Funny, Strange, Random Pics

[Goofy]

lol is it really possible to balance like that?

[Salshun]

Originally Posted by Goofy

lol is it really possible to balance like that?

Yes, I did it today. Go give it a try, and if it seems hard, just keep at it. Took me 17 hours the first time. Don't give up!

After years and years of practice, I learned to do it in under 20 seconds flat, 30 if I actually had to LOAD photoshop.

Seriously, looking at it now...I dunno...all balancing jobs have the just PERFECT fulcrum point, as seen in the pics above, maybe, but someone spent some time on it, and got horse from shouting "nobody fucking move" a lot. I can't imagine a more frustrating hobby. I once saw a 300lb+ guy with a gut like a keg laid flat ride around on a Segway for 6 hours and not fall, that was pretty hard to believe. Even live in front of me I was yelling "shop".

[zaph0dd]

lol wut?

[Pinchandroll]

Those pictures of the rocks are a different case, I think. They deal with center of mass, and there are no levers or moment arms involved.

I believe the picture of the hammer-ruler balance is fake - I bet the guy just put superglue on the end of the ruler to make it stick. I made a quick free body diagram that I believe proves it wrong, but I could be mistaken since i did this in a couple minutes. Let me know if I made an error; I don't think I did, though, and I believe that picture isn't physically possible without adhesives or something.

My reasoning is this:


1. without any weight attached, the ruler would fall since most of its mass is unsupported.

2. If you add a weight where the hammer is suspended, the ruler would still fall, since there is even more unsupported weight.

3. If you turn the weight into a lever, like the picture, and assume the entire system is in equilibrium, then all the moments and all of the opposing forces must sum to zero. However, the entire weight of the hammer is unsupported since it is attached the the ruler, which is hanging over the edge of the table.

Thus, the only way for the system to enter equilibrium would be if the upward force generated by the lever creates completely offsets the weight of the ruler and the weight of the hammer. This is impossible because the only source of energy for the lever is the gravitational pull on the head of the hammer, and that will never exceed the gravitational pull on the entire hammer + the 9/10th's of the ruler hanging over the table.

Unless I'm totally missing something, which is possible since my brain is getting overloaded from upcoming finals, I'd have to say that picture is mythbusted.

[Salshun]

I dunno, I disagree, and it's just something about after I looked closer at it where it made me believe it. Yes, I know for every real pic in the world, we have 1,000,000 fakes ones, but the pic is obviously suppose to make you question it, I dunno, I think it's physically possible to do, so I can't rule the pic out as a fake. Just something about the string over that exact spot seems very deliberate. I never actually applied the math much from the CS degree, so bear with me, but it would seem that as represented here:



That even with the horribly unbalanced fulcrum point, you can get the amount of weight necessary to balance it. In this case, the hammer is simply heavy enough, and placed skill fully enough, to compensate for that one-sided fulcrum. I mean, obviously, the the majority of the weight is off the table, but quite frankly, the reason it WOULD fall if the hammer wasn't there, just the ruler, because of the weight difference, you have to accept that compensating for that with enough weight on the OTHER side will balance it out, right? Makes sense to me.

[Presarc]

The entire weight of the hammer is pulling downwards. There is no upward force. The angle of the hammer is irrelevant.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Presarc

The entire weight of the hammer is pulling downwards. There is no upward force. The angle of the hammer is irrelevant.

This

[Salshun]

The entire premise behind why something tips in a balancing equation is excessive weight on one side. Now, no matter how "one-sided" a fulcrum, their is an amount of weight that will balance it out. You could take a 20 foot long board, put the fulcrum 2 inches from one side, so that 2 inches balanced on the left, and 19' 10" was on the other, and their IS an amount of weight you could place on those 2 inches that will balance that board.

That said, and understood, how is the pic in question ANY different? You can't say, in a right mind, that you believe and accept in the reason the ruler without the hammer would fall, without accepting that said force can be countered using the same math and principals of why the ruler, sans hammer, would have fallen.

