Guitar Gear Forum

a hexagon and a square, of equal areas, will have different perimeters. seems simple, but crazy. discuss.
the hexagon will be smaller in perimeter, by the way.

Slow sunday afternoon at the Youngblood residence eh?

Caue a circle is the most efficient enclosure for area - a hexagon is closer to a circle than a square is.

samsung austin semiconductor, to be precise. buy more phones!

mamberg wrote:Caue a circle is the most efficient enclosure for area - a hexagon is closer to a circle than a square is.

true. still, it boggles the mind when you try to actually realize it, like if you had 100 skittles lying on the table, you could corral them with a shorter piece of string into a hexagon than you could a square. seems odd.

well i guess it becomes clear thinking of the opposite side of it, that you could create really long inefficient oval around them if placed side by side.



carry on.




i saw this on the article about the new space telescope using hexagonal mirrors instead of square panels because they are more efficient due to this principle.

I guess it isn't odd to me as I grew up playing hexagonal based board games. I figured out young that it was more efficient to do so (as well as giving you 6 easy to track movement routes) but I never thought about the math in it.

I wish I'd thought of the math more as its interesting to me know and I know jack crap about it. I fumble through even the simplest geometry and algebra problems is so sad.

like...chinese checkers? i used to rule at that game.

lol

Naw, bunch of old wargames mostly. Squad leader, the russian campaign, Gaudalcanal, The Battle of the Bulge, D-Day. Various others.

Y0UNGBL00D wrote:

mamberg wrote:Caue a circle is the most efficient enclosure for area - a hexagon is closer to a circle than a square is.

true. still, it boggles the mind when you try to actually realize it, like if you had 100 skittles lying on the table, you could corral them with a shorter piece of string into a hexagon than you could a square. seems odd.

What about a 2x2 meter square
P=8m
A=4m^2

compared with a rectangle of the same area, A=4m^2
short sides are length 10^-100m
long sides are length 4*10^100m

Perimeter is 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters

About as far from a circle as you can get.....

that was the opposite solution i proposed.

i mean its all very simple in concept, just never bothered to stop and realize the significance of the ratio of perimeter to area. the more you know...

It's also the reason water tanks are often spherical or at least cylindrical - most storage space with the least surface area.

Cirrus wrote:It's also the reason water tanks are often spherical or at least cylindrical - most storage space with the least surface area.

and it's the strongest - less material needed.
The center of large flat sides would easily deflect (thus needing to be much stronger/thicker), compared to a sphere, where it's all strong by virtue of the shape.

Here is one for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn

A shape with finite volume but infinite surface area

ovid9 wrote:lol

Naw, bunch of old wargames mostly. Squad leader, the russian campaign, Gaudalcanal, The Battle of the Bulge, D-Day. Various others.

You ever play dis?

well, since I'm a biologist, might as well throw this one on the pile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/aug/26/technology

Let's make a poll of this thread!

or