as pi * r^2
1.989^2 = 3.958 (*true measure might be 2 squared = 4) 3.958 * pi = 12.434 in^2 (4 x 3.1416 = 12.5664)Every linear inch of the length of that cylinder then is 12.434 in^3, so the cylinder volume is 273.555 in^3
If there is an error in the original measurement and the true diameter of the cylinder is 4", then the volume of the cylinder is 22 x 12.5664 = 276.4608 cu. in.
Thank you.
You know, if I had used "4" and "2" someone would have come along and criticized my lack of precision.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.