[trotsky]

It reaches equilibrium when the center of mass is beneath the fulcrum. The fulcrum would be the edge of the table. If the CoM is beyond the edge, it will try to rotate "inwards" and fall (since there's nothing connecting the ruler). If the CoM is at or before the edge, it will balance (since it can't rotate "outwards" because that would put the ruler through the table).

[Tuco]

You fucking nerds don't even have a hammer and a ruler in your house do you?

I tried that a year ago and it works.

[TheCutlery]

Originally Posted by Salshun

The entire premise behind why something tips in a balancing equation is excessive weight on one side. Now, no matter how "one-sided" a fulcrum, their is an amount of weight that will balance it out. You could take a 20 foot long board, put the fulcrum 2 inches from one side, so that 2 inches balanced on the left, and 19' 10" was on the other, and their IS an amount of weight you could place on those 2 inches that will balance that board.

That said, and understood, how is the pic in question ANY different? You can't say, in a right mind, that you believe and accept in the reason the ruler without the hammer would fall, without accepting that said force can be countered using the same math and principals of why the ruler, sans hammer, would have fallen.

You're kind of a moron, aren't you? This is why people hate you in these fucking threads. You post just to see yourself write shit.

Leave the discussion of physics to people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Cad]

The fulcrum (point of rotation) is at the edge of the table, and all of the weight is on the right side of that point. The ruler will fall. You shutup Tuco.

[Gauss]

Originally Posted by Presarc

The entire weight of the hammer is pulling downwards. There is no upward force. The angle of the hammer is irrelevant.

Actually, it's not irrelevant. Notice that the hammer is bending the ruler which has a certain shear modulus. In an attempt to restore the straight shape of the ruler, it is exerting a downward force on the table on the other side of the fulcrum. I'm not saying this picture isn't a fake, but there is definitely some counterbalancing force.

Edit: someone needs to produce a "will it take off?" involving this hammer + ruler setup NOW

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

I believe the picture of the hammer-ruler balance is fake - I bet the guy just put superglue on the end of the ruler to make it stick. I made a quick free body diagram that I believe proves it wrong, but I could be mistaken since i did this in a couple minutes. Let me know if I made an error; I don't think I did, though, and I believe that picture isn't physically possible without adhesives or something.

My reasoning is this:


1. without any weight attached, the ruler would fall since most of its mass is unsupported.

2. If you add a weight where the hammer is suspended, the ruler would still fall, since there is even more unsupported weight.

3. If you turn the weight into a lever, like the picture, and assume the entire system is in equilibrium, then all the moments and all of the opposing forces must sum to zero. However, the entire weight of the hammer is unsupported since it is attached the the ruler, which is hanging over the edge of the table.

Thus, the only way for the system to enter equilibrium would be if the upward force generated by the lever creates completely offsets the weight of the ruler and the weight of the hammer. This is impossible because the only source of energy for the lever is the gravitational pull on the head of the hammer, and that will never exceed the gravitational pull on the entire hammer + the 9/10th's of the ruler hanging over the table.

Unless I'm totally missing something, which is possible since my brain is getting overloaded from upcoming finals, I'd have to say that picture is mythbusted.

Bug confirmed.

[Salshun]

Originally Posted by TheCutlery

You're kind of a moron, aren't you? This is why people hate you in these fucking threads. You post just to see yourself write shit.

Leave the discussion of physics to people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

I've never had a geek math thrown down before. How does this work, does your crew and my crew battle to see who can do their taxes the fastest or do we freestyle dance while explaing crypto or what, help me out here. I mean we will defend ourselves if need be. The Radio Shack parking lot has been our turf forever, we're not about to give it up without a nasally, winded, physically weak fight.

Hey, look at that pic, working as I said it would. Fucking Radio Shack Long Dividing Fools represent!

Herb much love, mourn you till I join you.