jfish1936 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 We've assumed the container to be a regular cylinder, and multiplied its measurements. If it's an irregular shape (e.g. tapered ): 1/. get a scale that weighs in pounds; 2/. weigh the container dry and empty, call this weight A; 3/. fill with water, weigh again; call this B; 4/. subtract A from B to give the weight of water in pounds; 5/. divide this by 62.5 to give the number of cubic feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The simple answer is to commission a one foot square internal (say 3ft tall) calibrated in sub-divisions of cubic feet container from a reputable glassware manufacturer such as Pyrex. Simply fill the tin up with water, pour into Pyrex vessel and take a reading. Simple and no complicated maths! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I know it's been answered correctly several time, but: 1. Compute area of a circle 11 inches in diameter, using PI * (R*R): 3.14159265358979 * (5.5 * 5.5) = 95.0331777710913 2. To compute the volume, multiply area of circle by depth of the cylinder: 95.0331777710913 * 13 = 1235.43131102419 3. Number of cubic inches in one cubic foot: 12 * 12 * 12 = 1728 4. Volume in cubic feet: 1235.43131102419 / 1728 = 0.71494867536122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 0.71494867536122 cubic feet To use a calculator to calculate a measurement to this accuracy should be frowned on by all those who help or educate others. It shows misunderstanding on three levels: 1- It implies an accuracy in the steps taken which gives a false impression. 2 -In real life the original measurements were nowhere near accurate enough to infer this level of accuracy. 3- 0.00000000000002 of a cubic foot is really vey small- on the molecule level at a guess. A student would be marked down for showing that they did not understand the values they were dealing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 0.71494867536122 cubic feet To use a calculator to calculate a measurement to this accuracy should be frowned on by all those who help or educate others. It shows misunderstanding on three levels: 1- It implies an accuracy in the steps taken which gives a false impression. 2 -In real life the original measurements were nowhere near accurate enough to infer this level of accuracy. 3- 0.00000000000002 of a cubic foot is really vey small- on the molecule level at a guess. A student would be marked down for showing that they did not understand the values they were dealing with. We converted from miles to kilometers in Australia. There was asign 5 miles to next petrol It was translated as 8.04672km implying 10 mm accuracy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 We converted from miles to kilometers in Australia. There was asign 5 miles to next petrol It was translated as 8.04672km implying 10 mm accuracy! With an inaccuracy as high as that, the width of Australia would change by almost five metres! If you took five metres away from the width of Britain a lot of houses'd fall into the sea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davyboy Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 I think they only do circles, squares and rectangles in geometry on health & safety grounds, triangles are too dangerous. Only when airborne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 I wonder if LizaD has got the information she wanted from the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.