How smart are you, /b/?

File: 1482770164328.jpg (26KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 309x451px

>>716603362

if you fucking throttle me again i swear

File: 1482770164328.jpg (30KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 309x451px

>>716603362
Too easy.

File: x.jpg (12KB, 171x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 171x250px

Done.

2ez

File: 1482770164328.jpg (27KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 309x451px

>>716603362
not enough information in the original to solve for x

>>716604147
Yes there is.

File: tmp_24795-EmperorTrump-1296575928.jpg (107KB, 702x336px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 702x336px

>>716603362
I am the Hammer,
I am the edge of His Sword,
I am the tip of His Spear,
I am the mail about His Fist,
I am the flight of His Arrows,

I am the right hand of my Emperor,
I am the instrument of His will,
I am His Sword as He is my Armor,
I am His Wrath and He is my Zeal,
I am the Bane of His Foes and the Woes of the Treacherous,

Let us be His Shield,
Let us speak His Word as He fuels the Fire of Devotion,
Let us fight His Battles, as He fights the Battle at the end of time,
And let us join Him there, for Duty ends not in Death,
In Vengeance be true, In Valor be Strong,

I am the Hammer,
I am the Sword,
I am the Spear,
I am the Shield,
I am the soldier at the End of Time.

>>716603362
Smart enough to not even bother.

>>716604147
Then how do I know its 30°?

>>716603362
You should ask, how good are you at math, not how smart....

30

>>716603362
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zXlcwQvJsng Nigge

x can be any angle

File: wrong.jpg (51KB, 482x377px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 482x377px

>>716604841
That's retarded.

>>716603362
Don't feel like working it out, but here's how to do it:
You have 8 unknown angles (including x).

You have 8 triangles (4 obvious ones, and then 4 more can be created by combining adjacent triangles)

The sum of the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees, therefore you can write an equation for each triangle.

8 unknowns, 8 equations, easy peasy

>>716604978
Wouldn't work, just try it.

>>716604650
This is math. Prove it or stfu.

The two missing angels together are 110°
Without any length it is not to solve.

>>716605186
It is perfectly possible to solve.

>>716604841

Okay, x can be any angle under 110

>>716605432
Nope, still retarded.

File: 4chan_itsthateasy.jpg (41KB, 800x498px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x498px

>>716605229
>>716604650
>>716604513
>IM DOIN IT MOM
>IM TROLEING!!1

>>716605186
You're dealing only with angles.

Wether the bottom line is 17mm or 30,000 lightyears or 3.4 angstroms, the angles will always be the same.

Also, pay attention to the isosceles triangle you have. It gives you a lot of information.

>>716605494
Am I getting any closer lol

>>716605541
x can only have one value.

>>716604147
I got as far as this, too. There's a missing x and y.

20 deg

File: 4chanrage.jpg (89KB, 768x480px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 768x480px

>>716603362
ITT: Teenagers argue over ninth-grade math.

>you must be over the age of 18 to use this site

Cant do the math cause i'm on mobile but couldn't we extend the two vertical-ish lines, thus forming a triangle, and then solving that?

In the last triangel You only have the information that on angle is 70°
Further You know that the summ of angels is 180°
The angels with 50 or 40° wont help in any way because the square is not regular.
Hhr only way to solve is to guess that the angle next to 50° is a right one.
Then x would be 20°

>>716605929
You type like a braindead dipshit and you're completely wrong.

Please, turn off your computer (or more than likely your iPhone) and kill yourself.

File: tommy.jpg (24KB, 456x297px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 456x297px

>>716605929
>only way to solve is to guess that the angle next to 50° is a right one
That's not how math works, faggot.

Do your own homework

File: 1375964053361.png (117KB, 960x401px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 960x401px

>>716603362
x is everywhere fuck u kek :D

>>716604147
how'd you determine 110°?
I guess I'll find out next quarter since I will be taking Trig anyway.

File: 0.jpg (68KB, 559x859px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 559x859px

Got stuck here

x+y+70=180
X+y+50+30+60+20+50+40=360

Solve simultaneously

>>716606135
Nigger what the fuck?

