Non-Euclidean math & geometry
Donald G. Shead
understanding science. It's reaches beyond the normal ken of all but those
skilled in it, and as such is misleading the rest.
Gregory L. Hansen
On the other hand, if you're not active in research that involves it, why
would you care? Should scientists and engineers strictly limit their
methods to those that the common public can understand without having to
wrinkle their brows and study? If you're working for Michelin and using
non-Euclidean geometry to model a tire on the road, is your research
affected by how well "the rest" can understand what you're doing?
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Uncle Al
Cartography
Surveying
Navigation
Yeah, sHead, only a PhD sailor in 1492 had a chance of finding the New
World. Geoge Washington got all confused when he surveyed Virginia
and thought it was in the US instead of the UK.
Fucking imbecile.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Donald G. Shead
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:an9l92$61n$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <zUXl9.1355$Cv2.48...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>,
> Donald G. Shead <u10...@snet.net> wrote:
> >Non-Euclidean math & geometry has been more of a bane than a boon for
> >understanding science. It's reaches beyond the normal ken of all but
those
> >skilled in it, and as such is misleading the rest.
> >
> >
>
>
> On the other hand, if you're not active in research that involves it, why
> would you care? Should scientists and engineers strictly limit their
> methods to those that the common public can understand without having to
> wrinkle their brows and study? If you're working for Michelin and using
> non-Euclidean geometry to model a tire on the road, is your research
> affected by how well "the rest" can understand what you're doing?
>
Yes; but how many working for Michelin use non-Euclidean geometry? How many
of them know _how_ to use it? A couple of their leaders and a few
consultants?
Meanwhile the vast majority has to study it as a prerequisite to get a
degree.
Gregory L. Hansen
Donald G. Shead <u10...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:an9l92$61n$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <zUXl9.1355$Cv2.48...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Donald G. Shead <u10...@snet.net> wrote:
>> >Non-Euclidean math & geometry has been more of a bane than a boon for
>> >understanding science. It's reaches beyond the normal ken of all but
>those
>> >skilled in it, and as such is misleading the rest.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, if you're not active in research that involves it, why
>> would you care? Should scientists and engineers strictly limit their
>> methods to those that the common public can understand without having to
>> wrinkle their brows and study? If you're working for Michelin and using
>> non-Euclidean geometry to model a tire on the road, is your research
>> affected by how well "the rest" can understand what you're doing?
>>
>
>Yes; but how many working for Michelin use non-Euclidean geometry? How many
>of them know _how_ to use it? A couple of their leaders and a few
>consultants?
I used that as an example because of a story I'd heard about a guy that
did his work in general relativity in school, and was hired by Michelin
because he was very good with modeling curved geometries. And tires are
curved.
So to answer your question: at least one.
Curved geometries are also often used in many-body mechanics, "constant
energy manifolds" and so on. So there's probably a lot of use of it in
finance, where canonical mechanics has been applied pretty intensely
lately.
>Meanwhile the vast majority has to study it as a prerequisite to get a
>degree.
Not really. There's a little bit with special relativity, which is
basically the Pythagorean theorem with one of the "+" signs turned into a
"-" sign. Aside from that, it's a matter of where the student wants to
specialize.
But as a general rule, if it's commonly used by the professionals in the
field you're studying for, you should not object to learning it to get
your degree in that field.
ga...@snet.net
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
ga...@snet.net
ga...@snet.net
>"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
>>
>> Non-Euclidean math & geometry has been more of a bane than a boon for
>> understanding science. It's reaches beyond the normal ken of all but those
>> skilled in it, and as such is misleading the rest.
>
>Cartography
>Surveying
>Navigation
>
to do them: Lucky if you could get anybody to understand "solid geometry".
In fact it would be wise for everyone to realize that Earth's a semi-solid
first, and then learn that crows and other's must fly _around_ its surface.
It's different today with smarties like you around: If only you'd watch your
dam language: It's only making it harder for you to avoid Hades;)
>Yeah, sHead, only a PhD sailor in 1492 had a chance of finding the New
>World. Geoge Washington got all confused when he surveyed Virginia
>and thought it was in the US instead of the UK.
>
>Fucking imbecile.
>
>--
>Uncle Al
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Thad Coons
"Donald G. Shead" <u10...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:zUXl9.1355$Cv2.48...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> Non-Euclidean math & geometry has been more of a bane than a boon for
> understanding science. It's reaches beyond the normal ken of all but those
> skilled in it, and as such is misleading the rest.
IOW, science should be dumbed down so dummies won't misunderstand it?
Since people who aren't skilled in Euclidean geometry can't understand it,
then those who are skilled enough to understand and use it, shouldn't?
Don't be a fool.
Thad Coons.
Aardvark
> understanding science. It's reaches beyond the normal ken of all but those
> skilled in it, and as such is misleading the rest.
You're obviously a memeber of the trollX school of anti-science. "If I
can't understand something, I'd rather it was banned than have to
watch people cleverer than me get on with using it".
Nice philosophy.
josX
There is no such thing as 'non Euclidean math', where 'Euclidean'
stands for reality-math. You can model everything in reality, and
having two lines on a curved surface makes no fundamental difference
at all. These two lines simply aren't parallel lines, because they
are not /straight/, they are /bend/. Euclidean math should be called
/real/ math, all math and geometry that can be modeled in reality,
and then measured up and even curve fitted to find dependancies.
Afaics, non-euclidean geometry merely consists of a redefinetion of
certain words so it appears difficult to others, but in reality is
is just lines on a curved surface. It's a fake school of math, it
doesn't exist outside Euclidean geometry.
--
jos
Jeremy Watts
"Aardvark" <ambidextro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ea72541.02093...@posting.google.com...
shead cant understand calculus either, so he'd like to see it banned too
David Ewan Kahana
> There is no such thing as 'non Euclidean math'
This is going to come as a real surprise to N. Bourbaki,
when I tell him.
cheers!
David
Donald G. Shead
"Jeremy Watts" <jeremy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mpem9.711$iq1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
If anyone can make good use of it; let them.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Donald G. Shead" <u10...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>"Jeremy Watts" <jeremy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:mpem9.711$iq1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>Shead understands the calculus and could "care less" if
>it's banned or not:
>If anyone can make good use of it; let them.
Pretend that you own a tuna canning company. One of your
products is a 6 oz. can of tuna. The less metal you need
to use, the more money you can make. You need to find out
what shape of the can will cost the least.
So this turns into a problem of maximum volume with minimum
surface area. It's a bitch to solve using arithmetic or
algebra; I never did succeed with these two. It's a snap
with calculus.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Donald G. Shead
Spaceman
>You're obviously a memeber of the trollX school of anti-science.
<LOL>
You are obviously a couple french fries short of a happy meal.
Research all clocks Aardvark.
the clocks malfunctioned.
Your time God died!
I killed it.
<ELOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Randy Poe
> There is no such thing as 'non Euclidean math', where 'Euclidean'
> stands for reality-math.
The surface of a sphere is non-Euclidean. We live on it.
I do non-Euclidean math all the time, and so does every
navigator on earth.
- Randy
Randy Poe
I'm going to take you up on it, but you'll probably
stop on line one and go into your "aw shucks, who cares
about that ivory tower stuff anyway?" routine.
Volume of can = pi*r^2*h. This is a constant V,
so for any given choice of radius r, we must have
h = V/(pi*r^2).
