Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

rockdafukon

no avatar Level -37 Content: disliked
Offline
Send mail to rockdafukon Block rockdafukon Invite rockdafukon to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:10/18/2010
Last Login:5/22/2012
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 274 total,  352 ,  78
Comment Thumbs: 37 total,  41 ,  78
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 27 Content: Peasant → Level 28 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -137 Comment: starting to be hated → Level -136 Comment: starting to be hated
Subscribers:0
Content Views:9772
Times Content Favorited:16 times
Total Comments Made:33
FJ Points:242
Favorite Tags: funny (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 6226
    Thumbs Up 115 Thumbs Down 9 Total: +106
    Comments: 19
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 08/26/11
    I've fallen and can't get up I've fallen and can't get up
  • Views: 3165
    Thumbs Up 66 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +62
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 08/24/11
    Gamer Dog Loves Games Gamer Dog Loves Games
  • Views: 942
    Thumbs Up 30 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +29
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/22/11
    The prophecies were true! The prophecies were true!
  • Views: 957
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +16
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 02/13/11
    Irony Irony
  • Views: 1553
    Thumbs Up 15 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +11
    Comments: 4
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 10/14/11
    SNORT ALL THE COKE! SNORT ALL THE COKE!
  • Views: 1144
    Thumbs Up 13 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +11
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/28/11
    Sneeze Fart Sneeze Fart
1 2 > [ 12 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny gifs

  • Views: 2438
    Thumbs Up 12 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +10
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 01/28/11
    Black Herpa Derpa Black Herpa Derpa

latest user's comments

#1 - I just switch to a droid razr after having an iphone for years…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/13/2012 on Funny app comment 0
User avatar #2 - gullu (05/13/2012) [-]
My phone is running Android 4.0.4, aka Ice Cream Sandwich. The wifi and signal icons are stock ICS, while the battery mod is custom.
#53 - That's their fault for thumbing it up then. If bronies do…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/04/2012 on Simple solution 0
User avatar #54 - cleverguy (04/04/2012) [-]
no i mean like neutral people who don't want to block the channel because sometimes the posts are kinda funny.
User avatar #76 - camerel (04/04/2012) [-]
im nuetral, and the main reason neutrals never find them funny is becasue we dont understand the jokes...
#19 - That moment when a chick friend zones 10% of her guy friends b… 04/03/2012 on Oh Facebook you so silly +6
#128 - No yacht could pass through that canal. Just look at the depth…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/02/2012 on Great idea 0
User avatar #132 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
.... Yachts, Sailing yachts. Like the ones in the picture. It's plenty wide enough, does seem a bit shallow. But its not like they are passing ocean rigs through there.
#117 - Theses no way it would be cheaper To build the tunnel…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/02/2012 on Great idea -1
User avatar #124 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
The size of the bridge you would need to allow those yachts passage would be oddly tall compared to the small canal it would have to cross. The amount of support you would need would be equal to that of the bridge, just condensed and to serve another purpose. Besides that, I doubt the soil there could support a bridge of that size. Its rather close to the water, and appears to be nothing more than a man made shore. (I'm guessing because it is so straight.)
#128 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
No yacht could pass through that canal. Just look at the depth and width of the water way. Because of that, the bridge would not have to be that tall.

And I KNOW if that soil can support all of the weight of that water which is concentrated in such a small area, it would have no problem supporting a bridge which is lighter and spread along a larger area.

User avatar #132 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
.... Yachts, Sailing yachts. Like the ones in the picture. It's plenty wide enough, does seem a bit shallow. But its not like they are passing ocean rigs through there.
#105 - But it would be much easier to build a man made canal,and then…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/02/2012 on Great idea -1
User avatar #112 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
But to put a bridge over it that allows these boats to pass through would surely be more expensive. And I'm thinking that may be the key to it. If the canal was built with the purpose of allowing boats passage (which it appears to have been) to build a bridge of that size to jump a small little canal like this would be more expensive then a simple add on (or is it add-under...). I believe that if the canal had another purpose, like say, diverting water to a plant, or wherever it may be needed, a simple bridge would have done perfectly.
#117 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
Theses no way it would be cheaper

To build the tunnel you would need to:
-excavate all of the dirt out of the ground.
-purchase tons and tons of concrete along with reinforcment beams to hold the water.
-Pay construction workers to build it would would take much longer than to build a simple bridge.