Did you not do high school math?

How fucking old are you?

All angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees. 30 + 40 = 70. 180 - 70 = 110

>>716606135
(360 - (70 + 70)) / 2

or just the supplement of 70

>>716606135
Solve bottom triangle. Then 180 - 70 = 110 because it's a straight line in traingle formed by two smaller triangles on the left.

>>716606160
me too

>>716605229
>he says without solving it.
Kys

>>716606276
making fun of
>>716606135
but finds 110 like a retard

>>716606135
>all angles in a triangle add to 180
>the top angle of the "big triangle" on the right (combination of two right side trianges) is 180-60-50-30... so top angle is 40
>the two now-known angles in the right-side triangle will give you the third (180-40-30=110)

>>716606364
The fuck are you talking about? How is that equation at all retarded?

That's how you find basic angles of triangles you idiot.

>>716604147
Sum of whole is 360, sum of last triangle is 180, 2 équations, 2 unknown, easy

>>716606310
He's the same type of tard who posts facebook photos on 4chan and says "rate my gf" or "wwyd"

>>716606388
>derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>huduuuuuuhhhhhh
>herrrrpppppahrhhh
>fbfjfjjdjjreeeeeeeffff

File: image.jpg (177KB, 1104x1210px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1104x1210px

>>716603362
Needs a little constuction but doable. The answer is 30, if you assume that the right integral of the upper triangle is congruent.

>>716606480
Both are retarded and should kts

>>716606183
This

>>716606516
w-what the fuck?

>>716606476
Yes, the sum of the angles in a quad is 360. You can't solve because you have TWO UNKNOWNS.

File: sketch-1482772994084.png (236KB, 720x1051px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 720x1051px

I even tried gping outside the box

>>716606469
No it isn't you dense motherfucker

Go jump off a cliff or go back to 8th grade you autistic retard

Fucking newfags

>>716606183
x+y=180-70=110
x+y=360-(50+30+60+20+50+40)=360-250=110
There are 109 solutions when you write it like this, you trolling fuck

>>716606516
>30+20+120=170
kys

File: wtfjaguars.gif (2MB, 200x293px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x293px

>>716606516
Whose ass are you pulling your right angle from to make Pythagoras relevant here?

>>716606183
Good idea anon, however when you cancel those down you would end up with the two equations:
x+y=110
You cannot solve identical equations simultaneously

>>716606575
Then tell me how else you'd get 110 degrees from a triangle that tells you that the two other angles are 30 and 40.

Fuck off you faggot.

>>716606556
questions?

>>716606600
lmao this

>>716606566
Seriously? This is a 4th grade math problem. You cant into 180, 360?

>>716606516
Your just taking the piss im sorry

>>716606657
30 + 40 = 40 + 30

File: 1376709896027.jpg (11KB, 326x414px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 326x414px

>>716606516
>angle of the straight line is 108+120
>other straight line is 120+70

Ok then. You havin' fun, son?

>>716606594
X+y+70 = 180 fag ther is another triangle

>>716606476
both equations are x+y+70=180, so there is actually only 1 equation and 2 unknowns

>>716603362
60+50=110
180-110=70*
180-70=110*
30+110=140
180-140=40*
180-110=70*
110+20=130
180-130=50*
Basically 70+x+y=180
or I am missing the last step

>>716605514
No but you can't use sine laws without lengths. There are two unknown angles in the top left triangle. You can't use any other geometric principles (at least that I know of) to solve for two angles

Thalès is your friend

>>716606754
It had to be false in order for the next step to work. The answer is still right

>>716606516
Wrong.
> if you assume that the right integral of the upper triangle is congruent.
Wrong.
Hilarious, though. Looked official at a distance.

>>716607077
You're a moron. The whole point that was made is that you can pick any length you want.

File: Screen-Shot-2015-04-27-at-9.38.15-PM.png (277KB, 534x456px)

277KB, 534x456px

This is 10th grade math, simple Geometry.
Not enough information to solve for X

>>716607185
>Not enough information to solve for X
Wrong.

