[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From: |
Amir Tahvildaran <adt22-at-drexel.edu> |

Subject: |
Re: Fw: A question of Scale Weight vs Springs [TANKS] |

Date: |
Sun, 08 Oct 2006 12:40:12 -0400 |

Reply-To: |
tanks-at-rctankcombat.com |

Ah, now I see - I wasn't sure where you were getting the 3.37 it all looks right to me. Another way is to say 60 / (6 * 6 * 6) if going from full scale. I never know what type of "ton" is being referred to (long, short, metric)... anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton -Amir Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos wrote: > exactly Amir, when going from 1:4 to 1:6 the scale is not doubled and > the volume is not multipied 8 times. The ratio of the two scales is > 3:2 and ratio of volumes is 3.37 :1 or in integer numbers 27:8 = > cube of 3 : cube of 2 = (3 x 3 x 3) : (2 x 2 x 2), or so I think. > I therefore, divided the .935 with 3.375, not with 8. > > Chrys > > > In scale 1:1 a Tiger weighs 60 tons > > in scale 1:2 = 60 : 8 = 7.5 tons > > in scale 1:4 = 7.5 : 8 = 0.935 tons > > in scale 1:6 a steel Tiger SHOULD weigh 0.935 : 3.37 = 278 kgrs. > Hang on, there's a missing step > > 1:1 is 60 > 1:2 is 7.5 > 1:4 is .935 > 1:6 is ____ > > Careful, going from 2 -> 4 isn't the same as going from 4 -> 6. The > important concept is that > volume is cubic (3 dimensions).

**References**:**Fw: A question of Scale Weight vs Springs [TANKS]***From:*"Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos" <xchrysk-at-otenet.gr>

- Prev by Date:
**Fw: A question of Scale Weight vs Springs [TANKS]** - Next by Date:
**Tiger question? [TANKS]** - Prev by thread:
**Fw: A question of Scale Weight vs Springs [TANKS]** - Next by thread:
**FW: Hello [TANKS]** - Index(es):