Re: Do you have normal finger length? [locked]

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:32 pm

tap wrote:... Air and Earth both have square hands; fire and water both have rectangular hands???

Well Tap, I am not sure where this question is coming from?

I think you tried to 'read' the amount of squarish for each palm shape from the picture?

Because your question suggest that you tried to read the amount of 'squarish' from the horizontal axis only... but that is not possible at all, because that axis represent finger length vs. palm breadth - and not just palm breadth!

Because it really requires a considerations of both scales: the horizontal scale AND the vertical scale!

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:41 pm

tap wrote:Okay, the shaded sections now reference the "pure" hand type" and not just the axis line?
Sorry I should have looked at it longer.

Did you say fire for my hands

Well... my answer is sort of a 'yes' here, though I prefer to say that the shaded sections represent the hand shapes that can be described as just one element.

(I would say now that a 'pure' hand shape would require to have the typical 'shape profile' of the hand shape involved, but I could also argue that a 'pure' hand shape would also require to have a considerable distance from the MEDIUM point - which is the central point in the picture)

PS. Sounds like you are joking about you speaking without thinking... Very Happy

(Yep, I guess one could call that a typical fire response Wink

)

**tap** Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:45 pm

Thanks for answering those questions. Just not thinking straight this am.

Yep, fire response lol

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:01 pm

tap wrote:... In reading the descriptions for shape (in Johnny’s book) the shapes of the hands also include the mounts and their size (taking into consideration a 3rd dimension), and seems to be a main factor in separating the two shapes. Should the size of the mounts be included as shape? If so, then a 3 dimensional shape must be reflected, and not just 2 dimensional shape in the chart. ...

tap wrote:The other question about how it seems that in the 5 element system the thickness of the mounts seems to play a role (actually the lines too) as part of the hand shape. I read where you and Lynn were discussing this and I just wondered ifthe chart can work with the 5 element system if that is the case.

No. I think you are a little bit confused about the vocabulary.

Because one could say that in order to recognize a 'fire hand', fase one concerns an analysis of hand shape & structure of creases. The next phases consider the issue of skin, thumb, fingers, etc. (described by order in Fincham's book).

However, this does not mean that creases (nor the other aspects) require to be included in an analysis of hand shape. However, one should not translate 'pure earth hand shape' directly into 'pure earth hand'... because that would first require confirmation as well for structure of creases + the other aspects of the hands.

I think this is illustrated by Fincham's comment (page 14):

"Pure types are where a set of of characteristics in terms of palm shape, finger length and line quality combine to create and elemental archetype."

Tap, I think you should read here the words 'palm shape' + 'finger length' as the combination that gives hand shape; and the aspect of line quality can be used as a finishing touch to describe hand shape through multiple dimensions. But the basics for hand shape focus on finger length + palm shape.

So, I would say that combining hand shape with line quality is a topic on it's own (though it can be associated with describing hand shape as well).\

PS. Let's not forget that Lynn mentioned that Johnny is not entirely happy about how he presented the aspect of hand shape in his book.

**Lynn** Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:02 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:But sorry, I have to correct you here: I have seen Hidde doing the 'quadrant analysis' - including the necessary measurements involved. But if I remember correctly, I think I have only seen him doing those measurements from paper.

(Via the pencil drawn contour that you learned to draw around the hand, according the teachings at the C.S.)

So, I wonder: what measurements are you exactly referring to? From the hand? Or from paper?

Quadrants were done from ink prints on paper. Hand shape was measured from the live hand.

**Lynn** Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:08 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Because one could say that in order to recognize a 'fire hand', fase one concerns an analysis of hand shape & structure of creases. The next phases consider the issue of skin, thumb, fingers, etc. (described by order in Fincham's book).

However, this does not mean that creases (nor the other aspects) require to be included in an analysis of hand shape. However, one should not translate 'pure earth hand shape' directly into 'pure earth hand'... because that would first require confirmation as well for structure of creases + the other aspects of the hands.

That is correct Martijn, (though I would not include structure of creases in your first sentence). Tap, everything on the hands can be assessed via the elements. Hand shape is just the first thing we look at. I would add that you are probably never going to find a 'pure earth hand', where every aspect of the hand is ruled by earth element.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:11 pm

Lynn wrote:
Ok thanks for your reply and for posting the measurement pic again.

Lynn, your issue made me focus a little bit more on the definition of palm breadth at the metacarpals.

The following picture will soon be included on my website (featured with a clear description).