>>716607116
>not comprehending that a straight line segment has 180 total degrees on each side of the line
>120+70=190
You're retarded.

>>716606572
Do it again for the right side

>>716607224
Then solve for X

>>716607224
answer then?

Name the length of the segments with unknowns, put in équation, that's it. Basic trigonometric problem

>>716607275
As i've said, this step had to be false for the other to work. How else would you pull the 2nd factor to form the integral? The root would also collapse. It doesn't matter in the long run because it gets corrected once you have the congruent angle.

>>716607333
>>716607357
See >>716607368

>>716607185
>simple
>can't solve

Not so simple, huh?
Topkek retard.

I guess you have to pick a length and then use sine laws. Feels clumsy though, so I'm still hoping for a trick to work with angles only.

>>716607435
There is such a trick. It's very difficult to find, though.

>>716607420
Still no solution.
For supposedly knowing how to do trig, you sure can't comprehend what you read.

>>716607185
You can tell by the picture it's not flexible by calculated angles

>>716607181
Or I'm a college student who forgot his trig. Don't be a nigger, nigger.

>>716607482
Would be interested to see it.

I certainly could assign variables to everything and then go through all the math, but that's a lot of work (and needs a calculator) for what is probably an easy problem. The angle parts you can do in your head.

>>716607532
Exactly. It takes a complete lack of geometrical intuition to claim that this problem is unsolvable.

File: Home - BBC News.jpg (177KB, 869x673px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 869x673px

>>716603362
I hate to interrupt your circle jerk but... uh, this just happened.

>>716607762
Good, heard he was an asshole

File: ah shit.png (46KB, 308x607px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 308x607px

I'm stuck

>>716607762
rip in rip mr roboto

>>716607762
Almost got me there you stupid nigger

Right
but with one lenght I can use trigonometrical functions and then it is to solve.
But without further informations I can't assume that there is a isosceles or right-angled triangle involved.
Therefore it is not solvable

>>716607907
looks like a clan member now

>>716607762
If you're trolling so help me I will fucking choke you.

>>716608018
i dont get it, why is he so special to you ?

>nobody here smart enough to add in the length of sides and matching them with the angles

It's like you don't even want to solve this problem.

>>716608078
im pretty sure this thread was bait to begin with, you know like every other math thread on hrere

>>716607907
How did you get that triangle above?
Also, remaining angles on that triangle are 50 and 40 if that what you did is correct. Rest is just easy addition.

>>716608053
We had a brief romance in the late 1980s. He would tenderly flutter his eyelashes and I would gently fuck his tracheotomy hole.

>>716608078
You've got one isosceles triangle with two equal sides. That's all the length information you're going to get.

>>716608166
well if you were that close i hope that when that time comes you hear about it from more of a personnel source other than 4chan.

>>716608078

I can just arbitrarily give the base line length one (doesn't matter in the end), then use sine and cosine laws to compute every side and angle. I surely don't want to do that though, that's a lot of work.
Gotta be an easier solution

You can put in equation angles AND distances with sinuses and cosinuses, but I don't have any paper to show you. This is clearly solvable

>>716606572
>120+50=180
hue hue hue

>>716608078
Or with a smartphone and no paper

File: ilikethewaythiscalculates.gif (2MB, 325x234px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 325x234px

>>716608166

>>716603362
I give up, fuck you

120 ez

File: triangle-calculus_solvedz.png (558KB, 937x1238px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 937x1238px

>>716603362

File: 1482770164328.jpg (37KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 309x451px

in this example, y and z are perpendicular angles, so must be equal.

And as you can see there is a right angle where y,x and 30 (40-10) is.

So 90-30 = 60 and x+y = 60. Thusly

From the example the triangles adjacent to x are perpendicular also, and all angles will be the same.

So z = 90-60 = 30, ergo y is also 30.

And since there is a right angle at X as shown in the diagram.

x = 90 - y - 30 (with y = 30)
x = 90 - 30 - 30
x = 30.

