Slant Angle of a Cone in Comparison with the Degree of a Circle Sector












1












$begingroup$


My friend and I were building paper cones made from circles in which we cut out sectors of the circle and joined the two sides together. We were wondering about the relationship between the angle of the sector of the circle we cut out and the inclined angle of the cone the circle eventually made. While doing the math, when cutting the circle in half, a 180 degree sector, we eventually figured out the slant angle was somewhere around 56.944 degrees using cosine and the radius and slant height of the cone. I happened to notice that number was also very close to 180/pi, or 57.296 degrees. Is there any relationship between these two? Or is it coincidence that they're close in number? Could anyone explain to me what the relationship between these two degrees are?






geometry angle







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    My friend and I were building paper cones made from circles in which we cut out sectors of the circle and joined the two sides together. We were wondering about the relationship between the angle of the sector of the circle we cut out and the inclined angle of the cone the circle eventually made. While doing the math, when cutting the circle in half, a 180 degree sector, we eventually figured out the slant angle was somewhere around 56.944 degrees using cosine and the radius and slant height of the cone. I happened to notice that number was also very close to 180/pi, or 57.296 degrees. Is there any relationship between these two? Or is it coincidence that they're close in number? Could anyone explain to me what the relationship between these two degrees are?






    geometry angle







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      My friend and I were building paper cones made from circles in which we cut out sectors of the circle and joined the two sides together. We were wondering about the relationship between the angle of the sector of the circle we cut out and the inclined angle of the cone the circle eventually made. While doing the math, when cutting the circle in half, a 180 degree sector, we eventually figured out the slant angle was somewhere around 56.944 degrees using cosine and the radius and slant height of the cone. I happened to notice that number was also very close to 180/pi, or 57.296 degrees. Is there any relationship between these two? Or is it coincidence that they're close in number? Could anyone explain to me what the relationship between these two degrees are?






      geometry angle







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      My friend and I were building paper cones made from circles in which we cut out sectors of the circle and joined the two sides together. We were wondering about the relationship between the angle of the sector of the circle we cut out and the inclined angle of the cone the circle eventually made. While doing the math, when cutting the circle in half, a 180 degree sector, we eventually figured out the slant angle was somewhere around 56.944 degrees using cosine and the radius and slant height of the cone. I happened to notice that number was also very close to 180/pi, or 57.296 degrees. Is there any relationship between these two? Or is it coincidence that they're close in number? Could anyone explain to me what the relationship between these two degrees are?






      geometry angle




      geometry angle






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 29 '16 at 0:39









      Ben LinkBen Link

      62




      62






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          The projection of slant height $L$ is the cone radius $ r$, so semi-vertical angle of cone is:



          $$ sin alpha = frac{r}{L} = dfrac{gamma}{2 pi}$$



          $$ dfrac{gamma}{sin alpha} = 2 pi $$



          is the relation you are asking for. Accordingly the fully developed angle $gamma $ at center of sector is



          $$ 2 pi sin alpha $$



          In your case semi-vertex angle is $ sin^{-1}dfrac12 = sin^{-1} dfrac{pi}{2 pi} = 30^{circ}$ from straight angle $pi$ to full circle $2 pi $ ratio $=dfrac12$.



          If you repeat the experiment with little more care on a larger/stiffer sheet the double angle would be exactly $60^{circ}$, not $180/pi $ degrees or a radian.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$





















            0












            $begingroup$

            The length of a circular arc is directly proportional to its central angle, so when you cut out a sector of angle $theta$ and glue the cut edges together, the circumference of the base of the cone is going to be smaller than that of the original circle by this proportional amount: $c=C-theta R$. Since the circumference of a circle is $2pi$ times its radius, we then have for the radius of the cone’s base $$r = left(1-fractheta{2pi}right)R.$$



            The slant height of the cone is the original circle’s radius $R$, so $$sin alpha=frac r R=1-fractheta{2pi},$$ where $alpha$ is the half-angle at the cone’s vertex.



