Yeah. Here's what I came up with:
Pip Width Height Giant-W Giant-H
0 0.34375 0.625 2.75 5
1 0.5625 1 4.5 8
2 0.78125 1.375 6.25 11
3 1 1.75 8 14
4 1.21875 2.125 9.75 17
5 1.4375 2.5 11.5 20
6 1.65625 2.875 13.25 23
7 1.875 3.25 15 26
8 2.09375 3.625 16.75 29
9 2.3125 4 18.5 32
I hope this comes through with some semblance of structure...
On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 03:04PM, <kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>From: "Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Each step is 3/8ths of an inch taller and approximately 7/32nds wider
>> (actually 3/14ths, but good luck finding that on your ruler), so a six
>> pip would be 2 1/8" tall and 1 21/32" wide. Approximately. (Actually
>> 1 9/14")
>
>3/14??? Let's try that again?
>
>Pips / Width / Height
>1 / 18/32 / 32/32
>2 / 25/32 / 44/32
>3 / 32/32 / 56/32
>
>Therefore...
>4 / 39/32 / 68/32
>5 / 46/32 / 80/32
>6 / 53/32 / 92/32 which is indeed 1 21/32 wide, but I'd say 2 7/8 tall.
>
>In general...
>x / (7x+11)/32 / (12x+20)/32
>
>From: Christopher Hickman <tophu@xxxxxxx>
>> > And I think that IS linear growth, pretty much by definition.
>>
>> Yeah. You're right. I realize now what I thought I meant: the angles are not
>> constant. As the pyramids get bigger, the get more squat (that is, the linear
>> growth of the base width is a larger ratio to the linear growth of the height).
>> So, if you were to take a hypothetical 10 pointer and cut of the top 1 inch of
>> the tip, it would NOT be a 1 pointer, because it would be waaaay too wide.
>
>Using the linear progression we've discovered, a -11/7 pip pyramid would have zero width and a height of 8/224 of an inch (0.03(571428)"). :-)
>
>Ryan
>_______________________________________________
>Icehouse mailing list
>Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>
>