Author
Message
Magma
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 119
[Ivy Set] #164 Weighs and Means
Quote:
There's a game we used to play at school in the labs, where we tried to make the most elaborate set of weights and rods that'd balance perfectly. Yes, I had a lot more free time then...
Here are two diagrams of balances I've set up, with the weight labels removed. Each weight is always a whole kilo - 1kg, 2kg, 3kg etc. Assuming that the strings and rods have no weight, can you figure out the value of the weights that I've numbered?
IF YOU USE THE LIGHTEST POSSIBLE COMBINATION OF WEIGHTS, THERE'S ONLY ONE CORRECT SOLUTION...
(I have taken the liberty of making an Excel document that can calculate if your combination on both the large and small setup balances or not. At the moment mine does, but it is apparently the WRONG answer)
Description
Filesize
58.86KB
Viewed
280 Time(s)
Description
Filesize
51KB
Viewed
435 Time(s)
Description
Download
Filename
164.xls
Filesize
20.5KB
Downloaded
773 Time(s)
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:31 am
Last edited by Magma on Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:47 am; edited 1 time in total
fretty
Decorated
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 281 Location: South Yorkshire, England
On your small balance, the second level of weights is set differently to the card so you might have to use the left hand number as your answer for weight number 3. Don't know whether you're doing this already.
I can't spot any errors with copying the large diagram but haven't checked the formulas yet.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:11 am
Magma
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 119
I didn't put the ticks in the small weight diagram, but the spacing is right - hence the 2kg one tick away balancing the 1kg two ticks away.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:25 am
fretty
Decorated
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 281 Location: South Yorkshire, England
No I was just saying that when you copy your answer from your spreadsheet you may cross reference it with the card. So with weight 3 being right of the join, you could have copied the answer that is right of the join on the sheet when your answer is left of the join.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:31 am
Magma
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 119
Okay, I've updated the XLS file with a new version - the weights you need are numbered #1, #2, etc. and each page has a table that says what the weights the puzzle asks for are currently set to, to avoid confusion. Is that what you meant?
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:51 am
CRHB
Kilroy
Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 1
Given that it has to be the lowest set of weights, I tried to minimise the most distant and got something different to above. According to the site it is still did not right though Any ideas?
Description
Download
Filename
Helen_164_168.xls
Filesize
18.5KB
Downloaded
555 Time(s)
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:52 am
Magma
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 Posts: 119
I think the key to solving this is working out the minimum weights that balance the top bar. We have this setup:
......5...........2.......4
. _ _ _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _
|.......................|...........|
|.......................|...........|
A......................B..........C
Remember the force acting on the pivot is equal to the mass x distance, so on the left:
5A acts downwards.
On the right:
2B and 6C acts downwards.
So we have the equation 5A = 2B + 6C, and we need the minimum.
I thought along these lines:
The bottom right set of weights mninmum weight is 1 on the four to the right, balanced by 10 on the left (10 vs 1x1 + 2x1 + 3x1 +4x1)
This makes the next set of weights up to be 14 on the left, which minimum balance is 6 on the far right and 2 on the near right (As each weight has to be at least 1, and integer values)
This means the weight acting at position B as labelled above has to be a minimum of 22kg. So the minimum configuration of the right-hand-side is (as far as B is concerned):
44 + 6C
Similarly, working up the tree of weights to position C gives a minimum value for C as 9kg. This would make the minimum right-hand-side force 44 + 54 = 98
The minimum configuration for A is 13, which makes the minimum left-hand-side configuration
65
This leaves the left side too light by force 33. Since this is not divisible by 5, some jiggery-pokery is needed on the right side too. Anyone know offhand which integer solution for 5A = 2B + 6C has the lowest value for A + B + C given that A >=13, B >= 22 and C >= 9?
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:15 am
Austin
Boot
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 Posts: 53 Location: uk
The right hand side's force must be divisible by 5. I can get this as low as 100 but my solution was rejected. There must be a lighter way to do the right hand side, keeping the same downward force (as the left side's weights will have to add up to 20 whatever else happens, otherwise our attempts would have worked).
So far i have 20 Kg on the left and 32 Kg on the right.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:18 pm
Langley Moor
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2005 Posts: 86
I get the same Austin, 20kg on the right hand side producing a moment of 100, and a total moment of 100 from the right hand side produced by 23kg at the secondincrement (moment of 46) and 9kg at the sixth increment (moment of 54). However, not accepted by the website. Anyone fancy writing to mind candy, as I can't be bothered this evening? If not I'll do it tomorrow
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:12 pm
Stratman
Veteran
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 81 Location: Kettering UK
Has anyone confirmed whether you have to use 25 unique weights (ie 1kg,2kg,3kg,4kg......25kg) as in Erich Friedman's usual weight puzzles? I have tried a couple of solves with minimum weights (ie lots of 1s and 2s etc) with no luck.
link
http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/weight/
_________________There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards...Ian Dury and the Blockheads (1978)
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:34 am
Austin
Boot
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 Posts: 53 Location: uk
Stratman wrote:
Has anyone confirmed whether you have to use 25 unique weights (ie 1kg,2kg,3kg,4kg......25kg) as in Erich Friedman's usual weight puzzles?
I thought of that but how could you have a lightest combination if they always add up to 325 kg?
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:31 am
Phill4269
Greenhorn
Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 7 Location: London
I have tried several solutions without success.
One question is what do they mean by
Quote:
IF YOU USE THE LIGHTEST POSSIBLE COMBINATION OF WEIGHTS, THERE'S ONLY ONE CORRECT SOLUTION...
Given the three parts to the bottom diagram, to make it balance the parts need to satisfy 5X = 2Y + 6Z. Only the Z component can be at its absolute minimum. The X and Y components need to be increased in weight to achieve balance. There doesn't appear to be a unique way of doing this. As all possibilities have to add up the the same value how can one choose the lightest?
I have one more option to try ... but I have to wait 24 hours ... again ...
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:49 am
Stratman
Veteran
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 81 Location: Kettering UK
Thanks Austin - good point.
I also had a solve with 100 each side...
Left 20x5
Right 23x2 and 9x6
...with no luck
I cant see how it can be done with less.
Stumped!
_________________There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards...Ian Dury and the Blockheads (1978)
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:31 am
gagravarr
Greenhorn
Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 4
Stratman wrote:
I also had a solve with 100 each side...
I've managed to come up with two different solutions with a moment of 100 each side. (Either 7 or 8 on the bottom left bar, with changes to the other two left bars, but still with total weight 20). Neither of them have been accepted.
I can't see how we can get the right hand side down to a moment of only 90, so I'm stumped. I've emailed mind candy my two solutions to ask them if there's a problem.
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:10 am
TopGun2
Boot
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 30 Location: Cambs, UK
I'm struggling to see how you can get the right hand side to make 100. I can see the 9*6=54 but I can't get 23*2 I'm stuck with 22 or 25 any hints?
Secondly, it might be worth trying to set this out in a set of simultaneous equations & solving by matrices. I'll have to dig out my study notes to revise how!
_________________Audere Est Facere
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 pm
Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 1 Week 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year Sort by: Post Time Post Subject Author Ascending Descending