Talk:2974: Storage Tanks - Revision history

172.68.205.92 at 21:15, 8 February 2025

2025-02-08T21:15:14Z

172.70.207.159 at 19:00, 8 February 2025

2025-02-08T19:00:51Z

PaulEberhardt at 07:38, 29 August 2024

2024-08-29T07:38:14Z

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For: Tanks for the memories.

2024-08-26T03:17:06Z

Tanks for the memories.

PaulEberhardt at 09:36, 25 August 2024

2024-08-25T09:36:35Z

PaulEberhardt at 10:21, 24 August 2024

2024-08-24T10:21:04Z

162.158.186.248: reply

2024-08-23T08:29:05Z

Mjackson at 22:02, 22 August 2024

2024-08-22T22:02:26Z

Transgalactic at 16:57, 21 August 2024

2024-08-21T16:57:05Z

172.69.195.176 at 15:09, 21 August 2024

2024-08-21T15:09:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:15, 8 February 2025
Line 41:		Line 41:
	: Don't worry. Us teachers are professionals, because we get paid for it. 😁👍 [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)		: Don't worry. Us teachers are professionals, because we get paid for it. 😁👍 [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

−	What if the tank pressure were randomized every few seconds? That way, neither calculus nor algebra teachers could use it as an example.	+	What if the tank pressure were randomized every few seconds? That way, neither calculus nor algebra teachers could use it as an example. {{unsigned ip\|172.70.207.159\|19:00, 8 February 2025}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 8 February 2025
Line 40:		Line 40:
	If the tank were sufficiently pressurized, they might end up having to mop up careless calculus teachers. The Hydraulic Press Channel has a series of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjS9HAtvBv0 videos showing the results of fittings popping off of over-pressurized tanks]. It did not bode well for any ballistic gel dummy heads that got in the way. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 03:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)		If the tank were sufficiently pressurized, they might end up having to mop up careless calculus teachers. The Hydraulic Press Channel has a series of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjS9HAtvBv0 videos showing the results of fittings popping off of over-pressurized tanks]. It did not bode well for any ballistic gel dummy heads that got in the way. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 03:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
	: Don't worry. Us teachers are professionals, because we get paid for it. 😁👍 [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)		: Don't worry. Us teachers are professionals, because we get paid for it. 😁👍 [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	What if the tank pressure were randomized every few seconds? That way, neither calculus nor algebra teachers could use it as an example.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:38, 29 August 2024
Line 39:		Line 39:

	If the tank were sufficiently pressurized, they might end up having to mop up careless calculus teachers. The Hydraulic Press Channel has a series of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjS9HAtvBv0 videos showing the results of fittings popping off of over-pressurized tanks]. It did not bode well for any ballistic gel dummy heads that got in the way. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 03:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)		If the tank were sufficiently pressurized, they might end up having to mop up careless calculus teachers. The Hydraulic Press Channel has a series of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjS9HAtvBv0 videos showing the results of fittings popping off of over-pressurized tanks]. It did not bode well for any ballistic gel dummy heads that got in the way. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 03:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
		+	: Don't worry. Us teachers are professionals, because we get paid for it. 😁👍 [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:17, 26 August 2024
Line 37:		Line 37:

	I wish my maths teachers back in the day had come up with any examples like this and I might have got a notion that calculus can be good for something after all, that there is an actual justification of learning it. I still might have failed in grasping it, mind you, but at least I'd have the decency to feel just a tiny little bit bad about it. I realise this is probably making me the odd one out here, but I felt I should mention it because it's linked to a fundamental problem of teaching - teaching anything at all, not just maths: most of the time you need to sell to your students the notion that knowledge and skills outside of your fields of interests, those that certainly don't relate to any career you have in mind for yourself, are valuable enough to justify the pain of learning them. You see, generations of "dumb", "lazy" students like I used to be myself have got it right on instinct: anything complex and abstract is literally painful to learn. Thinking hard in fact generally hurts, even if you pretend to yourself you like it (as I do, too, but what we really like are the results we come up with when we're done). Psychologists recently hammered this fact home in a large meta study [https://www.ru.nl/en/research/research-news/thinking-hard-hurts] [https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000443]). So with something as complex and abstract as calculus, you'll have to sell to them it's worth learning anyway, even despite a very real prospect of being able to live a perfectly happy and successful life without it, and if it's only of the weak basis of "it may still turn out to come in handy at some point". I'm a teacher myself, in case you're wondering, and if I taught maths and calculus and suchlike, transferring to it the same "signature" hands-on approach I'm somewhat known for using in geography, it'd be quite possible you'd see me drill an actual hole into an actual barrel (and likely make a show of installing a tap to make it reusable, too). [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 10:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)		I wish my maths teachers back in the day had come up with any examples like this and I might have got a notion that calculus can be good for something after all, that there is an actual justification of learning it. I still might have failed in grasping it, mind you, but at least I'd have the decency to feel just a tiny little bit bad about it. I realise this is probably making me the odd one out here, but I felt I should mention it because it's linked to a fundamental problem of teaching - teaching anything at all, not just maths: most of the time you need to sell to your students the notion that knowledge and skills outside of your fields of interests, those that certainly don't relate to any career you have in mind for yourself, are valuable enough to justify the pain of learning them. You see, generations of "dumb", "lazy" students like I used to be myself have got it right on instinct: anything complex and abstract is literally painful to learn. Thinking hard in fact generally hurts, even if you pretend to yourself you like it (as I do, too, but what we really like are the results we come up with when we're done). Psychologists recently hammered this fact home in a large meta study [https://www.ru.nl/en/research/research-news/thinking-hard-hurts] [https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000443]). So with something as complex and abstract as calculus, you'll have to sell to them it's worth learning anyway, even despite a very real prospect of being able to live a perfectly happy and successful life without it, and if it's only of the weak basis of "it may still turn out to come in handy at some point". I'm a teacher myself, in case you're wondering, and if I taught maths and calculus and suchlike, transferring to it the same "signature" hands-on approach I'm somewhat known for using in geography, it'd be quite possible you'd see me drill an actual hole into an actual barrel (and likely make a show of installing a tap to make it reusable, too). [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 10:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	If the tank were sufficiently pressurized, they might end up having to mop up careless calculus teachers. The Hydraulic Press Channel has a series of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjS9HAtvBv0 videos showing the results of fittings popping off of over-pressurized tanks]. It did not bode well for any ballistic gel dummy heads that got in the way. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 03:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:36, 25 August 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:
	In order to remove calculus from the scenario one needs a pressurization system that keeps Pair + Pliquid, constant at the hole. This requires sensing the height of the liquid surface and increasing the air pressure as the surface drops, the relationship depending on the density of the liquid. [[User:Mjackson\|Mjackson]] ([[User talk:Mjackson\|talk]]) 22:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)		In order to remove calculus from the scenario one needs a pressurization system that keeps Pair + Pliquid, constant at the hole. This requires sensing the height of the liquid surface and increasing the air pressure as the surface drops, the relationship depending on the density of the liquid. [[User:Mjackson\|Mjackson]] ([[User talk:Mjackson\|talk]]) 22:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