Surface area of can = (2*pi*r*h) + 2*pi*r^2
Substitute in h: A = 2*pi*r*V/(pi*r^2) + 2*pi*r^2
= 2*V/r + 2*pi*r^2
Now differentiate with A with respect to r and find
where the derivative is zero:
dA/dr = -2*V/r^2 + 4*pi*r = 0
2*V/r^2 = 4*pi*r
r = (V/(2*pi))^(1/3)
h = (V/pi)*(2*pi/V)^(2/3)
= (V/pi)^(1/3)*2^(2/3)
It's simpler to look at h/r = 2^(2/3)*2^(1/3) = 2
So the surface area is minimized when the height is twice
the radius.
- Randy
Spaceman
>Volume of can = pi*r^2*h. This is a constant V,
>so for any given choice of radius r, we must have
>h = V/(pi*r^2).
Damn idiot!
forgot to "allow for can thickness".
What a fool!
<LOL>
>So the surface area is minimized when the height is twice
>the radius.
<ROFLOL>
you are lost!
Donald G. Shead
"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3D99A496...@atl.lmco.com...
Cut<
> It's simpler to look at h/r = 2^(2/3)*2^(1/3) = 2
>
> So the surface area is minimized when the height is twice
> the radius.
>
> - Randy
Hey that's pretty simple Randy; wonder if BAH agrees?
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
>>Volume of can = pi*r^2*h. This is a constant V,
>>so for any given choice of radius r, we must have
>>h = V/(pi*r^2).
>
>Damn idiot!
>forgot to "allow for can thickness".
>
>What a fool!
><LOL>
>
>>So the surface area is minimized when the height is twice
>>the radius.
>
><ROFLOL>
>you are lost!
><LOL>
Why don't you repeat the analysis and tell us how much the answer changes
when you account for can thickness?
josX
If that is all there is not non-Euclidean math, then there would be
no problem with it (besides it's name, which should be spherical-plane
geometry, but that doesn't sound cool enough probably), however that's
not the impression i'm getting. I hear stories about parallel lines
crossing for instance, but they can't cross, and they don't exist on
spherical planes, because straight lines don't exist on spherical
planes. So i figure this whole 'non-euclidian geometry' is simply
doing normal geometry on a sphere with a redefinition of words like
straight and parallel.
The shortest distance between two points doesn't exist on a sphere, it
goes beneath the sphere. If you do spherical geometry (lines on a sphere),
you are doing 3D geometry, don't forget that, and there is nothing
mysterious about it. This non-euclidian thing seems to be a hollow hype
to me. Get yourself a balloon and draw on it, now you're doing ""non
euclidian geometry"", big deal (not).
Then you can project this sphere unto a flat plane, that's fine, i still
don't see any magical things or strange things, just basic geometry that
can be experimentally verified and curve fitted.
--
jos
Spaceman
>Why don't you repeat the analysis and tell us how much the answer changes
>when you account for can thickness?
>--
Why don't you find out what happens when the tuna (and juice) is frozen and
bursts your can (because your math was worth crap without all the reals)
and somone sues your sad ass tuna company because
you did not allow for expansion of the fluid when frozen.
(nevermind the thickness of the can problem)
and
FYI.
the thickeness of the can.
would make you "short on tuna"
by the cans thickness amount
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
>>Why don't you repeat the analysis and tell us how much the answer changes
>>when you account for can thickness?
>>--
>
>Why don't you find out what happens when the tuna (and juice) is frozen and
>bursts your can (because your math was worth crap without all the reals)
>and somone sues your sad ass tuna company because
>you did not allow for expansion of the fluid when frozen.
> (nevermind the thickness of the can problem)
There are reasons I don't store canned goods in the freezer.
>
>and
>FYI.
>the thickeness of the can.
>would make you "short on tuna"
>by the cans thickness amount
What makes you think the dimensions were outside dimensions instead of
inside dimensions? At any rate, if you're using 0.3 mm thick metal, what
volume of metal do you think is even in the can? You get more variation
than that just from the machine that fills the cans.
Randy Poe
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >Volume of can = pi*r^2*h. This is a constant V,
> >so for any given choice of radius r, we must have
> >h = V/(pi*r^2).
>
> Damn idiot!
> forgot to "allow for can thickness".
Feel free to write down and solve the equations
including can thickness.
> >So the surface area is minimized when the height is twice
> >the radius.
>
> <ROFLOL>
> you are lost!
> <LOL>
Feel free to give a corrected calculation.
- Randy
Spaceman
>There are reasons I don't store canned goods in the freezer.
So "your reasons" blinds someone with shrapnell from a tuna can"
Great fuchen physics Greg!
<LOL>
Too bad you don't see the "lack of research in your own crap"
>What makes you think the dimensions were outside dimensions instead of
>inside dimensions?
Because that is the "basic unless told otherwise"
Nowhere does he call it the ID or OD
or Ir or Or.
without stating such.
cans are measured on the outside for shelf fitting.
a 2 inch high can best be 2 inches high only.
the inside would be the ir (internal radius)
you lose!
and are wrong
so live with it for once instead of being such an ass.
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
>>There are reasons I don't store canned goods in the freezer.
>
>So "your reasons" blinds someone with shrapnell from a tuna can"
>
>Great fuchen physics Greg!
><LOL>
>Too bad you don't see the "lack of research in your own crap"
You don't get shrapnel from cans in the freezer. You get a mess.
Spaceman
>Feel free to write down and solve the equations
>including can thickness.
I'll write it in it's fixed form but.
solving it is for students like you.
and I would not bother since you are still missing "real" factors.
You posted ..
>pi*r^2*h.
The correct equation would be this.
pi*Ir^2*Ih
Ir =inner radius,
Ih= inner height.
do the rest by yourself.
I refuse to do your silly math
but remember
You also lack "expansion capabilities of tuna and water."
so even that equation is not enough.
your equation needs lots of work.
and you would have been fired when the first can was short
a gram or 2.
BTW.
that is not "calculus"
It is basic geometry and basic math only.
:)
What makes it calculus in your mind?
Spaceman
>You don't get shrapnel from cans in the freezer. You get a mess.
Really?
Let me out you in there when it explodes.
<LOL>
You are an idiot and a twisting troll.
I used to think you were "just a troll"
but you have confimed my observation of idioticness.
You are a physical mechanically challenged idiot by observation!
<LOL>
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
>>You don't get shrapnel from cans in the freezer. You get a mess.
>
>Really?
>Let me out you in there when it explodes.
><LOL>
>
>You are an idiot
Heh!
Spaceman
>Heh!
Oops excuse me,
you are a mechanically illiterate clock worshipping math kiss ass idiot.
You have failed to research "time and space"
you have nothing for research or "facts"
FACT: The clock malfunctioned.
GR,SR, and QM are WRONG about the "time" part of space and time.
nevermind the curvature of space bologna.
you lose.
HA HA!
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >> There is no such thing as 'non Euclidean math', where 'Euclidean'
> >> stands for reality-math.
> >
> >The surface of a sphere is non-Euclidean. We live on it.
> >
> >I do non-Euclidean math all the time, and so does every
> >navigator on earth.
