<table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' border='0' ><tr><td valign='top' style='font: inherit;'>Sense your flying the flats and the radius then it is shorter than it is wide your drawing proves it.<BR><BR>--- On <B>Tue, 7/8/08, Stuart Chale <I><schale@optonline.net></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Stuart Chale <schale@optonline.net><BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Correct Geometry on N<BR>To: atwoodm@paragon-inc.com, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 5:01 PM<BR><BR><PRE>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@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
>
></PRE><PRE>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>