[NSRCA-discussion] Correct Geometry on N

[Steven Maxwell]

Sense your flying the flats and the radius then it is shorter than it is wide your drawing proves it.

--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net> wrote:

From: Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Correct Geometry on N
To: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 5:01 PM

OK lets see if this works.
In the attached drawing there is a hexagon with sharp corners.  Drawn 
symmetrically.  Superimposed is the same 6 sided figure with radiused 
corners.   Around this one is a circle just touching each radius.  The 
figure is equally tall as it is wide.

Stuart

atwoodm at paragon-inc.com wrote:
> I gotta go with Richard on this. The length of sides of a 30/60/90
triangle are X(short side), 2X (hypotenuse), X * square root of 3 (medium
side).  If we make X = 1 then the height of the hexagon  will always be 3.46 
but the width will very as the side "points" are trimmed by the
increasing radius.  With zero radius, the width in my example would be 4 (thus
richards 1.15 ratio).  As the radius grows the width narrows. 
>
> Does someone with Cad want to draw this up?
>
> Its somewhat irrelevant. If the angles are correct, and there's
symmetry, and equal line lengths, the actual shape will be correct regardless
of "roundness"
>
>  
> Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel
>
>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080708/95820ace/attachment-0001.html>