> 3. I would bet that the Height(3)-Height(2)=Height(2)-Height(1) and
> Base(3)-Base(2)=Base(2)-Base(1) were intentional relationships.

`If intentional, it was only intuitively so, at least at first. The smalls
``are almost exactly the same size and shape as these 1-ounce lead fishing
``weights I got in the late eighties, which formed prototype #1. The other
``sizes started out arbitrarily bigger. The 3-ounce fishing weights weren't
``big enough so Larges got bigger during the first few prototypes until they
``"felt right."
`

Nah, I don't think so. I suspect that the Small Height = Large Base and
the (arbitrary?) Height = 7/4 Base was enough.

`Actually, Small Height = Large Base was something we just noticed one day.
``Sometimes things just work out magically, like the fact that 2 smalls
``stacked are exactly as tall as a medium. That wasn't planned, it worked out
``that way because of the wall thickness. The wall thickness was chosen to be
``as thick as possible and still allow the pyramids to nest.
`

Out of curiosity, does Andy get some perverse pleasure from watching
us speculate about this trivia? Or is he utterly unaware that this
is a repeating point of debate and contention?

`Sorry I guess I didn't realize this was keeping people up at night... I
``have a hard time keeping up with all the email, and I was thinking you-all
``were just having fun yammering about equations that make my eyes glaze
``over...
`

Yeah, I'm calling you out, bub! Pick one of those above, indefensible
reasons for not telling us what the deal is; or spill it, Andy! ;)

`OK, having been called out, I've dug into the oldest of files to uncover a
``document vital to this conversation. It's called "An Odd Letter From Kit To
``John," and it's dated 8 March 1990. Wow how time flies.
`

`This is an amazing 5-page letter filled with hand-drawn diagrams and graphs
``and charts and equations. Perhaps later I'll scan in and post the whole
``thing. Here's how it begins:
`

`"John: Since a few days after I got my Icehouse set, I've been wondering
``what was on your mind as you determined piece size. I've come to the
``conclusion that a small man on crutches helped you -- and he held one
``crutch in his mouth and one under his arm and he computed pyramid size."
`

`Now, remember, this was in 1990. The set he was evaluating was one of the
``original 100 hand-poured plastic sets, not the factory-made stackable
``beauties we sell now. The original pieces had Larges and Smalls that were
``very close to the current standard, but the Mediums were too big.
`

`The conclusion of Kit Cooper's memo is a set of recommendations for what he
``thought we were after, and his calculations set the standard we now use. He
``writes:
`

`"Of course, it is obvious that possibility (2),(C) is the correct choice.
``Not only do the pyramid Base Size and Face Height vary with a neat
``equation: BS = 4 / 7 FH = (4 + (2 ^ (PointValue - 1)) / 8, but the pyramids
``are similar too."
`

`So there you go, the formula we used. I hope this clears things up. Sorry
``about the angst.
`
-- Andy