/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53269693
1.5 kg if jar is hermetically sealed, ~1 kg otherwise

t. big brain who bought he bottom

Business owner here, can I get the calibration certs on that scale? Cheers

Half a kilo of flies? Are these ze bugs that will replace meat?

>>53269708
that was my first thought. but i don't think the air in the jar is weighed because air is a gas light enough to float above the scale. and the flies are flying in the air that is floating above the scale. the flies are not being weighed.

1kg sealed or not

>>53269733
the flies are holding heavy bags

>>53269693
The jar is closed, so you can consider it a closed system. Since it is not accelerating, all the internal forces must cancel out. This way, even if the fly is flying, there will be an equal force but with opposing direction within the system, so the jar will always weight 1.0Kg

If you open the jar, this changes completely.

Go back.

>>53269753
lol

>>53269753
conservation of momentum means a sealed jar will weigh the same regardless if the flies are flying or laying on the bottom of the jar

>>53269733
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauromydas_heros
>Gauromydas heros can reach a length of 32–70 millimetres (1.3–2.8 in) and a wingspan of about 10 centimetres (3.9 in). It is the largest fly known.

>>53269767
>This way, even if the fly is flying, there will be an equal force but with opposing direction within the system, so the jar will always weight 1.0Kg
I'm guessing you meant to write 1.5kg, otherwise your argument makes no sense.

>>53269775
the air isn't being weighed though. otherwise the scale wouldn't start at 0grams.

if you put a scale outside it wouldn't measure the weight of all the air in earths atmosphere.

>>53269693
.5kg the flies delete it by flying

>>53269693
1.5

flies are pushing force on the air to lift theyr weight so it doesnt matter if they are flying or or just standing down. it doesnt matter if bucket is sealed or not

>>53269693
The scale seems to read || I | | /
I'm not sure why

>>53269782
What if we replace the flies with a jumping cricket? While sitting on the floor of the jar, the scale obviously reads the sum of their two weights. While actively jumping, there would be a momentary impulse reading somewhat greater than that sum. Then, while airborne, the reading would drop to the weight of the jar alone.

The time spent airborne is directly proportional to the power of the jump, and thus the magnitude of the added impulse. Because the system is closed, if you compare the impulse of the jump with the negative impulse of the time spent airborne, the two must be exactly equal, and therefore the average reading of the scale is always the sum of the jar and the cricket. With a large impulse like a single cricket the reading is very noisy, but it smooths out with smaller more frequent jumps, e.g. a bunch of fleas.

Flying doesn't appreciably change the equation, it merely relays the "jumping" impulse through molecules of air. You can treat each flap of the flies' wings as a tiny "jump" off the air instead of the floor, which then rebounds off the jar, increasing local pressure at the floor. The result is that the jar always weighs the sum of their weights regardless of whether they're flying or not, though the flying reading will be slightly noisier than if they were sitting motionless.

Therefore the result is, of course, 1.0Kg and you must go back.

how can you weigh air when it's floating above the scale?

the scale doesn't measure mass, it measures weight. and the gravity of the earth isn't high enough for the weight of the airs mass to even register on the scale. the air is floating above it

A bit below 1.5kg and constantly fluctuating as the flies moving their wings.

The wings cause a downwards pressure that increase the force that's against the scale.

>>53269828
and if its not measuring the weight of the air. and the flies are on top of the air and not on top of the scale. then the scale isn't measuring the weight of the flies either.

>>53269799
Except it IS being weighed. When you zero the scale it zeroes out the weight of the of the atmosphere pushing down on the scale. So you're left with the weight of the jar and the downward pressure exerted on the scale by the flies pushing the air to stay aloft.

>>53269730
Kek

1.5kg

If the jar is closed and unmoving, there is no way for it to exert any force to the outside, so the weigh must be constant regardless of what the content is doing.

Now imagine the flies not flying, but just lying on the bottom of the jar. Obviously the weight would then be 1.5kg.

Thus, since the weight must the best same regardless of what the content is doing as long as the jar doesn't move, and the weight if the flies are on the bottom is 1.5kg, the weight must also be 1.5kg if the flies are flying.