PS. The x-ray scan sort of shows that there is no 'fixed' palm breadth in the region just above the thumb, and it also shows that the issue of muscle development/activity/positions gets involved for that region. Not for the measurement at the metacarpals.

(I have now also found specific info about how the distal + proximal wrist crease relate to the regions between thewrist bones - I will present those details at a later moment)

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 5 Finger-length-measurement-x-ray-hand

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 5 Finger-length-measurement-x-ray-hand

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:25 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:But sorry, I have to correct you here: I have seen Hidde doing the 'quadrant analysis' - including the necessary measurements involved. But if I remember correctly, I think I have only seen him doing those measurements from paper.

(Via the pencil drawn contour that you learned to draw around the hand, according the teachings at the C.S.)

So, I wonder: what measurements are you exactly referring to? From the hand? Or from paper?

Quadrants were done from ink prints on paper. Hand shape was measured from the live hand.

Okay Lynn, thanks for specifying that.

PS. By the way, Lynn... since at the C.S. hand shape was defined with palm length only (and not palm breadth), this still keeps me wondering about about your experience with doing palm breadth measurements directly from the hand.

As it looks like that in the C.S. approach there is no specific purpose of measuring palm breadth, however.... in the perspective of QUADRANT ANALYSIS it does make sense to measure palm breadth just above the thumb!

... cheers

Eureka... I finally now fully understand why you continued using the approach of the C.S. for measuring palm width from paper (in the perspective of quadrant analysis). However, whether it should also be used for measuring palm breadth precisely... is a different topic (in in my view).

**Lynn** Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:22 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:Okay Lynn, thanks for specifying that.

PS. By the way, Lynn... since at the C.S. hand shape was defined with palm length only (and not palm breadth), this still keeps me wondering about about your experience with doing palm breadth measurements directly from the hand.

As it looks like that in the C.S. approach there is no specific purpose of measuring palm breadth, however.... in the perspective of QUADRANT ANALYSIS it does make sense to measure palm breadth just above the thumb!

... Eureka... I finally now fully understand why you continued using the approach of the C.S. for measuring palm width from paper (in the perspective of quadrant analysis). However, whether it should also be used for measuring palm breadth precisely... is a different topic (in in my view).

Martijn, I keep pointing out that we look at palm breadth to determine square or rectangular palm, and for combination hand shapes.

re... cheers

Eureka... I finally now fully understand why you continued using the
approach of the C.S. for measuring palm width from paper (in the
perspective of quadrant analysis).
sorry I don't understand what your Eureka moment is about!

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:50 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:Okay Lynn, thanks for specifying that.

PS. By the way, Lynn... since at the C.S. hand shape was defined with palm length only (and not palm breadth), this still keeps me wondering about about your experience with doing palm breadth measurements directly from the hand.

As it looks like that in the C.S. approach there is no specific purpose of measuring palm breadth, however.... in the perspective of QUADRANT ANALYSIS it does make sense to measure palm breadth just above the thumb!

... Eureka... I finally now fully understand why you continued using the approach of the C.S. for measuring palm width from paper (in the perspective of quadrant analysis). However, whether it should also be used for measuring palm breadth precisely... is a different topic (in in my view).

Martijn, I keep pointing out that we look at palm breadth to determine square or rectangular palm, and for combination hand shapes.

re...
Eureka... I finally now fully understand why you continued using the
approach of the C.S. for measuring palm width from paper (in the
perspective of quadrant analysis).
sorry I don't understand what your Eureka moment is about!

Yes Lynn, but I observe that in the C.S. perspective there is no specific criterium in use for discriminating a 'squarish' shaped palm from a 'rectangle' shaped palm. For, palm length is nearly always longer than palm width... and therefore it would make sense if there had been such a criterium.

(If you disagree... I would welcome you to share that criterium)

PS. My 'eureka' moment concerned that I became aware that the point above the thumb (for measuring palm breadth), sort of represents a typical point that is close to where the upper quadrants and the lower quadrants meet according the C.S. approach. And therefore... in a way, one could point out that according the C.S. approach it would not make sense to measure palm width at the level of where the metacarpals end - because that would suggest that palm width would become a matter of air and fire only...!!!

(Though I should add here explicit that the border between the quadrants is half way the palm length - so, it does not represent the point where the palm width is measured)

By the way, my definition of finger length is now available here:
http://www.handresearch.com/diagnostics/how-to-assess-your-finger-length.htm

**Lynn** Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:32 pm

Thanks for explaining your eureka moment!

