Well, the largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1956. This male weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb),[3] with a shoulder height of 4.2 m (13.8 ft), so if you figure that your talking about something almost 5 times the size, requiring a much greater mass of muscle simply to move, you’d have to figure at least 5 times that weight if not more. I’d say around 60-80 tons…..
The ration would be directly proportional because he'd have to be so dense just to hold himself up.
2007-11-08 03:52:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by rayb1214 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Ignoramus has the right idea - if you scale up an object by a factor of 10, it is going to weigh 10^3 (1000) times as much. However, you typically can't just scale a structure directly, because the more massive structure requires stronger support, and while mass goes up with the cube of the size, bearing strength is proportional to cross-sectional area and only goes up with the square. That is why an elephant's legs are so massive. So a 64 foot cyclops would be considerably beefier than a 6.4 foot man. I'd take that 110 tons and multiply it by at least 1.5; maybe 2.
2007-11-08 13:05:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by injanier 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The weight will vary with the cube of the height. This is to say that if a 3 foot person becomes a 6 foot person, the weight does not double. It goes up about 8 times. Let's say 25 pounds to 200 pounds.
Therefore if we assume that a 6 foot 5 inch man weighs about 220 pounds, then one who is 10 times taller (64 feet) will weigh 10x10x10 = 1000 x 220 = 220,000 pounds. This is about 110 tons! To be extra accurate subtract about 25 pounds for the fact that he has one eye. Assume it is now 10 inches in diameter so the V= 4/3 x Pi^3.
2007-11-08 11:48:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by ignoramus 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you assume a spherical Cyclops with a radius of 32 ft and the density of water...
Density of water at room temperature is about... 62 lbs per cubic feet.
Volume of a sphere is 4/3* pi* R^3
Mass = Density*Volume
So get about umm 8,510,013 lbs. But a cyclops isn't exactly a sphere either, but spheres are easier to calculate. I guess you can toss in an error factor of around 2-3. Still quite massive.
But if you look at how much a big Brontosaurus weighed, it was about 35 tons for 70 ft monster, so I guess that would work too.
2007-11-08 17:20:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Vicente 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
About as much as a 64 foot wolverine
2007-11-08 11:44:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by John Bob Bryant III 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'm going with 2,700 lbs.
He looks like the same proportions as a 270lb, 6'4" man. He's just 10x bigger.
2007-11-08 11:47:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Go Girl 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Assuming my weight to height ratio:
5'10": 185 pounds
64' would be approx 2030 pounds.
2007-11-08 11:46:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by p_rutherford2003 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
around 12 tons
2007-11-08 11:45:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
APROX. 1,599 LBS
GIVE OR TAKE 200 LBS
2007-11-08 11:44:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