>>53269819
>While actively jumping, there would be a momentary impulse reading somewhat greater than that sum. Then, while airborne, the reading would drop to the weight of the jar alone.
These two states cancel each other out so that the average weight during the whole jump is the weight of the cricket plus the jar. Now imaging thousands of crickets jumping randomly. Since the average weight is the crickets + jar during one jump, these thousands of random fluctuations again average out to the crickets + jar. The more crickets, the smoother the average weight until it looks constant. That is an analogy for the flies.

So your thought process is on the right track, except that I don't understand why you think that the average cancels out the weight of the flies/crickets, rather than including it as is the actual case.

>>53269829
No, the air is simply moving in a cycle around the jar, which has a constant air pressure. The insects are using biological energy to combat gravity.

It's 1kg.

>>53269782
It's a classic troll; writing 1kg on purpose to make the post retarded.

>>53269819
no its not you retard. cricket used all of the force at once to lift his weight so in the moment of jumping the weight would be like 1.7 (a bit more than his total weight) and while being airborne it will be 1.00. like jumping on the body scale, in the moment of jump scale will show your weight higher than it is.
but the flies use the constant force while being in the air hence the weight will be 1.5 all the time

same would be if youd put helicopter in the jar. he is pushing the air downwards by using force to hold his weight in the air. in vacuum he wouldnt be able to fly, same as flies

>>53269850
ok fair point about zeroing the scale however...
the beating wings pushes the air straight down like a laser beam to impact the bottom of the jar with pressure? no, the air floats around in random directions when beaten down and probably never even touches the jar bottom and remains floating around. the air has such small mass thatt earths gravity isnt enough for the weight of a jar of air to even register on a scale. the flies are suspended in a gaseous envelope so light in mass that its weight isn't enough for it to be pulled down by gravity on the scale of a jar. it takes an entire atomosphere of pressure to actually weigh down on a scale, not just a jars worth.

>>53269882
Kek, so you think if I pricked a hole in the top making no longer a closed system, it would all of a sudden drop 0.5 kg even though nothing changed in their flight behaviour?

>>53269767
You mean 1.5k? Right?

>>53269929
No, it would drop some, but only as much as a tiny hole would allow a force to escape, which is not much. The transition between 1.5 kg to 1 kg would be gradual as you make the hole bigger and bigger until you eventually replace the jar with a flat plate.

Flys, in order to fly, must exert a downward force (weight) equal to their body weight. Since no air is escaping the jar, the average weight will always equal 1.5kg, it will fluctuate a little bit as the Flys speed up and slow down in the jar, but the average weight will always be 1.5kg

>>53269850
>the downward pressure exerted on the scale by the flies pushing the air to stay aloft.
the air pressure in the jar is constant. any downward air pressure is equalled out by a low pressure zone created above the wing.

>>53269921
If that's the case, if the air can't reach the bottom, the fly would not be able to get off the ground in a closed system.

>>53269891
that would mean biological energy is some kind of magic, being able to levitate without any effect on the surrounding. and would also mean that when eagle flies, his weight on the earth doesnt exist, so the whole earth weight changes in corelation of how many birds are in the air

>>53269962
Uh, what do you think the "high pressure" in that image means?

>>53269971
>without any effect on the surrounding
the effect is that biological potential is converted into heat and movement

>>53269882
>>53269908
I'm more concerned with how tightly packed .5kg of flies would be inside the jar.

A 1-gallon jar weighs about 1kg https://m.uline.com/h5/r/www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-19317P/Jars/Wide-Mouth-Glass-Jars-1-Gallon-4-Opening-Plastic-Lid

A fly weighs about 10mg, which means that the jar has 10,000 flies in it. I don't see 10,000 flies having room to do anything in a 1-gallon jar besides be ded.

Therefore, there's no way for the scale to read anything but 1.0Kg and you retarded faggots must absolutely go back.

>>53269971
Right. When you simply realize that air is pretty much just another molecular mass like water, just atoms moving more radically and farther between, it makes sense.

