It is an isosceles triangle and would look like a cone shape on graph paper
You can't find the exact area of of most shapes with a grid, but you can get a pretty good approximation with the following method: 1) Count the number of squares completely inside the shape. Let's call this number X. 2) Count the number of squares that are partially inside the shape (squares with the shape's outline passing through them). We'll call this number Y. 3) A = X + 0.5Y The answer is in squares, so you need to know the grid spacing if you want to convert to inches or something. Remember, this isn't exact. The smaller the squares, the better the results. If you need to be really accurate, try the following: 4) Repeat steps 1 - 3 for a bunch of different grid sizes (e.g. 1", 0.5", 0.25". 0.125", etc.). 5) Graph the results from step 4 as Area vs. Grid Size. 6) Draw an approximate curve through the points you graphed, and estimate the asymptote as Grid Size approaches infinity. Carefully cut out the figure and mass it on a good balance. Cut out a square or rectangle of about the same size as the figure from the same grid paper and carefully mass it on the balance. You can then calculate the mass per grid square or mass per unit area. Divide the mass of the figure by mass per unit area and you have the area.
The area of a 12 by 7 grid is 84.
You multiply the height by the length.
Multiply the two dimensions to get the area. The calculation will give you 12 square units.
There are different methods to work out the exact areas for different shapes. These work for regular shapes or ones that can be built up from regular shapes (such as a rectangle with a semicircle sitting on top). It is usually not possible to work out the exact area of an irregular shape but should be possible to estimate areas of any 2-d shape. One method is given below: Mark the shape out on a grid (a sheet of paper with squares marked out on it). Count all squares where more than half the square is inside your 2-d shape = X. Count the number of squares where (about) half is inside your shape = Y. Ignore all squares where less than half is inside your shape. Then X + Y/2 will be a good estimate of the area of your shape. The smaller the squares in the grid, the more accurate the estimate but also, the greater the number of squares that will have to be counted.
It depends on the shape of the surface. For some shapes - a circle, ellipse, regular polygon, for example - there are formulae that will enable you to calculate the area with a few measurements. Some more complex shapes can be broken down into the above shapes. So if you have a shape like a child's silhouette of a house, you can add the area of the rectangle (building) and the triangle (roof). And another small rectangle, if there is a chimney! For very irregular shapes, there are two main options. One is to mark the shape out on a regular grid (a graph paper). Count the number of grid squares where half or more is inside the shape, ignore all that are at least half outside the shape. This should give a reasonable estimate of the area. The finer the grid on the graph paper, the more accurate your answer, but also, the more squares you will have to count. Alternatively, you can weigh the shape (or a copy). Then cut and weigh a unit square (or copy). A comparison of the two weights should enable you to scale the area of the unit square up to the area of the shape.
A
area distance shape direction scale
There is no easy way, but here are some suggestions: (a) It may be possible to divide the irregular shape into regular parts and the area of each part can be calculated. (b) Copy the irregular shape onto a sheet of paper marked with a square grid (eg a graph paper). Count the number of squares such that at least half the square is in the object's outline. Ignore all other squares. Multiply your count by the area of a grid square. This will be an approximation to the area of the irregualr object. The finer the grid, the more accurate your estimated area but also the greater the effort involved in counting all the squares. You can draw the shape online at www.sketch n calc.com it will give you the area and perimeter of your object and it's a free calculator
centimeter grid paper is a grid paper having many square boxes each of 1 cm.
To find the perimeter and areas of complex shape without a grid you should divide the shape into simple shapes and find the area of each shape alone and then add up the areas all together to get the area of the whole shape. Example: If there is a shape that can be divided into 2 triangles and 1 rectangle then you will find the area of each triangle alone and then the area of the rectangle then add up all the areas together.
