Can You Make It? (Part Two)

weight bro not mass, but i was wondering how would they measure the weight of a compressed spring because it needs to have a force to keep it compressed.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +34

#245 to #233 - pariahlol (10/02/2012) [-]

make a small machine to compress it, weigh said machine without the spring, then weigh it while it is compressing the spring. Subtract the difference and you have the weight of the spring while it's compressed.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +5

#628 to #245 - N. Korean citizen (10/02/2012) [-]

OR you weigh the relaxed spring and a clamp together, then you put the spring in the clamp, tighten it, and weigh them both again. Find the difference!

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +4

#639 to #245 - lamarisagoodname (10/02/2012) [-]

Law of conservation of mass demands that 29 is wrong.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#837 to #639 - pariahlol (10/02/2012) [-]

Weight not mass, and I never said it wasn't wrong I was simply telling somebody how to weigh a compressed spring

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#1051 to #837 - lamarisagoodname (10/03/2012) [-]

I agree with you, but even if you weigh the spring using the correct method (your method) it would still weigh the same.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#1140 to #1051 - pariahlol (10/03/2012) [-]

Well perhaps there's some homo-voodoo sciency shit going on that we don't know about. Based upon all the knowledge i have, it won't change in weight, but it's science, things are subject to change

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#641 to #639 - lamarisagoodname (10/02/2012) [-]

I totally missed clicking the image i wanted.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +2

#254 to #245 - jgk **User deleted account** (10/02/2012) [-]

you have my thumb sir!

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#256 to #254 - pariahlol (10/02/2012) [-]

glad to please

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#976 to #245 - spacelubber (10/03/2012) [-]

Rather than making a small machine, you could tie a rope about the top and bottom to compress it.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#987 to #976 - pariahlol (10/03/2012) [-]

true

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#270 to #245 - daisuke (10/02/2012) [-]

but dude, u would need some badass fucking measurement, lets say if we were were to add 1,000 joules of potential energy to a spring, its mass would increase by 1,000 / c² or 1.113 × 10^-14 grams.

gl measuring that :)

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +2

#307 to #270 - daisuke (10/02/2012) [-]

So if we were were to add 1,000 joules of potential energy to a spring, its mass would increase by 1,000 / c² or 1.113 × 10^-14 grams.

pic related to fj community

0

#652 to #307 - mrgaw has deleted their comment. [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#272 to #270 - pariahlol (10/02/2012) [-]

yeah i'm not saying to do this with a bathroom scale and some duct tape. You would have some crazy equipment, but it is possible

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#1103 to #233 - points (10/03/2012) [-]

It IS a change in mass "bro". Weight is equal to the constant of gravity times mass. Since I seriously doubt compressing a spring alters the Earth's gravitational pull, a change in weight means a change in mass. The change in mass does not comply with conservation of mass therefore this cannot be true in a closed system.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply 0

#1250 to #1103 - jgk **User deleted account** (10/03/2012) [-]

i don't know ,what college course you have taken. Man you need not change the earths gravitational pull to increase the weight it all depends on the forces acting on it.

Consider a freebody diagram as in the picture. in the first case a force is pulling it up in which case the net force acting on the object is F n = F-mg . If you weigh the object this is the weight of the object now, its actual weight changes i.e decreases.
In the second case the weight of the object increases. because the force is acting towards the gravitational force, which adds up to its weight.

got it?

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#255 to #233 - N. Korean citizen (10/02/2012) [-]

cause its so hard to know the weight of the stuff that keeps it compresed,right?

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#257 to #255 - jgk **User deleted account** (10/02/2012) [-]

silly anon ,THINGS ARENT ALWAYS OBVIOUS. may be should clarify your comment.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +3

#252 to #226 - daisuke (10/02/2012) [-]

not sure about this but mass is a form of energy. e = mc^2 ... dont know if this has anything to do with it. but yeah, it would be hard to measure the weight of a compressed spring since if it would be compressed it would already be held up. maybe it does weigh more after all.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#282 to #252 - Brouwera (10/02/2012) [-]

Clever. Except I'm not sure the energy would be converted into mass seeing as the object in question is stationary during the measurment.