>>716609037
I don't do that shit without paper.

>>716609367

Just to clarify it even more...

if z is 30 as shown.

50+30+70 = 180 - x

x = 180 - 50+30+70 = 180 - 150 = 30

Also

120 +30 = 180 - x
x = 180 - (120+30) = 180 - 150 = 30

>>716609367
How does it follow from x + y = 60 that z = 90 - 60? The 60 degree angle in the second equation is the equivalent of the (x + 30) angle, not the (x+y) angle.

>>716609367
I hope you're trolling, half the angles are made up.

>>716609719
x+y = 60 because it is perpendicular to the angle at the base.

So x = 60 - y

Do you not understand perpendicular angles?

>>716609037
Except it's not 20 degrees and this can be solved using basic geometric rules of construction

>>716609814
I guess you're trolling, then. I agree that x + y = 60. And obviously that also means that x = 60 - y. I asked how it follows from x + y = 60 that z = 90 - 60? Do you not read the posts you respond to?

File: perpendicular angles.jpg (11KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 309x451px

>>716609777

As said to the last guy... Perpendicular angles


Here is a pic to explain..

X = Y

>>716610015
>perpendicular angles are 90 degrees

You're talking about parallel lines intersected by a line.

>>716610230
He's trolling. Either that, or he's too retarded to admit that he's wrong.

File: 122312.jpg (327KB, 2000x1310px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 2000x1310px

>>716603362

30 degrees.

Isosceles triangles are your friend.

>>716610471
All that work and you still got the wrong answer.

>>716609037
sine and cosine are for right angles

>>716609933

As said in my example, if you can see there is now a square around the x,y and z angles.

Which introduces more perpendicular angles, from that we can deduce that the angle next to Z is 60.

I just didn't draw the resulting multiple Perpendicular angles that show that it is 60. Not enough room for it, to become way too complicated.

But if you do you will find that the angle next to z is 60, thusly z+60 = 90 so z is 30, and y being it's perpendicular angle is also 30.

So x has to be 30 from the right angle made from there where the internal angles to the left and right of x are both 30, so it has to be 30.

>>716610609
>Isosceles triangles are your friend

The large lower-left triangle is isosceles (two 50° angles). What does that tell me?

>>716610733
>Which introduces more perpendicular angles, from that we can deduce that the angle next to Z is 60.

That's what you have to show then, because as it stands it seems like you pulled that number out of your ass.

>Not enough room for it, to become way too complicated.

kek. You did pull that number out of your ass.

>>716610324

nahh I think I see what he means, and yes he certainly confused perpendicular with parallel angles. Parallel lines will have matching angles, as he shown in that diagram shaped like a Z above in this post >>716610015

>>716604147
The side lengths of the lower and side triangles can be determined (in principle) up to a single scaling factor because they each share one edge with another and we know all their angles.

This gives us SAS for the upper triangle, which means we can solve it too. Probably requires law of sines/cosines and I don't want to work it out but it can be done.

l2hsgeometry

>>716610921
He's still wrong, though.

>>716610789
It tells you you're stuck in the brain box that hasn't realized you can also draw additional lines to create additional triangles....

>>716611096

Not really, if you take a perpendicular line down from above to that 120 angle near x. Hold on I will try and draw it. And try to explain.

>>716603362
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQc-54hQ8kw

elementary geometry

File: Picture1.jpg (98KB, 1600x902px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1600x902px

>>716603362
tried very hard
all I got is that x+y=60
therefore, x<60

>>716603362
If the inner angles of each triangle have to equal 180, then x is found easily and is 60.

X=60

Also, dubs

>>716604147
there is a sneeky trick
> youve got a 110,70,110,70 figure
> change to 90, 90, 90, 90,
> now you can try it from those new value's
> use another pencil colour to draw the full figure until you can determine all the angles in the corners of the z and + just like you did in the shape x 110,70,110,70

File: PC262282 - Kopie.jpg (822KB, 1547x1378px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1547x1378px

It's 30 degrees.