>>53269968
except flight isn't about pushing off the air like its a trampoline

>>53269828
it is measuring the weight of the air at all times retard, air has weight just like everything else. They are calibrated to account for it.

>>53269693
>get a group of autists to solve for me while I do some core exercises

>>53269985
you still have mass, which is weight of the bird. sure a tiny bit of fat used for fuel is burned, but you didnt burned the whole bird and blasted it to bits flying

>>53269992
Except, it kind of is, at least physically anyway. Even planes are still exerting a downward force to obtain lift, even if it's just across a wide area. Newtons 3rd law and all that.

>>53270030
cmon anon youve never seen a bird expend so much energy that it loses its entire mass? were you born yesterday?

>>53270003
i just googled it and air weighs about 1.2g a litre at sea level. which would be enough to register on a scale. i dunno i thought air was lighter.

so essentially if you sucked all the air out of a 1L jar creating a vacuum then you'd shed about 1.2g of weight.

and if the weight of the air is being measured then the flies weighing down on the air would be measured as well. so my entire argument thus far has been invalid and basically i'm fucking retarded. i need a new argument to defend my position or admit defeat

If we assume the mass of the air and flies weigh 0.5 then the answer is 1.5kg. Source: PHD physics student.

The correct answer is that OP is a faggot.

>>53269987
fucking americans i swear

>>53270040
you're not one of these guys who thinks rockets can't fly in the vacuum of space because they have nothing to push off of are you?

its more about pressure and what directions the pressure is exerted upon within the rocket. if the pressure is pushing equally on all sides except the back then the rocket moves forward. i imagine flight with wings might have a similar property in that its more about redirecting pressure for lift then it is about jumping off the air

>>53269811
This.

>>53270047
no you moron. weight of the air is unimportant here

When the flies are flying, then the pressure differential within the jar is increases so that the pressure at the top is a bit less and the pressure at the bottom is a bit more, and the total force created by this pressure differential will exactly equal the weight of the air and the weight of the flies.

Now, of course, when the fly begins flight the weight will actually be more, and when a fly hits the top of the jar it will be less, for a while, as these pressure systems have a delay in adjusting. Which is why your head explodes if you are 10000 ft below sea level and then within 2 seconds at sea level.

>>53269693
1kg
if the flies are flying, they are not applying any force to the scale.
the scale will only read the weight of the jar.

when was the jar tared is the real question

>>53270075
it is important. if air was as light as dumbfuck me thought it was (for some reason i have no idea i thought air had too little mass for its weight to register on a scale since scales usually only measure to 1/10th of a gram) then the flies being suspended in the air would be immeasurable since the airs weight cant even be measured.
but i was wrong because air is heavy enough to be measured and so the flies are not suspended in a medium too light for measurement.
don't call me a retard when i'm already calling myself a retard whats the point

>>53269693
1kg
1) it's obvious, but
2) the weight is the combination of the weight of the jar and the force the air/gas exerts on the scales.
But gases by nature are compressible fluids, so the difference in pressure of the gas with and without the bugs will be negligible. As the bugs wont cause the gas to compress much, and thus the change in pressure of the gas on the jar will be SMALL.

BUT, if the bugs fill up the entire jar, then the gas compress will be SIGNIFICANT, and it will be larger than 1 (but smaller than 1.5)

t. physics major

Most people ITT are physicslets. There are two cases:
>flies are touching the jar
Answer is 1.5 kg, the sum of the masses of the jar and flies.
>flies are suspended in air, not touching the jar
Answer is 1.0 kg. They are generating lift in order to suspend themselves, which cancels out their weight. Furthermore, the pressure in the vessel doesn't matter and it doesn't impact the scale reading, because the integrated force on the inside of the jar is canceled out by the internal stresses of the jar material (it must be so for the jar to be at rest, otherwise it explodes). The flies are not "exerting pressure" like a fluid or gas, because they are neither a continuous medium, nor a swarm of particles knocking into the sides of the jar randomly at high speeds (which is what creates pressure).
Brainlets

>>53269693
If the flies weighed one ton the scale would read 1001 kg
Therefore the scale must read 1.5kg

>>53270086
but the jar is closed

>>53269730
It's stamped and sealed, if you were a business owner you'd know to look

>>53269693
https://chat.openai.com/chat

If you believe science this must be true.