>
> If that is all there is not non-Euclidean math, then there would be
> no problem with it (besides it's name, which should be spherical-plane
> geometry, but that doesn't sound cool enough probably), however that's
> not the impression i'm getting. I hear stories about parallel lines
> crossing for instance, but they can't cross,
A little garbled. On the surface of the sphere, there are
no parallel lines. Shortest paths are great circles. All
shortest paths will eventually cross.
> and they don't exist on
> spherical planes, because straight lines don't exist on spherical
> planes. So i figure this whole 'non-euclidian geometry' is simply
> doing normal geometry on a sphere with a redefinition of words like
> straight and parallel.
Correct. And it leads to different theorems that are
perfectly useful. It's a different axiomatic starting point
(though I know you don't believe there are such things as
axioms).
> The shortest distance between two points doesn't exist on a sphere,
Of course it does. There are infinitely many paths along
the surface of a sphere from point A to point B, and one
of them is minimal.
> it goes beneath the sphere.
That's not the shortest distance on the sphere, and it is
of no use to people who actually have to go from A to B
on earth.
> If you do spherical geometry (lines on a sphere),
> you are doing 3D geometry, don't forget that, and there is nothing
> mysterious about it.
Nobody but you said it was mysterious. It's simple enough that
a reasonably talented high-school freshman can comprehend it
in a week or two and give a presentation to a class (and so
it is often used in class presentations).
You're the one saying it's useless because it's so complicated
and mysterious.
Yes, you can convert any point on earth to an (x,y,z) coordinate
in a Euclidean coordinate system. But for most earth-bound
problems, that is a ridiculously cumbersome coordinate
system to use. The much more natural one is (latitude, longitude,
altitude). A rotating spherical coordinate system.
> This non-euclidian thing seems to be a hollow hype
> to me. Get yourself a balloon and draw on it, now you're doing ""non
> euclidian geometry"
No, you're doing non-euclidean geometry when you draw
triangles and circles and describe their properties. Sure,
those things can be described in a much more cumbersome
way in Cartesian coordinates. But the point of working in
a non-Euclidean geometry is convenience.
I'm well aware I'm talking to a person who does not actually
read anybody's responses, and doesn't understand what he reads.
- Randy
Spaceman
>A little garbled. On the surface of the sphere, there are
>no parallel lines. Shortest paths are great circles. All
>shortest paths will eventually cross.
BULLSHIT!
What a maroon!
shortest paths "on spheres" ar not shortest paths.
stop twisting the definition of shortest you frellin fool.
I have a ball that has 2 parallel lines drawn on it.
YOU LOSE!
>Of course it does. There are infinitely many paths along
>the surface of a sphere from point A to point B, and one
>of them is minimal.
and IT WILL NOT FOLLOW THE SURFACE DINGBAT!
SHEESH!
you are lost "or just a bad troll"
<LOL>
Randy Poe
>
> >From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
> >Why don't you repeat the analysis and tell us how much the answer changes
> >when you account for can thickness?
> >--
>
> Why don't you find out what happens when the tuna (and juice) is frozen and
> bursts your can (because your math was worth crap without all the reals)
> and somone sues your sad ass tuna company because
> you did not allow for expansion of the fluid when frozen.
> (nevermind the thickness of the can problem)
Do you have anything to contribute to the question that was
asked? To remind you:
What shape can gives you the minimum surface area for a
given volume.
> and
> FYI.
> the thickeness of the can.
> would make you "short on tuna"
> by the cans thickness amount
Feel free to provide this simple calculation as well.
By the way, the entire calculation can be performed for
the INSIDE volume of the can, giving the same answer to
the same question regardless of can thickness. Because
of finite thickness, this is not necessarily the solution
that uses the minimum amount of metal. But it is most
certainly the shape with minimum surface area for a given
volume.
- Randy
Spaceman
>Do you have anything to contribute to the question that was
>asked? To remind you:
>What shape can gives you the minimum surface area for a
>given volume.
A sphere stupid!
and...
your math is wrong.
like I stated
>By the way, the entire calculation can be performed for
>the INSIDE volume of the can, giving the same answer to
>the same question regardless of can thickness.
BULLSHIT
a 1micron thick can would make you wrong,
nevemind a "real cans thickness"
>Because
>of finite thickness, this is not necessarily the solution
>that uses the minimum amount of metal. But it is most
>certainly the shape with minimum surface area for a given
>volume.
Your minimum amount metal equation is missing the needed/used
"space" dingbat!
You can not "ignore thge can thickness unless you
use the equation I gave.
Inners instead of "general" measurements.
Uncle Al
>
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >> There is no such thing as 'non Euclidean math', where 'Euclidean'
> >> stands for reality-math.
> >
> >The surface of a sphere is non-Euclidean. We live on it.
> >
> >I do non-Euclidean math all the time, and so does every
> >navigator on earth.
>
> If that is all there is not non-Euclidean math, then there would be
> no problem with it (besides it's name, which should be spherical-plane
> geometry, but that doesn't sound cool enough probably), however that's
> not the impression i'm getting. I hear stories about parallel lines
> crossing for instance, but they can't cross, and they don't exist on
> spherical planes, because straight lines don't exist on spherical
> planes.
Fucking imbecile.
It's called "elliptic geometry," the geometry of positively curved
surfaces wherein there are no lines parallel through a point not on a
given line. A straight line (geodesic) on a sphere is a great circle,
moron - any line of longitude, the Equator... A line drawn between any
two points that constrain a plane to include the geometric center of
the sphere.
Why don't you spew and fart about minimal surfaces too? Then you can
shit in this newsgroup about how Falaco solitons don't exist in
swimming pools.
You know nothing and are proud of it. You are a pimply void with your
flaccid putz held in your weak hand, expectant. Go find Christ and
leave civilization to those intellecutally qualified to pursue it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Marco Nelissen
>>From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
>>A little garbled. On the surface of the sphere, there are
>>no parallel lines. Shortest paths are great circles. All
>>shortest paths will eventually cross.
>
> BULLSHIT!
> What a maroon!
>
> shortest paths "on spheres" ar not shortest paths.
Yes Spacedrool, we know that. You tell us nothing new.
> stop twisting the definition of shortest you frellin fool.
Newsflash, you moron: Farscape was canceled, you can stop
using the word 'frelling' now.
>>Of course it does. There are infinitely many paths along
>>the surface of a sphere from point A to point B, and one
>>of them is minimal.
>
> and IT WILL NOT FOLLOW THE SURFACE DINGBAT!
Which part of "on the surface of the sphere" did you not
understand, Driscoll? Let me paraphrase the matter in terms
you might understand:
Me: what's the most number of tires you've ever seen on an SUV?
Driscoll: uhm, six.
Me: you DINGBAT! That's not the highest number of tires on a car!!!
Are you getting it, Driscoll?
> James M Driscoll Jr
I'm sure your daddy wishes he hadn't given you the same name. Oh, the shame...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20021001115755...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Spaceman has a ball.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#HaveBall
Anyone prepared to tackle the daunting task of explaining to
Voidman why a short circle "parallel" to a great circle does
not trace the shortest path between two points?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ancc2t$ffu$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
An alternative way to express your ignorance would be to
wonder, ask questions and learn something.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NonEuclidean
It is a mystery how *anyone* with a sane mind is still prepared
to try to talk some sense into the cesspool of yours.
Pearls for the swine.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >Feel free to write down and solve the equations
> >including can thickness.
>
> I'll write it in it's fixed form but.
