I'm sure some people have been wondering when I would enter this discussion in earnest. David A. wrote: > So... even though the formulas get you glassy-eyed, which ones > would "reign supreme," if you were to use them to develop > 0-, 4-, 5-, etc-pointers? For my personal amusement, I made some solid wood 5-pointers about 9 years ago. http://www.ee0r.com/proj/icefive.html As I mention in that file, it's my personal belief that the base and height measurements of the pieces increase linearly with point value, and that the pieces get squatter as size increases. This belief is based on the observation that the base and height measurements of the existing pieces increase linearly with point value, and that the pieces get squatter as size increases. This change in aspect ratio may not be visibly apparent, but it is in the specification and it is measurable. 7/32's of an inch (0.21875") may seem like an odd measurement, but 32's of an inch (0.03125") are a reasonable level of precision for engineering. That said, very, *very* few of the pieces I've made are that precise. 1/32" is about the thickness of a band saw blade. I do my best and don't worry too much about it. > it would be cool to get some "official" zero-pointers, How cool would it be? Would it be $5 cool per color? $4? These aren't worth manufacturing, but someone with a band saw could quickly turn a bulk order of Treehouse sets into a pile of 0-pointers. They'd probably wind up at ~$1 *per piece* retail, though. That's a lot of money for such a small pyramid. > Anyhow... thanks a million, If you have the million, I have a band saw. =^> -- Elliott C. "Eeyore" Evans eeyore@xxxxxxxx