>>53270178
Every gauge is stamped and sealed you dingo

>>53270051
you'd be correct if you assumed the fluid was incompressible like water, but the issue is that air is compressible.

Think the extreme case, a vacuum. Then the scales COULD NOT weight the flies.

Adding in gas into the chamber is smooth and a second order phase transition of sorts, so we should have the weight is not affected by the flies.

Ok if you want to say adding back in air is not smooth and somehow a first order phase transition then I'm all ears and interested to hear.

thanks

>>53270190
No, it's a special melted metal stamped-seal you get from state scale certs

>>53270155
this. best answer here

>>53270155
and what if the jar is closed?

>>53270030
Ah I was largely shitposting out loud before but you're right. I don't really know the physics of flight, but if it was water people would unquestionably answer 1.5 kg.

test

I already explained why it's 1.5kg, but also here is actual video proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0IGrSjcBZs

>>53269693
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X07EddazGF8

>>53270228
Retard take. You really think the scale cares if the bottle is closed or not? Holy fuck, I'm surrounded by total brainlets

>>53270287
i just watched the same video
issue is the drone pushes down air quite dramatically, the air being pushed out with such force won't be dissipated before its measured. but the force of a flies little wings and the pushing air would be dissipated before pushing down on the scale, at least in an open system. in his experiment the container weighed the same whether the lid was on it or not, even when he removed the sides of the container completely the air was being pushed down hard enough on the scale to register the same as in a closed system. i think with a jar of flies the weight would depend on whether the jar is open or not. if its open then the grams of thrust from moving air would dissipate and leak out before it pushed on the scale.

>>53270287
thanks. now I feel stupid. I guess if you do a force diagram, it all makes sense

>>53270287
and the black box idea also works.
I guess the thing that is confusing is that we expect even with no box the scale is "weightless" as soon as the hover craft is no longer touching.

>>53270318
actually even if it was a closed system the air would just compress under the weak thrust of the flies. the compression would heat the air converting mass to energy. the thrust of the flies isn't enough to overcome how much a litre of air can compress and heat up to absorb the thrust.

1kg
1.5kg if the flies had as much thrust as a drone

>>53270440
i'm so stupid i can't tell if i'm trolling with this post or not. at first it made sense, then i intended as a troll, but now i think it makes sense. did i just troll myself.

1kg

>>53270451
it doesn't make sense, cause flies cant be buoyant on compressed air. so following the video it should be 1.5kg.

even if they were buoyant, then the air would feel a weight of 0.5kg and transfer this to the scales and all in all read 1.5kg still

the air just acts as a long range medium to transfer the weight of the flies from the flies to the jar and hence the scales

>>53270440
>heat the air converting mass to energy
also if this was happening then you'd be breaking molecular bonds (think tnt) or atoms (atomic bomb lol)

so all classical physics, you should think mass as being conserved

>>53270290
is 8-chan different much to 4chan never been there

>>53270495
the air is only compressed after the flies wings beats it down, then rapidly it uncompresses but before the weight of the thrust of the fly can reach the sides of the jar its burned up into the heat energy of the compressing air. if the thrust of the fly was greater it could overwhelm the compressive capacity of the air and push against the jar, but its not.

>>53270534
>compressed after the flies wings beats it down, then rapidly it uncompresses
which sends a compression wave to the bottom of the jar and is measured as weight.

Idk what is being converted into heat energy, nothing is being "burnt up"

If it's 1.5kg, then how come I don't get crushed when an airplane flies directly overhead?

>>53270587
the oxygen and nitrogen in the air is being compressed to ignition and being burned up by the thrust therby converting the flies thrust to heat.

ok now i've decided i'm trolling and you're right
1.5kg but it still feels wrong

1.5k retards
https://youtu.be/N0IGrSjcBZs
/thread

1kg as long as the flies never land

Why are you guys so fucking retarded?