> solving it is for students like you.
> and I would not bother since you are still missing "real" factors.
>
> You posted ..
>
> >pi*r^2*h.
>
> The correct equation would be this.
> pi*Ir^2*Ih
>
> Ir =inner radius,
> Ih= inner height.
So you get exactly my equations, with different symbols.
The solution, using differential calculus, is
Ih = 2*Ir.
> BTW.
> that is not "calculus"
> It is basic geometry and basic math only.
Feel free to show me how you get the values of Ir
and Ih that minimize the surface area, without calculus.
> What makes it calculus in your mind?
That I take a derivative to find the minimum.
- Randy
Spaceman
>A straight line (geodesic) on a sphere is a great circle,
YOU ARE A FUCHEN MORON!
A STRAIGHT LINE is not straight if following a spheres surface.
your twisting about such is justy plain old sad.
You are a frellin mechanically illiterate clock God worshipping fool.
you are a moron to the first degree and an asshole to the second.
you have no "reality"
you have "joke math and crap physics"
You have illusion bases as reals.
You have a clock That "is a God"
and worst of all.
You are a scam artist.
Your clock God died Al.
I killed it.
How long will you worship a "dead God"?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3D99C714...@nospam.com...
Spaceman takes water to find the minimum.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>So you get exactly my equations, with different symbols.
>
No different "references for the measurements to be taken from"
>The solution, using differential calculus, is
>Ih = 2*Ir.
for the inside yes.
but now you would not know the outside.
so.
you need both for "the can RREAL dimensions"
and you need the inside to know what fits "inside"
>Feel free to show me how you get the values of Ir
>and Ih that minimize the surface area, without calculus.
I don't use cans for minimum surface.
I also don't try for minimum surfaces needed.
since that is not allowing for "REAL" changes.
>That I take a derivative to find the minimum.
and you also took it wrong.
the sphere always wins for minumum surface area
but of course.
you are too stupid to realize that even with
your silly calculus crap.
Spaceman
>Spaceman takes water to find the minimum.
>
All you everr do is make up lies huh?
Fuch Off Dirk the lying jerk.
You have no physics.
and the physics you think you have
are a joke to REALITY!
Spaceman
>Spaceman has a ball.
>
>http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#HaveBall
>Anyone prepared to tackle the daunting task of explaining to
>Voidman why a short circle "parallel" to a great circle does
>not trace the shortest path between two points?
>
Anyone care to tell Dirk he is still a lying sack of dog crap.
and has no physics still til this day?
Hey Dirk,
I never said such .
Why do you constantly lie (Are your lies powered by lightspeeds constant)?
<LOL>
Fuch Off Dirk the lying Jerk.
your twisting and lying is only burying yourself under your own
crap.
and boy do you smell already.
Robert Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>and IT WILL NOT FOLLOW THE SURFACE DINGBAT!
>>SHEESH!
>>you are lost "or just a bad troll"
>><LOL>
Csn you spell Great Circle? Sure you can't.
The prime meridian is one of the goedesics connecting the poles.
Bob Kolker
Randy Poe
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@nospam.com
>
> >Do you have anything to contribute to the question that was
> >asked? To remind you:
>
> >What shape can gives you the minimum surface area for a
> >given volume.
>
> A sphere stupid!
Are you being funny or do you really not know that the
question restricts you to cylindrical cans?
To remind you:
What height and radius CYLINDRICAL can give you the minimum
surface area for a given volume?
> and...
> your math is wrong.
Show me different equations and a different solution.
> like I stated
You set up exactly the same equations, and offered no
solution.
> >By the way, the entire calculation can be performed for
> >the INSIDE volume of the can, giving the same answer to
> >the same question regardless of can thickness.
>
> BULLSHIT
The paragraph above is exactly what you proposed.
Are you calling your proposed method "BULLSHIT"?
Hint: The inside volume of the can has radius Ir and
height Ih, for a total volume of 2*pi*Ir^2*Ih. Look
familiar?
> Inners instead of "general" measurements.
Read my paragraph, look at my equations, look at
your equations, tell me what solution you get if it's
different from Ih = 2*Ir and how you arrived at it.
Tell me the difference, if you will, between "Inners"
(your word) and "INSIDE" (my word).
- Randy
Spaceman
>Are you being funny or do you really not know that the
>question restricts you to cylindrical cans?
>
Questions restricitng you is "your problem"
not realities.
I work with reals.
not "restricted questions"
>To remind you:
>
>What height and radius CYLINDRICAL can give you the minimum
>surface area for a given volume?
To remind you,
The hieght of the can must be the "inside height"
so
you were wrong with your crap thought that was missing a
REAL factor of the can..
AS I STATED.
Why not be a REAL man an just admit it.
SHEESH!
Spaceman
>Csn you spell Great Circle? Sure you can't.
Who cares if I can or can't.
It is irrlelavant.
Can you spell "BOB IS A MORON"
same relevance.
SEE!
Can you admit I could show you parallel lines
on a sphere or do you just refuse to "look".
or try yourself "called research"
>The prime meridian is one of the goedesics connecting the poles.
Irrelevant crap.
as usual.
Parallel lines are possible on a sphere.
Admit you are wrong like a real man would
or twist as usual like the troll you are observed as being.
You are still wrong and I was right.
Of course.
Only real men can admit such facts like such.
You are just a parrot so you will not admit
that parallel lines can exist on a sphere.
twisting what I state does not prove me wrong
seek help if you actually think it does.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20021001132648...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> >From: Robert Kolker bobk...@attbi.com
>
> >Csn you spell Great Circle? Sure you can't.
>
> Who cares if I can or can't.
> It is irrlelavant.
You spelled that wrong. It should be "irrlelavent."
YOU LOSE!
Dirk Vdm
Gregory L. Hansen
>I don't use cans for minimum surface.
>I also don't try for minimum surfaces needed.
>since that is not allowing for "REAL" changes.
>
>>That I take a derivative to find the minimum.
>
>and you also took it wrong.
>the sphere always wins for minumum surface area
>but of course.
>you are too stupid to realize that even with
>your silly calculus crap.
You buy tuna in spherical cans at the grocery store?
You're absolutely right, a sphere always wins for minimum surface area
versus volume. But the application was to find the dimensions of a tuna
can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
spherical.
And tuna cans in the real world tend not to minimize surface area,
actually. They're pretty short and wide. But that's another matter.
Randy Poe
> I don't use cans for minimum surface.
> I also don't try for minimum surfaces needed.
> since that is not allowing for "REAL" changes.
So to the guy in the factory who wants to know how
to save $1M/year in packaging costs by minimizing
metal content, you say "that's not a real problem,
the sphere always wins, no silly calculus crap
for me, bye bye."
>
> >That I take a derivative to find the minimum.
>
> and you also took it wrong.
> the sphere always wins for minumum surface area
> but of course.
> you are too stupid to realize that even with
> your silly calculus crap.
Meanwhile the guy hires a consultant who uses
silly calculus crap to save him a million a year,
of which he pays the consultant $50,000. And you're
laughing all the way back to the tire store.
- Randy
Spaceman
>You buy tuna in spherical cans at the grocery store?
I never said I did,
Why do you need to twist it to that?
>You're absolutely right, a sphere always wins for minimum surface area
>versus volume.
And that is all I have stated about spherical containers.
