Last time I posted this: >0 formal calculations>0 links to an experiment>Some anons were confidently wrong, saying the answer is X, even going as far as to ask me if I've taken calculus >Some anons confusing "which will empty first" for "which will empty faster", and then being confidently wrong (see above)>Misapplying torricellis law>Some intentionally missing the point of the question eg. Water will get stuck at the bottom Funnily enough, simply typing "which will empty first" into Google's AI, will yield the correct answer. But you don't need to understand water pressure to get the correct answer. It's basic common sense, that the white man, and to some extent, Asians, are supposed to have, but Indians and social media retards lack. [spoiler] if I drop a rock from up here, and at the same time, I drop a rock from down here, which rock will hit the ground first, according to gravity?[/spoiler]
>>16857184Tank x is skinny at the bottom so the water stays "taller" for longer which means there's a higher pressure at the valve and the water empties out faster
>>16857186>First>FasterEpic retard failure.
>>16857184>0 links to an experimenthttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aQfrhdIH3TkMake that zero and 1.
>>16857184>0 formal calculationsI already did >>16842973. This thread did not need to be made.It's just a high school problem for the simple approximation. I literally explained everything and even went beyond and graphed it for everyone to see. I even gave an analysis over the optimal shape and a lower bound on the time limit for the simple equation. Btw, I also found out soon after making the post that you could graph integrals online for free, meaning I could graph the slightly more/less accurate solution for a modified equation where the exit velocity is dependent on both the height and height change speed instead. The original is more accurate for the initial condition and easily solvable for a high schooler, while the latter is more accurate for the rest of the time but only numerically solvable. The graphs of both basically look the same as my original post. See pic rel. Your other thread was dead so there wasn't any need to post it there.Any better analysis would just involve some level of navier-stokes in order to model the locality of water changes/flux, since realistically the exit velocity doesn't know the current water height or height rate of change immediately. But with navier stokes, you get water cohesion and vortex analysis and all of this is beyond high school. All of this only gives a more accurate graph, and isn't even needed to answer who wins the race. The worst change is the vortex that occurs at the end, but both tanks will have them anyway.
>>16857287>more accurateLike barely, since the heights aren't really changing that fast under the approximation so their effects only significant in the last moments
>>16857287So which one wins, anon?
>>16857268>X is always higher so it's flow rate is always higher>As we see X drains slower at the bottom Why didn't he just say he doesn't understand
>>16857287Words words words. You wrote two equations in the previous thread. That's like me solving a balance question saying I used F = ma then showing a plot. You're a faggot
I remember this thread.
>>16857184It's X for reasons that are intuitively obvious (for white people, at least).
>>16857219Blue is clearly faster for most of the time here >>16857268Seems like you're cherry picking a speed comparison at one particular time, just towards the end.
>>16857268I didn't see this before. I watched the vid, and damn, ain't this a good chance to test out the equations of >>16857287. First off, I would like to say, I mentioned something incorrect in that post. I thought that the dependency on the height rate of change was minimal but this is actually false, and in fact significantly false. I never looked at the graphs for the two equations side by side, only how the tank A and B compared to each other. Also, in my OG post, my scale for the time axis was in units of half hours cause seconds would be waay too large. For the guy's video, I changed it to units of 10 minutes cause he's working on measures of mm and not meters. This made the difference between the graphs quite apparent. Although the qualitative properties of the curves agree because the exit velocity depends on water height, my OG post ignoring the height rate of change actually shrunk the times (at least for the current example of the guy's experiment) by at least 3x. So overall, the inclusion of the rate of change is waay way better for quantitative results. >>16857290 is just wrong.So I recorded the time it took Tank A to empty in intervals of 1/16 the max height. Then using the measurements the experimenter used for his 3D printed stuff, I compared the two, aand the result sucked. The final time for tank A emptying was over the prediction by like >30s? (idr). However, the exit hole was an octagon with a 1.14mm side length. If I changed the side length to 92% or 1.05mm, then it actually fitted the data really well from 15/16H to 6/16H. For 5/15H and under, the height reduction actually turned very linear. I was surprised how much a small change in the hole size increased the numbers, but I still didn't do Tank B yet, so there still could be issues. So I did all of Tank B, and daamn, see the results for yourself in the pic. Tank B fits the data really fucking well, like even I was surprised. cont.
