Kong’s weight-

1933—Stop-motion pioneer Willis O’Brien, who brought the giant gorilla to life, once guessed
Kong’s weight at a rather excessive 38 tons.
2005—8,000 pounds
In the 1933 movie, Kong was about 20 feet tall. In the
2005 version, he was 25 feet tall. Does the data on the
weight of Kong make sense for these heights? Explain.

makes sense.

Weight (mass) is a function of volume and volume of two similar shapes is directly proportional with the cubes of the sides.

Assuming the two gorillas were similar in shape, and assuming that the 2005 data was more accurate, then
weight33/weight05 = height33^3/height05^3
weight33/8000 = 20^3/25^3
weight33 = 4096 pounds

(did they use the 2005 data by using the data from a normal gorilla?

Wikipedia says adult males range in height from 165-175 cm (5 ft 5 in – 5 ft 9 in), and in weight from 140–204.5 kg (310–450 lb)
let's say today's gorilla is 5.5 feet tall and weighs 380 pounds

is 380/4096 = 5.5^3/25^3 ?
LS = .0928
RS = .0106 WAY OFF )

I meant to say

Makes NO sense,

as shown in the calculation.

To determine if the given data on Kong's weight makes sense for the given heights, we need to consider the relationship between an animal's weight and its height.

Typically, larger animals tend to be heavier relative to their height, as they require more mass to support their size. This relationship is observed in many species. However, it is important to note that the ratio of weight to height can vary depending on the animal's build, body structure, and other factors.

Let's compare the two versions of King Kong:

1. 1933 Version:
- Height: 20 feet
- Weight: Estimated at 38 tons (76,000 pounds)

To determine if this weight makes sense, we can use an approximate ratio between height and weight for a reference animal. Let's consider a real-life example of a large primate, like a male silverback gorilla:

- Average Silverback Gorilla:
- Height: Approximately 5.6 feet
- Weight: Approximately 400 pounds

Based on this rough comparison, we can calculate the weight-to-height ratio for the gorilla: 400 pounds / 5.6 feet ≈ 71.43 pounds per foot.

Now, let's apply this ratio to Kong's height of 20 feet: 71.43 pounds per foot × 20 feet = 1,428.6 pounds.

Comparing this calculated weight (1,428.6 pounds) to the estimated weight given (76,000 pounds), it becomes clear that the given weight for the 1933 version of Kong does not correspond to a realistic weight-to-height ratio, as it is significantly higher than expected.

2. 2005 Version:
- Height: 25 feet
- Weight: 8,000 pounds

Using the same weight-to-height ratio (71.43 pounds per foot) as before, let's calculate the expected weight for a 25-foot animal: 71.43 pounds per foot × 25 feet = 1,785.75 pounds.

Comparing this calculated weight (1,785.75 pounds) to the given weight (8,000 pounds), we find that the weight for the 2005 version of Kong also deviates significantly from a realistic weight-to-height ratio. It is far heavier than expected.

In conclusion, neither the estimated weight for the 1933 version (38 tons) nor the given weight for the 2005 version (8,000 pounds) aligns with a realistic weight-to-height ratio for a large primate species. Therefore, the data on Kong's weight does not make sense for these heights.