Though I should add here explicit that the border between the quadrants is half way the palm length - so, it does not represent the point where the palm width is measured)

Yes half way the palm length is where we measured width.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:55 pm

Lynn wrote:Thanks for explaining your eureka moment!

Though I should add here explicit that the border between the quadrants is half way the palm length - so, it does not represent the point where the palm width is measured)
Yes half way the palm length is where we measured width.

Aha... finally!

Okay, it took a while... and quite a few questions, but I think I now fully understand your approach regarding how to measure palm breadth 'above the thumb' exactly. (So far I had been wondering about which point exactly you are using, because I think you never mentioned before that you are using the point halfway the palm length as a point of reference)

thinking

By the way, is your point of reference really always ABOVE the thumb??

Because I think your clue implicates that your measurement will sometimes depend on the position of the thumb crease - for, in many hands the location halfway the palm's length is at a level where the thumb is connected with the palm.

Lynn, the example below is the first hand-scan example where I tried to assess palm width via you method and my method. Assuming that I have positioned the pointers correctly... this would implicate that the difference between both methods might be a bit smaller than what I expected so far.

For this example the difference is only 1.5% (in the picture I measured 6.7 cm at the metacarpals and 6.8 cm for your method), which probably represents not much more than about 1.2 mm for the real hand.

Now... that is a rather small difference from my point of view, but it's a first indication that the measuring at the metacarpals should not result in a different result compared to the C.S. approach, nor the other elemental aproach!

So far so good - don't you think? What is your thought? Very Happy

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 5 Marfan10

**Lynn** Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:14 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:Yes half way the palm length is where we measured width.

Aha... finally!

Okay, it took a while... and quite a few questions, but I think I now fully understand your approach regarding how to measure palm breadth 'above the thumb' exactly. (So far I had been wondering about which point exactly you are using, because I think you never mentioned before that you are using the point halfway the palm length as a point of reference)

By the way, is your point of reference really always ABOVE the thumb??

I have never said anything about 'above the thumb'. I have always said "across the centre of the palm". (I thought it was self-explanatory that centre means half way!)

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:41 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:Yes half way the palm length is where we measured width.

Aha... finally!

Okay, it took a while... and quite a few questions, but I think I now fully understand your approach regarding how to measure palm breadth 'above the thumb' exactly. (So far I had been wondering about which point exactly you are using, because I think you never mentioned before that you are using the point halfway the palm length as a point of reference)

By the way, is your point of reference really always ABOVE the thumb??

I have never said anything about 'above the thumb'. I have always said "across the centre of the palm". (I thought it was self-explanatory that centre means half way!)

Lynn, thanks for correcting me about that!

(Sorry, I apologize for suggesting that it was your description)

By the way, I just found this post from you earlier this year:
http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1472-why-do-we-use-saturn-finger-as-a-measure-for-identifying-hand-type#14766

Interesting that you recommended there to compare not only 'palm length measurements' but 'palm width measurement' as well... in order evaluate the aspect of finger length in the perspective of hand shape:

Lynn wrote:"re how to proceed - take palm length measurements from middle of wrist to base of Saturn finger, take palm width measurement across the centre of the palm, compare these to Saturn finger length and you have a hand shape. "

(

)

... Not sure about if you now would want to correct there something. But it does make me wonder about why - during the past days - you felt that I had tried to 're-define' the rules about how to find hand shape. Because the post shows that in time you already had adopted the idea that finger length can best be assessed with with palm length measurement AND palm width measurements.

Lynn, I guess.... now that we sort of arrived at the final stage of this discussion, it appears to me that your objection must have risen from my approach to assess palm breadth via the measurement at the end of the metacarpals.

thinking

By the way, maybe it's an interesting option to continue considering the 4 small hand-photo examples? (See page: 18, 20 and 22 in Johnny's book) Because then we do not get confronted with the problems that rise from handprints.

Just in case you are interested, one of us can make larger scans for those in order to present them here as larger pictures; then we can focus our discussion on the details in those pictures. Do you think that this could serve as a focused strategy in other to study the validity of my approach by detail with those examples?

**Lynn** Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:59 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:Lynn, thanks for correcting me about that!

