Volume of human body

[scidude]

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.

[BigMoosie]

That is the only method I can think of, how much volume is displaced. The density of the human body can vary quite a bit so a weight will not suffice. I guess you could use one of those setups that use multiple photographs to build a 3d model of you but who has one of those lying around? Is this question hypothetical or are you actually trying to solve your volume?

[insane_alien]

fill a tub up to the brim with water chuck the human in question into the tub. fully submerge. remove said human. measure how much water was lost. simple.

[Anjruu]

Cover someone's body with molten rubber. Wait for the rubber to dry. Cut off the rubber so that it can easily be put back together, like into two pieces. Remove the rubber. Glue the pieces together. Fill it with water. Measure the water. The guy is probably dead, but whatever. Some sacrifices must be borne.

 

Or skin the guy, and then reattach the skin so it is like a suit. An Edgar suit. Measure the amount of water that can fill the Edgar Suit.

[BigMoosie]

If your'e going to kill the person you might as well just chuck em in a giant blender.

[doG]

How do you find the volume of a human body in a simple' date=' original and accurate way?

...please do not say, get into the bath.[/quote']

I give up, how?

[swansont]

You can probably get an estimate to a few percent just by getting the mass. We are more or less neutrally bouyant, meaning we have the average density of water.

 

But submerging is probably the simplest and most accurate measurement; I don't see why you'd eliminate that as a course of action, unless you fear the person running around naked, screaming, "Eureka!"

[Sisyphus]

You can probably get an estimate to a few percent just by getting the mass. We are more or less neutrally bouyant' date=' meaning we have the average density of water.

 

[/quote']

 

Yeah, and you know a fat person is going to have a somewhat lower density than water, and a muscular person a somewhat higher one.

 

I'd say its impossible to be very precise, since your volume changes every time you breathe in and out...

[Bluenoise]

Yeah' date=' and you know a fat person is going to have a somewhat lower density than water, and a muscular person a somewhat higher one.

 

I'd say its impossible to be very precise, since your volume changes every time you breathe in and out...[/quote']

 

 

No that's not true you can account for the change in volume due to breathing by flooding the lungs with water and then draiing them...

 

...but I wouldn't recomend it.

[BigMoosie]

Would it be possible to solve the volume from a CT scan?

[scidude]

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?

[Sisyphus]

This is not a hypothetical question. I am really trying to find my body volume.

 

Can I ask why the bath way is out of the question, then? It's very simple and as accurate as you're going to get. And what's wrong with an estimation based on mass? For something roughly the density of water (such as a human), kilograms = liters. If you're especially fat, know that you're lower density and therefore higher volume, and if especially muscular, know that you're higher density and therefore lower volume.

[scidude]

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.

[doG]

How do you find the volume of a human body in a simple, original and accurate way?

 

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.

Another possible way or a simple, original and accurate way, which is it?

 

Calculating the volume of anything involves measuring each of the parts accurately and summing them together. With all of the human body parts having so many different shapes it becomes difficult to measure them accurately and sum them together. There is certainly not a simple way to do this. If you want a simple, accurate measurement the bath is the way to go. If you simply want another possible way then use a seamstess' tape and measure up each part and sum them together or use swansont's suggestion to weigh and convert.

[YT2095]

don`t use water then, use Sand or Custard

 

*Sigh* I can just hear poor old Archemedies turning over in his grave!

 

 

edit: Ewww (or I should I say Eureka!) I just had a brainwave!, how about using Gas instead of a Liquid or Solid as a fine powder, something like a hyperbaric chamber (the sort deap sea divers use or RAF training facilities), they`re accuracte to fractions of Torr AND it has the advantage of taking the Lungs into account!

that way you get a Much better reading, no one has to die, get wet OR Covered in Custard

[Bluenoise]

Well think of it this way. Assuming your not some serious fat ass...

 

If you let out all the air in your lungs you sink. If you breath in you float. That means that somewhere in between you body density is the same as water density.

 

And since there is no standard on lung inflation for body voluem you can accurately use 1g = 1cm^2. (water density)

 

Its just as accurate as the bathtube water method, as there is no standard on how inflated your lungs have to be for you "true" body volume.

 

ta.

 

Thus unless you have a specific definition for "body" volume the two methods are equivalent in accuracy.

[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.