To build the bridge:
-Buy bridge materials which are easily obtainable.
-Pay construction workers (quicker job than tunnel) to build bridge.


And also, any civil engineer would rather build something that would have to withstand the forces of cars and pedestrians rather than something that would have to withstand the constant weight thousands of gallons of water.

FYI 1 US gallon of water = ~8.35 lbs.


User avatar #124 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
The size of the bridge you would need to allow those yachts passage would be oddly tall compared to the small canal it would have to cross. The amount of support you would need would be equal to that of the bridge, just condensed and to serve another purpose. Besides that, I doubt the soil there could support a bridge of that size. Its rather close to the water, and appears to be nothing more than a man made shore. (I'm guessing because it is so straight.)
#128 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
No yacht could pass through that canal. Just look at the depth and width of the water way. Because of that, the bridge would not have to be that tall.

And I KNOW if that soil can support all of the weight of that water which is concentrated in such a small area, it would have no problem supporting a bridge which is lighter and spread along a larger area.

User avatar #132 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
.... Yachts, Sailing yachts. Like the ones in the picture. It's plenty wide enough, does seem a bit shallow. But its not like they are passing ocean rigs through there.
#91 - And this is exactly what I mean. Someone puts up a picture of …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/02/2012 on Great idea -1
#99 - navikiller (04/02/2012) [-]
#73 - I'm not saying that this concept isn't impossible. I'm just sa…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/02/2012 on Great idea -1
User avatar #101 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
Note that is not the actual factor of safety formula, and just my half assed explanation of it so others can get the idea.
User avatar #96 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
Its a manmade water way. If they constructed the canal at the same time they were putting in the road, (entirely possible) why not have it go under the canal? To dig a tunnel without a roof is just a trench. And that is much cheaper and easier to do. Then as they are digging out the canal, they then could easily roof the tunnel, laying the bottom of the canal as well. You can then easily factor in the weight of the water (easily if its manmade) and that of the average weight of a few of your common yachts, add a factor of safety in there, boom. You know how much reinforced concrete you need to hold all it up. All in all, I think that would be just as, if not cheaper and easier than building a bridge.
#105 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
But it would be much easier to build a man made canal,and then put a bridge over it.

Do you think its just a coincidence that you see bridges everywhere and none of these? Do you think that there are none of these because no civil engineer has ever though of doing this before?

No. I'm sure civil engineers have been thinking about this for a while. But they know it is easier, safer, and cheaper to just build a bridge over the canal.
User avatar #112 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
But to put a bridge over it that allows these boats to pass through would surely be more expensive. And I'm thinking that may be the key to it. If the canal was built with the purpose of allowing boats passage (which it appears to have been) to build a bridge of that size to jump a small little canal like this would be more expensive then a simple add on (or is it add-under...). I believe that if the canal had another purpose, like say, diverting water to a plant, or wherever it may be needed, a simple bridge would have done perfectly.
#117 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
Theses no way it would be cheaper

To build the tunnel you would need to:
-excavate all of the dirt out of the ground.
-purchase tons and tons of concrete along with reinforcment beams to hold the water.
-Pay construction workers to build it would would take much longer than to build a simple bridge.

To build the bridge:
-Buy bridge materials which are easily obtainable.
-Pay construction workers (quicker job than tunnel) to build bridge.


And also, any civil engineer would rather build something that would have to withstand the forces of cars and pedestrians rather than something that would have to withstand the constant weight thousands of gallons of water.

FYI 1 US gallon of water = ~8.35 lbs.


User avatar #124 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
The size of the bridge you would need to allow those yachts passage would be oddly tall compared to the small canal it would have to cross. The amount of support you would need would be equal to that of the bridge, just condensed and to serve another purpose. Besides that, I doubt the soil there could support a bridge of that size. Its rather close to the water, and appears to be nothing more than a man made shore. (I'm guessing because it is so straight.)
#128 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
No yacht could pass through that canal. Just look at the depth and width of the water way. Because of that, the bridge would not have to be that tall.

And I KNOW if that soil can support all of the weight of that water which is concentrated in such a small area, it would have no problem supporting a bridge which is lighter and spread along a larger area.