And this would indeed be very hard to measure.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#265 to #252 - admiralamory (10/02/2012) [-]

Maybe it was a joke, saying the more compressed the spring is, the heavier the object on top.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +2

#275 to #265 - daisuke (10/02/2012) [-]

nope, its true. So if we were were to add 1,000 joules of potential energy to a spring, its mass would increase by 1,000 / (3*10^8)² or 1.113 × 10^-14 grams.

E = MC MOTHERFUCKING SQUARED

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +2

#302 to #275 - daisuke (10/02/2012) [-]

funnyjunk, where correct answers explained with correct maths gets thumbed down.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#645 to #275 - lamarisagoodname (10/02/2012) [-]

False. Last I checked, there was no nuclear reaction so the kinetic energy is simply stored in the fact that you're compressing the atoms together, this does not change the mass. Applying the theory of relativity would be saying if 1 gram of mass underwent nuclear fusion, this much energy is created.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply 0

#648 to #645 - lamarisagoodname (10/02/2012) [-]

And here's an image I forgot to add to narrarate my argument.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +1

#1281 to #648 - daisuke (10/04/2012) [-]

go google it "compressed spring more mass" and you will find the answer.

1. im learning about this in physics atm.
2. heres some links to support:

http://debunkeymonkey.blogspot.se/2009/08/does-compressed-spring-weigh-more-than .html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm

<pic related, einstein facepalm

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#1284 to #1281 - bayakpo (10/05/2012) [-]

In theory it weighs more, but really that much amount of energy when calculated is not very much. It may weigh more yes. But by how much? Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry little. Thx for the 2nd link I learned something new =)

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#1289 to #1284 - daisuke (10/06/2012) [-]

yes, very little, what else would u think? ...

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#1290 to #1289 - bayakpo (10/06/2012) [-]

Thx for the education. In payment a thumb for your response =P

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#1291 to #1290 - daisuke (10/06/2012) [-]

np bro. have a thumb

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +2

#234 to #226 - graboidzero (10/02/2012) [-]

Weight is the energy exerced on the weightscale. He never mentions mass, so technically he's right.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#242 to #234 - kingmaker (10/02/2012) [-]

i am aware of the difference between mass and weight (should have know I would be called out on it) but still

take a spring put it on a scale weighs 1/2 pound
take a brick that weighs 4 pounds put it on the scale
the scale is going to read 4.5 pounds

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#247 to #242 - kingmaker (10/02/2012) [-]

meant to say put the brick on the spring

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#457 to #226 - andalitemadness (10/02/2012) [-]

Look up the theory of relativity; when more energy is added, the mass increases because e=mc^2, so it would increase by 10^-14 in grams if you added 1000 joules of energy by compressing it.

0

#237 to #226 - drummerperson has deleted their comment. [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -1

#248 to #226 - N. Korean citizen (10/02/2012) [-]

Weight and mass are different just saying

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#249 to #248 - kingmaker (10/02/2012) [-]

thanks bud

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -1

#239 to #226 - pariahlol (10/02/2012) [-]

said weight, not mass

Hide Hide All +Fav (1) Edit Image Reply +39

#166 - itsmypenis **User deleted account** (10/02/2012) [+] (7 replies)

"there are more atoms in a glass of water than glassed of water in all the oceans on Earth."
What the shit are you trying to say?

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +50

#179 to #166 - doctadoc (10/02/2012) [-]

If you were able to get every last drop of water out of the ocean into separate glasses, the amount of glasses of water you'd have would still be less than the amount of atoms in a single glass of water.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -4

#928 to #179 - dankfrank (10/03/2012) [-]

I think hes saying the amount of atoms in a glass cup. If the ocean were to be taken away, and filled with glass cups, all the atoms in all the glass cups would not equal the amount but actually be less then atoms of water in a glass cup

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#345 to #166 - lalaladrake (10/02/2012) [-]

but who is glass?