−	I wish my maths teachers back in the day had come up with any examples like this and I might have got a notion that calculus can be good for something after all, that there is an actual justification of learning it. I still might have failed in grasping it, mind you, but at least I'd have the decency to feel just a tiny little bit bad about it. I realise this is probably making me the odd one out here, but felt I should mention it because it's linked to a fundamental problem of teaching - teaching anything at all, not just maths: most of the time you need to sell to your students the notion that ~~even~~ knowledge and skills outside of your fields of interests, those that certainly don't relate to any career you have in mind for yourself, are valuable enough to justify the pain of learning them. You see, generations of "dumb", "lazy" students like I used to be myself have got it right: anything complex and abstract is literally painful to learn. Thinking hard in fact generally hurts, even if you pretend to yourself you like it, ~~as psychologists~~ recently hammered home in a meta study [https://www.ru.nl/en/research/research-news/thinking-hard-hurts] [https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000443]). ~~If it's~~ something ~~like~~ calculus, you have to sell to them it's worth learning anyway, even ~~if there is~~ a very real prospect of ~~living~~ a perfectly happy and successful life without ~~ever needing~~ it ~~again~~, and if it's only of the weak basis of "it may still turn out to come in handy at some point". I'm a teacher myself, in case you're wondering, and if I taught maths and calculus and ~~s##t~~, transferring ~~my characteristic~~ hands-on approach I ~~use~~ in geography ~~to it~~, it's quite possible you'd see me drill an actual hole into an actual barrel (~~although I might also~~ make a show of installing a tap to make it reusable). [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 10:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)	+	I wish my maths teachers back in the day had come up with any examples like this and I might have got a notion that calculus can be good for something after all, that there is an actual justification of learning it. I still might have failed in grasping it, mind you, but at least I'd have the decency to feel just a tiny little bit bad about it. I realise this is probably making me the odd one out here, but I felt I should mention it because it's linked to a fundamental problem of teaching - teaching anything at all, not just maths: most of the time you need to sell to your students the notion that knowledge and skills outside of your fields of interests, those that certainly don't relate to any career you have in mind for yourself, are valuable enough to justify the pain of learning them. You see, generations of "dumb", "lazy" students like I used to be myself have got it right on instinct: anything complex and abstract is literally painful to learn. Thinking hard in fact generally hurts, even if you pretend to yourself you like it (as I do, too, but what we really like are the results we come up with when we're done). Psychologists recently hammered this fact home in a large meta study [https://www.ru.nl/en/research/research-news/thinking-hard-hurts] [https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000443]). So with something as complex and abstract as calculus, you'll have to sell to them it's worth learning anyway, even despite a very real prospect of being able to live a perfectly happy and successful life without it, and if it's only of the weak basis of "it may still turn out to come in handy at some point". I'm a teacher myself, in case you're wondering, and if I taught maths and calculus and suchlike, transferring to it the same "signature" hands-on approach I'm somewhat known for using in geography, it'd be quite possible you'd see me drill an actual hole into an actual barrel (and likely make a show of installing a tap to make it reusable, too). [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 10:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 24 August 2024
Line 35:		Line 35:

	In order to remove calculus from the scenario one needs a pressurization system that keeps Pair + Pliquid, constant at the hole. This requires sensing the height of the liquid surface and increasing the air pressure as the surface drops, the relationship depending on the density of the liquid. [[User:Mjackson\|Mjackson]] ([[User talk:Mjackson\|talk]]) 22:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)		In order to remove calculus from the scenario one needs a pressurization system that keeps Pair + Pliquid, constant at the hole. This requires sensing the height of the liquid surface and increasing the air pressure as the surface drops, the relationship depending on the density of the liquid. [[User:Mjackson\|Mjackson]] ([[User talk:Mjackson\|talk]]) 22:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	I wish my maths teachers back in the day had come up with any examples like this and I might have got a notion that calculus can be good for something after all, that there is an actual justification of learning it. I still might have failed in grasping it, mind you, but at least I'd have the decency to feel just a tiny little bit bad about it. I realise this is probably making me the odd one out here, but felt I should mention it because it's linked to a fundamental problem of teaching - teaching anything at all, not just maths: most of the time you need to sell to your students the notion that even knowledge and skills outside of your fields of interests, those that certainly don't relate to any career you have in mind for yourself, are valuable enough to justify the pain of learning them. You see, generations of "dumb", "lazy" students like I used to be myself have got it right: anything complex and abstract is literally painful to learn. Thinking hard in fact generally hurts, even if you pretend to yourself you like it, as psychologists recently hammered home in a meta study [https://www.ru.nl/en/research/research-news/thinking-hard-hurts] [https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000443]). If it's something like calculus, you have to sell to them it's worth learning anyway, even if there is a very real prospect of living a perfectly happy and successful life without ever needing it again, and if it's only of the weak basis of "it may still turn out to come in handy at some point". I'm a teacher myself, in case you're wondering, and if I taught maths and calculus and s##t, transferring my characteristic hands-on approach I use in geography to it, it's quite possible you'd see me drill an actual hole into an actual barrel (although I might also make a show of installing a tap to make it reusable). [[User:PaulEberhardt\|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt\|talk]]) 10:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 :Though there are other possible factors, in that example, including the potential pressure of any self-releasing carbonation pressure (e.g. giving the bottle a shake, or a foreign body, before releasing the 'pour') and/or squeezing/'milking' the soft plastic container strategically to create another form of pressurised expulsion.
 :For the 'classical' problem, one should probably assume sufficient inward venting (either an open/part-open top or a second hole drilled near the top to effect this purpose) as well as a reasonably unexotic liquid (neither molasses, cornstarch-mixture, anything that is actually a very fine dry powder, anything that reacts significantly with/upon air, any liquid very close to its vapour-point nor ''specifically'' supercooled helium) or any additional elements (stirrers, baffles, spongey inners, inner membranes or the contents being a layered combination of imiscable liquids of different densities that may or may not react slightly all across the interface plane). Most things that aren't actually exotic (and even a few that are, and might warrant a warning /¡\) are close enough to water to treat as if just that, at least under the further assumption that we're working at or around Standard Temperature and Pressure. But a slightly different density, viscosity and surface tension (plus the nature of the container, e.g. extreme hydrophilic or hydrophobic inner coatings where water is involved) ''could'' (in combination) drastically change the actual outcome given enough of the right kind of simultaneous differences imparted. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.37|172.70.86.37]] 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
 In order to remove calculus from the scenario one needs a pressurization system that keeps Pair + Pliquid, constant at the hole.  This requires sensing the height of the liquid surface and increasing the air pressure as the surface drops, the relationship depending on the density of the liquid.  [[User:Mjackson|Mjackson]] ([[User talk:Mjackson|talk]]) 22:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 22 August 2024
Line 32:		Line 32:
	:Though there are other possible factors, in that example, including the potential pressure of any self-releasing carbonation pressure (e.g. giving the bottle a shake, or a foreign body, before releasing the 'pour') and/or squeezing/'milking' the soft plastic container strategically to create another form of pressurised expulsion.		:Though there are other possible factors, in that example, including the potential pressure of any self-releasing carbonation pressure (e.g. giving the bottle a shake, or a foreign body, before releasing the 'pour') and/or squeezing/'milking' the soft plastic container strategically to create another form of pressurised expulsion.
	:For the 'classical' problem, one should probably assume sufficient inward venting (either an open/part-open top or a second hole drilled near the top to effect this purpose) as well as a reasonably unexotic liquid (neither molasses, cornstarch-mixture, anything that is actually a very fine dry powder, anything that reacts significantly with/upon air, any liquid very close to its vapour-point nor ''specifically'' supercooled helium) or any additional elements (stirrers, baffles, spongey inners, inner membranes or the contents being a layered combination of imiscable liquids of different densities that may or may not react slightly all across the interface plane). Most things that aren't actually exotic (and even a few that are, and might warrant a warning /¡\) are close enough to water to treat as if just that, at least under the further assumption that we're working at or around Standard Temperature and Pressure. But a slightly different density, viscosity and surface tension (plus the nature of the container, e.g. extreme hydrophilic or hydrophobic inner coatings where water is involved) ''could'' (in combination) drastically change the actual outcome given enough of the right kind of simultaneous differences imparted. