Date: 6/24/1998, 7:09 pm
Ignore the titles of the messages in the thread, As Tor-Henrik suggests. I prefer to start at the place in the thread that I gave in the previous (earlier today) post.
There was a logic glitch at one point (my fault), and the link below shows it.
> Link below shows part of an old thread on the topic of scaling.
> Read it carefully before starting. (Nevermind the subject of the first
> postings, it is about scaling!)
> I guess it'll show that an increase of measurements (single-dimentional)
> will cause the volume to increase by the scaling factor in third figure,
> i.e. 20% increase of measurments gives a volume increase of 1.2 Î
> 3 (1.2x1.2x1.2) which gives a volume (and load carrying ability) increase
> of 1,728 !
Messages In This Thread
- Translate a single in to a double?
Chad Whipple -- 6/24/1998, 4:14 pm- lengthen, don't simply scale.
Paul Jacobson -- 6/26/1998, 1:15 am- Re: Paddler+Gear vs Two Paddlers
Mark Kanzler -- 6/26/1998, 1:32 pm- Re: improved center of gravity
Paul Jacobson -- 6/26/1998, 9:08 pm- Re: improved center of gravity
Mark Kanzler -- 6/30/1998, 11:38 am
- Re: improved center of gravity
- Re: improved center of gravity
- Re: Translate a single in to a double?
Alex Ferguson -- 6/26/1998, 12:50 pm- Re: Scaling - length/widht versus volume
Tor-Henrik Furmyr -- 6/24/1998, 4:52 pm- Re: Scaling - length/widht versus volume
Mark Kanzler -- 6/24/1998, 7:09 pm
- Re:single in to a double? Here's a start.
Mark Kanzler -- 6/24/1998, 4:42 pm- Re: Translate a single in to a double?
Mark Kanzler -- 6/24/1998, 4:33 pm - Re: Paddler+Gear vs Two Paddlers
- lengthen, don't simply scale.