Model Kit Scale: Does this (72 times smaller) make sense?

[KWF]

I read the following for the explanation of scale: The scale of 1:72 means that the model is 72 times smaller than the actual object.
Does this (72 times smaller) make sense?
I think it should be the scale of 1:72 indicates that the size of the model is 1/72 the size of the actual object, or one could indicate that the actual object is 72 times larger than the model.

 

[Dr.Peterson]

I read the following for the explanation of scale: The scale of 1:72 means that the model is 72 times smaller than the actual object.
Does this (72 times smaller) make sense?
I think it should be the scale of 1:72 indicates that the size of the model is 1/72 the size of the actual object, or one could indicate that the actual object is 72 times larger than the model.

Both phrases, "72 times smaller" and "72 times larger", are used idiomatically (that is, contrary to the technical meaning of the words), so they are understood by most people. For technical precision, you should say "1/72 as large" and "72 times as large", respectively. Many people will complain about the former, but others will point out that English doesn't always make literal sense anyway, and we know what is meant.

 

[Deleted member 4993]

I read the following for the explanation of scale: The scale of 1:72 means that the model is 72 times smaller than the actual object.
Does this (72 times smaller) make sense?
I think it should be the scale of 1:72 indicates that the size of the model is 1/72 the size of the actual object, or one could indicate that the actual object is 72 times larger than the model.

Problem can be more confusing!

Suppose a cube of dimensions 72" x 72" x 72" is modelled with a cube of 1" x 1" x 1"

So the volume of the model is (1/72)^3 th. of the original.

Surface area is (1/72)^2 th. of the original and

Length of any line is (1/72) th. of the original.

 

[tkhunny]

I read the following for the explanation of scale: The scale of 1:72 means that the model is 72 times smaller than the actual object.
Does this (72 times smaller) make sense?
I think it should be the scale of 1:72 indicates that the size of the model is 1/72 the size of the actual object, or one could indicate that the actual object is 72 times larger than the model.

Personally, I don't like any of those so far presented.

In the linear scale, Model:Reality::1:72

 

[KWF]

Personally, I don't like any of those so far presented.

In the linear scale, Model:Reality::1:72

Is your answer the same as Model/Reality = 1/72?

You just used a proportion to define the scale size (1/72) to the model and the actual object and the word "Reality" is the same as the actual object.

 

[tkhunny]

Is your answer the same as Model/Reality = 1/72?

You just used a proportion to define the scale size (1/72) to the model and the actual object and the word "Reality" is the same as the actual object.

Yes.

 

[KWF]

Yes.

In the linear scale, Model:Reality::1:72

If I wanted to express this in writing using inches as the unit of measure would the follow be correct?

The ratio of 1 inch to 72 inches equals the ratio of the model kit to reality or the actual object.

 

[tkhunny]

In the linear scale, Model:Reality::1:72

If I wanted to express this in writing using inches as the unit of measure would the follow be correct?

The ratio of 1 inch to 72 inches equals the ratio of the model kit to reality or the actual object.

Or, 72 inches in the real world is represented by 1 inch in the scale world.

Or, moving 6 ft in the real world will move you one inch in the scale world.

Or, your basic 6 ft dude is only one inch tall in the scale model.

Just be sure you are referring to linear distance. It must be unambiguous. No fake referring to area or volume - like "72 times a big" or "72 times smaller" - these are confusing. Don't even get me started on "72 times slower" or "72 times colder". That's often just senseless. Sometimes it can be right, but it usually isn't.

 

[KWF]

Both phrases, "72 times smaller" and "72 times larger", are used idiomatically (that is, contrary to the technical meaning of the words), so they are understood by most people. For technical precision, you should say "1/72 as large" and "72 times as large", respectively. Many people will complain about the former, but others will point out that English doesn't always make literal sense anyway, and we know what is meant.

Can a model have a scale of 2/25, for example, where the numerator is not "1"? What would this scale indicate?

 

[KWF]

Problem can be more confusing!

Suppose a cube of dimensions 72" x 72" x 72" is modelled with a cube of 1" x 1" x 1"

So the volume of the model is (1/72)^3 th. of the original.

Surface area is (1/72)^2 th. of the original and

Length of any line is (1/72) th. of the original.

Can a model have a scale of 2/25, for example, where the numerator is not "1"? What would this scale indicate?

 

[KWF]

Or, 72 inches in the real world is represented by 1 inch in the scale world.

Or, moving 6 ft in the real world will move you one inch in the scale world.

Or, your basic 6 ft dude is only one inch tall in the scale model.

Just be sure you are referring to linear distance. It must be unambiguous. No fake referring to area or volume - like "72 times a big" or "72 times smaller" - these are confusing. Don't even get me started on "72 times slower" or "72 times colder". That's often just senseless. Sometimes it can be right, but it usually isn't.

Can a model have a scale of 2/25, for example, where the numerator is not "1"? What would this scale indicate?

 

[Deleted member 4993]

Can a model have a scale of 2/25, for example, where the numerator is not "1"? What would this scale indicate?

Yes and in that case it would indicate that 25" length has been shrunk to 2" length or 12.5" length has been shrunk to 1" length.

 

[Dr.Peterson]

Can a model have a scale of 2/25, for example, where the numerator is not "1"? What would this scale indicate?

Mathematically, this is possible; it would mean that the model's distances are 2/25 of the real object's distances.

In practice, however, it seems that model scales are all 1:something (or 1/something, depending on your style). For examples, see here and here. I suppose that's because the purpose of scale models doesn't require the sort of precision that 2/25 or 1:12.5 would give.

 

[KWF]

Both phrases, "72 times smaller" and "72 times larger", are used idiomatically (that is, contrary to the technical meaning of the words), so they are understood by most people. For technical precision, you should say "1/72 as large" and "72 times as large", respectively. Many people will complain about the former, but others will point out that English doesn't always make literal sense anyway, and we know what is meant.

Is 1. the same as 2., and is 3. the same as 4.? See Below.

1. The model kit is 1/72 as large as the actual object.
2.The model kit compared to the actual object is 1/72 as large.

3. The actual object is 72 times as large as the model kit.
4. the actual object compared to the model kit is 72 times as large.

 

[tkhunny]

Is 1. the same as 2., and is 3. the same as 4.? See Below.

1. The model kit is 1/72 as large as the actual object.
2.The model kit compared to the actual object is 1/72 as large.

3. The actual object is 72 times as large as the model kit.
4. the actual object compared to the model kit is 72 times as large.

Mostly all too wordy. Best Option: "The scale is 1 to 72."

It is usually obvious whether you are talking about larger or smaller. No one thinks a map is an enlargement from the real world. No one thinks a picture from a microscope is smaller than the original. If you have a scale that is 1.00001 to 1, well, then maybe you should say smaller or larger. Just make the context clear and avoid all the confusing language.

Maybe compare to a roof slope.

Technical: The roof height decreases 4 ft for every 12 feet of horizontal displacement.
Common: What's the slope of the roof? "4".

Technical: The scale model uses 1 inch to represent 6 feet in the real world.
Common: What's the scale? "72".