Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 148
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
notused
Question: what is the maximum altitude to which the balloon will fly if it is flying strictly vertical? And will it fly at all?
It will! There will be problems with balancing on a vertical launch.
Eyewitnesses say that if you put an oily rag on the valve of an oxygen cylinder, on the horizontal start - it goes away more than 70 metres.
1. Corrected it, or else, in case Rashid Renatovich comes by in a bad state :)))
===
2. But what the hell is this? How many of my problems have you been unable to solve? Aren't you physicomathematicians ashamed of yourselves?
1. That's right. I deleted my reprints, too.
2. I am ashamed. But I can't find my point of reference. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough.
It will take off! There will be problems balancing on a vertical launch.
According to eyewitness accounts, if you put an oiled rag on the oxygen cylinder tap, on a horizontal launch - the cylinder goes over 70 metres.
Balancing shouldn't be considered in the task, otherwise it would complicate things many times over. //IMHO.
I've heard that oily rags explode on contact with oxygen. Do they always what? Is it that serious?
Oil oxidises very, very, very quickly at high oxygen content and if the ventilator is opened just a little or it leaks, there will be a p....
There are two possibilities, "torpedo start" and "rose ashtray" - when the cylinder tears and it resembles a banana peel after the banana has been eaten.
But what the hell is this? How many of my problems have you been unable to solve? Aren't you physicomathematicians ashamed of yourselves?
Oh, don't give me that attitude. It's you who should be ashamed.
First of all, it's not the characteristics of the lens, it's the characteristics of the optics.
Secondly, aperture ratio doesn't matter.
Thirdly, it cannot have "Focal length 5-60mm". You have only one number in that range, for example 51.
You have to know the diameter of the planet and the specific focal length, but you have to know the physical size of the image of the planet on the sensor. And you don't and can't have that figure.
Dima, you are being provocative.
Once upon a time there was a similar figure in this thread (on the Fourth) who also kept throwing up "practical" problems. And you probably know, how his problems were accepted by participants of this branch. If you don't know, read that thread.
This thread is declared "clean", so let it stay that way. The task of the branch is to find answers not to algorithmically simple problems, but to non-obvious ones, in which you have to somehow twist your brain in a different direction.
There's no such zest in your problems. You just have to find a lot of unspecified data and apply a lot of trivial formulas. Where are the zest, where is the fun in solving such problems?
But what the hell is this? How many of my problems have you been unable to solve? Aren't you physicomathematicians ashamed of yourselves?
Do you even understand the point of this thread? It's mostly puzzles, paradoxes, etc. This is a place where you have to come up with solutions, rather than tasks for dumb knowledge and ability to apply formulas.
By the way, it's too bad if you really don't understand it, rather than ineptly trolling.
The next one just counted:
(4) On the eve of Mega Brain Day, the administrator of the Mind Games club sent out the following message to ten randomly selected participants: "The site administration notifies you and nine other participants that each of you will receive a cash prize (the same for all), but on the condition that one of you (and only one!) sends a reply message within a week. After receiving the message, the nominees do not communicate with each other. What should they do to maximise their chances of winning prizes?
I wrote a detailed reply in my private message.
Briefly: I don't have to send a letter.