Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!kamath From: kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Barbie Keywords: tiny Message-ID: <9702@reed.UUCP> Date: 28 Jun 88 05:26:44 GMT References: <8806222315.aa01473@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <768@lakesys.UUCP> Reply-To: kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) Followup-To: /dev/null Organization: Reed College, Portland OR Lines: 26 In article <768@lakesys.UUCP> jason@lakesys.UUCP (Jason) writes: >If Barbie were blown up to human size, her measurements would be 39",21",33". >(For real!) OK, Assume Barbie is to be "ideally" (Whatever *that* means. I prefere about 5'2") 5'9", and the dall itself is 11", that makes the scale about 6.3 (meaning that 11"*6.3 is 69.3" or 5'9.3".). Now, all these measurements are 3" off from "ideal" (being 36-24-36). So, it's safe to assume that the *circumferance* of each measurement is off by about .48" (3"/6.3). But remember, that;'s circumferance, not diameter. The dieameter is C/PI, or about .15". Now, I'm not up on manufacturing processes in the toy industry of the 30's-40's and 50's, but to eyeball a doll to within 15/100th of an inch is pretty damn good. Of course, they probably did measure it, ut it's just a TOY! :-) OK, enough. Followups to /dev/null. Besides, I heard it was more along the line of 46-20-40. Sean Kamath -- UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!kamath CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.BITNET ARPA: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.CS.PSU.EDU US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202-3126 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)