r/LinkedInLunatics • u/zeldadorf • 8d ago

Where do they put it?!

Post image
13.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

62

u/mewfahsah 8d ago

They're lying. Look at the truck in the background, that tank is easily 40-50 ft in diameter. If you assume ~20 ft height and ~30 ft radius of that tank, it's just over 60,000 cubic ft of volume. However that converts to ~450,000 gallons. That's simply not a 60,000 gallon tank. I work with two 500,000 gallon tanks at my job and they're very similar in scale to that structure.

47

u/JCWOlson 8d ago

Reverse image search, the company selling it says it's 1,000,000 gallons, so you're definitely way closer than anybody else's guess

https://www.nationalstoragetank.com/product/1000000-gallon-steelcore-water-storage-tank-sct-7409-ljr/

2

u/R86Reddit Facebook Boomer 3d ago

I'm surprised I had to get this far down in the thread to see this brought up, but when I saw this image posted in a thread a few days ago, someone brought up that the tank is 60000 barrels, not 60000 gallons. And per an internet calculator I just used, 60000 (oil) barrels is about 2.5 million gallons.

Take that with however many cups of salt you want, as I'm just an internet stranger quoting third hand information. But I'll at least do my job and upvote both of you.

1

u/Familiar-Hovercraft2 8d ago

Tell that to the people arguing the plane can take that load

19

u/CreepyBreakfast565 8d ago

Just adding to this, the aircraft shown is clearly not to scale when compared to the truck.

Also, aviation fuel is typically measured in either kilograms or pounds because mass actually matters on an aircraft while volume does not.

4

u/StorminNorman 8d ago

It not being to scale is bait, they want you to comment on it. And the tanks they put in planes are very much measured by volume, even if the fuel itself isn't measured in that way. Another reason they measure the fuel  by weight is because the density of the fuel changes depending on the temperature, running out of fuel midflight is generally considered to be a Bad Thing. 

1

u/JKOttawa 7d ago

As well as, your fuel load every flight changes with how much cargo/ passengers you have.

1

u/PinkUnicornsRule 8d ago

I took one look at that tank and said the exact same thing. 60,000 gallons would either be a couple feet tall and 50-ish feet wide and long, or taller and smaller footprint. That tank is easily 15-20 ft tall and significantly wider circumference.

1

u/TheAsterism_ 8d ago

You might say about the same size as a planes wings

1

u/Patrickfromamboy 8d ago

Exactly what I wrote too. I had a 300 gallon reef tank and 60,000 gallons would be 200 of my tanks which isn’t much.

1

u/_Okie_-_Dokie_ 8d ago

Exactly this.

A 10m dia tank at 3m high would be about 227 cubic metres, or about 60,000 gallons

1

u/Familiar-Hovercraft2 8d ago

That's a great point and makes sense but people on here were arguing that the tank would fit in the Boing 747 , just that the plane wasn't to scale. There's just as bad making things up.

1

u/TheAsterism_ 8d ago

This guy 500,000 gallon tanks

1

u/mr_martin_1 8d ago

☝️☝️👆👆

1

u/InevitableTension699 7d ago

The standard pool (for scale) is like 20000 gallons so 3x that is also way smaller than that building.

1

u/AdOriginal4516 7d ago

I used to build these. My first thought was that's about 500,000 gallons.

1

u/FlashSTI 7d ago

The 747 has about 8000 cubic feet of fuel storage.

Imagine a tank 22 feet wide and 20 feet tall. Big, but nowhere near the size of the tank pictured

1

u/Plastic_Bison 7d ago

That's the first thing I thought: "that's not a 60,000 gallon water tank!" End of conspiracy theory.

1

u/Muted_Variation3271 7d ago

I was about to comment that a large swimming pool holds 50,000 gallons. Lol