>But the application was to find the dimensions of a tuna
>can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
>spherical.
Again,
I never said they are.
I correct his "WRONG" can height
What the fuch is wrong with you?
you need to twist anything I state into something that is wrong,
yet I never state the crap you state I do.
You are a sad ass twisting troll.
just like Randy.
>And tuna cans in the real world tend not to minimize surface area,
>actually. They're pretty short and wide. But that's another matter.
That is what I have been stating asshole.
Boy you are a fuchfaced puke math ass licker. (puke added for Jim)
Spaceman
>So to the guy in the factory who wants to know how
>to save $1M/year in packaging costs by minimizing
>metal content, you say "that's not a real problem,
>the sphere always wins, no silly calculus crap
>for me, bye bye."
>
No,
I would use the inside dimensions.
like "YOU DID NOT"
and that is why you were wrong.
and your calculations would have cost the company money.
more than saved it.
>Meanwhile the guy hires a consultant who uses
>silly calculus crap to save him a million a year,
>of which he pays the consultant $50,000. And you're
>laughing all the way back to the tire store.
Saves $50,000?
Where?
you had cans that would not fit the product and labels
would have needed to be changed.
You have no clue about "REAL BUSINESS"
tell me,
what business are you in?
Physics scam business huh?
figures.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20021001132248...@mb-cg.aol.com...
I never said I did,
Why do you need to twist it to that?
And that is all I have stated about spherical containers.
Again,
I never said they are.
I correct his "WRONG" can height
What the fuch is wrong with you?
you need to twist anything I state into something that is wrong,
yet I never state the crap you state I do.
You are a sad ass twisting troll.
just like Randy.
That is what I have been stating asshole.
Boy you are a fuchfaced puke math ass licker. (puke added for Jim)
James M Colldris Jr.
Manspace
http://com.realspaceman.www
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20021001134152...@mb-cg.aol.com...
Questions restricitng you is "your problem"
not realities.
I work with reals.
not "restricted questions"
To remind you,
The hieght of the can must be the "inside height"
so
you were wrong with your crap thought that was missing a
REAL factor of the can..
AS I STATED.
Why not be a REAL man an just admit it.
SHEESH!
Dris M Jamescoll Jr
Spacimen
http://www.realspacimen.com
Spaceman
>Dris M Jamescoll Jr
>Spacimen
>http://www.realspacimen.com
>
Now that is really pathetic Dirk.
you have nothing but bad copy and pastes now huh?,
Where is Stepp when the "REAL PATHETICISMS" show up.
He must be lost in "spacetime"
<LOL>
Jim
>>From: Uncle Al Uncl...@hate.spam.net
>
>>A straight line (geodesic) on a sphere is a great circle,
>
>YOU ARE A FUCHEN MORON!
>
>A STRAIGHT LINE is not straight if following a spheres surface.
>your twisting about such is justy plain old sad.
You couldn't even read to the end of *ONE* sentence?
Jim
Randy Poe
>
> >From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
> >But the application was to find the dimensions of a tuna
> >can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
> >spherical.
>
> Again,
> I never said they are.
> I correct his "WRONG" can height
You did? What is the correct number?
I said: Minimum area cylindrical can obtained when
height = twice the radius, exactly.
If you "corrected" this "wrong" answer, what was your
"right" answer?
Are you talking about this line of, er, logic?
> I would use the inside dimensions.
> like "YOU DID NOT"
which is apparently in reference to this statement
of mine?
> >By the way, the entire calculation can be performed for
> >the INSIDE volume of the can, giving the same answer to
> >the same question regardless of can thickness.
To which you said:
>
> BULLSHIT
I'm still waiting for the explanation of the difference
between your inner dimensions and my inner dimensions,
and what the correct answer is.
Here, let's state the whole business over again.
---------------------------------------------------
Define r = inner radius of can lid, and h = inner
height.
Volume of can = pi*r^2*h. This is a constant V,
so for any given choice of radius r, we must have
h = V/(pi*r^2).
Surface area of can = (2*pi*r*h) + 2*pi*r^2
Substitute in h: A = 2*pi*r*V/(pi*r^2) + 2*pi*r^2
= 2*V/r + 2*pi*r^2
Now differentiate with A with respect to r and find
where the derivative is zero:
[Editorial note to Spaceman: This is the calculus part.
If you have another approach, please feel free to contribute
it.]
dA/dr = -2*V/r^2 + 4*pi*r = 0
2*V/r^2 = 4*pi*r
r = (V/(2*pi))^(1/3)
h = (V/pi)*(2*pi/V)^(2/3)
= (V/pi)^(1/3)*2^(2/3)
It's simpler to look at h/r = 2^(2/3)*2^(1/3) = 2
So the surface area is minimized when the height is twice
the radius.
---------------------------
Which part do you disagree with?
- Randy
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>> There is no such thing as 'non Euclidean math', where 'Euclidean'
>>>> stands for reality-math.
>>>
>>>The surface of a sphere is non-Euclidean. We live on it.
>>>
>>>I do non-Euclidean math all the time, and so does every
>>>navigator on earth.
>>
>>If that is all there is not non-Euclidean math, then there would be
>>no problem with it (besides it's name, which should be spherical-plane
>>geometry, but that doesn't sound cool enough probably), however that's
>>not the impression i'm getting. I hear stories about parallel lines
>>crossing for instance, but they can't cross,
>
>no parallel lines. Shortest paths are great circles. All
>shortest paths will eventually cross.
>
>> spherical planes, because straight lines don't exist on spherical
>> planes. So i figure this whole 'non-euclidian geometry' is simply
>> doing normal geometry on a sphere with a redefinition of words like
>> straight and parallel.
>
>perfectly useful. It's a different axiomatic starting point
>(though I know you don't believe there are such things as
>axioms).
Do you now see why 'axioms' are not crusial, but that they are word
definitions ?
If an axiom is a 'starting point', then it would be given out of nowhere.
However, it is describing something actual and real, that means it is a
second order thing.
Spheres define things, axioms are merely definitions of words, mathematicians
go on to worship these worddefinitions and think they are the basis of their
work. They are not the basis, the real sphere (reality) is the basis.
If this is all non-euclidian geometry is, then i have no problem with it.
The problem came from the axioms: "it starts from different axioms", this
is not so, it doesn't start from different axioms, it starts from exactly
the same thing: reality, shapes, sizes.
--
jos
Spaceman
>You couldn't even read to the end of *ONE* sentence?
Reading twists is not "physics"
It is sad ass trolling.
I see you are working on your degree in such lately too.
Spaceman
>I said: Minimum area cylindrical can obtained when
>height = twice the radius, exactly.
you are missing the thickness of the cans bottom and top.
you lose.
I can see you are not man enough to admit that
you made the mitake of "external dimensions"
instead of internal.
I won't bother with you twists and "wrong crap"
anymore.
Since.
You are a baby and could never admit you were wrong
at all.
Anna&Will
> Non-Euclidean math & geometry has been more of a bane than a boon for
> understanding science.
But it is a beautiful theory.
Jim
There was no twist.
Jim
jmfb...@aol.com
"Donald G. Shead" <u10...@snet.net> wrote:
>
><jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:anc1cj$ep1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> In article <Gxfm9.1490$3W.543...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "Donald G. Shead" <u10...@snet.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Jeremy Watts" <jeremy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> >news:mpem9.711$iq1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Shead understands the calculus and could "care less" if
>> >it's banned or not:
>> >If anyone can make good use of it; let them.
