i actually imediately thought of sticking my head in a bucket full of water and collecting and weighing the water that spilled over.

Thank you Archimedes

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

Kind of disappointing - I mean, it's nice that you can get a general approximation that way, but I was expecting more of a clever technique when they said "best way". I mean, if you're weighing our head, isn't it quite likely you're trying to figure out what its density is? I mean, that's why people do the swimming pool tests for body fat, is to calculate density - you can't very well do that if your weight measurement assumes an averagely dense head.

>> ^EMPIRE:

i actually imediately thought of sticking my head in a bucket full of water and collecting and weighing the water that spilled over.
Thank you Archimedes


You dont collect the displaced water, you just measure the weight of the bucket before and after, split the difference!!

Far easier than trying to scoop up spilt water

>> ^charliem:

>> ^EMPIRE:
i actually imediately thought of sticking my head in a bucket full of water and collecting and weighing the water that spilled over.
Thank you Archimedes

You dont collect the displaced water, you just measure the weight of the bucket before and after, split the difference!!
Far easier than trying to scoop up spilt water


you got me there lol

>> ^EMPIRE:

i actually imediately thought of sticking my head in a bucket full of water and collecting and weighing the water that spilled over.
Thank you Archimedes


I as well knew the answer right off, but I should: I love my Physics so I should also know at least when to use the easiest of some uses...

Yes, there are a few different ways mathematically AND experimentally (although they all deal with displacement) to carry this one out. It's really quite a good one to use one day on a High School physics class if you're a teacher and going through that section.

Believe it or not as long as your chest and knees are on the ground, with your neckline not over the scale and your jawline just a few inches over it then the point of your chin onto the scale it will still get a very close result. This is playing around with the fulcrum of your "head's" weight.

For all I know if you could get a control room that provided an electrical field that penetrated the entire human body you could develop a technique to do it that way as well. By control I mean a structured room that absolutely cancels out all of the electrical field in it when the room is empty or at its controlled state; so the only time that the electrical field appears is when something foreign enters into it. Call it resistance weight measurement or something.

Would this also work if I dunked my head in a bucket full of chocolate sauce?

Because I like that idea better.

Yea, it's not clever if you know what to assume the average density of the human head. That makes the game a whole hell lot easier.

That's like somebody having you guess the amount of jelly beans inside of a jar, but then telling you it's between 346 and 348.

Uh... why can't you just lay your head on a scale?

If it's on a proper angle, like laying your head on a pillow, and you're not putting your body weight or supporting your head in any way, wouldn't that be enough?

But... This method doesn't take into account a difference of bone density or size of mouth and nasal cavity. This would measure a mass, but not weight. Even then, with the inner mouth and nasal cavity, not even that would be correct, unless you did it with your mouth open and sucked water into your nasal cavities, (effectively drowning yourself.)

This was the method I first thought of ass well, but then started to poke holes in the theory before they got to the answer. They are guessing using an "Average density." The number they claim to be the average would be the one factor that eliminates the outcome of getting a true weight.