> (*cought*1.75, a.k.a. 7/4*cough*) Yeah, right. Same ratio. BUT... I haven't seen anyone else derive the Base from the previous piece's Base. That's where I think all these other formulas go wrong: they are looking for a consistent formula for any given pip count X, but I do not think that is how they were originally invented. But by going *just* on what's been published about dimensions for 1, 2, and 3 pips, and suspecting that the 1 Height = 3 Base is the *only* intentional relationship; I think Base(x) = Base(x-1) + 0.21875 is the best way to figure any other sizes. >From a spreadsheet: Pips Base Height -2 -0.0938 -0.1641 * Hence, nothing below neg1 is possible -1 0.1250 0.2188 * Less than 1/4" x 1/8": bring tweezers! 0 0.3438 0.6016 1 0.5625 1.0000 2 0.7813 1.3750 3 1.0000 1.7500 4 1.2188 2.1328 5 1.4375 2.5156 6 1.6563 2.8984 7 1.8750 3.2813 8 2.0938 3.6641 9 2.3125 4.0469 10 2.5313 4.4297 11 2.7500 4.8125 12 2.9688 5.1953 13 3.1875 5.5781 14 3.4063 5.9609 15 3.6250 6.3438 16 3.8438 6.7266 17 4.0625 7.1094 18 4.2813 7.4922 19 4.5000 7.8750 20 4.7188 8.2578 21 4.9375 8.6406 22 5.1563 9.0234 23 5.3750 9.4063 24 5.5938 9.7891 25 5.8125 10.1719 26 6.0313 10.5547 27 6.2500 10.9375 28 6.4688 11.3203 29 6.6875 11.7031 30 6.9063 12.0859 It's interesting how few of the extended dimensions actually hit on "round" numbers--a TON of them have to be resolved to 64ths or higher denominator fractions.... Are we done, yet? ;) David