[meteorite-list] Since Scale Cubes are a topic today

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:06:00 +0100
Message-ID: <00eb01c822f2$d2974c60$177f2a59_at_name86d88d87e2>

>Maybe, scalecubes are just more Fun?

No, they are a simple clue for the beholder to estimate the size of the
pictured stone.
If any reference is missing, one couldn't judge whether the meteorite has
the size of an egg or a basketball.

If you put a Tim Heitz on top of the Campo main mass, although we all might
have the same concepts of "a man", it will look less impressive as if you
would let a Marcin Cimala sit on it.


If I make a picture with my cat and the meteorite, the meteorite will look
larger, as if Anne Black would use her cat for the same stone, as her cat is
larger than mine.

A quarter or a dime as scale hasn't anybody around the globe always at hand.
Matches and their boxes are produced in many different sizes, the non-smoker
hasn't any in the pocket, the smoker often a lighter.

Therefore one need a uniform mean of scale, which all understand and could
imagine or at leat be able to reproduce in a way.
That's the scale cube, not more, but also not less. Quite trivial.
You may now speculate, in how far the individual concept or imagination of
such a scale cube on a picture, will converge with a cubic centimetre in
reality, but as a rough indication, how small or large a stone might be,
it's o.k.

Let's say it different, if in the scene in the movie, where King Kong fights
in 1933 with a dinosaur a scale cube would have been hidden, the spectators
wouldn't have been so scared...

And remember a picture often comes not alone.
If you have a set, a series of pictures with different meteorites, but
always a cube included, the beholder can use the pictured cube as tertium
comparationis,
therefore he can judge much more better the sizes of the stones relatively
to each other. - see e.g. Twelker's homepage
....and if he has such a cube at home, then......

Well, of course other scale items, if widely known, could be used,
but such a cube with it's letter makes certainly more scientific impression.

Best!
Martin



-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Sterling
K. Webb
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. November 2007 01:10
An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Cc: David & Kitt Deyarmin; Drake
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Since Scale Cubes are a topic today

Hi,

    Matthias said the introduction of the scalecube
into the natural scene is the insertion of the Absolute,
the Platonic Ideal. Yes, true, and, as such, tells us so
much more about the beings making the photograph
than it does about the object being photographed.

    As for using scalecubes as a basis for measuration,
you can utilize an existing arsenal of projective geometric
calculation in a pinch. But, if what you wanted from the
start was measurement, you would photograph everything
by placing it inside a half cube -- floor, back, and side --
that was white and gridded off in your choice of units
(centimeters, inches, or the 60th part of a Babylonian
cubit), and shooting it at different orientations (6). It
would then be medium easy to use a computer algorithm
that would convert the images to measurements or a 3D
model in a few teraflops.

    This is what should be done with meteorites (and
"Moon Rocks," and pieces of UFO's if you got'em).
Then, instead of pictures of the Meteorite of the Day,
we would have the virtual object of the Meteorite of
the Day. It wouldn't be scientifically useless to be doing
that with important pieces even today.

    Maybe, scalecubes are just more Fun? Cooler?


Sterling K. Webb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "David & Kitt Deyarmin" <bobadebt at ec.rr.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 4:19 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Since Scale Cubes are a topic today


I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Another hobby I have is making replicas of props from various science
fiction movies

I have used photos to reverse engineer parts and have done so with amazing
accuracy

A perfect example is an MG-81 Flash Hider/ Booster that was use on Han
Solo's "Blaster" from Star Wars.

This part went unidentified for 26 years but I and a small group of
hobbyists created and manufactured replica of this part from the various
available photos.

About 3 years ago, it was finally identified and a mint specimen was found
and borrowed, they have a value of about $3000 so we were lucky the guy let
use it.

To even my own surprise my Flash Hider was surprisingly accurate to the real
thing.

Here is a picture, the real prop is on top and my replica is on the bottom

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p298/BobaDebt/Flashhiders.jpg

Bear in mind that this is just one image of a single prop, they used a
variety of props and each had variances in the parts. For instance in the
above picture the holes are look smaller but there are other pictures that
they look bigger.

However, when I compared my replica to a real MG-81 Flash Hider most of my
measurements were off by less then .005" of an inch which is pretty good.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----


Hi, All

Measurement from a photo with a scalecube in it is impossible except in the
case of a very elaborate photo setup designed to make such measurements
possible and even then, the precision is low. aying

Sterling K. Webb


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 09 Nov 2007 12:06:00 PM PST