[Icehouse] The original pyramid size formula revealed!

[Pat]

"And now you know ... the REST of the story. Join us next time when Andy
tells us the stories NASA doesn't want us to know."

_pat

On 3/6/07, Andy Looney <andy at looneylabs.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse at lists.looneylabs.com
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.looneylabs.com/pipermail/icehouse/attachments/20070306/42c2ff26/attachment-0001.htm