>>
>> Pretend that you own a tuna canning company. One of your
>> products is a 6 oz. can of tuna. The less metal you need
>> to use, the more money you can make. You need to find out
>> what shape of the can will cost the least.
>>
>> So this turns into a problem of maximum volume with minimum
>> surface area. It's a bitch to solve using arithmetic or
>> algebra; I never did succeed with these two. It's a snap
>> with calculus.
>>
>> /BAH
>
>Show me.
Not until you learn how to divide both sides of an algebraic
equation by two.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <20021001123502...@mb-mv.aol.com>,
>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>You're absolutely right, a sphere always wins for minimum surface area
>versus volume. But the application was to find the dimensions of a tuna
>can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
>spherical.
>
>And tuna cans in the real world tend not to minimize surface area,
>actually. They're pretty short and wide. But that's another matter.
Yup. I used a bad example...or maybe it was an unconsciously good
example. Why isn't a tuna can shaped efficiently?
Another itch to the orginal problem was how the guy, who designed
the nesting cans, figured out the best shape. And why are those
bumpy circles necessary? I suppose a part of the design would
require a knowledge of metal stresses and fatigues. And then
there's the problems of building a production line that makes
those cans.
I suppose round cans are easier to make than square; and there's
less "welds" to a round can than any other shape.
See what happens when you stare at a "simple" thing bought
at the grocery store while eating lunch?
jmfb...@aol.com
>news:3D99A496...@atl.lmco.com...
>Cut<
>
>> It's simpler to look at h/r = 2^(2/3)*2^(1/3) = 2
>>
>> So the surface area is minimized when the height is twice
>> the radius.
>>
>
>Hey that's pretty simple Randy; wonder if BAH agrees?
Your assignment is to test it.
Gregory L. Hansen
>In article <ancm7o$ph4$6...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>In article <20021001123502...@mb-mv.aol.com>,
>>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>You're absolutely right, a sphere always wins for minimum surface area
>>versus volume. But the application was to find the dimensions of a tuna
>>can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
>>spherical.
>>
>>And tuna cans in the real world tend not to minimize surface area,
>>actually. They're pretty short and wide. But that's another matter.
>
>Yup. I used a bad example...or maybe it was an unconsciously good
>example. Why isn't a tuna can shaped efficiently?
>
>Another itch to the orginal problem was how the guy, who designed
>the nesting cans, figured out the best shape. And why are those
>bumpy circles necessary? I suppose a part of the design would
>require a knowledge of metal stresses and fatigues. And then
>there's the problems of building a production line that makes
>those cans.
>
>I suppose round cans are easier to make than square; and there's
>less "welds" to a round can than any other shape.
And then there's Spam and sardines...
Spaceman
>There was no twist.
>
Still in research denial huh Jim?
poor asshole.
you got nothing....
still.
Randy Poe
> In article <ancm7o$ph4$6...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>In article <20021001123502...@mb-mv.aol.com>,
>>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>You're absolutely right, a sphere always wins for minimum surface area
>>versus volume. But the application was to find the dimensions of a tuna
>>can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
>>spherical.
>>
>>And tuna cans in the real world tend not to minimize surface area,
>>actually. They're pretty short and wide. But that's another matter.
>
>
> Yup. I used a bad example...or maybe it was an unconsciously good
> example. Why isn't a tuna can shaped efficiently?
It got me wondering, too. In fact, there are a bunch of different
products with their own traditional aspect ratios. Tuna and
cat food are shaped the same. Why? Why are sardines and anchovies
not packed in a cylindrical can at all?
Soda cans, OK. That is probably a diameter optimized for somebody's
study of the average human hand.
Vegetables? Those look like they come closest to the h = 2*r size.
> Another itch to the orginal problem was how the guy, who designed
> the nesting cans, figured out the best shape. And why are those
> bumpy circles necessary? I suppose a part of the design would
> require a knowledge of metal stresses and fatigues. And then
> there's the problems of building a production line that makes
> those cans.
I think I did read once long ago that it adds strength to have
those wobbly rings. But you're right, cans have to survive a process
of being shaped, filled, and sealed. The design may have a lot to
do with the manufacturing process.
> I suppose round cans are easier to make than square; and there's
> less "welds" to a round can than any other shape.
Just one.
But then why are sardine cans the shape they are? Actually,
I think those aren't welded at all, they may be stamped.
> See what happens when you stare at a "simple" thing bought
> at the grocery store while eating lunch?
My E & M teacher was fond of referencing a 19th century
paper on the behavior of jets of water ejected from thin
rectangular orifices. This was obviously inspired
by idle speculation at a different private moment.
- Randy
TB
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aneuk...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> > In article <ancm7o$ph4$6...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> > glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <20021001123502...@mb-mv.aol.com>,
> >>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>You're absolutely right, a sphere always wins for minimum surface area
> >>versus volume. But the application was to find the dimensions of a
tuna
> >>can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
> >>spherical.
> >>
> >>And tuna cans in the real world tend not to minimize surface area,
> >>actually. They're pretty short and wide. But that's another matter.
> >
> >
> > Yup. I used a bad example...or maybe it was an unconsciously good
> > example. Why isn't a tuna can shaped efficiently?
>
> It got me wondering, too. In fact, there are a bunch of different
> products with their own traditional aspect ratios. Tuna and
> cat food are shaped the same. Why? Why are sardines and anchovies
> not packed in a cylindrical can at all?
Because the fish would have to curve against the sides whereas with the
(roughly) rectangular tins they pack nice and evenly. Just guessing, of
course, but it makes sense.
>
> Soda cans, OK. That is probably a diameter optimized for somebody's
> study of the average human hand.
>
> Vegetables? Those look like they come closest to the h = 2*r size.
Although asparagus comes in really tall cans :-)
>
> > Another itch to the orginal problem was how the guy, who designed
> > the nesting cans, figured out the best shape. And why are those
> > bumpy circles necessary? I suppose a part of the design would
> > require a knowledge of metal stresses and fatigues. And then
> > there's the problems of building a production line that makes
> > those cans.
>
> I think I did read once long ago that it adds strength to have
> those wobbly rings. But you're right, cans have to survive a process
> of being shaped, filled, and sealed. The design may have a lot to
> do with the manufacturing process.
>
> > I suppose round cans are easier to make than square; and there's
> > less "welds" to a round can than any other shape.
>
> Just one.
>
> But then why are sardine cans the shape they are? Actually,
> I think those aren't welded at all, they may be stamped.
>
> > See what happens when you stare at a "simple" thing bought
> > at the grocery store while eating lunch?
>
> My E & M teacher was fond of referencing a 19th century
> paper on the behavior of jets of water ejected from thin
> rectangular orifices. This was obviously inspired
> by idle speculation at a different private moment.
>
> - Randy
>
-- TB
Jim
>>From: Jim lose...@workfromhome.com
>
>>There was no twist.
>>
>
>Still in research denial huh Jim?
>poor asshole.
>you got nothing....
>still.
How much research do you need to do, to understand one simple
sentence?
Jim
jmfb...@aol.com
Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <ancm7o$ph4$6...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
>> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20021001123502...@mb-mv.aol.com>,
>>>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>You're absolutely right, a sphere always wins for minimum surface area
>>>versus volume. But the application was to find the dimensions of a tuna
>>>can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
>>>spherical.