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#181 to #166 - gmaxx (10/02/2012) [-]

more atoms of water then glasses of water

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#203 to #181 - charlesanthony (10/02/2012) [-]

water is not an atom, it's a molecule made of three atoms. 2 hydrogen and one oxygen.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#591 to #203 - N. Korean citizen (10/02/2012) [-]

If anyone were to really think it through, I'd say it was implied.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -2

#305 to #203 - gmaxx (10/02/2012) [-]

i meant that... i mean atoms like H2O, but that's incorrect, but still the same ideea

Hide Hide All +Fav (1) Edit Image Reply +29

#478 - spideyonaunicorn (10/02/2012) [+] (2 replies)

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +29

#479 to #478 - spideyonaunicorn (10/02/2012) [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +43

#481 to #479 - spideyonaunicorn (10/02/2012) [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (4) Reply +35

#1023 - mrsoup (10/03/2012) [+] (11 replies)

**mrsoup rolls 444** interesting fact, i can roll

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +2

#1025 to #1023 - imagicialotv (10/03/2012) [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#1030 to #1023 - N. Korean citizen (10/03/2012) [-]

Wow

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +24

#1033 to #1030 - mrsoup (10/03/2012) [-]

**mrsoup rolls 99**

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#1050 to #1023 - potatotown (10/03/2012) [-]

**potatotown rolls 54** how in the fuck...

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -1

#1064 to #1050 - mrsoup (10/03/2012) [-]

**mrsoup rolls 21** don't know if i can, stahp.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply -1

#1085 to #1064 - potatotown (10/03/2012) [-]

**potatotown rolls 50** let me help you stahp

0

#1039 to #1023 - blazingballsack has deleted their comment. [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -1

#1042 to #1023 - N. Korean citizen (10/03/2012) [-]

**anonymous rolls 1,876** prepare for dislikes ...

Hide Hide All +Fav (1) Reply +27

#90 - rheago (10/02/2012) [-]

I FUCKING LOVE THESE

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +19

#526 - hairydickfarts (10/02/2012) [-]

i want moar

i will never be satisfied

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +18

#569 - moosmann (10/02/2012) [+] (5 replies)

about the glass of water and the ocean...
i am now going to do the math:
assuming there are 250mL of water in one glass. thats 250g (grams). the molecular weight of water is ~ 18 g/mol that makes 13.88888889 mol per glass of water.
13.88888889 mol are 13.88888889 x 6,023 x 10^23 (<that means add 23 zeros) molecules.
thats 8.3653 x 10^29 or 836500000000000000000000000000000 molecules!
there are aproximately 1,386 billion cubic kilometres(1000m x 1000m x 1000m) of water on the whole world.
97.14 percent of it is in the oceans. thats 1.346 billion cubic kilometres or 1.346 x 10^18 cubic metres or 1.346 x 10^21 cubic decimetres or
1346000000000000000000 Liters. divide this by 0.25 to get the ammount of glasses you can fill with it.
=>
so its 836500000000000000000000000000000 molecules in 1 glass of water but only _________________ 5384000000000000000000 glasses of water in all of the worlds oceans.
This is actually a legit fact.
mfw

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +10

#578 to #569 - fizzor (10/02/2012) [-]

Way too many numbers for me to handle while being this tired. So I'm just going to believe everything you say.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +4

#595 to #569 - mizory (10/02/2012) [-]

wut

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#918 to #569 - jakeattack (10/03/2012) [-]

Okay well you had the right idea. but you calculated wrong. 13.88888889 x 6.023 x10^23 is actually only 8.365 x 10^24 i think the reason is that you have 6023 in your equation when for Avogadro's number it should be 6.023 though or you mistyped. but you also have 3 too many zeros in your long answer. going off of your calculation you would not add 29 zeros to 8365 which you did but the 365 take up the place of three of the zeros. its confusing and i wanted to make sure you knew that but besides that you did a great job man!