>>16857401That purple vertical line btw is when Tank A overtook Tank C, but it's past 6/16H so it didn't fit well. The white line is the same as in my OG post, but the lower bound for the fastest time is at least 3x what the simple OG equation was, and this time I have no idea how I'd try to calculate it perfectly this time (though I have not tried at all).So this simple high school model that can only be numerically solved fits Tank B shapes very well in at least some cases. For Tank A shapes, it'll work pretty initially, but when you get to smaller heights, the funnel shape provides extra dominating effects that make the reduction linear, at least in this case. The video does not show the water at that point so I can't see what's happening, and I have no guess. But funny enough - and I didn't notice this at first - the fitted equation actually speeds up near the end and predicts the correct final time off by like half a second! So it's a decent model, but somewhat sensitive to initial conditions for at least some small tanks.>>16857302I say it in the first paragraph of the OG post, but if you don't want to read it, watch the guy's video. Literally shows everything but the math. It's sorta fun to watch, like those toy car or marble races.>>16857349>Oh no, all this food placed right in front of me! I won't eat it though unless someone feeds meGuy, just ask AI if you want your ass wiped and to be spoonfed. I literally laid everything out. If you can't handle it, that's your issue. It's a good problem though, I'll give you that.
>>16857403>i published an engineering paper with three plots and two basic equationsgood luck lol
x wins because of not shortening its pressure defining water pillar directly above the outlet as quickly as y. but how to calculate the height as a fraction of the overall height were both levels meet during the emptying process? the moment when x catches up with y levelwise.
its pissing further
>>16857552
>>16857184>>0 formal calculationsNot needed.>>0 links to an experiment'Not needed.>>Some anons were confidently wrong, saying the answer is X, even going as far as to ask me if I've taken calculus Yes, it's X.>>Some anons confusing "which will empty first" for "which will empty faster", and then being confidently wrong (see above)OK.>>Misapplying torricellis lawWhat the fuck did you just call me?>>Some intentionally missing the point of the question eg. Water will get stuck at the bottomOK.
>>16857552This guy's is the only opinion that matters.Everything else is a literal thought excercise.
>>16857287So, you're saying this is the second time I've skipped all the words in your post full of words?Qrd on the responses?
>>16857552Wait is this a valid experiment? Do the blue and green dyes have the same viscosity? If they're even a little different this could explain what is seen
>>16857184X is the correct answer tho
>>16857552greenlets on suicide watch
>>16857826you're retarded if you think a little bit of dye causes such a significant difference in time. The only true problem with his experiment is the fact that he didn't quantify the amount of water added, but since his CAD for both the tanks are the same, just rotated, this problem too would be negligible. Since there was such a significant difference in the time, neither of these issues really matter.
>>16860190the difference in time is not significant.
>>16860193>>16860190to clarify, in the video, he says it's sped up, otherwise it takes far too long (by 8x time). blue drains in about 28 seconds in the video, meaning its true drain time is 224 seconds. how much longer do you think it'd take the green to drain from the video?
>>16860193>>16860199This is what both tanks looked like when he ended the experiment. The green tank never fully emptied and just by looking at it, there would definitely by a significant amount of time for it to empty.
>>16860203>there would definitely by a significant amount of time for it to empty.proof?
>>16860216>proof?nigga just look at it retarded ass nigga do u think its gonna magically speed up fast as fuck at the end?????
>>16857184>you have to le prove it>question is so simple you can just loosely reason the answer>the correct answer is obviousWhy sperg over the details.
>>16857552This doesn't really prove anything since it would need to piss faster to match the other side since the liquid on the other side is lower on average and therefore has less distance to be pissed.
>>16860716>just look at itokay, how much extra time elapses? and how did you determine it's significant?