(Sorry, I apologize for suggesting that it was your description)

By the way, I just found this post from you earlier this year:
http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1472-why-do-we-use-saturn-finger-as-a-measure-for-identifying-hand-type#14766

Interesting that you recommended there to compare not only 'palm length measurements' but 'palm width measurement' as well... in order evaluate the aspect of finger length in the perspective of hand shape:

Lynn wrote:"re how to proceed - take palm length measurements from middle of wrist to base of Saturn finger, take palm width measurement across the centre of the palm, compare these to Saturn finger length and you have a hand shape. "
( )

... Not sure about if you now would want to correct there something. But it does make me wonder about why - during the past days - you felt that I had tried to 're-define' the rules about how to find hand shape. Because the post shows that in time you already had adopted the idea that finger length can best be assessed with with palm length measurement AND palm width measurements.

No I had never adopted that idea Martijn! (not for primary handshape analysis, only for combination shapes but I'm not sure I was talking about combinations in above quote?) I think maybe I missed out something in the above quote. What I meant was "Take palm length measurement & palm width measurement, compare these to see if palm is square or rectangular, then compare length to Saturn finger."
Maybe I didn't write it explicitly because I had already said
"That's the same system that I use for hand shape, with Saturn finger
being the one to measure and compare with the palm to ascertain short or
long fingers in relation to palm.

Square palm + short fingers = Earth Hand
Square palm + long fingers = Air Hand
Oblong palm + short fingers = Fire Hand
Oblong palm + long fingers = Water hand. "

tho I notice in that thread I also said "You can also compare length of saturn to width of palm to get a better idea of finger/palm ratio & shape." so I guess I was talking about combination handshapes there. I have never ever compared finger length to palm width for primary handshape analysis.

**Lynn** Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:08 pm

Martijn said

Now... that is a rather small difference from my
point of view, but it's a first indication that the measuring at the
metacarpals should not result in a different result compared to the C.S.
approach, nor the other elemental aproach!

So far so good - don't you think? What is your thought?

(I notice you chose a hand pic with unusually high set thumb! but anyway I think 'above the thumb' are Ed Campbell's words.) I will make a few measurements of hands across metacarpals and across centre of palm, and see how they compare.

By
the way, maybe it's an interesting option to continue considering the 4
small hand-photo examples? (See page: 18, 20 and 22 in Johnny's book)
Because then we do not get confronted with the problems that rise from
handprints.

Just in case you are interested, one of us
can make larger scans for those in order to present them here as larger
pictures; then we can focus our discussion on the details in those
pictures. Do you think that this could serve as a focused strategy in
other to study the validity of my approach by detail with those
examples?

I still haven't caught up with all your reasoning on this thread, nor studied the latest version of the diagram. Yes if you wish to continue with Johnny's pictures, that's fine.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:24 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:Lynn, thanks for correcting me about that!

(Sorry, I apologize for suggesting that it was your description)

By the way, I just found this post from you earlier this year:
http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1472-why-do-we-use-saturn-finger-as-a-measure-for-identifying-hand-type#14766

Interesting that you recommended there to compare not only 'palm length measurements' but 'palm width measurement' as well... in order evaluate the aspect of finger length in the perspective of hand shape:

Lynn wrote:"re how to proceed - take palm length measurements from middle of wrist to base of Saturn finger, take palm width measurement across the centre of the palm, compare these to Saturn finger length and you have a hand shape. "
( )

... Not sure about if you now would want to correct there something. But it does make me wonder about why - during the past days - you felt that I had tried to 're-define' the rules about how to find hand shape. Because the post shows that in time you already had adopted the idea that finger length can best be assessed with with palm length measurement AND palm width measurements.

No I had never adopted that idea Martijn! (not for primary handshape analysis, only for combination shapes but I'm not sure I was talking about combinations in above quote?) I think maybe I missed out something in the above quote. What I meant was "Take palm length measurement & palm width measurement, compare these to see if palm is square or rectangular, then compare length to Saturn finger."
Maybe I didn't write it explicitly because I had already said
"That's the same system that I use for hand shape, with Saturn finger
being the one to measure and compare with the palm to ascertain short or
long fingers in relation to palm.

Square palm + short fingers = Earth Hand
Square palm + long fingers = Air Hand
Oblong palm + short fingers = Fire Hand
Oblong palm + long fingers = Water hand. "

tho I notice in that thread I also said "You can also compare length of saturn to width of palm to get a better idea of finger/palm ratio & shape." so I guess I was talking about combination handshapes there. I have never ever compared finger length to palm width for primary handshape analysis.

Okay, thanks Lynn.

