At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Since there is no dimension given for the paper clip thickness, there could be a whole lot, an infinite amount.
^ has a point there.
convert the 6.5 liter to cubic centimeters. convert the dimensions of the paper clips (when you have all 3) length, width, and depth) to centimeters. Convert to cubic centimeters and divide into the cubic centimeters of the jar. That would be one method, but in this case, I would borrow a whole bunch of paper clips and fill the jar, then count them.
I don't know how to calculate the space used up by a paperclip. Maybe find its displacement in water...????
I know the Fermi Problem method is to make an 'order of magnitude estimate.' 6500cc's by (I'd estimate 1.25cc's per paper clip) I'd get around 5000, but given the margins of error (which are large), I'd put the orders of magnitude between 1,000 and 10,000
@radar, I don't think the exact volume of the paperclip would help since their negative space contributes as well (stacking problem). There is also the issue of unperfect (random) stacking from the assumed 'just-pour-a-bunch-of-paperclips-in-there' method of filling the container.
Oh, I was completely off base, as I wasn't even considering Fermi, is this the same Fermi that did work in quantum mechanics and in semiconductors?
^ Yeah, Richard Feynman talked about him a lot and spoke of this method.
Yes I agree, the geography of a paper clip would preclude an orderly calculation.
I think he used 'back-of-the-envelope estimate' as a descriptor as well.
Thanks, I learn a lot from this Open Study.
Nice chatting with you CliffSedge.
Same, Mr. radar. What do you think, @burhan101 ?
this is a really complex question, i have like a white board with stuff on it haha :$ still in the process of finding a reasonable way to approach this
The reasonable approach is to guess and not be too outlandish about it.