Table held up by buckets resting on it.

[racrguy]

[/URL]

They should use legs so they can have big booty hoes dance on it instead. Mine> buckets.

Best answer yet! LMMFAO.

[TexasDevilDog]

Boundary condition for pi/2 is not valid since table would have to rise to height of pulley.

So any mass of table less than 6 buckets, the buckets would rest on the table.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Boundary condition for pi/2 is not valid since table would have to rise to height of pulley.

So any mass of table less than 6 buckets, the buckets would rest on the table.

you seriously are putting that much effort into this?

the buckets together weigh more than the table. This is a piece of artwork, and I seriously doubt that they are sitting there without being attached to the table. If it wasnt nailed down, someone *could* bump it and there would be a mess.

In conclusion: all of this is bullshit, and texasdevildumbasss is still an idiot.

[line-em-up]

First I gave you the explanation you wanted in plain English, then you moved the goal post and asked for the, "equation," that explains it, and I'm bullshitting? Get the net, stumpfuck.

Geez! Don't get a wad in your panties. The BS flag was for myself, not you, because even after 2 months, I still wouldn't be able to come up with an equation.

I didn't move the goalpost. My original question specifically asked for an equation. Actually, it was the 2nd post I made in the last thread, but I deleted it because I discovered that my first question had been copied to this one, so I moved the question over here. Why so sensitive? It's just a simple question.

[line-em-up]

Agreed, and then solve for the boundary condition for when the table goes down, means the angle of the pulley approaches zero.


The equation I got was Mb = mass of bucket , Mt = mass of table, Θ = angle of pulley.

2Mb(1 + cos(Θ)) = Mt

The mass of the table can't be any higher than six times the mass of the bucket for an angle approaching zero.

Thank you!!! This was what I was after. 10 points for you!!!

[line-em-up]

You can't know what you're talking about unless you're willing to do the research, geniusitis.

Also: To fully understand those two things Yale mentioned would take you longer than 2 months.

No shit, Sherlock.

[YALE]

Geez! Don't get a wad in your panties. The BS flag was for myself, not you, because even after 2 months, I still wouldn't be able to come up with an equation.

I didn't move the goalpost. My original question specifically asked for an equation. Actually, it was the 2nd post I made in the last thread, but I deleted it because I discovered that my first question had been copied to this one, so I moved the question over here. Why so sensitive? It's just a simple question.

Apologies. That was less than clear.

[CyaNide]

At the end of the day, they made a table useless.

This.

CN

[Strychnine]

The mass of the table can't be any higher than six times the mass of the bucket for an angle approaching zero.

Don't be such an engineer - throw some common sense in there. Everything in that picture is relative.

If the table goes down the buckets go up. Why can't the table be any more than 6 buckets worth of weight? All it takes (generally) is the table weighing more than the approximately the sum of the bucket weight (angles, sin theta, blah blah). T>~4B = movement. The table could be 20 times the bucket weight and it would still go down and raise the buckets until the table hits the ground or the buckets hit the pulleys.

[line-em-up]

Agreed, and then solve for the boundary condition for when the table goes down, means the angle of the pulley approaches zero.


The equation I got was Mb = mass of bucket , Mt = mass of table, Θ = angle of pulley.

2Mb(1 + cos(Θ)) = Mt

The mass of the table can't be any higher than six times the mass of the bucket for an angle approaching zero.

I meant to say thank you to you also. That is mostly way above my head, but I find it interesting, nonetheless.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Don't be such an engineer - throw some common sense in there.

If the table goes down the buckets go up. Why can't the table be any more than 6 buckets worth of weight? All it takes (generally) is the table weighing more than the approximately the sum of the bucket weight (angles, sin theta, blah blah). T>~4B = movement. The table could be 20 times the bucket weight and it would still go down and raise the buckets until the table hits the ground or the buckets hit the pulleys.

How do you look at that and think that the table weight is the limiting factor to anything?

see post #33.

[BMCSean]

[line-em-up]

Apologies. That was less than clear.

No problem. That is what I hate about posting anything with an emotional connotation. It is SO easy to misinterpret emotions or not convey them properly on the Internetz. I should have been more clear.

[line-em-up]

Best answer yet! LMMFAO.

LOl. Is that Kim Kardashian with that big bootie?

[TexasDevilDog]

Sorry that most of you can't understand that there is only one equation that describes this problem with three unknown variables; bucket mass, table mass, angle of the rope. That leads to answers found with boundary conditions.

I am sure that everyone on here smarter than me will be posting their picture of their math proof contradicting my math proof.