Yes, I understand what you wanted to say there (I had to read that passage a couple of time before I understood what you had literally described there, but your explanation makes sense).

By the way... since you made in your other comment in that topic an explicit recommendation (as a second option after considering palm length), to look also at palm width in order to evalute finger length... this sort of implicates that - in the perspective of that other comment - it should not take too much courage from you to start using that 2nd option as well in your perspective for assessing hand shape.

(Especially... since I think you now know that my study has indicated that using the combination of palm length and palm width in order to assess finger length AND hand shape, will make it possible for you to make a more precise assessment for palm shape! - Which will especially become useful for you in the many cases where finger length is in your medium category!)

I hope this recommendation makes sense? Smile

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:34 pm

Lynn wrote:Martijn said
Now... that is a rather small difference from my
point of view, but it's a first indication that the measuring at the
metacarpals should not result in a different result compared to the C.S.
approach, nor the other elemental aproach!

So far so good - don't you think? What is your thought?

(I notice you chose a hand pic with unusually high set thumb! but anyway I think 'above the thumb' are Ed Campbell's words.) I will make a few measurements of hands across metacarpals and across centre of palm, and see how they compare.

Aha, thanks for mentioning that it was Ed who used those words. Thanks for mentioning!

PS. Yes, I am aware that I have used a rather remarkable hand indeed... it's the hand of a person who have Marfan syndrome. Because after your method regarding the center of the palm became clear to me, I immediately began to wonder about the thumb crease. And I thought, let's make a start with a Marfan person - which confirmed the issue right away. So, therefore I thought it is an interesting case in order to make my point regarding the thumb crease. By the way, the thumb crease usually lies in line with the side of hand... but I think it is usually positioned a little inward towards the palm. So, I think when this problem occurs... usually the width of the palm (according your approach) might look smaller according the measurement. So, that might explain why the difference for that between both approaches became not much higher than 1 mm. Thumb up

**Lynn** Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:35 pm

it should not take too much courage from you to
start using that 2nd option as well in your perspective for assessing
hand shape.

It's not about courage Laughing

I still don't see any need to use finger length vs width of palm for assessing primary handshape!

(Especially... since I think you now know that my
study has indicated that using the combination of palm length and palm
width in order to assess finger length AND hand shape, will make it
possible for you to make a more precise assessment for palm shape! -
Which will especially become useful for you in the many cases where
finger length is in your medium category!)

I'm still not convinced that your system is any better than the one I already use. But I will try it out!

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:41 pm

Lynn wrote:

By
the way, maybe it's an interesting option to continue considering the 4
small hand-photo examples? (See page: 18, 20 and 22 in Johnny's book)
Because then we do not get confronted with the problems that rise from
handprints.

Just in case you are interested, one of us
can make larger scans for those in order to present them here as larger
pictures; then we can focus our discussion on the details in those
pictures. Do you think that this could serve as a focused strategy in
other to study the validity of my approach by detail with those
examples?

I still haven't caught up with all your reasoning on this thread, nor studied the latest version of the diagram. Yes if you wish to continue with Johnny's pictures, that's fine.

Okay Lynn, nice to know that you are interested. But I will wait for you to catch up with what i have described so far.

(Tonight I have started working on new article for my website about this very interesting stuff - if you have any recommendations... you are welcome to share your ideas/feedback!)

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:54 pm

Lynn wrote:
it should not take too much courage from you to
start using that 2nd option as well in your perspective for assessing
hand shape.
It's not about courage I still don't see any need to use finger length vs width of palm for assessing primary handshape!

(Especially... since I think you now know that my
study has indicated that using the combination of palm length and palm
width in order to assess finger length AND hand shape, will make it
possible for you to make a more precise assessment for palm shape! -
Which will especially become useful for you in the many cases where
finger length is in your medium category!)
I'm still not convinced that your system is any better than the one I already use. But I will try it out!

Lynn, my approach should especially become useful for you regarding hands that are featured with medium finger length + mixed hands... because for those hands my approach describes by detail the difference between a typical fire palm shape and a typical water palm shape (which are both consider in your system as 'rectangle shaped'). Because I have been able to identify the essential difference between those two palm shapes.

However, I have not yet described this exactly! (Though I already mentioned to have found 4 specific percentages that are all inside your 75% to 85% range)

Though, I realize that you might argue that it is of little concern in the perspective that the elemental system is basically designed to identify the 'pure' hand shapes. But even then my guidelines/arguments could turn out to have fundamental value.