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.37\|172.70.86.37]] 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)		:For the 'classical' problem, one should probably assume sufficient inward venting (either an open/part-open top or a second hole drilled near the top to effect this purpose) as well as a reasonably unexotic liquid (neither molasses, cornstarch-mixture, anything that is actually a very fine dry powder, anything that reacts significantly with/upon air, any liquid very close to its vapour-point nor ''specifically'' supercooled helium) or any additional elements (stirrers, baffles, spongey inners, inner membranes or the contents being a layered combination of imiscable liquids of different densities that may or may not react slightly all across the interface plane). Most things that aren't actually exotic (and even a few that are, and might warrant a warning /¡\) are close enough to water to treat as if just that, at least under the further assumption that we're working at or around Standard Temperature and Pressure. But a slightly different density, viscosity and surface tension (plus the nature of the container, e.g. extreme hydrophilic or hydrophobic inner coatings where water is involved) ''could'' (in combination) drastically change the actual outcome given enough of the right kind of simultaneous differences imparted. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.37\|172.70.86.37]] 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
		+	In order to remove calculus from the scenario one needs a pressurization system that keeps Pair + Pliquid, constant at the hole. This requires sensing the height of the liquid surface and increasing the air pressure as the surface drops, the relationship depending on the density of the liquid. [[User:Mjackson\|Mjackson]] ([[User talk:Mjackson\|talk]]) 22:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 :: Yes... [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
-Is there anyone else who thought the calculus teacher was abusing the tank as a model for the complex plane, demonstrating how to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removable_singularity remove a singularity] from a holomorphic function? I wasn't confronted with that particular tank-emptying problem in high school, so my first encounter with "holes" in maths was in complex analysis. The title text was a mystery. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
+Is there anyone else who thought the calculus teacher was abusing the tank as a model for the complex plane, demonstrating how to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removable_singularity remove a singularity] from a holomorphic function by puncturing the plane? I wasn't confronted with that particular tank-emptying problem in high school, so my first encounter with "holes" in maths was in complex analysis. The title text was a mystery. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
 As a mathematician, I'm surprised I didn't know about this idea. (It's definitely not my field!) I actually thought the flow would be constant, an algebraic problem. Oh, I'm sure I saw these types of problems in Calculus (and I remember problems like this in Differential Equations), but I thought those were just to make the math more complicated, not based in reality... So is it the weight of the liquid remaining above the hole that is the source of the pressure (i.e., would it be the same if the top of the tank were open), or is it the air pressure in the tank as the volume of liquid decreases and volume of air increases? [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 11:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 : Struts as shown provide some left-right stability, but not as effectively as struts across the face would.  They also provide some redundant front-back stability with the struts running along the faces. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.90|172.68.71.90]] 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
 : I mentally modeled the flexibility modes, and it very much depends upon whether the verticals are solid (with their resistence to bending playing a big part alongside the incident horizontals'/diagonals' exactvmethod of attachment) or are just sections of rod between a suitable receiver-'node' at each junction.
-: in particular, the strength of any one of the three 'boxes' (each level between adjacent horizontal cross-sectional perimeters) is somewhat less secure, as a single legel can 'fold' sideways over each side's vertical-diagonal strut (along with the respective front/back horizontals, held 'square' by the internal cross-brscing). Only the continuation and linking with the other 'boxes' really guarantees any innate stability, and if each node is free-twisting then the likely first result of any failure is that the tower topples forwards and/or backwards as it folds up due to the unbraced facing and hindside quadrilaterals.
+: in particular, the strength of any one of the three 'boxes' (each level between adjacent horizontal cross-sectional perimeters) is somewhat less secure, as a single level can 'fold' sideways over each side's vertical-diagonal strut (along with the respective front/back horizontals, held 'square' by the internal cross-brscing). Only the continuation and linking with the other 'boxes' really guarantees any innate stability, and if each node is free-twisting then the likely first result of any failure is that the tower topples forwards and/or backwards as it folds up due to the unbraced facing and hindside quadrilaterals.
 : But it does depend a lot upon the exact nature of the linkages (which can only be guessed at), and other failure-modes could involve node-slippage if they merely grip the cross-braces to the entirely top-to-bottom poles and there's potential for sliding there instead of primarily rotation (or over-stressed failure in any given length of rod).
 : The support (or additional pressure) provided by the access staircase is also probably a factor. It could even be the most important bit in holding it up! ...if firmly anchored at the other end and robust enough in itself.
-: I'd definitely add other diagonals (including opposite-type body-diagonals, perhaps tied to the existing one as they pass right across each other), just to be sure. The more the better, of course, but there's probably a limit through diminishing concerns. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
+: I'd definitely add other diagonals (including opposite-type body-diagonals, perhaps tied to the existing one as they pass right across each other), just to be sure. The more the better, of course, but there's probably a limit through diminishing concerns. And too many diagonals primarily in a helical pattern could concentrate forces into a particular type of rotational failure if you also add too much brace-weight in doing so. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
 Seems like a pretty menial job for the "head of security". I think he would delegate this to a security guard. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)