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply 0

#1252 to #918 - moosmann (10/03/2012) [-]

yes you are right... thats a rounding error. thanks for pointing that out.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#589 to #569 - N. Korean citizen (10/02/2012) [-]

He means like actually glasses in the ocean... It was poorly worded. Took me two tries.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +18

#195 - spankidanki (10/02/2012) [-]

funnyjunk my first source of global information

Hide Hide All +Fav (1) Edit Image Reply +17

#222 - cancerousiguana (10/02/2012) [-]

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +16

#600 - fouringer (10/02/2012) [-]

another cool fact

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +15

#262 - fistoftheaxis (10/02/2012) [+] (1 reply)

Shit.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply -2

#273 to #262 - leyhoooo (10/02/2012) [-]

This is what men are really good to remember, facts that you can't use to anything. (im a male myself)

Hide Hide All +Fav (3) Reply +15

#159 - candywolf (10/02/2012) [+] (3 replies)

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply 0

#378 to #159 - funmanigro (10/02/2012) [-]

i dont get it

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +6

#505 to #378 - Tjjennings (10/02/2012) [-]

it makes the "wakawakawaka" pacman sound.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#439 to #378 - jellytamer ONLINE (10/02/2012) [-]

it sounds just like packman

Hide Hide All +Fav (2) Edit Image Reply +15

#52 - lolzordz ONLINE (10/02/2012) [-]

Good delivery, OP. looking forward to moar

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +14

#1119 - mrhelmetman (10/03/2012) [-]

<My face for every fact.

Hide Hide All +Fav (1) Reply +14

#1052 - thatkiddonovan (10/03/2012) [+] (2 replies)

thought OP was a cool guy until I saw:

"Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon."

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Reply +1

#1067 to #1052 - CrossBowPloxz (10/03/2012) [-]

At least he admitted it would you have rather gone on thinking he was a cool guy when he was in fact not?

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply 0

#1069 to #1067 - thatkiddonovan (10/03/2012) [-]

Ignorance is bliss, my friend.

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +14

#748 - doinmedirt (10/02/2012) [-]

Something is big here

Hide Hide All +Fav (0) Edit Image Reply +14

#413 - Pompano (10/02/2012) [-]

If Funnyjunk was just humorous material, I would get bored fairly quickly. The diversity of content because of shit like this keeps me coming back to the site.

Hide Hide All +Fav (1) Edit Image Reply +12

#1216 - gentlememe (10/03/2012) [-]

It's called a Chinese Burrito.

Home	RSS Feeds
Funny Pictures	Funny Videos
Funny GIFs	YouTube Videos
Text/Links	Comic Editor
User Rankings	Channels
Copyright Removal Request
Image Boards >>> Advice Anime & Manga Brony Childhood Nostalgia Drawing & Art Games Hating Items Music Pokemon Religion Social Sports Television

Can You Make It? (Part Two)

Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon. I hope you like it!

Part One: www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4136560/Can+You+Make+It+Part+One...more »

Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon. I hope you like it!

Part One: www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4136560/Can+You+Make+It+Part+One

www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/can-you-make-it-through-this-post-with-having-your

Comments(1203):

Can You Make It? (Part Two)

Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon. I hope you like it! Part One: www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4136560/Can+You+Make+It+Part+One...more »

Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon. I hope you like it! Part One: www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4136560/Can+You+Make+It+Part+One www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/can-you-make-it-through-this-post-with-having-your

Comments(1203):

Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon. I hope you like it!

Part One: www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4136560/Can+You+Make+It+Part+One...more »

Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon. I hope you like it!

Part One: www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4136560/Can+You+Make+It+Part+One

www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/can-you-make-it-through-this-post-with-having-your