            If you cut out half of the circle, you’ll have $sinalpha=frac12$, or $alpha=fracpi6$, which is $30$ degrees.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              $r,theta$ are not (directly) proportional to each other in the given first relation. Given linear relation of negative slope is not correct. Answer happened to be right as $ 180$ degrees stands midway between $0,360.$.
              $endgroup$
              – Narasimham
              Jan 12 '18 at 16:52












            • $begingroup$
              @Narasimham Aside from a quibble about my wording, where’s the error? This derivation is essentially the same as yours, the only difference being that I used the angle $theta$ of the deleted sector, whereas you used the angle of the remaining sector $gamma = 2pi-theta$.
              $endgroup$
              – amd
              Jan 12 '18 at 19:04










            • $begingroup$
              Oh,ok ..then if it is wording and English usage only, ..because what I understood is the sector part of paper that remains after the cutting.
              $endgroup$
              – Narasimham
              Jan 12 '18 at 21:45










            • $begingroup$
              @Narasimham I’ll make some edits to make this clearer. Thanks!
              $endgroup$
              – amd
              Jan 12 '18 at 22:11











            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1631311%2fslant-angle-of-a-cone-in-comparison-with-the-degree-of-a-circle-sector%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            The projection of slant height $L$ is the cone radius $ r$, so semi-vertical angle of cone is:



            $$ sin alpha = frac{r}{L} = dfrac{gamma}{2 pi}$$



            $$ dfrac{gamma}{sin alpha} = 2 pi $$



            is the relation you are asking for. Accordingly the fully developed angle $gamma $ at center of sector is



            $$ 2 pi sin alpha $$



            In your case semi-vertex angle is $ sin^{-1}dfrac12 = sin^{-1} dfrac{pi}{2 pi} = 30^{circ}$ from straight angle $pi$ to full circle $2 pi $ ratio $=dfrac12$.



            If you repeat the experiment with little more care on a larger/stiffer sheet the double angle would be exactly $60^{circ}$, not $180/pi $ degrees or a radian.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              The projection of slant height $L$ is the cone radius $ r$, so semi-vertical angle of cone is:



              $$ sin alpha = frac{r}{L} = dfrac{gamma}{2 pi}$$



              $$ dfrac{gamma}{sin alpha} = 2 pi $$



              is the relation you are asking for. Accordingly the fully developed angle $gamma $ at center of sector is



              $$ 2 pi sin alpha $$



              In your case semi-vertex angle is $ sin^{-1}dfrac12 = sin^{-1} dfrac{pi}{2 pi} = 30^{circ}$ from straight angle $pi$ to full circle $2 pi $ ratio $=dfrac12$.



              If you repeat the experiment with little more care on a larger/stiffer sheet the double angle would be exactly $60^{circ}$, not $180/pi $ degrees or a radian.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                The projection of slant height $L$ is the cone radius $ r$, so semi-vertical angle of cone is:



                $$ sin alpha = frac{r}{L} = dfrac{gamma}{2 pi}$$



                $$ dfrac{gamma}{sin alpha} = 2 pi $$



                is the relation you are asking for. Accordingly the fully developed angle $gamma $ at center of sector is



                $$ 2 pi sin alpha $$



                In your case semi-vertex angle is $ sin^{-1}dfrac12 = sin^{-1} dfrac{pi}{2 pi} = 30^{circ}$ from straight angle $pi$ to full circle $2 pi $ ratio $=dfrac12$.



                If you repeat the experiment with little more care on a larger/stiffer sheet the double angle would be exactly $60^{circ}$, not $180/pi $ degrees or a radian.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                The projection of slant height $L$ is the cone radius $ r$, so semi-vertical angle of cone is:



                $$ sin alpha = frac{r}{L} = dfrac{gamma}{2 pi}$$



                $$ dfrac{gamma}{sin alpha} = 2 pi $$



                is the relation you are asking for. Accordingly the fully developed angle $gamma $ at center of sector is



                $$ 2 pi sin alpha $$



                In your case semi-vertex angle is $ sin^{-1}dfrac12 = sin^{-1} dfrac{pi}{2 pi} = 30^{circ}$ from straight angle $pi$ to full circle $2 pi $ ratio $=dfrac12$.



