Ha, then you'll come up with one more excuse to argue.

If you can't, then just admit it. There's no shame in being wrong.

Since you claim we are saying the same thing, then this implies that you admitting you were wrong about the video zooming in so as to hide that the second measurement was made with the tape end on the floor (even though the video made it pretty obvious that this wasn't the case since you could see that the tape didn't slide relative to the table).

If you can show that the measurements are effectively measuring the height of one of the cans, then I will happily admit that I am wrong and will have learned something along the way.

 

If you can't, then just admit it. There's no shame in being wrong.

Since you claim we are saying the same thing, then this implies that you admitting you were wrong about the video zooming in so as to hide that the second measurement was made with the tape end on the floor (even though the video made it pretty obvious that this wasn't the case since you could see that the tape didn't slide relative to the table).

If you can show that the measurements are effectively measuring the height of one of the cans, then I will happily admit that I am wrong and will have learned something along the way.

Enjoy the superbowl.

 

Geez guys - I'm starting to regret posting that silly video. One agrees, one disagrees. OK. Not everybody agrees. But why argue? I've looked at the drawing and it appears to be pretty evident. I even looked at the math and came up with the same conclusion, the difference is 4 1/2 inches. If the can were twice as tall as it was wide then if the can is 2 1/2 inches diameter then the height should be 5 inches. But in the video and the drawing it appears the can height is about 4 3/4 inches. The can's width, when the tape is held in the first scenario, the bottom of the can looks like it's at 25 3/4 on the bottom and 28 1/4 on the top. A difference of 2 1/2 inches. As for the height of the can, watching closely it can be determined that the can is 4 3/4 inches tall. As cousin Pan showed, measuring from the top of the table using the same cad program I have comes up with the same numbers. The measurements are generated by the program, not by the whim of some wisp.

 

Geez guys - I'm starting to regret posting that silly video. One agrees, one disagrees. OK. Not everybody agrees. But why argue? I've looked at the drawing and it appears to be pretty evident. I even looked at the math and came up with the same conclusion, the difference is 4 1/2 inches. If the can were twice as tall as it was wide then if the can is 2 1/2 inches diameter then the height should be 5 inches. But in the video and the drawing it appears the can height is about 4 3/4 inches. The can's width, when the tape is held in the first scenario, the bottom of the can looks like it's at 25 3/4 on the bottom and 28 1/4 on the top. A difference of 2 1/2 inches. As for the height of the can, watching closely it can be determined that the can is 4 3/4 inches tall. As cousin Pan showed, measuring from the top of the table using the same cad program I have comes up with the same numbers. The measurements are generated by the program, not by the whim of some wisp.

Then, if cousin Pan's claim is correct, what is the height of the cans in my two examples?

There are two equations, but three unknowns. The two measurements are in terms of the height of the can, the width of the can, and the height of the table. Without a third equation, you can't solve for all three, only establish relationships between them.

We have one of those relationships:

D2 - D1 = 2(L-W)

Which is obtained by subtracting the two measurements:

D2 = H + L - W
D1 = H + W - L

While we can't get the dimensions of the can (just the relationship between them), we can get the height of the table by adding the two equations together:

D2 + D1 = 2H
H = (D2 + D1) / 2

But here's an interesting thing -- even if we were told the height of the table (i.e., if it were never an unknown), and we had those two equations and just two unknowns, we still couldn't solve for either of them, only the relationship between them. This is because the two measurements are not linearly independent. This becomes more apparent if we introduce a new variable

B = (L-W)

which turns out two equations into

D2 = H + B
D1 = H - B

These are the two things we can actually solve for.

 

what is the height of the cans in my two examples?

Do you need help with your own problem or are you quizzing us in the Jokes thread?

 

Do you need help with your own problem or are you quizzing us in the Jokes thread?

Clearly I need help with my own problem. After all, you and others maintain that those two measurements are just effectively measuring the height of one of the cans. Since I can't figure out how to do that, I'm asking for your help.

Aren't you willing to help me out here and show me how to use those measurements to get the height of the can?

