Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:22:32 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I think the reason they did it this way is to have individual parameters
which are metrically independent. Shell width and shell length are
independent parameters. A change in one does not affect a change in the
other. However, spire height and shell length are not independent, because
spire height is a subset of shell length. An increase in spire height
(independent factors remaining constant) therefore produces an increase in
shell length as well.
For two shells of a given length, an increase in shell width will increase
the width-length ratio by an identical factor. Likewise, for two shells of
identical aperture length (which for a Conus is essentially overall length
minus spire height, or body whorl length), an increase in spire height will
increase the spire-aperture ratio by an identical factor. For example, if
the spire height increases by 32% (aperture length remaining constant) then
the spire-aperture ratio also increases by 32%. This is ideally how you
would like a ratio to work - if the numerator doubles, the ratio doubles.
However, using the ratio of spire height to overall length, the situation is
quite different, because a change in spire height (independent factors
remaining constant) contributes to overall shell length. In other words,
increasing the numerator of the ratio also increases the denominator, though
by a lesser amount. Therefore an increase of 32% in spire height would NOT
result in an increase of 32% in the ratio of spire height to overall length.
Well, that's my guess. Whew!
Paul M.
|
|
|