scidude

I am finding a possible way and a simple, original and accurate way. By original, I mean creative (so the bath way may not be that good). I quite like the water density method. So would it be e.g 100g= 100cm^2.

There is nothing wrong with the bath way. My teacher just wants to know if there is another possible way to find the body volume.

This is not a hypothetical question. I am really trying to find my body volume. I just want to see if there's another way to find the body volume without using the "bath way". What is a CT scan?

How do you find the volume of a human body in a simple, original and accurate way? ...please do not say, get into the bath.

Wouldn't I have to get a fingerprint software for it to show me the images of the fingerprints, because I don't think the fingerprint reader gives images of the prints.

I have looked into this website and I think this method is a experiment I can use to test out my question, "How hard is it to fake a fingerprint?" http://www.olekasper.no/articles/attacking_fingerprint_sensors.pdf But in this experiment it uses fingerprint scanners which I don't have I dont and there isn't any in the shops in my local area. So is there a way to do this without using fingerprint scanners?

I think you have misunderstood my question. I am asking whether the iris imprint itself is more reliable than the fingerprint, without using the device's faults to distinguish between one fingerprint from another. Nevertheless, you have given me another idea. "How hard is it to fake a fingerprint?" Do you think this is a more better idea?

For my science fair project, I am doing it on "is the iris imprint more reliable than the fingerprint?" But I don't know how to do a scientific experiment to find out that answer. Please could someone help me???