>>>
>>>And tuna cans in the real world tend not to minimize surface area,
>>>actually. They're pretty short and wide. But that's another matter.
>>
>>
>> Yup. I used a bad example...or maybe it was an unconsciously good
>> example. Why isn't a tuna can shaped efficiently?
>
>It got me wondering, too. In fact, there are a bunch of different
>products with their own traditional aspect ratios. Tuna and
>cat food are shaped the same. Why? Why are sardines and anchovies
>not packed in a cylindrical can at all?
I never thought about those cans. Neat.
>
>Soda cans, OK. That is probably a diameter optimized for somebody's
>study of the average human hand.
And I hadn't thought about that either.
>
>Vegetables? Those look like they come closest to the h = 2*r size.
It helps if they can be be cut up. Asparagus goes into elongated cans.
>
>> Another itch to the orginal problem was how the guy, who designed
>> the nesting cans, figured out the best shape. And why are those
>> bumpy circles necessary? I suppose a part of the design would
>> require a knowledge of metal stresses and fatigues. And then
>> there's the problems of building a production line that makes
>> those cans.
>
>I think I did read once long ago that it adds strength to have
>those wobbly rings.
Does it really? The next time I open a can of something, I'll
have to look inside to see if the metal is the same thickness
over waves.
> ..But you're right, cans have to survive a process
>of being shaped, filled, and sealed. The design may have a lot to
>do with the manufacturing process.
Having worked in a pickle packing plant for a few hours, it also
has to survive us who pack the stuff into boxes. :-) However, we
dealt with glass jars, not metal.
>
>> I suppose round cans are easier to make than square; and there's
>> less "welds" to a round can than any other shape.
>
>Just one.
One? I count three (in my head). I'll have to go look.
Unless the ends are folded but that won't keep a pressure.
I supposed one weld could be done..around the bottom, up the
side seam, around the top. Nope. That won't work; the can
has to be filled between the bottom-side weld and the top weld.
>
>But then why are sardine cans the shape they are? Actually,
>I think those aren't welded at all, they may be stamped.
I don't know. JMF was the one to eat sardines, not me. I'll
go buy me one.
>
>> See what happens when you stare at a "simple" thing bought
>> at the grocery store while eating lunch?
>
>My E & M teacher was fond of referencing a 19th century
>paper on the behavior of jets of water ejected from thin
>rectangular orifices. This was obviously inspired
>by idle speculation at a different private moment.
Yup. I would have missed that one. I was too busy
thinking about how to prevent the next mess and arranging
tasks so that each helped with many messes rather than just
one. A one-fer was not efficient enough for my tastes. :-)
Gregory L. Hansen
>> In article <ancm7o$ph4$6...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
>> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20021001123502...@mb-mv.aol.com>,
>>>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>You're absolutely right, a sphere always wins for minimum surface area
>>>versus volume. But the application was to find the dimensions of a tuna
>>>can. Out here in the real world tuna cans are usually cylindrical, not
>>>spherical.
>>>
>>>And tuna cans in the real world tend not to minimize surface area,
>>>actually. They're pretty short and wide. But that's another matter.
>>
>>
>> Yup. I used a bad example...or maybe it was an unconsciously good
>> example. Why isn't a tuna can shaped efficiently?
>
>It got me wondering, too. In fact, there are a bunch of different
>products with their own traditional aspect ratios. Tuna and
>cat food are shaped the same. Why? Why are sardines and anchovies
>not packed in a cylindrical can at all?
>
>Soda cans, OK. That is probably a diameter optimized for somebody's
>study of the average human hand.
Speaking of soda cans, in an experiment that I can't remember the details
of, a thin-walled aluminum container was needed to hold high pressures.
And who knows more about thin-walled aluminum containers than the beer and
soft drink industries? They got an unlabeled "Silver Bullet" type can
from Coors. And I recall the company was happy to provide it free of
charge.
Spaceman
>And who knows more about thin-walled aluminum containers than the beer and
>soft drink industries?
The can makers do.
sheesh you are a sad ass fool!
you think beer co's and soft drink co's make cans?
<ROFLOL>
The entire "Crown Cork and Seal" and many other can making companies
crews are now laughing at you too.
<LOL>
(PS ..they make cans for most softdrink and beer co's.)
and not one of the dang drink co's makes thier own cans that I have seen or
heard of yet.
Stop thinking and start research for once first.
Or show a link that proves beer companies make thier own cans.
jmfb...@aol.com
Can manufacturers do NOT do the bottling. So the beer and soda
industries have to know about can specs.
Randy Poe
>>
>>Just one.
I was thinking of the sides of the can, where a sheet of
metal is folded over and welded together.
I wasn't thinking of the top and the bottom. OK, "just one,
for large values of one."
>>But then why are sardine cans the shape they are? Actually,
>>I think those aren't welded at all, they may be stamped.
>
>
> I don't know. JMF was the one to eat sardines, not me. I'll
> go buy me one.
Well, it sure makes the sardines fit nicely. It's really cute
how carefully they're laid in there, packed together like,
er, sardines in a can.
OK, but the world is still eagerly awaiting a TOE that
can explain the size of cans of both tuna and stewed
tomatoes.
- Randy
Spaceman
>Can manufacturers do NOT do the bottling. So the beer and soda
>industries have to know about can specs.
>
Can manufacturers have to test thier cans or
they would be owned by the soft drink co's by now..
from a few accidents.
HA HA!
you are wrong,
just admit it and be a friggem man about it.
Do you think toy companies test thier "boxes"?
they don't either.
the box company sets the specs and sells as that.
(unless asked different)
but it is still the can company that knows the can.
the drink companys test thier drinks and rely on the can
company to test thier own cans so they are safe.
the Drink comapany may set a spec.
but it still is the can company that does all the testing
and "building" of the can.
admit it.
I dare you!
..sheesh!
C,mon man Wake up!
Admit for once you could be wrong at least.
Gregory L. Hansen
I just gave Coors a call. And they do make their own cans, and to meet
demand they buy cans from the Continental Can Company when they need to.
Spaceman
>I just gave Coors a call. And they do make their own cans, and to meet
>demand they buy cans from the Continental Can Company when they need to.
Lucky Coors,
they finally got a canning company of thier own,
the can co's were first.
Try history.
:)
and
industry,
the can companies "know the cans best"
don't be a fool and think otherwise.
I guess you just won't admit you "could even be wrong once"
Jonny Evans
> Non-Euclidean math & geometry has been more of a bane than a boon for
> skilled in it, and as such is misleading the rest.
I feel I must apologise on behalf of spacetime, for it being curved.
Jonny!
Spaceman
>I feel I must apologise on behalf of spacetime, for it being curved.
>
translation.
Larry puke well,
must appologize on behalf of cubicmetersecond, for it being curved.
<LOL>
Jonny Evans
There's a very subtle difference between translation and copying what
someone else has written and changing words in it. And I think you'd
need some kind of article before "cubicmetresecond" like "the". And
only 1 p in apologise. And Pukewell's all one word.
jmfb...@aol.com
Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>Just one.
>
>I was thinking of the sides of the can, where a sheet of
>metal is folded over and welded together.
