Pond volume help

[Lisak1]

You guys are a bunch of math nerds! My talent lies in deciding how big of a container I need to store leftovers! haha!

 

[Mmathis]

The result of any method of volume calculation for an irregularly shaped pond will, at best, only be a guesstimate for general use. A more accurate determination should be done with a water meter before any dosing of medication should be attempted.

That's my answer, as well (as stated in an earlier post)......get a water meter!

And to those following along.....I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to figure out which measurements go where, LOL!

 

[Jimmy Gibson]

That's my answer, as well (as stated in an earlier post)......get a water meter!

And to those following along.....I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to figure out which measurements go where, LOL!

This is how I did mine

 

[Mmathis]

View attachment 99175 View attachment 99176
This is how I did mine

I got a digital one.

 

[Jimmy Gibson]

I got a digital one.

When I filled up the pond the first time took a picture of my city water meter before and after..... Started up the pump and filled all the filters, then took the pictures to our local water utility to see how many gallons.... It was 2,998 gallons..... So I say I have a 3000 gallon pond

 

[moby]

According to what the OP has said in the measurements they quoted, the depth of the first measurement appears to me to be 0.1 feet. That is what I see...however, it's been taken it as 1 foot depth....which would obviously make a lot more sense for any pond, but that isn't what's written as " are not used, only ', so we can only assume it means a decimal measurement, and not one given in ' & ". We could do with clarification as mentioned above by TMommy. I think the pond has a greater volume than 260US galls...whatever they are! I did make sure I used the US formula of 7.48g/cu ft though it comes out at 943USg.....

I see the measurements given to represent the diagram as shown in reply #17 by Usman, better still if Usman could flip nos 2 and 3 to represent the three sets of dimensions quoted by the OP? However this method of recording these 3 sections is flawed due to the part with the deep hole not being recorded accurately.
Maybe a more accurate way would be for the OP to remeasure and quote 4 areas for us this time as follows....giving averages where necessary....working from left to right....
Section 1 the shallowest part, section 2 but using the same depth as section 1, section 3 which is the second deepest part, and an additional measurement lying underneath section 3 and numbered section 4 which would measure the dimensions of the actual 'sink-hole' for want of a better description of the deep bit. That's how I would do it anyway!

 

[Mmathis]

@Cam, are you still following?

 

[Usman]

its like this how i get it , lol every one perceiving it differently , if this makes sense to u , but it dsnt make difference how we take it , once measurements are given so answer shud b same

 

[Usman]

... I think the pond has a greater volume than 260US galls...whatever they are! I did make sure I used the US formula of 7.48g/cu ft though it comes out at 943USg.....
!

mine came very much same 952 but i didnt consider that shallow shelf we see that wud reduce 200 around gallons at most , from the measurements given its accurate . as we have all the necessary aprox measurements so we will not take avg here . if there were no specific 3 dimensions then we wud consider it as curve and take avg to calculate it , so from dimensions given above it will b considered 3 rectangles with 3 measurements
if there were no measurement ,just by looking at the pond i wud have said 700 to 1000

 

[Usman]

An initial translation of the OP's measurements needs to be done first. It is obvious that the Length and Width measurements are flip-flopped. Width may be equal to but not greater than length.

This is how I assumed that the horizontal measurements were taken.
View attachment 99170

uncle we r in different worlds lol totally took question differently thats why we were not getting each other at all but ur visuals are not supporting the measurements some how if u see 8 ft then 5 ft very little difference then 1.6 looks too long ok may b im wrong , lets see , see my interpretation above

 

[moby]

He-he this is really causing some head scratching isn't it! I've since been to bed and slept on it, I still think the same. Usman, that's exactly as I saw the measurements, but we don't know if 1.6 is a decimal or does it mean 1 ft 6 inches? Anyway, I read them thus...

5x2x0.1=1
5x8x1.6=64
3x6.9x3=62.1
1+64+62.1=127.1x7.48=950 US gallons, sorry I didn't allow for the 1 in my previous effort at calculating :-( I was never very good at maths, and still aren't it would appear!

If that 0.1 is taken as 1.0 then the total would then be 136.1x7.48=1018 US gallons.

However, both are innacurate as it assumes the whole of the middle section is 3' deep, it isn't, so until we know more from the OP we're all stumped!

I would say that it's one of the most oddly shaped ponds I've seen, not to say that it won't work, or that it's better or worse than mine, I don't know, but I wonder why the shallow parts are so shallow with an abyss section that would have been far better spreading over a lot more of the pond floor? Maybe there was a reason why it was formed in this way, hard rock for e.g?

Hope the OP will get back to us and furnish us with some more info. I don't see this (thread) as an argument and hope it doesn't come over as that, I'm sure that's not anyone's intention

 

[Mmathis]

LOL! I have to admit that I'm having WAY too much fun, here! So, do we all agree that.....I need to get a life, LOL!

Sorry, @Cam, no disrespect intended, but you have presented us with a mystery to solve. And you're either sitting back, having a good laugh, or you've moved on.

Wish I had the photo-enhancement technology I see on my favorite forensic-oriented TV shows, which of course is dependent on the quality of the picture (though, to watch NCIS, Abby & Magee can perform miracles on even the most out-of-focus/grainy pic....yeah, right!).

I tried my best to pick out details that might help, but again, that darkness in the central section -- just can't tell if it's a shadow or a deep area. Judging by the curvature of the liner on that section, it looks more depression than liner (IMHO). Also, there does seem to be a shelf -- look along the back and right edges (I've drawn it in), but it appears to be above water level. And the overall length is around 8'. Oh, and there is a fountain head (left end). There's something that might be a skimmer....it's at water level, so doubt it's a waterfall.

Anyway, ignore (or embrace) my obsession......and enjoy my photo-edits!

 

[Lisak1]

When I looked at the photo, I thought that center section dropped way down, too. It's a unique pond style, if that's the case! I also wondered if it was a hot tub that was converted to a pond, based on it's location so close to the pool.

 

[Mmathis]

When I looked at the photo, I thought that center section dropped way down, too. It's a unique pond style, if that's the case! I also wondered if it was a hot tub that was converted to a pond, based on it's location so close to the pool.

Oh, excellent point! I hadn't thought about that, but it does make sense.

 

[moby]

Lisa/TurtleMommy, yes, the dark section is the 3ft deep part of that I'm certain....it's the abyss! On your enhanced pics there does appear to be turbulence at the back edge, far right....and also maybe back edge on the left also as there seems to be a narrow spillway of some kind, from a circulating/filtering pump somewhere? Then there's the mysterious projection far left....a fountain head, it may well be!

As I said, it's a most unusual concept for any pond.

OP where are you, the suspense is affecting us badly?