Pond volume help

[Meyer Jordan]

The 96" that you derived from counting the tiles corresponds with the greatest width (read length) that the OP originally provided. I would bet the farm that the averaging method as explained in the Penn State link was used when the measurements were taken (see post #27) This is the only way that I have done this (or heard of other contractors using) for all of the 20 years that I was in business. It provides for a quick on-site estimation without draining the customer's pond in order to use a meter.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Here are four (4) additional sites that advocate the averaging method for irregular shaped ponds.

http://www.gardensupermart.com/articles/pond-size-calculations.php

.clearpond.com.au/how-to/online-calculators/pond-volume

http://www.thepondwarehouse.com/pond/pond-calculator.html

guides.sfgate.com/calculate-pond-size-gallons-83514.html

I am sure that there are more.

 

[moby]

Looking back at post #27, the measurement at the back right of the pond as given in the diagram as 1.6, when that's compared to the size of the bench, which 'appears' to seat two persons, it's not a single seater I'm certain, the two items (the 1.6 and the bench) do not relate to each other in any way. Either that bench is for a hobbit, or the 1.6 is yet another anomaly....................

 

[tbendl]

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

Don't knock your superpower.
Mine is working the TV remote in the dark.

 

[Mmathis]

Don't knock your superpower.
Mine is working the TV remote in the dark.

@tbendl LOL! You are so funny! We just got a new TV for the bedroom. Hubby was showing me all the "features" of the remote: it's voice activated; this rocker switch does such n such, but if you hold it this way, it does this...... My response? Can I still used the OLD remote [you know, push the < button to go back, the > button to go forward; the volume "up" or "down" button, etc.]

 

[tbendl]

@tbendl LOL! You are so funny! We just got a new TV for the bedroom. Hubby was showing me all the "features" of the remote: it's voice activated; this rocker switch does such n such, but if you hold it this way, it does this...... My response? Can I still used the OLD remote [you know, push the < button to go back, the > button to go forward; the volume "up" or "down" button, etc.]

Hahaha, my hubby has a voice activated remote too...
It's me.

 

[brokensword]

Don't knock your superpower.
Mine is working the TV remote in the dark.

but can you do it with either hand?

My wife and I fight over who doesn't want the remote since we routinely ff through commercials! That said, apparently my timing is better than hers (unless she's purposefully doing this to make ME do the ff'ing!)

 

[Usman]

just for fun constant 5inch (tile) then x =

 

[moby]

Nice one Usman, I agree, the 1.6 whatever it is, is quoted as a depth anyway and the estimate you have projected above looks good, the bench would now be in proportion given those measurements. Nice size fish he has there too!

This thread gets better every day....I can't wait to log in and see the days instalments and opinions, keep them coming everyone.....we will solve this mystery even if we never hear from the OP again, lol!

OP where are you?

 

[Lisak1]

OP where are you?

Completely weirded out by the number of people who are dissecting his/her pond. Haha!

I agree @moby - this is currently one of my favorite posts to follow!

 

[brokensword]

and since you really can't see the bottom of the 'deepest' part, I'm betting the 3' number is probably in error. I bet its really a lot deeper since the OP was probably using a yardstick and could only estimate once the surface swallowed it up. I mean, if you look closely, real closely, you can almost see the glow coming from what looks like the eyes of a deep sea fish...

 

[Spartamets]

I think that what @Meyer did was take the three sections and make an average from among them. But that yields only a 1/3 of the pond, as we can see by having reduced its length to 3.3 feet instead of 10 feet. The "average" is the "average" 1/3 section of a pond. By multiplying Meyer's result by 3, to bring back the other 2 sections of the pond, you end up with a number much closer to the others. Then we have what @Usman noted was a case of using different methods to arrive at the same result.

 

[Mmathis]

Starting to wonder if the OP is a troll. Just saying.....

 

[Meyer Jordan]

I think that what @Meyer did was take the three sections and make an average from among them. But that yields only a 1/3 of the pond, as we can see by having reduced its length to 3.3 feet instead of 10 feet. The "average" is the "average" 1/3 section of a pond. By multiplying Meyer's result by 3, to bring back the other 2 sections of the pond, you end up with a number much closer to the others. Then we have what @Usman noted was a case of using different methods to arrive at the same result.

No, I did not take these measurements to be of 'sections' of this pond, but rather 'x' measurements at differing points along the 'y' axis and vice-versa ('y' measurements along the 'x' axis) much as Penn State describes

 

[Usman]

i think this is the explanation of it , an example how taking avg bluntly will effect the actual volume in some cases . here just by 2 inch area which is 2ft , its changing width of 100 ft which is over 20ft as its not taken in to consideration , what percentage of the total is 2ft width ie less then 1% of total but still we are trimming the 99% from the total

now if u remove this 2 inch or separate these 2 rounded squares , the width will reach 22 ft just by removing 2 inch and volume wil have drastic difference which is not logical .