## Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

 Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse

# Weighing VIII.

12 replies to this topic

### #1 rookie1ja

rookie1ja

Senior Member

• 1341 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Slovakia

Posted 30 March 2007 - 05:45 PM

Weighing VIII. - Back to the Water and Weighing Puzzles
Suppose that the objects to be weighed may range from 1 to 121 pounds at 1-pound intervals: 1, 2, 3,..., 119, 120 and 121. After placing one such weight on either of two weighing pans of a pair of scales, one or more precalibrated weights are then placed in either or both pans until a balance is achieved, thus determining the weight of the object.
If the relative positions of the lever, fulcrum, and pans may not be changed, and if one may not add to the initial set of precalibrated weights, what is the minimum number of such weights that would be sufficient to bring into balance any of the 121 possible objects?

This old topic is locked since it was answered many times. You can check solution in the Spoiler below.
Pls visit New Puzzles section to see always fresh brain teasers.

Spoiler for Solution

Spoiler for old wording

• 0

Optical Illusions
Support BrainDen

"To start: Press any key... Where's the 'any' key?" - Homer Simpson

### #2 tonycurcio

tonycurcio

Newbie

• Members
• 3 posts

Posted 03 July 2007 - 07:03 PM

Why isn't the answer "3". If you put the 5 pound weight on the scale, you only need the 4 and 1 to balance it out. Perhaps I am missing what you are asking.
• 0

### #3 phight44

phight44

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 19 October 2007 - 10:09 PM

Your solution would work if it weren't for the initial weight that was placed on the scales. Think of it this way: you know there are 121 weights, but you're not allowed to see them. The person in charge of the weights randomly selects a weight and places it on the empty scale, but you have to be able to balance the scales from a preselected (or "precalibrated") set of weights (within the original 121) that you've removed from the original lot. With the set of 1, 3, 9, 27, and 81, you can balance the scales no matter which weight the person picked. For example, if he places the 2 pound weight on pan A, you can add the 1 pound weight to pan A and the 3 pound weight to pan B, and the scales will be balanced (1+2 = 3).
• 0

### #4 BoilingOil

BoilingOil

Junior Member

• Members
• 71 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 09:26 PM

You would need at least 5 weights: 1, 3, 9, 27, and 81 pounds. With one of each, using addition and subtraction, all values from 1 to 121 can be made.

I remember hearing one like this long ago. It was about a 40 pound rock that split in 4 pieces of different sizes in such a way, that all values from 1 to 40 pounds (in 1 pound intervals) could be formed on a set of scales. Find the weights of the 4 pieces. Of course, the solution there was: 1, 3, 9, 27.

Alternatives could be 6 pieces weighing 364 pounds (last piece 243); 7 pieces weighing 1.093 pounds (last piece 729); or 8 pieces weighing 3.280 pounds (last piece 2187). And so on, and so forth...

Happy Puzzling,
BreakingRock
• 0

### #5 DugALug

DugALug

Newbie

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 06 February 2008 - 07:24 PM

I think you only need 1 1 pound weight.

1) Placing 1 pound measure on one side, find the 1-pound item
2) Mark the item '1 pound'
3) Place both 1-pound items on one side and find the 2-pound item
4) Mark it '2 pounds'
5) Remove the 1 pound item and add the 2 pound item to find thr 3 pound item.
6) Continue this process -> Remove the second highest found item and replace it with the highest -> Find the new highest, label and repeat.

You could do this with all 121 items and successfully identify all of them.
• 0

### #6 goblue741

goblue741

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 12:23 PM

if you keep all the weights on one side of the scale, you need 9 different weights. 1, 2, 2, 6, 11, 11, 33, 55
• 0

### #7 rookie1ja

rookie1ja

Senior Member

• 1341 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Slovakia

Posted 25 February 2008 - 01:38 PM

if you keep all the weights on one side of the scale, you need 9 different weights. 1, 2, 2, 6, 11, 11, 33, 55

the question was:
What is the minimum number of such weights that would be sufficient to bring into balance any of the 121 possible objects?

I used 5 weights, you used 8 (separate objects).
• 0

Optical Illusions
Support BrainDen

"To start: Press any key... Where's the 'any' key?" - Homer Simpson

### #8 Topher

Topher

Newbie

• Members
• 10 posts

Posted 17 March 2008 - 10:41 PM

This solution is the basis (or is based on, take your pick) of a number system called "balanced ternary". Instead of the "digits" 0, 1 and 2 that you have for the ordinary ternary number system you have the "digits" -1, 0, +1 (frequently represented as "-", "0" and "+"). It has the interesting property that you don't need any special conventions (such as a "-" at the beginning of the number) to represent negative numbers. To negate a number you replace the +1s with -1s and vice versa, so since "5" is "+--", "-5" will be "-++". The signs "just work" in adding, subtracting and multiplying.
• 0

### #9 ALFRED

ALFRED

Junior Member

• Members
• 54 posts

Posted 20 March 2008 - 08:18 PM

rookie1ja - I know I've asked you this on one of your puzzles before but could you explain the math behind finding the answer to this puzzle. I assume there is some formula behind it.
• 0

### #10 rookie1ja

rookie1ja

Senior Member

• 1341 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Slovakia

Posted 20 March 2008 - 08:26 PM

rookie1ja - I know I've asked you this on one of your puzzles before but could you explain the math behind finding the answer to this puzzle. I assume there is some formula behind it.

I would like to see the formula as well ... I just added the first to the next one and it all went quite logically ... I knew that I had to start with 1 ... then two would be measured with 1 to the same pane and 3 on the other pane ... so I had 1 and 3 ... with those two I could measure three and four so I could not measure five, but since I already could measure four I could use it on the same pane and have 9 on the other pane ... thus having 1, 3 and 9 ... and so on

btw, notice the multiplication by 3
• 0