You just need to asssume the lenght of one side (doesn't matter which or how long), in my case i started with a=5 at the bottom.
From there you can calculate everything else.

>>716606160
try this.

> "if" the 50 and 70 are equal (upper triangle) "than" the shape is in balance the "z" shape is in balance. Now you know what to add at 110deg and at 20deg
> (50+q)+(110-q)+(20+q)=
[(70-q)+ X + (u+q)] would be impossible but if
110,70,110,70 became 90,90,90,90 by transforming its shape than [(50+q)+(110-q)+(20+q)] left = [(50+q)+(110-q)+(20+q)] right.

an X shape in the middle will always make possible to transform it into an + (balance) and recalc the other values..

>>716609367
what is your level of education. ?
its not correct.

>>716606183
Y>40, X<70, y<110

>>716609367
its incorrect.

>>716603362
30

>>716612628
the only thing for certain is that x is less than 60
this can easily be figured out

The angle next to x is 40, this can be figured out easily enough
From there, follow this >>716612247

>>716613412
I cant even see what youre doing

>>716604147
i just did trial and error, I knew the top left one would be less than 90 and managed to get it as 80, then since 80 + 30 is 110 it left the top right angle as 70

As you're making your additional isosceles triangles, remember that an isosceles triangle where one angle is 60 degrees is also equilateral....

>>716612247
this is not how tri-gonometrics work. get tf out
of my class D---

>>716614033
I know, quality handwriting. But the described principle is easy enough.

>>716604978
there are even more tan 8 triangles but not 8 different ecuations.

File: dem triangles.jpg (74KB, 1458x976px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1458x976px

>>716611635

Ok in this example, we can agree the other angles are ok, through parallel lines and angles being equal.

DAG = 30 degrees because a perpendicular line is drown from A to the base of the shape, say for example with point M. And the very bottom right has point N.

So the angle AMN would be 90. Angle MNA is 80 (because 50+30 in the original picture), thusly angle NAM has to be 10 because 180 - 90 - 80 = 10.

So the angle DAG has to be 30, as 40-10 = 30.

Now a new perpendicular line is drawn from point G to H (intersecting at F).

We know the angle for AGH will be 30, as GH is a parallel line to AD.

Now there is a rule that within a square like ABCD, that a triangle such as CGA with an obtuse angle of 120 degrees has to be an Isosceles triangle. Thusly angle ACG has to be the same as CAG. And since angle CAB is parallel to ACG that must mean that CAG has to be the same value of CAB also.

There for all 3 angles at BAD have to be the same and add up to 90, since we know one angle is 30, there rest has to be 30. That means x, y and z are 30.

Look up isosceles triangles withing squares with parallel angles rules.

>>716614504
lmao just do trial and error and you will find that x = 30. it makes sense too because if you add all the angles in the square then you get 360 degrees.
>70 + 130 + 80 + 80 = 360

>>716614774

It isn't trial and error at all, it is done with various mathematical rules that is known. It is only trial and error if you do not understand them. If I were to give you a long winded equation would choose to question it or accept it as it looks very mathematical, even when it could easily be wrong?

Mathematics isn't about how long winded and complicated you can make it, it is about arriving at the solution in the most easiest and simplified way.

File: notisosceles.png (6KB, 662x321px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 662x321px

>>716614504
>there is a rule that within a square like ABCD, that a triangle such as CGA with an obtuse angle of 120 degrees has to be an Isosceles triangle
Nonsense. I can easily make *rectangles* (not squares) in which this is not the case.

>>716615254
this.

>>716615136
the easiest method for me was trial and error lol

File: fuck u.png (72KB, 1037x539px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1037x539px

there is not enough information

you need the top left angle of the quadrilateral but you cannot get it, this is the only thing that would restrict the angle x.

>>716604978
Your linear system doesnt have independant equations. In the end you have 2 equations that are both x + y = 110

>>716615254

Squares aren't necessarily always equal sides, just opposite sides are equal, you can call it a rectangle sure, but a rectangle is a square.

Or if we are getting technical Quadrilateral.