 

Clearly I need help with my own problem. After all, you and others maintain that those two measurements are just effectively measuring the height of one of the cans. Since I can't figure out how to do that, I'm asking for your help.

Aren't you willing to help me out here and show me how to use those measurements to get the height of the can?

I think you should start a thread about measuring beer cans on a floor and table instead of hijacking the jokes thread because I don't think measuring beer cans is very funny. Then I'll help.

 

I think you should start a thread about measuring beer cans on a floor and table instead of hijacking the jokes thread because I don't think measuring beer cans is very funny. Then I'll help.

That's a very reasonable request. I'll move all of the 'contentious' posts to a new thread. Ideally, I'd copy the first few posts, but I don't know if that's possible, so it may take a few minutes to copy the content and give proper attribution.

 

@MrSalts: You're up!

 

@MrSalts: You're up!

Get two beer* cans, a yardstick and camera. Set it up and post the photos.

 

Get two beer* cans, a yardstick and camera. Set it up and post the photos.

Why? You have all the information that was claimed that was needed -- the two measurements.

Besides, it's too inconvenient to do -- I don't drink beer and am not going to go to the effort to find any beer cans, empty or otherwise.

If you can't do it, then why can't you just admit it?

I will freely admit that my first impression of the problem was that they had played a game with where they put the end of the tape measure. The problem with that was that, if they did, they did a MUCH better job of it than the overall quality of the video would lend credence to. As the camera moved and zoomed in you could easily see that the tape measure at the table edge did not move appreciably. So my second thought was that the discrepancy was due to just the height or just the width of the can, much like I imagine ThePanMan did. The difference was that I didn't just stop there and settle for what seemed like a plausible explanation, I did the math. It only took a moment's reflection on the result to see that it made perfect sense, even though it was not immediately obvious (to me, anyway) at first glance.

But everyone else insists that the difference is effectively measuring the height of the can. I don't see it. I could be wrong. Would be glad to be proven wrong. Doing so would be trivially easy -- just use the measurements in the two examples to determine the height of the cans used in each. I maintain that that can't be done. If you (or anyone) can do it, then I've been proven wrong.

 

Why? You have all the information that was claimed that was needed -- the two measurements.

Besides, it's too inconvenient to do -- I don't drink beer and am not going to go to the effort to find any beer cans, empty or otherwise.

If you can't do it, then why can't you just admit it?

I will freely admit that my first impression of the problem was that they had played a game with where they put the end of the tape measure. The problem with that was that, if they did, they did a MUCH better job of it than the overall quality of the video would lend credence to. As the camera moved and zoomed in you could easily see that the tape measure at the table edge did not move appreciably. So my second thought was that the discrepancy was due to just the height or just the width of the can, much like I imagine ThePanMan did. The difference was that I didn't just stop there and settle for what seemed like a plausible explanation, I did the math. It only took a moment's reflection on the result to see that it made perfect sense, even though it was not immediately obvious (to me, anyway) at first glance.

But everyone else insists that the difference is effectively measuring the height of the can. I don't see it. I could be wrong. Would be glad to be proven wrong. Doing so would be trivially easy -- just use the measurements in the two examples to determine the height of the cans used in each. I maintain that that can't be done. If you (or anyone) can do it, then I've been proven wrong.

I was going to make notes on your photos. God and MrSalts help those who help themselves. Like homework, the TS has to show some effort.

 

Show effort? I've posted very explicitly what information about both the cans and the table can be determined from the measurements.

No need for photos or notes. You just want photos to be able to read additional information off of them in order to arrive at the height of the can. I can assure you, that if I were to post photos, that information would not be available in them.

Here's a simple yes or no question:

Given the measurements provided in the two examples, can you determine the height of the cans?

Yes, or no?

I'll even consider, "I don't know whether or not it can be determined," as a completely acceptable response.

If you can't, or won't, answer that, then please don't bother even responding. Just let the thread die and anyone that stumbles upon it can draw their own conclusions. If you feel that you just must have the last word, that's fine, too. Go ahead and give yet another evasion and I will be more than happy to let the thread die without a response so that you can have the last word. Again, readers can draw their own conclusions.

