And I did (feeling a bit stupid now)
None of this is claimed to be true. Just some random outcome of spending time being wasted, without the feeling of wasting time.
No 1 is the guy that bought a lighthouse and the Maslow. He thought:
‘The wider and higher the better? I don’t have width, but height! My frame will have the ratio 1:1.’
He ended up with a frame 3.65 m (~11.98 ft) in hight and width to fit his plywood in the ‘comfort zone’ of the py script. (Yes, he could have built a slightly smaller frame by moving his sheet up to the top curve, but he would have to climb a long ladder for tool change.)
No 2 is the guy that bought a barn and the Maslow. Sadly, whoever build it placed the 1st floor very low, to make it easy to throw up the hay. He thought:
‘The wider and higher the better? I don’t have height but width! My frame will have the ratio 4:1.’
He ended up with a frame 7.63 M (~25.03) wide and 1.975 m (~6.48 ft) high, to make his sheet fit in the white.
No 3 is someone I know and the guy feeling silly.
Suddenly the numbers 1220x2440 and 4x8 started flashing up in his Prefrontal Cortex, together with a ratio of 1:2. The ratio of a ply-sheet.
This guy will never be able to hire a Housemaid, because the Maid-Room is the Maslow room now.
Since the space requirement for Human Labour here is slightly unfair, compared to what Animal Rights recommend for chicken, he neither had width or hight to waste. He figured that the smallest frame for him to build would be 3,125 m wide (~10.25 ft) and 1,562.5 m (~5.13 ft) high.
Anything bigger then that, at a ratio of 1:2 and centring the sheet to an equal distance from the curves could add accuracy.
I think I am done with my research for building the second and hopefully final frame.
Thank you all for the constructive feedback and always the pleasant collaboration.
Cheers, Gero