Poll
| 25 votes (49.01%) | ||
| 16 votes (31.37%) | ||
| 7 votes (13.72%) | ||
| 4 votes (7.84%) | ||
| 12 votes (23.52%) | ||
| 3 votes (5.88%) | ||
| 6 votes (11.76%) | ||
| 5 votes (9.8%) | ||
| 12 votes (23.52%) | ||
| 10 votes (19.6%) |
51 members have voted
March 27th, 2026 at 9:43:41 AM
permalink
To determine the width of the tank from a single point, no measured angles, I think you’d need to know the distance to the tank. Then you could do it by measuring how much of a fixed object (at a fixed distance) it blocks from sight
It’s all about making that GTA
March 27th, 2026 at 11:04:40 AM
permalink
Quote: Ace2To determine the width of the tank from a single point, no measured angles, I think you’d need to know the distance to the tank. Then you could do it by measuring how much of a fixed object (at a fixed distance) it blocks from sight
link to original post
I don't think you could do it without measuring angles, being you can only see the endpoints of a perpendicular diameter across the tank at infinity.
There are ways to measure radii of curvature optically, like the way you would inspect a lens or curved mirror. If I had a lens bench and some sample lenses I could do it. Might even be able to do it with a surveyor's transit, see what I have to do to keep the telescope in focus when looking at a different point on the tank.
The surface of the tank makes a difference too. If there were markings or gradations on the tank that would help, even if it was just a chip in the paint. If it was a perfectly uniform Lambertian surface all around there would be no visual distinction between any two points on the tank, not sure what you would do.