It is an isosceles triangle and would look like a cone shape on graph paper
I do not believe that it can be done. You can get an estimate using either of the following methods:Uniform Lamina: Copy the shape onto a sheet (lamina) of material with uniform density. Cut the shape out carefully and measure its mass (or weight). Do the same for a unit square of the lamina. Then, because the lamina is of uniform density, the ratio of the two areas is the same as the ratio of the two masses. That is: Area of Shape/Area of Unit Square = Mass of Shape/Mass of Unit Square. Rearranging, and noting that the area of the Unit Square is, by definition, = 1 sq unit Area of Shape = Mass of Shape/Mass of Unit Square. Grid Method: Copy the shape onto a grid, where each grid square has an area of G square units. Count the number of squares that are fully or mostly inside the shape. Call this number W (for whole). Count the number of squares that are approximately half inside the shape and call this number H (for half). Ignore any square that are less than half in the shape. Then a reasonable estimate of the area of the shape is G*[W + H/2] square units. There is some arbitrariness about “mostly inside†and “approximately half†but there is no way around that. You will get more accurate results with finer grids, but they will also require much more effort in terms of counting the grid squares.
You can't find the exact area of of most shapes with a grid, but you can get a pretty good approximation with the following method: 1) Count the number of squares completely inside the shape. Let's call this number X. 2) Count the number of squares that are partially inside the shape (squares with the shape's outline passing through them). We'll call this number Y. 3) A = X + 0.5Y The answer is in squares, so you need to know the grid spacing if you want to convert to inches or something. Remember, this isn't exact. The smaller the squares, the better the results. If you need to be really accurate, try the following: 4) Repeat steps 1 - 3 for a bunch of different grid sizes (e.g. 1", 0.5", 0.25". 0.125", etc.). 5) Graph the results from step 4 as Area vs. Grid Size. 6) Draw an approximate curve through the points you graphed, and estimate the asymptote as Grid Size approaches infinity. Carefully cut out the figure and mass it on a good balance. Cut out a square or rectangle of about the same size as the figure from the same grid paper and carefully mass it on the balance. You can then calculate the mass per grid square or mass per unit area. Divide the mass of the figure by mass per unit area and you have the area.
Square footage is a measure of area. There are formulae for some simple shapes but for more complicated shapes there are essentially two options: you can either use uniform laminae and mass or estimate the area using grids. Uniform Lamina: Copy the shape onto a sheet (lamina) of material with uniform density. Cut the shape out carefully and measure its mass (or weight). Do the same for a unit square of the lamina. Then, because the lamina is of uniform density, the ratio of the two areas is the same as the ratio of the two masses. That is: Area of Shape/Area of Unit Square = Mass of Shape/Mass of Unit Square. Rearranging, and noting that the area of the Unit Square is, by definition, = 1 sq unit Area of Shape = Mass of Shape/Mass of Unit Square. Grid Method: Copy the shape onto a grid, where each grid square has an area of G square units. Count the number of squares that are fully or mostly inside the shape. Call this number W (for whole). Count the number of squares that are approximately half inside the shape and call this number H (for half). Ignore any square that are less than half in the shape. Then a reasonable estimate of the area of the shape is G*[W + H/2] square units. There is some arbitrariness about “mostly inside†and “approximately half†but there is no way around that. You will get more accurate results with finer grids, but they will also require much more effort in terms of counting the grid squares.
The answer depends on the nature of the complex shape. Some complex shapes can be decomposed into smaller shapes whose areas can be determined using standard formulae. It is then simply a question of adding the parts together. For more complicated shapes, there are essentially two options: you can either use uniform laminae and mass or estimate the area using grids. Uniform Lamina: Copy the shape onto a sheet (lamina) of material with uniform density. Cut the shape out carefully and measure its mass (or weight). Do the same for a unit square of the lamina. Then, because the lamina is of uniform density, the ratio of the two areas is the same as the ratio of the two masses. That is: Area of Shape/Area of Unit Square = Mass of Shape/Mass of Unit Square. Rearranging, and noting that the area of the Unit Square is, by definition, = 1 sq unit Area of Shape = Mass of Shape/Mass of Unit Square. Grid Method: Copy the shape onto a grid, where each grid square has an area of G square units. Count the number of squares that are fully or mostly inside the shape. Call this number W (for whole). Count the number of squares that are approximately half inside the shape and call this number H (for half). Ignore any square that are less than half in the shape. Then a reasonable estimate of the area of the shape is G*[W + H/2] square units. There is some arbitrariness about “mostly inside” and “approximately half” but there is no way around that. You will get more accurate results with finer grids, but they will also require much more effort in terms of counting the grid squares.