11 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmoI know where I went wrong conceptualize wise:
so, Im assuming you agree now?
If you visualize a rectangle, add triangles to each end with top of triangle parallel to top line so top of rectangle is longer than bottom, and line connecting to bottom of rectangle, if you think of the triangle as a flap, I was running the diagonal line closed from the bottom, forcing water level up. The true way to look would be to open the diagonal line down and out, making a new rectangle the same height but a bit longer and thus forcing the water level down. I persisted in viewing it the first way where the water level would rise. It took a while but I think I have it now. The new water level could be done geometry wise also I think. A single picture would be worth a thousand words eh.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by sonhouseyeah, a few pictures would have cleared it up far more efficiently. 🙂🙂
I know where I went wrong conceptualize wise:
If you visualize a rectangle, add triangles to each end with top of triangle parallel to top line so top of rectangle is longer than bottom, and line connecting to bottom of rectangle, if you think of the triangle as a flap, I was running the diagonal line closed from the bottom, forcing water level up. The tru ...[text shortened]... l could be done geometry wise also I think. A single picture would be worth a thousand words eh.