-- BEGIN included message
- To: "McAlpine, Duncan G" <D*@PSS.Boeing.com>
- Subject: Re: Estimate Table
- From: "* R* H* W* <n*@ideasign.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:50:56 -0500
- References: <E1B236602CA5D011B7CF00805FFE9ADE4FA254@xch-sea-08.ca.boeing.com>
McAlpine, Duncan G wrote: > > per the mailing list archives using the word weight > http://www.mallorn.com/lists/pumpkins/search.cgi > It is easy...try it. > > ESTIMATING WEIGHT OF GIANT PUMPKINS > > The best way to estimate (accent on the word estimate) the weight > of giant > pumpkins is the over-the-top method and using the table presented > by Len > Stellpflug of Rush, NY. Competitive growers, including the > Ottawa-St. > Lawrence Growers, pretty much all use it. When comparing pumpkins > rather > than say the estimated weight, we often give the over-the-top > measurements > ie "Tim's pumpkin measures 306 inches" instead of "weighs an > estimated 576 > lbs." > > Dan Gardner now has a copy of this table and the notes that go with > it and > he is going to Email it out to all of us in the immediate future. > We do > not have the computer support equipment to put it out from this > end. > > You should measure at least the circumference of your chosen fruit > every > day, hopefully at the same time. It should show increased value > every day. > Do the 3-way over-the-top measurements irregularly. If the > measurements > don't increase, you have a problem - your pumpkin has stopped > growing. > > For Bill and Cecilie in Owen Sound - there really is no average > specific > gravity for a giant pumpkin. You can never be sure of the > thickness of the > walls and the size of the cavity. > > All the best! > > Gus > > Scanned text of information submitted via fax by Gus Saunders on > 8/13/96.... > > OTTAWA-ST.LAWRENCE GROWERS > c/o FARMER GUS's > 7930 Bleeks Rd., RR 2, Ashton, Ontario KOA 1 BO > Telephone (613) 838-5435 > FAX (613) 838-2088 > ESTIMATING WEIGHT OF GIANT PUMPKINS AND SQUASH > by Leonard Stellpflug > > Since the tables for estimating weight of GIANT Pumpkins and Squash > were > published in 1991, I collected measurements for most of the largest > fruit. > > The best estimates are with the OVER-THE-TOP method. This requires > adding > Circumference to the ground-to-ground over-the-top measurements in > both > directions. Enter Table 1 with the total INCHES to obtain the > estimated > weight in POUNDS. Bob Marcellus used his computer and obtained the > following formula which fits the data as good as any curve I could > draw > thni the data: > > 2.76 > Weight (pounds) = 0.0000795 x (inches) > > Table 2 gives estimates using only the Circumference (C) > measurement. This > method does not give good estimates for unusually high, low, long > or short > fruit. I find it useful to determine weight increases from > day-to-day as I > only do over-top measurements every 2 to 3 weeks. > > My previous theoretical formula begins to over-estimate in the 650 > to 700 > pound range. I could not adequately adjust the formula. Table 2 is > from my > best-fit formula of the historical data and is: > > 2.85 > Weight (pounds) = 0.000445C + 15 > > The Circumference measurement is the largest circumference taken > parallel > to the ground at approximately the stem-blossom level. The Over-Top > measurements are from ground4o-ground in both directions over the > highest > point of the fruit. The measurement must be taken straight down > from the > edges of the fruit. DO NOT follow the contour of the fruit to the > ground. > > To illustrate the reliability of the estimates I used measurements > for the > 20 largest truft I have data for from 92, 93 and 94 (772 to 990 > pounds). > Both methods had 1 0 over and 1 0 under estimates. The estimates > deviated > from