PS. By the way, the same goes for the essential difference between earth palm shape and air palm shape ( though for those 2 example you already had developed the 75% criteria which applies for earth hand shape only).

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:02 am

Oh my God... I mentioned earlier this week that assessing hand shape could become child-play. Well, I've got now some really exciting news:

Because during the past hour I have been able to 'crack' the codes for all 4 hand shapes.

For the moment I will present the criterium for the fire hand shape, and tomorrow the codes for the other hand shapes will follow!

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 5 Animated%20Gif%20Fire%20%28104%29

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 5 Animated%20Gif%20Fire%20%28104%29

2 FINGER LENGTH REQUIREMENTS
FOR FIRE HAND SHAPE!

The fire hand shape ('-') requires to meet both of the following 2 criteria for finger length:

1) Fire hand shape criterium 1: finger length < palm breadth
2) Fire hand shape criterium 2: 0.75 < (finger length [fl] versus palm length [pl] ratio) < 0.80

(Criterium 2 can also be described as: 0.75 < fl/pl < 0.80)

NOTICE: If a hand meets only one criterium, it might qualify for a mixed handshape with fire involved! ('<' means: smaller then; and '>' means: larger then)

(You can read more about how arrived at this criterium at my website:
http://www.handresearch.com/diagnostics/finger-length-proportions-elemental-hand-shapes.htm )

PS. Lynn, I have now hard evidence that you indeed have a mix of fire + air hand shape: your hands do qualify for the second criterium above, however, not for the first criterium - and I have already checked that your hands do also qualify for one of the two air hand shape criteria... and not for the criteria for the other hands.

This implicates that it very much looks like that the forumulas can now even discriminate 'mixed hand shapes' from 'pure hand shapes' ...!!!

Now, I deserve a good night of ... Sleep

**Lynn** Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:24 am

glad you went to sleep before your head exploded! Interesting to see all the Eureka moments you've had on this discussion. Now we can check out if it works in conjunction with the way I do it Wink

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:41 am

Lynn wrote:glad you went to sleep before your head exploded! Interesting to see all the Eureka moments you've had on this discussion. Now we can check out if it works in conjunction with the way I do it

Hi Lynn,

All criteria are now uploaded at my website:
http://www.handresearch.com/diagnostics/finger-length-proportions-elemental-hand-shapes.htm

I'll explain how it works for your hands:

Lynn wrote:Ok Martijn, here are my measurements.

MY RIGHT HAND:
Finger length (middle finger): 8 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 7.8 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 10.2 cm

Your right hand meets only the following 2 criteria:

- Criterium 1 for AIR hand shape:
Finger length versus palm breadth: fl > pb x 1.005
=> For your right hand: 8 > 7.8 x 1.005 [= 7.839]
(which implicates that your right hand meets the 1st criterium for AIR hand shape)

- Criterium 2 for FIRE hand shape:
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 0.75 < pb/pl < 0.8
=> For your right hand: 7.8 / 10.2 = 0.76
(which implicates that your right hand meets the 2nd criterium for FIRE hand shape)

MY LEFT HAND:
Finger length (middle finger): 7.9 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 7.7 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 10.1 cm

Your left hand meets only the following 2 criteria:

Criterium 1 for AIR hand shape:
Finger length versus palm breadth: fl > pb x 1.005
=> For your right hand: 7.9 > 7.7 x 1.005 [= 7.7385]
(which implicates that your right hand meets the 1st criterium for AIR hand shape)

Criterium 2 for FIRE hand shape:
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 0.75 < pb/pl < 0.8
=> For your right hand: 7.7 / 10.1 = 0.76
(which implicates that your right hand meets the 2nd criterium for FIRE hand shape)

Lynn, my comments show how your hand dimensions only meet criterium 1 for AIR hand shape and criterium 2 for FIRE hand shape.

Therefore both of your hands have a mixed hand shape with AIR and FIRE.

(You can check the other criteria at my website - then you will find that your hands do not qualify for the other criteria!)

This illustrates that this method at least works for your hand, because you had mentioned that you considered yourself to have fire/air hand shape.

wave

PS. I will later today also share the other criteria here + the results for the other members who have shared their hand dimensions. Hand shape assessment has become so easy now!

**tap** Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:55 pm

Martijn

Could you just varify for me that on you web site, for water and earth, the 2nd criterium is correct?

:ths

Edit: and earth too

Sponsored content