>>716615579
That's retarded. If you move the line you claim to be movable, the three lines red lines won't intersect at the same point anymore, changing the whole figure into something different than what the puzzle asks about. If you move the other two red lines so that a point of intersection remains, then you change the original angles stated in the puzzle.

>>716604978
they aren't linearly independent equations.
The problem doesn't give you enough information, and some of the angles are arbitrarily given as they can be found by other methods. I'm an applied math graduate student so trust me ha

>>716615666
Hail geometric Satan

>>716615831
Utterly wrong. A quadrilateral is any polygon with four edges. A rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. A square is a quadrilateral with four right angles and four equal sides.

I didnt even draw the full figure down.

because youve got initial 4 given numbers
you need to solute 8 new numbers in total
12 clue's. (4 triangles)

luckily you soluted the X in the middle which solves another 4: (110,70,110,70)

two triangles are solved a third only needs the number 40 added so 3 are solved and
one lasts.

easiest way. remember the rule of the clockwise counter clockwise and determine transformations in all three solved triangles as positive and negative.

Every transformation in one corner got the characteristic that it will give one clockwise and a counterclockwise transformation in the other corners (+) and (-).

change (transformation of the 110,70,100,70) to (90,90,90,90).

determine all transformations.

calc. even without calculator.

x will initially become 30 the other unknown corner 70. those will become 60 and 20.

ans = 20.

OP
time for an ans.
>>716603362

Watching people work on this is interesting - it's like watching squids try to learn how to open a jar.

Just gonna leave this here.
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt725/BotCan/Solution/Solution.html

>>716616801


I say its 20 without using a calculator or writing it down.

File: 20161226_133444.jpg (1MB, 2934x1650px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2934x1650px

30

>>716616908
Its 20

>>716616909
The shrimp inside the jar is relieved.

>>716617051
>>716616909
>>716616558

all my ans. it was 20.

OP was working 3 month on this problem and it turns out he couldn't even solve it.

File: SQUID.gif (136KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 600x449px

>>716617080

>>716603362
Can't be solved you dumb cucks.
OP is going to choke dead on cock.

File: mantis_shrimp.jpg (106KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 500x333px

calculate this OP

>>716617652
The solution has already been posted, moron.

File: Terrorist-Gun-2355707.jpg (31KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 450x450px

>>716617771
Every solution posted has been wrong.
By using estimations you are not finding x, you are instead being a cuck and avoiding math.

>>716618081
Wrong. This solution is correct: >>716611873

>>716615831
Hahahahahahha

File: _81738062_risitas.jpg (36KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1024x576px

>>716603470

File: 1482770164328.jpg (66KB, 309x451px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 309x451px

x=30

>>716618767
Makes no sense.

>>716618767
how did you get the other 30 degrees in the upper (30 30 120) triangle?

File: :b: does math.jpg (99KB, 1060x759px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1060x759px

>>716618081
The provably correct solution has been posted multiple times.

You were cast as Leon in the off-off-Broadway production of "Blade Runner," weren't you?

>>716614175
everything written on that diagram is 100% correct
but it's missing an answer for x

>>716614504
>Now there is a rule that within a square like ABCD, that a triangle such as CGA with an obtuse angle of 120 degrees has to be an Isosceles triangle. Thusly angle ACG has to be the same as CAG. And since angle CAB is parallel to ACG that must mean that CAG has to be the same value of CAB also.
I've never heard of this rule...
>>716615254 seems to disprove it

But otherwise you would have cracked it I agree

>>716620195
>otherwise you would have cracked it I agree
kek. Yeah, he 'cracked' it by pulling a bullshit 'rule' out of his ass. Might as well have said "There is a rule saying that the answer to this puzzle is 30".

>>716604841

except Kurt.

File: Gerbil.jpg (153KB, 672x531px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 672x531px

>>716616801
I'll amend my analogy:

I think watching people trying to solve this problem is more like this classic Outpost.com commercial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyXy4kDLnSY

File: image.jpg (89KB, 1136x548px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1136x548px

X = 30
I also recreated this in my CAD program and measured, 30