>>53270758
Mouthbreather right here

>Jar weighs 1kg
what does the lid weigh? was the lid on the jar when it was weighed? were the flies in the jar when the jar with the lid on was weighed? Are the flies on the glass or flying?

>>53269811
The flies already displaced 0.5 kg of air when they got in the jar retard.

>>53269811
The jar can only weigh 1.5 if the flies are sitting at the bottom.

>>53270845
>fly density = air density

I hate this board so much

>>53269693
Holy shit these people are tards.

1 kg because the flies aren't fucking on the scale...only the jar is on the scale, so the scale can only detect weight or mass of the jar.

>>53270155
I enjoy retards like this the most

>>53270732

>has to google it
>trusts explanation provided by random youtuber without question even though he probably doesn't understand it himself and even skipped through most of the video
>calls us retards

>>53269693
All the retards here should rethink the problem but with water and fish.
Say the an aquarium with 100 tons of water in it and 50 tons of sharks, and the sharks are swimming instead of lying at the bottom.

>>53269778
you're talking about size, but that's not weight
the average fly weighes less than 0.0005kg. so opee's hypothetical would have thousand of flies in his jar

>>53270732
This is also a good answer.
>t.chainlink bagholder since 2017 who never even read the whitepaper but trusts random retards on a mongolian basket weaving forum.
Just learn to research shit and let the pajeets on youtube do the thinking.

>>53270954
good analogy, even a smoothbrain can understand it

>>53270954
water is denser and if it compresses it evaporates and it takes more energy to compress water then air so it's different. the flies wings compress the air and redistribute the force as pressure that pushes on all sides of the jar equally, lifting the jar as much as it sinks the jar for a neutral impact on weight.
1kg

i mean not really, the answer is still 1.5kg and you're right, i just insist on continuing to argue the position that its actually 1kg because contrarianism compels me to

>>53270993
Yes there is even a mythbuster episode on this if I remember correctly.

I just shitted and farted.
Atleast 1.5kg’s lighter now

>>53269693
The real answer is somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 kg, but probably nowhere close to 1.5 kg

All of you RETARDS are forgetting a fly does not thrust down directly upon the ground, it flies THROUGH the air, generating some amount of lift through forward motion
Furthermore, even if a fly acted as a vehicle that thrusted directly downwards FRICTION EXISTS. The pressure wave generated from from the flies wings doesn't all get directed downward onto the scale, it DISSIPATES all throughout the jar and through the air

Anyone saying 1.5 kg if the flies are flying is a midwit
>t. Aerospace Engineering PhD, get mogged
>>53270155
Look, someone with more than two brain cells!
>>53270287
Turbo midwit, both you or the youtuber
>doesn't know what thrust-to-weight-ratio is
>seriously thinks things stay "buoyant" in the air to fly
>>53270732
NPC

>>53270954
How much does the aquarium weigh?

>>53271035
in an open container yes, i agree with this poster

but anon, what if the container is closed? what then? i think the pressure is directed somewhat upwards lifting the jar a little so it still won't total 1.5kg. what do you think?

>>53270205
retard

>>53271035
im glad im not as dumb as those other retards.

>>53269757
Kek

>>53271067
Depends on how far the downwash spreads as a function of the fly's height
It's unironically a harder problem than the brainlets post Action Lab videos can comprehend, fluid dynamics can change drastically with length scales
Not gonna argue some of the downwash may press on the bottom of a jar, but planes, drones and houseflies all fly in different ways

Imagine I gave you a perfectly sealed black box which weighed 1.5 kg. Then without letting anything in or out, is there any way it could magically change its own weight to 1.0 kg? Forget flies, anything that could do this would break all known laws of physics.

It's 1.5 kg. Not 1.0 kg, not slightly less than 1.5 kg, but 1.5 kg.

It only seems like the flies shouldn't matter because 0.5 kg of flies makes no fucking sense.