 

"But everyone else insists that the difference is effectively measuring the height of the can."

Wrong

Not "everyone else" insists that the difference is effectively measuring the height of the can.

 

Regardless of what are other people's opinion, assume

H = height of table
L = length of beer can
W = width of beer can

1st measurement M1 = H + W - L
2nd measurement M2 = H + L - W

Difference in measurements = M2 - M1 = (L - W) - (W - L) = ( L - W) * 2

Edit: This is in agreement with what @WBahn wrote.

 

"But everyone else insists that the difference is effectively measuring the height of the can."

Wrong

Not "everyone else" insists that the difference is effectively measuring the height of the can.

Okay, you're correct. SamR did not (and now MrChips). Just everyone else that has participated has agreed with this claim.

 

PanMan said that the measurement was effectively measuring the height of one can.

When did I say that? Where? If I did then I'll stand corrected.

SUBTRACT the diameter of the can (2 1/2") from the height of the can (4 3/4").

What do you get? You get 2 1/4".

Now double that. What do you get? You get 4 1/2".

We're not doubling the width of the can. In no example are two cans stacked on their sides

What is the DIFFERENCE between the two measurements in your picture?

32.75" - 28.25" = 4.5"

Glad we got that straightened out.

Remember, the can is not half the height, nor is the height twice the diameter. It's that hiding quarter inch.

I think I'm done with this. Any further arguments - have them with someone who cares. I don't.

UNWATCHED! Sorry Cuz T.

 

So by flipping the cans you are effectively measuring the height of only one can.

OK, yeah, I did say that. But that was based on assumptions of the can before I looked closer at the video and measurements. The drawing I made took the best possible reading of the measurements I could discern.

I STAND CORRECTED!

Now, unwatched.

 

When did I say that? Where? If I did then I'll stand corrected.

In your very first response:

The explanation is rather simple. The cans are 4 3/4" tall and 2 1/2" wide (diameter).

When the can on the floor is upright it sets the distance from the top of the can to the top of the table at 25 3/4" high. So the table top is 30 1/2" from the floor. Forget that for a moment. It's actually irrelevant because we're not measuring from the floor but from 4 3/4" above the floor. Ad in the diameter of the can to the 25 3/4" and you get 28 1/4" (as is apparent in the video).

Now let's change things up: Lay the floor can on its side. The distance from the side of the standing can to the table top is 27 3/4". Now add in the height of the can standing up on the table top. You've gotten 32 1/4". The difference from 32 1/4" and 28 1/4" is 4 inches. Keep in mind the measurements shown in the video are not exactly the numbers I've chosen but mine are close. I'm only off by 1/4"

So by flipping the cans you are effectively measuring the height of only one can.

[edit]
Another contributing factor to the inaccuracy of the numbers is the the guy measures from the can LID on the floor, which isn't the same height as the rim of the can on the table when it's standing upright.
[end edit]

We're not doubling the width of the can. In no example are two cans stacked on their sides
Glad we got that straightened out.

Remember, the can is not half the height, nor is the height twice the diameter. It's that hiding quarter inch.

I don't believe anyone has said anything about doubling the width, or two cans being stacked on their sides, or the can being half the height, or anything remotely like that.

There is no "hiding quarter inch".

Again referring to your perfectly fine drawing, the two measurements are A = 28.25" and B = 32.75". The difference between them is 4.5"

WHY is it 4.5"?

It is because what survives the difference of those two measurements is a value that is twice the amount by which each can is taller than it is wide... namely 2(L-W).

L in your drawing is 4.75"
W in your drawing is 2.5"

2(L-W) is 2(4.75" - 2.5") = 2(2.25") = 4.5"

No missing or hidden quarter inch.

 

OK, yeah, I did say that. But that was based on assumptions of the can before I looked closer at the video and measurements. The drawing I made took the best possible reading of the measurements I could discern.

I STAND CORRECTED!

Now, unwatched.

Cross posted. I think we are on the same page now.