                If you repeat the experiment with little more care on a larger/stiffer sheet the double angle would be exactly $60^{circ}$, not $180/pi $ degrees or a radian.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Jan 12 '18 at 21:40

























                answered Jan 12 '18 at 15:49









                NarasimhamNarasimham

                20.9k62158




                20.9k62158























                    0












                    $begingroup$

                    The length of a circular arc is directly proportional to its central angle, so when you cut out a sector of angle $theta$ and glue the cut edges together, the circumference of the base of the cone is going to be smaller than that of the original circle by this proportional amount: $c=C-theta R$. Since the circumference of a circle is $2pi$ times its radius, we then have for the radius of the cone’s base $$r = left(1-fractheta{2pi}right)R.$$



                    The slant height of the cone is the original circle’s radius $R$, so $$sin alpha=frac r R=1-fractheta{2pi},$$ where $alpha$ is the half-angle at the cone’s vertex.



                    If you cut out half of the circle, you’ll have $sinalpha=frac12$, or $alpha=fracpi6$, which is $30$ degrees.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$













                    • $begingroup$
                      $r,theta$ are not (directly) proportional to each other in the given first relation. Given linear relation of negative slope is not correct. Answer happened to be right as $ 180$ degrees stands midway between $0,360.$.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Narasimham
                      Jan 12 '18 at 16:52












                    • $begingroup$
                      @Narasimham Aside from a quibble about my wording, where’s the error? This derivation is essentially the same as yours, the only difference being that I used the angle $theta$ of the deleted sector, whereas you used the angle of the remaining sector $gamma = 2pi-theta$.
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Jan 12 '18 at 19:04










                    • $begingroup$
                      Oh,ok ..then if it is wording and English usage only, ..because what I understood is the sector part of paper that remains after the cutting.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Narasimham
                      Jan 12 '18 at 21:45










                    • $begingroup$
                      @Narasimham I’ll make some edits to make this clearer. Thanks!
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Jan 12 '18 at 22:11
















                    0












                    $begingroup$

                    The length of a circular arc is directly proportional to its central angle, so when you cut out a sector of angle $theta$ and glue the cut edges together, the circumference of the base of the cone is going to be smaller than that of the original circle by this proportional amount: $c=C-theta R$. Since the circumference of a circle is $2pi$ times its radius, we then have for the radius of the cone’s base $$r = left(1-fractheta{2pi}right)R.$$



                    The slant height of the cone is the original circle’s radius $R$, so $$sin alpha=frac r R=1-fractheta{2pi},$$ where $alpha$ is the half-angle at the cone’s vertex.



                    If you cut out half of the circle, you’ll have $sinalpha=frac12$, or $alpha=fracpi6$, which is $30$ degrees.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$













                    • $begingroup$
                      $r,theta$ are not (directly) proportional to each other in the given first relation. Given linear relation of negative slope is not correct. Answer happened to be right as $ 180$ degrees stands midway between $0,360.$.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Narasimham
                      Jan 12 '18 at 16:52












                    • $begingroup$
                      @Narasimham Aside from a quibble about my wording, where’s the error? This derivation is essentially the same as yours, the only difference being that I used the angle $theta$ of the deleted sector, whereas you used the angle of the remaining sector $gamma = 2pi-theta$.
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Jan 12 '18 at 19:04










                    • $begingroup$
                      Oh,ok ..then if it is wording and English usage only, ..because what I understood is the sector part of paper that remains after the cutting.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Narasimham
                      Jan 12 '18 at 21:45