actual weight as follows: > > Accuracy Range Table 1 Table 2 > (+-) (over the top) (Circumference) > 0 to 5% 55% 20% > 5 to 10% 40% 35% > 10 to 15% 5% 20% > > The largest deviation was 13.9% with Table 1 and 29.3% with Table > 2. > > >From fruit-to-fruit the major variable is average wall thickness. > I > challenge someone to invent a simple device (similar to a Stud > finder, > hardness tester, etc.) for estimating pumpkin wall thickness. Then > we could > develop a set of curves for various wall thicknesses. > > I encourage each weighoff site to assign'someone to measure as many > truft > as time permits. Send me the data and I will issue revised tables > when > sary. Leonard B. Stellpflug, 1925 Middle Road, Rush, NY, 14543 > > This chart was not updated after the 1995 Weighoff but will be in > December '96. > > PUMPKIN WEIGHT ESTIMATES > > Leonard Stellpflug (December, 1994) > TABLE 1: OVER-THE-TOP SUR LE DESSUS > INCHES LBS POUNCE LBS > 142 69 | 194 164 | 246 316 | 298 536 | 350 836 > 144 72 | 196 169 | 248 323 | 300 546 | 352 849 > 146 75 | 198 173 | 250 330 | 302 556 | 354 862 > 148 78 | 200 178 | 252 337 | 304 566 | 356 875 > 150 81 | 202 183 | 254 345 | 306 576 | 358 889 > 152 84 | 204 188 | 256 352 | 308 587 | 360 903 > 154 87 | 206 193 | 258 360 | 310 598 | 362 917 > 156 90 | 208 198 | 260 368 | 312 608 | 364 931 > 158 93 | 210 204 | 262 376 | 314 619 | 366 945 > 160 96 | 212 209 | 264 384 | 316 630 | 368 960 > 162 99 | 214 215 | 266 392 | 318 641 | 370 974 > 164 102 | 216 220 | 268 400 | 320 652 | 372 989 > 166 106 | 218 226 | 270 408 | 322 664 | 374 1003 > 168 110 | 220 232 | 272 417 | 324 675 | 376 1018 > 170 114 | 222 238 | 274 425 | 326 687 | 378 1033 > 172 118 | 224 244 | 276 434 | 328 698 | 380 1048 > 174 121 | 226 250 | 278 442 | 330 710 | 382 1063 > 176 125 | 228 256 | 280 451 | 332 722 | 384 1079 > 178 129 | 230 262 | 282 460 | 334 734 | 386 1095 > 180 133 | 232 269 | 284 469 | 336 746 | 388 1111 > 182 137 | 234 275 | 286 479 | 338 759 | 390 1127 > 184 141 | 236 282 | 288 488 | 340 771 | 392 1143 > 186 146 | 238 288 | 290 497 | 342 784 | 394 1159 > 188 150 | 240 295 | 292 507 | 344 797 | 396 1175 > 190 155 | 242 302 | 294 516 | 346 810 | 398 1191 > 192 159 | 244 309 | 296 526 | 348 823 | 400 1208 > > TABLE 2: CIRCUMFERENCE CIRCONFERENCE > INCHES LBS POUNCE LBS > 61 70 | 85 155 | 109 300 | 133 518 | 157 821 > 62 72 | 86 160 | 110 307 | 134 529 | 158 836 > 63 74 | 87 165 | 111 315 | 135 540 | 159 851 > 64 77 | 88 170 | 112 323 | 136 551 | 160 866 > 65 80 | 89 175 | 113 331 | 137 562 | 161 881 > 66 83 | 90 180 | 114 339 | 138 573 | 162 897 > 67 86 | 91 185 | 115 347 | 139 585 | 163 913 > 68 89 | 92 190 | 116 355 | 140 597 | 164 929 > 69 92 | 93 196 | 117 363 | 141 609 | 165 945 > 70 95 | 94 202 | 118 372 | 142 621 | 166 961 > 71 98 | 95 208 | 119 381 | 143 633 | 167 977 > 72 101 | 96 214 | 120 390 | 144 645 | 168 993 > 73 105 | 97 220 | 121 399 | 145 658 | 169 1010 > 74 109 | 98 226 | 122 408 | 146 671 | 170 1027 > 75 113 | 99 232 | 123 417 | 147 684 | 171 1044 > 76 117 | 100 238 | 124 426 | 148 697 | 172 1061 > 77 121 | 101 244 | 125 436 | 149 710 | 173 1078 > 78 125 | 102 251 | 126 446 | 150 723 | 174 1096 > 79 129 | 103 258 | 127 456 | 151 737 | 175 1114 > 80 133 | 104 265 | 128 466 | 152 751 | 176 1132 > 81 137 | 105 272 | 129 476 | 153 765 | 177 1150 > 82 141 | 106 279 | 130 486 | 154 779 | 178 1168 > 83 145 | 107 286 | 131 496 | 155 793 | 179 1187 > 84 150 | 108 293 | 132 507 | 156 807 | 180 1206 > > Duncan McAlpine ------ The circumference-only formula is incorrect as listed above and will not result in the values listed on the table. To get the values on the table the following formula must be used: Weight (pounds) = 0.000445*(C^2.85)+15 Regards, Chris Wilbers Sioux Falls, SD
-- END included message