>>53271166
You don't understand the difference between weight and mass
>Then without letting anything in or out, is there any way it could magically change its own weight to 1.0 kg?
Yes by placing it on a planet with 2/3s the gravity so it pulls down on the scale by 2/3s since scales measure weight not mass and we're talking about a reading on a scale not the absolute quantity of matter in the jar which no one is disputing is 1.5 kg
get fucked

>>53271203
>Yes by placing it on a planet with 2/3s the gravity so it pulls down on the scale by 2/3s since scales measure weight not mass and we're talking about a reading on a scale not the absolute quantity of matter in the jar which no one is disputing is 1.5 kg
this is such a stupid response and doesnt really change what >>53271166
said anyway
basically tomayto vs tomarto

>>53271220
It's literally the point of the exercise, since we know from the diagram the total mass of the flies and jar is 1.5 kg, we're getting at the reading of a scale which is a mechanical measurement and must be thought of in terms of the properties of the device, not your freshman mechanics course.

I'm sorry you lack the creativity or knowledge to think about this problem in a deep way, it's why I have a PhD and you don't I guess

>>53271241
Phd in sucking dicks and eating cum, I guess

>>53271255
No I didn't study with your mom as my advisor so I missed out on that

>>53269962
The scale isn't measuring that low pressure zone, only the high pressure zone
Unless you're suggesting this is some sort of - *chuckles* - "magic scale"

>>53270965
OK? What's your point retard its to illustrate an idea. Pretend the jar is huge and lightweight and its filled with this massive flies. The specifics do not matter

>>53269693

6 flies don't weigh 500g

500g of flies would be a full mass sitting at the bottom

>>53271241
No but I mean It's a silly answer to other anons question about how to get to read 1.0kg
Yes I understand if you bring earth scales to 2/3rd gravity planet then yes.

But I think hes asking if theres anyway to do it on EARTH, assuming scales are calibrated to earths gravity. Sure lets stick with 1.0g Newtons, not 1.0kg so we are dealing with weight rather than mass (which of course cannot change).

>>53269987
Based

>>53271295
If the downward pressure from the flies flying exerts force outside the jar that part of their weight wouldn't show up on the scale so the answer could change if you open the jar.

>>53269693

I like how everyone calling other people retards present their own argument and it's incorrect.

>>53269693
depends if the flies are flying or not

Okay, so what is the correct answer now? Many answers ITT sound logical

>>53272044
If the jar were vacuum sealed, the flies would first not fly, and then would die from oxygen deprivation.
>t. 150 IQ

Only a rudimentary understand of fluid dynamics is needed to know the answer is slightly more than 1kg.

>>53271166
Imagine the box is large enough for a human to jump up and down. The box is only scales and the person jumps. Does the weight change?

>>53269693
I eat flies. This is not financial advise. Consult your female broker to see if this is right for you.

>>53272882
on*

>>53269811
Simple as

>>53272578
The problem is the problem isn't well defined.

There are three cases:

>1) the container is closed airtight
Then the answer is 1.0Kg

>2) the container is closed but air can escape with difficulty
Then the answer is between 1.0 and 1.5Kg

>3) the container is open
Then the answer is 1.5Kg

And you must go back

>>53269693
If time is a factor 1.5kg
If the flies are all flying at once, 1.0kg
If what they are doing is not flying, 1.5kg
Time is the ultimate factor as we don’t know the timeframe these flies are flying about for us to measure the average weight over a given period.

>>53269693
Escape velocity and the equation of lift doesn’t get included as generally these are net zero, you don’t see a plane crushing all beneath it when it flies overhead, same reason flies flying about wouldn’t affect the weight of the jar.

>>53272959
>>53273290
>>53273320
Are you guys serious?
>>53269828
>Air
>Floating

>>53269778
Would.

>>53273557
>falling upwards

>>53269693
I have failed this test and it will be the only reason for sellling my GME shares

>>53269708
This is correct. There will be slight fluctuations as the flies accelerate and decelerate, but it will average out to 1.5kg in a sealed jar.

