nebkor/blog
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

fix off-by-10x in scale analogy for accurate shasta

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Joe Ardent 2023-01-21 15:56:38 -08:00
parent 02b4484fb8
commit 38dac45d85
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
content/sundries/a-thoroughly-digital-artifact/index.md
View file

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
title = "A Thoroughly Digital Artifact"
slug = "a-thoroughly-digital-artifact"
date = "2023-01-19"
updated = "2023-01-20"
updated = "2023-01-21"
[taxonomies]
tags = ["3dprinting", "CAD", "GIS", "CNC", "art", "sundry", "proclamation", "research"]
+++
@ -500,10 +500,10 @@ miles tall; the actual height is a little less than that, but that's OK, the arg
strongly at lower height. That means the ratio of height to length is 3/700, or 0.0043-ish.
If you had a physically accurate topographic carving of California that was a foot long, the tallest
peak on the carving would be 0.0043 feet high, which is about 1/200th of an inch, or about 0.13
millimeters. You'd probably be able to tell with your fingers and maybe even your eyes where Shasta was,
and see that there was a faint line from the Sierra Nevadas, but that would be it. That's why it's
so hard to see the details in the <a href="#raw-dem">raw elevation data</a> geotiff.
peak on the carving would be 0.0043 feet high, which is about 1/20th of an inch, or about 1.3
millimeters. You'd probably be able to see and feel where Shasta was, and see that there was a faint
line from the Sierra Nevadas, but that would be it. That's why it's so hard to see the details in
the <a href="#raw-dem">raw elevation data</a> geotiff.
In order to be able to see any detail, and to meet expectations about what a topographic carving is
supposed to look like, the height of the highest peaks needs to be scaled up by something like