                    • $begingroup$
                      @Narasimham I’ll make some edits to make this clearer. Thanks!
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Jan 12 '18 at 22:11














                    0












                    0








                    0





                    $begingroup$

                    The length of a circular arc is directly proportional to its central angle, so when you cut out a sector of angle $theta$ and glue the cut edges together, the circumference of the base of the cone is going to be smaller than that of the original circle by this proportional amount: $c=C-theta R$. Since the circumference of a circle is $2pi$ times its radius, we then have for the radius of the cone’s base $$r = left(1-fractheta{2pi}right)R.$$



                    The slant height of the cone is the original circle’s radius $R$, so $$sin alpha=frac r R=1-fractheta{2pi},$$ where $alpha$ is the half-angle at the cone’s vertex.



                    If you cut out half of the circle, you’ll have $sinalpha=frac12$, or $alpha=fracpi6$, which is $30$ degrees.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    The length of a circular arc is directly proportional to its central angle, so when you cut out a sector of angle $theta$ and glue the cut edges together, the circumference of the base of the cone is going to be smaller than that of the original circle by this proportional amount: $c=C-theta R$. Since the circumference of a circle is $2pi$ times its radius, we then have for the radius of the cone’s base $$r = left(1-fractheta{2pi}right)R.$$



                    The slant height of the cone is the original circle’s radius $R$, so $$sin alpha=frac r R=1-fractheta{2pi},$$ where $alpha$ is the half-angle at the cone’s vertex.



                    If you cut out half of the circle, you’ll have $sinalpha=frac12$, or $alpha=fracpi6$, which is $30$ degrees.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Jan 13 '18 at 21:35

























                    answered Jan 29 '16 at 1:54









                    amdamd

                    30.8k21051




                    30.8k21051












                    • $begingroup$
                      $r,theta$ are not (directly) proportional to each other in the given first relation. Given linear relation of negative slope is not correct. Answer happened to be right as $ 180$ degrees stands midway between $0,360.$.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Narasimham
                      Jan 12 '18 at 16:52












                    • $begingroup$
                      @Narasimham Aside from a quibble about my wording, where’s the error? This derivation is essentially the same as yours, the only difference being that I used the angle $theta$ of the deleted sector, whereas you used the angle of the remaining sector $gamma = 2pi-theta$.
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Jan 12 '18 at 19:04










                    • $begingroup$
                      Oh,ok ..then if it is wording and English usage only, ..because what I understood is the sector part of paper that remains after the cutting.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Narasimham
                      Jan 12 '18 at 21:45










                    • $begingroup$
                      @Narasimham I’ll make some edits to make this clearer. Thanks!
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Jan 12 '18 at 22:11


















                    • $begingroup$
                      $r,theta$ are not (directly) proportional to each other in the given first relation. Given linear relation of negative slope is not correct. Answer happened to be right as $ 180$ degrees stands midway between $0,360.$.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Narasimham
                      Jan 12 '18 at 16:52












                    • $begingroup$
                      @Narasimham Aside from a quibble about my wording, where’s the error? This derivation is essentially the same as yours, the only difference being that I used the angle $theta$ of the deleted sector, whereas you used the angle of the remaining sector $gamma = 2pi-theta$.
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Jan 12 '18 at 19:04










                    • $begingroup$
                      Oh,ok ..then if it is wording and English usage only, ..because what I understood is the sector part of paper that remains after the cutting.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Narasimham
                      Jan 12 '18 at 21:45










                    • $begingroup$
                      @Narasimham I’ll make some edits to make this clearer. Thanks!
                      $endgroup$
                      – amd
                      Jan 12 '18 at 22:11
















                    $begingroup$
                    $r,theta$ are not (directly) proportional to each other in the given first relation. Given linear relation of negative slope is not correct. Answer happened to be right as $ 180$ degrees stands midway between $0,360.$.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Narasimham
                    Jan 12 '18 at 16:52