>>53269753
>>53269799
>>53269828
>>53269842
>>53269921
>>53269992
>>53270047
>>53270060
>>53270104
>>53270318
>>53270440
>>53270451
>>53270534
>>53270635
>>53270953
>>53270993
>>53271067
Get a load of this turbo-retard.

>>53273320
If you got a high pressure air hose and fired it downwards from above onto the lid of the jar it would push the jar down and make the scale measurement rise, which is the same as your aeroplane example except the aeroplane is too far away and the forces are dissipated. Of course, the jar is sealed in this example so the closed system argument likely applies

Yes depends on the density of the jar and flies, relative to the air pressure, and how the scale was calibrated to account for air buoyancy, angular velocity if it on a rotating or orbiting planet, etc. Plus, assuming the scale is implemented with a strain gauge, magnetic fields and particulars of the scales power supply will come into play. Too many unknowns.

>>53270176
Assuming the lid has zero weight, the answer is still 1kg.
I saw someone use an analogy of sharks and a water tank, but this is flawed, as water would apply much more mass to a scale vs air.
Everyone is focused on the "science" behind the question.
No one is applying logic to this.
A scale will only read what force is being applied to it. The only thing that would be applying force to the scale, is the jar/ container.
It would never pick up the weight of a fly that is flying in the jar, as there is no weight being applied to the scale from the fly.
Let's say they're not flies, but a humming bird instead. A single humming bird that weighs 50kg.
As long as that bird stays up, even in a closed environment, the scale will never pick up its weight, because there was no pressure on the plate that the scale uses to its measurements.
>air pressure/force from flapping it's wings
Not enough to apply multiple kg of force onto a plate. We're talking a fly (or even back to the humming bird) which can be blown away by our breaths.
Even 50 flies couldn't apply .5kg of pressure to a pressure plate from a scale.
It's preposterous to even think it could in the first place.
The only correct answer is 1kg, unless we need to account for the lid (which we should desu).

>>53269693
Trick question as it doesnt note if the scale has been tared for the jar

>>53271274
what am i even reading
the specifics obviously matter if you want to illustrate your physics problem with a physical example yet use impossible physics
i swear, it's no wonder you morons fall for stuff like ftx or chainlink

>>53269921
You are completely wrong. Replace the flies and air with water and fish (ones which are more dense than water) if you're having a difficult time. The surrounding environment can be water too, doesn't matter. The masses all sum regardless of how they're moving in there, and on average the force exerted on the plate will be the same.

>>53269693
Where is the scale? If it's in outer space it reads 0.

Okay /biz/ I researched turboprop engines and upgraded my first ultralight fighter-bombers from heavy propeller engines to medium turboprop engines. Along with some aerodynamic and fuel-efficiency research I was happy to find that I TRIPLED the operation range of the aircraft from 8 to 25 hexes. That's with the same bombload of air-to-air missiles and 5k precision bombs for ground targets. Dogfighting ability isn't too bad either with a top speed of 505kmh. Do I really need a dedicated ultralight fighter aircraft, or is this design good enough to multipurpose? Figured this was the most appropriate thread to post this in.

>>53269829
I'm so glad there's at least one retard who understands basic physics in this thread. Flies aren't weightless. The thrust produces weight

>>53269693
Ther jar weighs 1.0kg after I eat ze delicious bugs

>>53269693
>Flies weighs
whoever wrote that has no business investing either

>>53269693
The scale reads 1.5KG due to the flies having to exert a pressure of 0.5KG to stay stationary, is what I initially thought - but that is universal across the glass so the actual exerted force would be tangential to the overall surface area of the glass, and as the bottom is only a small % of the overall surface area id instead think it might read less than 0.2kg. Just speculation from a tard though

1.63kg
Eventually the flies will settle on a circular flying path as it's the only one optimal in such a tight space.
Saulinsky's constant, centrifugal acceleration amplifying mass.

>>53269693

Flies in order to fly need to produce a downward force equal or above their weight.

The weight will be roughly 1.5kg with some variation depending on the flight pattern of the bugs.

