How many of the red balls can fit in this bucket?

Please show your workings.

Veeky Forums is not for homework
saged

14

Veeky Forums isn't for rubes either but you're here.

it really depends on if you're allowed to melt the balls

One, either it fits or it doesn't.

Harder than quantum mechanics.

I know how to do it, but it is a very, very inefficient way of doing it. There HAS to be a better and simpler way. My idea is to place them layer by layer by manually calculating jow many can fit on one layer of balls. Stack them upwards, as if they were in a right cylinder. Then find the difference of space you have remaining for each new layer after the first one.

When u have the difference for each layer, brute work your way through it and find the most optimal way of arranging them.

Why I say this is very inefficient is because you have to guess and rely on brute forcing your answer. Let's not forget thr fact that there might be even a better way to arrange them than the way you achieve using this method due to it's complexity and rigorness.

I'm positive there is a simpler and better way of doing this

Nigger how can that angle be 90 degrees if the bases are of different length?

Kek

90 degrees at top?

Unless it's only that angle and the other one is something less?

That would be one weird fucking bucket. More like a funnel or something. Also the views provided don't define the thing completely. 0/10 technical drawing.

What else do you need? A spinning 3D model?

Well, it's enough to calculate it manually and visually.

>90°
Tf?

Side view or complete top down/bottom up view. Right now the angle is only given on one plane. On a plane rotated 90° the upper end could be centered above the lower end or not since both the top down and the bottom up view are incomplete.

This. OP doesn't know what a right angle is. Saged.

Right now these are both valid solutions to the drawing, and all shifting of the bottom plate inbetween, so long as it stays at a right angle in one plane.

Yes.

user doesn't know how to solve the other angles.

9972 balls is what I've gotten after a bit of messing around. The number is probably not accurate to one digit as there's multiple variations of how you align the balls, but it should be there somewhere around that number.

Even if this was bait, I had fun. Thanks

Or 11396.

The definition of fit is ambiguous also. Can any portion rise above the rim? Can you pyramid them up over the rim? There are several nuances to the top stacking that aren't defined.

You're both wrong, it's 10294

well nigger, care to show how I'm wrong please

Show how you're right.

ok give me a bit

Sorry for relatively shitty handwriting, hope you can read it

Btw, I've realised a few errors like I stated in that pic above while I was writing and explaining the process I've went through which would yield more balls, but I'm still unsure about the last part lol

>not using derivatives

>sphere packing problem
>homework
come on, try to solve it. not just upper bounds. give me an exact solution and prove that it's optimal

50 x 30 x 20 = 30,000

30,000 / 2.5 = 12000

subtract 5 for more precise result

12,000 - 5 = 11,995

Make a box of 2.5 cm in dimensions. That unit fits 1 sphere, which is not your packing coefficient, Calculate how many of those square fit into the trash can and put this thread into that thrash can.

It wouldn't fit if it was full of squares idiot

You can only fit one ball in the bucket because you're only given one ball.

how flexibel is the cup/the balls? which material? can you compress the balls? can you stretch the cup?

The bucket is metal and unstretchable, you can compress the balls they're made of a non-newtonian fluid.

in this case i say between 1 and 1000

I know from experience you can fit at least 600 in there so it's between 600 and 1000 in reality.

Any brainiacs around that can narrow it down more?

>sci calls engineers morons

>can't figure out simply situations where you apply math to real life scenarios

It's about the object being spheres, it's about how make a packing coefficient using spheres.

definitely way more than 1000

Which part of that proves that your result is optimal?

The question didn't ask for an optimal result.

i shoved marbles into my butt once

How many did you fit in?

What is the maximum diameter of your boipucci?

What is the length?

Did you stop when you couldn't fit any more in or did you not complete the experiment?

The filename literally says homework

Make stacks of close packed planes that fit.

It doesn't, it was more of a guess than a proper calculation. Look at the end part

>90 degree angle between top and side
>bottom shorter than top

Wat

1 because u only have 1

OP Here, about to go to bed, my homework better be done when I wake out you geekazoids.

>Bottom shorter than top

Have you never seen a bucket?

I have many balls

Closest answer according to my non-nerd calculations.

Fuck you nigger, show some respect.

How about you just do my homework poindexter.

kek no

I'm going to run through your house and nick all your tea towels fucker.

cool

Ok, I give up, you have won.

Please. PLEASE. Do my homework.

nope

plz

Make an FCC or HCP lattice.

>90 degrees
HOW IN THE FUCK IS THAT POSSIBLY 90 DEGRESS YOU FUCKING MONKEY

OP is Chinese, his comment of "show your workings" is a quirk of a non-native english speaker. This "90 degrees" is an attempt to deceive you.

worth a laugh

looks like about 13 OP

/thread

calculate volume of bucket
calculate volume of 2.5cm cube

make an estimate

No it isnt, the bottom right angle and left side have multiple possible values.

that is only in 2d

1 because you only have 1 red ball

Undefined
The dimensions aren't defined in 3-d space so there is no "in"
You gave 2 ellipses and failed to define a depth

It is possible to do it, but you'll get many results as you'd have to do the calculation for each variation of angles, but there won't be infinite results as there's only a certain amount of combinations of those angles you can have, so it is possible to do, it's just that you'll get more results.

He gave flat circular bases and their radii, so it is possible to calculate lol

yeah that 90º with the given lengths makes that an impossible 2-D figure

Idiot, solve for the other angles

No, you can still construct different bodies from the information given.

That's not a ball, it is a circle dot. That's not a bucket, it is a quadrilateral.

...guys...
...seriously...
this is a trick question. OPs image only shows a 2dimensional red dot, not a ball.

There, I added the rest of the ball.

None, there's no room in 2D space for balls.

seriously? and this is Veeky Forums?

packing problems like this are literally on the lists of famous unsolved problems.

If I'm not mistaken, a problem like this is one of the "millenium problems", that offer you a million dollars if you can solve them

Yes, that is very correct, but using common sense, a bucket would have parallel bases, yes? Meaning there's a right angle at bottom right corner as well which lowers the amount of possible combinations of the other two angles.

FUCK YOU