                    $begingroup$
                    $r,theta$ are not (directly) proportional to each other in the given first relation. Given linear relation of negative slope is not correct. Answer happened to be right as $ 180$ degrees stands midway between $0,360.$.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Narasimham
                    Jan 12 '18 at 16:52














                    $begingroup$
                    @Narasimham Aside from a quibble about my wording, where’s the error? This derivation is essentially the same as yours, the only difference being that I used the angle $theta$ of the deleted sector, whereas you used the angle of the remaining sector $gamma = 2pi-theta$.
                    $endgroup$
                    – amd
                    Jan 12 '18 at 19:04




                    $begingroup$
                    @Narasimham Aside from a quibble about my wording, where’s the error? This derivation is essentially the same as yours, the only difference being that I used the angle $theta$ of the deleted sector, whereas you used the angle of the remaining sector $gamma = 2pi-theta$.
                    $endgroup$
                    – amd
                    Jan 12 '18 at 19:04












                    $begingroup$
                    Oh,ok ..then if it is wording and English usage only, ..because what I understood is the sector part of paper that remains after the cutting.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Narasimham
                    Jan 12 '18 at 21:45




                    $begingroup$
                    Oh,ok ..then if it is wording and English usage only, ..because what I understood is the sector part of paper that remains after the cutting.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Narasimham
                    Jan 12 '18 at 21:45












                    $begingroup$
                    @Narasimham I’ll make some edits to make this clearer. Thanks!
                    $endgroup$
                    – amd
                    Jan 12 '18 at 22:11




                    $begingroup$
                    @Narasimham I’ll make some edits to make this clearer. Thanks!
                    $endgroup$
                    – amd
                    Jan 12 '18 at 22:11


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1631311%2fslant-angle-of-a-cone-in-comparison-with-the-degree-of-a-circle-sector%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Bundesstraße 106

                    Image
                    Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland. Zur gleichnamigen Straße in Österreich siehe Mölltal Straße. Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße/Wartung/DE-B Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland Karte Basisdaten Betreiber: Deutschland  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Straßenbeginn: Wismar ( 53° 54′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.900536 11.396875 ) Straßenende: Schwerin ( 53° 36′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.592785 11.404892 ) Gesamtlänge: 40,7 km Bundesland: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ausbauzustand: zweistreifig [1] Bundesstraße 106 in Schwerin (Umgehungsstraße) Straßenverlauf Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg Ortsumgehung Wismar Wallensteingraben über   Dorf Mecklenburg Wallensteingraben Groß Stieten Bad Kleinen OT Niendorf Bahnstrecke Lübeck–Bad Kleinen Zickhusen Lübstorf Klein Trebbow OT Kirch Stück ...
                    Read more

                    Verónica Boquete

                    Image
                    Verónica Boquete im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft (2013) Personalia Name Verónica Boquete Giadans Geburtstag 9. April 1987 Geburtsort Santiago de Compostela, Spanien Größe 159 cm Position Mittelfeld / Sturm Juniorinnen Jahre Station 2001–2005 Xuventú Aguiño Frauen Jahre Station Spiele (Tore) 1 2005–2008 Prainsa Zaragoza 83 (40) 2008–2010 Espanyol Barcelona 53 (30) 2010 Buffalo Flash 9 0 (9) 2010 Chicago Red Stars 3 0 (1) 2010–2011 Espanyol Barcelona 26 (41) 2011 Philadelphia Independence 13 0 (5) 2011 Energija Woronesch 5 0 (1) 2012–2014 Tyresö FF 39 (14) 2014 Portland Thorns FC 15 0 (4) 2014–2015 1. FFC Frankfurt 23 0 (7) 2015–2016 FC Bayern München 9 0 (0) 2016–2018 Paris Saint-Germain 31 0 (8) 2018 Peking BG Phoenix 2019– Utah Royals FC 0 0 (0) Nationalmannschaft Jahre Auswahl ...
                    Read more

                    Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

                    Image
                    Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich ...
                    Read more