>>53275354
Shut up nerd

>>53270440
jesus christ youre fucking stupid. and i know you arent trolling

>>53271270
omg a “magic scale” kekklez this thread is silly

>>53269693
the scale can't read

If you answered 1Kg

RETARDED

If you answered 1.5Kg

BASIC BUT MOSTLY CORRECT

If you answered above 1.5kg if the flies are flying upwards and close to 1kg if the flies are gliding down or somehow floating

BIG BRAIN MAN
P.s. also if the flies were to fly substantially above the lid of the jar than the weight would be just slightly above 1kg as the energy of their downdraft would be spread over a larger area mostly outside the jar.

Idiots in this thread. Do you get crushed by the weight of a jumbo jet if it flies over your head? lol. Look up what "lift" is.

>>53275776

>>53275822
No

>>53269693
There is no way 5 flies weigh 0.5kg

>>53270122
of course no one checks these juicy dubs on this reasonable response

>>53275822
Thats not caused by the weight of the machine you idot but by the downdraft.

>>53271035
>The real answer is somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 kg, but probably nowhere close to 1.5 kg

Then you have to go back
this experiment proves it is 1.5kg

>>53270287
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0IGrSjcBZs

>All of you RETARDS are forgetting a fly does not thrust down directly upon the ground, it flies THROUGH the air
>it flies THROUGH the air
>t. Aerospace Engineering PhD
lmao I sincerely hope you are joking
are you familiar with physics even
do you know what is required to basically generate lift or to equal the gravitational force, an equal opposite force, doesn't matter exactly how

>>53270440
basically this board
https://youtu.be/-fC2oke5MFg

>>53275968
no it requires higher pressure underneath the flying object then above it. its being lifted by air pressure not by shooting air downward and jumping off it.

>>53273655
>sealed jar
kek
how long will the flies live in a sealed jar?

>>53269935
>>53269782
correct 1.5 kg
1 kg jar
.5 kg dead flies

>>53269778
mmm yummy!
climate change is here so we need to eat flies to save the green planet

you're all talking about downdraft not realizing that the wing flaps both ways, up and down. so the weight of thrust cancels out

>>53276135
and?
1.5 is the correct answer
all you have to do is google how lift is generated, it takes 30s to find out
you are all idiots, not because you don't know, but because you are to lazy to do a fucking search and get a more founded opinion

>>53269693
This is an aboriginal vibrator
You shouldn’t sell sex toys without a licence

>>53276294
reasoning through it ourselves is part of the fun. just googling the "correct" answer and believing whatever the official "experts" want you to believe is how you got vaccinated, which was a mistake

>>53269693
>flies weighs

>>53276294
>airplane go up because wing push air down
no that's not how it works

>>53276340
absolutely
>is how you got vaccinated, which was a mistake
only that I didn't
get this, most of the times the limiting factor is not intelligence or IQ it's knowledge
>>53276370
never said that
vectors represent the sum of forces

Flies in air are no different than fish in water.
And fish in water are no different than fish frozen in ice.

1.5kg

>>53276428
except air compresses more then water or ice and moves around differently and the fluid dynamics of it all. and the light touch of a flies wing isn't strong enough to push straight down on the scale. otherwise you'd be pushed to the ground every time a helicopter flew a few miles over your head

>>53269811
The air being pushed around by the flies get pushed out in all directions, anything not going straight down does not cause the jar to maintain a weight of the jar plus the flies. The scale would read more than 1 but less than 1.5

THE FLIES CAN'T FUCKING BREEVE!!!!!!!!
>THEY CAN"T FUCKING BREAVE BRUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FUCKING RACIST ASS JAR!!
OPEN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>53275776

https://youtu.be/D_WsYnzifDs

>>53269733
I've seen that in a bait shop. Guy left maggots in a jar for too long.

>>53276604
Sneed did use to sell maggots as feed

>>53270205
Yeah too bad flies can't fly in a vacuum

>>53269693
a better question is how many Calories is 0.5kg of flies

also take your bug eating propaganda back to /ck/ faggot

>>53270935
cope