Yup. I know. :-) I would have missed the other two also if
I hadn't gone through the can making process in my head. :-)
It's an easy one to overlook.
>
>I wasn't thinking of the top and the bottom. OK, "just one,
>for large values of one."
ROTFLMAO. That wouldn't have worked in my biz. You guys are
so lucky; you can use > signs.
>
>>>But then why are sardine cans the shape they are? Actually,
>>>I think those aren't welded at all, they may be stamped.
>>
>>
>> I don't know. JMF was the one to eat sardines, not me. I'll
>> go buy me one.
>
>Well, it sure makes the sardines fit nicely.
Which is probably why the cans are that size. Saves on chopping
up the fish before they're cooked. Chopping a little slippery
fish in half might be problematical.
> ..It's really cute
>how carefully they're laid in there, packed together like,
>er, sardines in a can.
>
>OK, but the world is still eagerly awaiting a TOE that
>can explain the size of cans of both tuna and stewed
>tomatoes.
Oh, no. Those answers are easy. I'm waiting for TOE that
explains men. Everytime, a new (or old) crank pops up, I
really, really have to sit on my hands so I don't ask that
question.
jmfb...@aol.com
>I just gave Coors a call. And they do make their own cans, and to meet
>demand they buy cans from the Continental Can Company when they need to.
Wow! [awed emoticon here] You are a scientist. I wonder what
kind of discussions your phone call generated in that office.
Edward Green
Golly. Can this be the same "Spaceman" who was just complaining that
I was suffering from "belittlement syndrome"? Looks like the syndrome
is contagious, and you have developed a severe case. Sorry about
that, space ... you have the clap.
Edward Green
> In article <ani3og$rhi$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >I just gave Coors a call. And they do make their own cans, and to meet
> >demand they buy cans from the Continental Can Company when they need to.
>
> Wow! [awed emoticon here] You are a scientist. I wonder what
> kind of discussions your phone call generated in that office.
Not only is he a scientist, he has the knack of winning trust over the
phone. I've tried things like that, and I got the feeling they
thought I was engaged in some kind of industrial espionage.
Spaceman
>Golly. Can this be the same "Spaceman" who was just complaining that
>I was suffering from "belittlement syndrome"? Looks like the syndrome
>is contagious, and you have developed a severe case. Sorry about
>that, space ... you have the clap.
Golly gee willakers...
Ed still needs to "poke" without any physics ever involved.
What kind of troll is that?
hmm?
Basic sad ass type 1..
..
that is sad.
Poor null,
he is just null
and posts... null physics all the "time"
Hey Ed.
Do you think can companies do not really know about cans?
If not.
why don't you stick your osterich head back in
your sands of time.
If you do.
why not actually be a man and agree that I was correct
instead of ebing an asshole like you are being?
What the Hell is your problem?
Are you a scam artist?
If so.
Just run.
In not.
stop acting like one.
Randy Poe
> In article <ani3og$rhi$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>I just gave Coors a call. And they do make their own cans, and to meet
>>demand they buy cans from the Continental Can Company when they need to.
>
>
> Wow! [awed emoticon here] You are a scientist. I wonder what
> kind of discussions your phone call generated in that office.
That's twice in 24 hours that somebody in this newsgroup
collected actual data (the other was somebody who put
a sugar cube on a balance). What is becoming of this
newsgroup?
- Randy
Spaceman
>That's twice in 24 hours that somebody in this newsgroup
>collected actual data
"collected actual data" from a phonecall huh?
<ROFLOL>
Maximum desktop research huh?
<LOL>
TB
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20021004111103...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@nospam.com
>
> >That's twice in 24 hours that somebody in this newsgroup
> >collected actual data
>
> "collected actual data" from a phonecall huh?
> <ROFLOL>
>
> Maximum desktop research huh?
> <LOL>
More than you've ever done, Spacegoof!
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
>
-- TB
MasterCougar
news:ank99...@enews3.newsguy.com:
> That's twice in 24 hours that somebody in this newsgroup
> collected actual data (the other was somebody who put
> a sugar cube on a balance). What is becoming of this
> newsgroup?
>
I'm sorry, I won't do that again. Next time I'll resort to making up
something that goes against established consensous and call all those who
argue against me clock worshiper.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
Uncle Al
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@nospam.com
>
> >That's twice in 24 hours that somebody in this newsgroup
> >collected actual data
>
> "collected actual data" from a phonecall huh?
> <ROFLOL>
>
> Maximum desktop research huh?
> <LOL>
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
Hey Spaceshit - you are all tongue and no dick. You have never
contributed anything. All you do is fart and boast about the smell.
You can't even set your browser line length.
Imagine a crackpot so inept that it gets its head caught between its
own cheeks,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
That's you, Spaceshit, looking out our own mouth.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Spaceman
>Hey Spaceshit - you are all tongue and no dick. You have never
>contributed anything. All you do is fart and boast about the smell.
>You can't even set your browser line length.
The clock worshippers are firing thier zatts at me..
<LOL>
they tickle!
<LOL>
HA HA!
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
jmfb...@aol.com
MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com> wrote:
>On the dark and dreary 04 Oct 2002 Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> posted
>news:ank99...@enews3.newsguy.com:
>
>> That's twice in 24 hours that somebody in this newsgroup
>> collected actual data (the other was somebody who put
>> a sugar cube on a balance). What is becoming of this
>> newsgroup?
>>
>
> I'm sorry, I won't do that again. Next time I'll resort to making
up
>something that goes against established consensous and call all those who
>argue against me clock worshiper.
>
You really should put your smiley on that. Think of the lurkers
who aren't able to see it peeking out between the lines :-).
MasterCougar
$4tc$2...@bob.news.rcn.net:
> You really should put your smiley on that. Think of the lurkers
> who aren't able to see it peeking out between the lines :-).
>
>
I misslike using smilies. I believe that if the reader cannot
comprehend the joke, then either I have failed, or the reader needs to
ask questions, which I would be very happy to answer.
jmfb...@aol.com
MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com> wrote:
>On the dark and dreary 05 Oct 2002 jmfb...@aol.com posted news:anmg8s
>$4tc$2...@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
>> You really should put your smiley on that. Think of the lurkers
>> who aren't able to see it peeking out between the lines :-).
>>
>>
>
> I misslike using smilies. I believe that if the reader cannot
>comprehend the joke, then either I have failed, or the reader needs to
>ask questions, which I would be very happy to answer.
Understood. In the beginning, when I was just a newbie in this
flavor of forum, my emoticons never looked like Mati's. And
they were a bitch to type in.
In addition, think about the evolution of humor over the next
hundred years. Do you think such posts would still exude
your intent?
Ronald Stepp
> In addition, think about the evolution of humor over the next
> hundred years. Do you think such posts would still exude
> your intent?
Heck yeah, remember they're starting to market accesories that can reproduce
smell and scent. I shudder to think of how I'll have to vette my emails
after that.. the term "Eat Shit" will take on a whole new raft of meaning..
jmfb...@aol.com
Shit aromas are preferable to perfumes...IMO. I bought the
"improved" Joy dishwashing liquid. Used it once while trying
to keep from barfing and called them up. I told them that I'd
rather have skunk odor than that shit and a few other things.
Take a perfectly useful product and make it perfectly unusable.
Not only did it stink to high heaven, it wouldn't rinse off so
I had to eat with that smell up my nose.
And that scent has invaded everything.