User avatar #132 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
.... Yachts, Sailing yachts. Like the ones in the picture. It's plenty wide enough, does seem a bit shallow. But its not like they are passing ocean rigs through there.
#68 - A wing spar is nothing more than a cantilever beam extending o… 04/02/2012 on Great idea -3
#54 - I'm an Aeronautical Mechanical Engineer who understands the ba…  [+] (11 new replies) 04/02/2012 on Great idea -5
User avatar #61 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
Aeronautical Engineering huh? How the fuck does that help you understand all the regulations that go into building a bridge exactly? I'm concerned if you think an air-frame and tunnel are similar...

And I want to desperately want to call bullshit on you being a "Aeronautical Mechanical Engineer", just so everyone here can feel safer the next time they get on a plane.
#73 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
I'm not saying that this concept isn't impossible. I'm just saying it would take a moron not to realize that it would be much safer, cost efficient, and easier to build a bridge going over a canal. Simpler is always better. See how long you last as an engineer when you want to build an experimental structure, when there is a tried and true method which is safer and much more cheaper alternative that can be made.
User avatar #101 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
Note that is not the actual factor of safety formula, and just my half assed explanation of it so others can get the idea.
User avatar #96 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
Its a manmade water way. If they constructed the canal at the same time they were putting in the road, (entirely possible) why not have it go under the canal? To dig a tunnel without a roof is just a trench. And that is much cheaper and easier to do. Then as they are digging out the canal, they then could easily roof the tunnel, laying the bottom of the canal as well. You can then easily factor in the weight of the water (easily if its manmade) and that of the average weight of a few of your common yachts, add a factor of safety in there, boom. You know how much reinforced concrete you need to hold all it up. All in all, I think that would be just as, if not cheaper and easier than building a bridge.
#105 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
But it would be much easier to build a man made canal,and then put a bridge over it.

Do you think its just a coincidence that you see bridges everywhere and none of these? Do you think that there are none of these because no civil engineer has ever though of doing this before?

No. I'm sure civil engineers have been thinking about this for a while. But they know it is easier, safer, and cheaper to just build a bridge over the canal.
User avatar #112 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
But to put a bridge over it that allows these boats to pass through would surely be more expensive. And I'm thinking that may be the key to it. If the canal was built with the purpose of allowing boats passage (which it appears to have been) to build a bridge of that size to jump a small little canal like this would be more expensive then a simple add on (or is it add-under...). I believe that if the canal had another purpose, like say, diverting water to a plant, or wherever it may be needed, a simple bridge would have done perfectly.
#117 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
Theses no way it would be cheaper

To build the tunnel you would need to:
-excavate all of the dirt out of the ground.
-purchase tons and tons of concrete along with reinforcment beams to hold the water.
-Pay construction workers to build it would would take much longer than to build a simple bridge.

To build the bridge:
-Buy bridge materials which are easily obtainable.
-Pay construction workers (quicker job than tunnel) to build bridge.


And also, any civil engineer would rather build something that would have to withstand the forces of cars and pedestrians rather than something that would have to withstand the constant weight thousands of gallons of water.

FYI 1 US gallon of water = ~8.35 lbs.


User avatar #124 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
The size of the bridge you would need to allow those yachts passage would be oddly tall compared to the small canal it would have to cross. The amount of support you would need would be equal to that of the bridge, just condensed and to serve another purpose. Besides that, I doubt the soil there could support a bridge of that size. Its rather close to the water, and appears to be nothing more than a man made shore. (I'm guessing because it is so straight.)
#128 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
No yacht could pass through that canal. Just look at the depth and width of the water way. Because of that, the bridge would not have to be that tall.

And I KNOW if that soil can support all of the weight of that water which is concentrated in such a small area, it would have no problem supporting a bridge which is lighter and spread along a larger area.

User avatar #132 - patchesdacrazy (04/02/2012) [-]
.... Yachts, Sailing yachts. Like the ones in the picture. It's plenty wide enough, does seem a bit shallow. But its not like they are passing ocean rigs through there.
#68 - rockdafukon (04/02/2012) [-]
A wing spar is nothing more than a cantilever beam extending outward from the fuselage.
The same static and dynamic forces apply to a bridge and a structure such as a bridge. Only difference is that a wing is much more complicated than a bridges structure.
[ 30 Total ]

Comments(0):

rockdafukon has disabled anonymous comments.
 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
No comments!
 
 Friends (0)