LinusCalcTips,

[Arty]

Just something i thought id mention, the past few days each day i asked a question, these are just the one i stumbled on doing, we get daily packets sooo just thought id mention that, im not trying to get the way out..

 

 

The only thing i can seem to deduce is that the  container has a wider bottom then top.

[FatPenguin]

*is only in algebra one* 

[TheKDub]

Just something i thought id mention, the past few days each day i asked a question, these are just the one i stumbled on doing, we get daily packets sooo just thought id mention that, im not trying to get the way out..

 

 

The only thing i can seem to deduce is that the  container has a wider bottom then top.

 

I'd guess it'd be a cone with the tip facing down.

 

The further down you go the slower the total volume increases, therefore the bottom is smaller than the top. (Could be wrong if it's not talking about the total volume of that depth and everything above it)

[werto165]

not sure but just substitute numbers in i.e volume = pi*r^2*h you can deduce R from subbing in values. other shapes like wise. ooops not actually working out an equation for it forget this. 

[79wjd]

It's a cone/pyramid shape (I don't have the patience to do the math to figure out which).

[Nineshadow]

Units?

cm and mm?

[nsyedhasan]

You have to compare the difference between each measurement and compare the increase of water, and if it is more than before it is a wider section of container and so on.

[Arty]

Units?

cm and mm?

This was the question 

no units attached 

[79wjd]

I'd guess it'd be a cone with the tip facing down.

 

The further down you go the slower the volume increases, therefore the bottom is smaller than the top.

 

 

So like this: 

 

Instead of like this: 

Other way around, it's a traffic cone. 

 

V=LWH 

400 =5LW, LW = 80

1200 =25LW, LW=48 

 

So the higher the water goes the narrower the container. 

[Mug]

• Area of the base of the containers

Also, the question is shit, it should at least give you the units

[Nineshadow]

I'd guess it'd be a cone with the tip facing down.

 

The further down you go the slower the volume increases, therefore the bottom is smaller than the top.

-snips-

Except it's the other way around.

[Totallycasual]

My head hurts just looking at this thread lol 

[TheKDub]

 

Except it's the other way around.

 

 

Other way around, it's a traffic cone. 

 

If it's talking about the volume of water at that specific level of it, then yes, though I was thinking of it more as the total volume starting at that level and going up

[jkraghify]

The only thing you can deduce (scientifically speaking) is that this is a container that holds water. There are no units listed with those measurements, so how are you supposed to know whether or not they are the same units?

[79wjd]

The only thing you can deduce (scientifically speaking) is that this is a container that holds water. There are no units listed with those measurements, so how are you supposed to know whether or not they are the same units?

You must be fun at parties. 

[Nineshadow]

Shit question.

 

No units.

 

When the water reaches the depth of 25 units , is the container filled to the max?

[Mug]

Actually nah, all over it like a rash. It has to be a cone with the point facing up.

[werto165]

UNITS ARE metres (Probably) 

[samcool55]

I can deduce it is a 3d one.

And that's about it

[Curufinwe_wins]

Calc doesn't actually require calc most of the time btw.

 

Between 20-25 (units) the average area is 20 square units.

 

Between 15-20 (units) the average area is 28 square units.

 

Between 10-15 (units) the average area is 44 square units.

 

Between 5-10 (units) the average area is 68 square units.

 

Between 0-5 (units) the average area is 80 square units.

 

Technically speaking that is literally the only observation you can prove is that for those ranges the average area is monotonically increasing as depth decreases.

 

I could give you infinite shapes/volumes that would allow such an event to occur, but I can prove that it isn't a right circular cone as in order to get 1200 cubic units at a depth of 25 units the radius would have to be 6.77 units and cutting off the top 5 units of that right circular cone would only remove 9.6 cubit units. In a similar fashion it is easy to prove it is not a cubic pyramid (which would need to be 12x12x25).

 

READ NOTE BEFORE CONTINUING:

 

 

Indeed I would suggest that the volume is proportional to the cube of the depth (or H-depth as it were), as the change in volume over the same change in depth goes 100-140-220-340 and the change in the change of the volume is 40-80-120 (which is a dead giveaway to a 3rd order relationship, assuming the shape is both continuous and differentiable throughout.)

 

 

Its like this if the change is constant: first order.

If the change of the change is constant: Second order.

If the change of the change of the change is constant: Third order.

 

So V could be proportional to Depth^3 (and indeed that would be V=.0533x^3-4x^2+118.67x-100)

 

 

 

NOTE: After a little bit of examination and adding the assumption that at 0 depth there would be 0 volume (which technically speaking isn't necessary depending on frame of reference, but is quite likely) a pure cubic relationship cannot exist unless the 0 volume point was a depth of .8677m. And while it is by definition possible to make an exact relationship between N points using a polynomial of order N-1 in 2D space, that isn't all that helpful in that it just becomes another arbitrary choice that is not likely.