




Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:49:25 -0300
From: hull@hypatia.math.uri.edu
Subject: Re: Mathematica

Howdy!  I've been using Mathematica a lot for making complex-looking
diagrams for complex-looking modulars.  It is a real peach!  But
there's one problem I run into:  When you make a 3-D image on Mathematica
and export it to a drawing program, Mathematica always converts the image
and such, I'd much rather have the image as a vector-based drawn object,
but I can't find a way to make Mathematica do this for me.  Does anyone
have suggestions as to how I might do this?  (Of course, I can use the
bitmapped paint object as a "backdrop" and redraw it using "point-and-
click" polygons and such, but this is way tedious and uncool.)

Another thing to think about is that there are several good mathematics
programs out there.  Indeed, Mathematica's main competitor is Maple,
which touts some very good 3-D graphics capabilities as well.  I've
never used Maple, but many mathematicians I know swear by it because
it uses less memory and (I think) costs less than Mathematica.
Can anyone out there comment on how well Maple works with mathematical
origami diagramming/design?

----------------- Tom "Tom" Hull





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 12:14:27 -0300
From: dzimm@nando.net (David Zimmerman)
Subject: Re: reverse engineering

VAnn Cornelius wrote ..."
> <This is the third time I'm mailing this note.  I don't get error
> messages but I haven't seen it come back to my screen in a
> group message set.  I wonder where they are going.  >
>

Where do clouds go when they're not in the sky?

--
David P Zimmerman             dzimm@nando.net
916 Riderwood Ct               919 557 7692
WillowSpring NC 27592

No user serviceable part inside. Warranty void if opened
modified or tampered with. No batteries included.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 12:31:41 -0300
From: sychen@ENH.NIST.GOV (Shi-Yew Chen \(a.k.a. Sy\))
Subject: Re: Mathematica

>
>Howdy!  I've been using Mathematica a lot for making complex-looking
>diagrams for complex-looking modulars.  It is a real peach!  But
>there's one problem I run into:  When you make a 3-D image on Mathematica
>and export it to a drawing program, Mathematica always converts the image
>to a big bitmapped pixel thing - i.e., a paint object.  For 3-D polyhedra

I didn't know that. I will check on it.

>and such, I'd much rather have the image as a vector-based drawn object,
>but I can't find a way to make Mathematica do this for me.  Does anyone
>have suggestions as to how I might do this?  (Of course, I can use the
>bitmapped paint object as a "backdrop" and redraw it using "point-and-
>click" polygons and such, but this is way tedious and uncool.)

Did you try some package with auto-tracing ability?

>
>Another thing to think about is that there are several good mathematics
>programs out there.  Indeed, Mathematica's main competitor is Maple,
>which touts some very good 3-D graphics capabilities as well.  I've
>never used Maple, but many mathematicians I know swear by it because
>it uses less memory and (I think) costs less than Mathematica.
>Can anyone out there comment on how well Maple works with mathematical
>origami diagramming/design?

I will check this as well.

Shi-Yew Chen (Sy)
E-Mail - sychen@enh.nist.gov
WWW URL - http://www.iia.org/~chens/syhome.htm





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:28:27 -0300
From: Grace.Chiu@Cognos.COM (Chiu, Grace)
Subject: Re: Mathematica

For tracing over bit maps to draw-type diagrams, I'ved used Adobe
Streamline.
Streamline saves to PostScript format for Illustrator.
I once had an evaluation copy of Mathematica but didn't use it for any 3-D
stuff.  It's a bit of a pig (on resources) isn't it?

Tom or anybody, if you want, try sending me a bitmap and I'll Streamline it
for you.

Ahhh.... Maple... That brings back memories.  I played around with it about
10 years ago in the Maple Lab at UofWaterloo (where it came from).  It
didn't do that much back then.  Who sells it now?  NOT
Watcom/Powersoft/Sybase,
I hope.

Grace
 ---
Grace Chiu, Enslavened Manager, Technology Support Services,
Cognos Inc.: Rubberneckers on the Information Super-Dirt Road
Ottawa, ON 1-800-365-3968, ext. 3218.
Grace.Chiu@Cognos.COM or chiug@cognos.com
 ----------
From: origami-l
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Mathematica
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 1995 10:14AM

Howdy!  I've been using Mathematica a lot for making complex-looking
diagrams for complex-looking modulars.  It is a real peach!  But
there's one problem I run into:  When you make a 3-D image on Mathematica
and export it to a drawing program, Mathematica always converts the image
and such, I'd much rather have the image as a vector-based drawn object,
but I can't find a way to make Mathematica do this for me.  Does anyone
have suggestions as to how I might do this?  (Of course, I can use the
bitmapped paint object as a "backdrop" and redraw it using "point-and-
click" polygons and such, but this is way tedious and uncool.)

Another thing to think about is that there are several good mathematics
programs out there.  Indeed, Mathematica's main competitor is Maple,
which touts some very good 3-D graphics capabilities as well.  I've
never used Maple, but many mathematicians I know swear by it because
it uses less memory and (I think) costs less than Mathematica.
Can anyone out there comment on how well Maple works with mathematical
origami diagramming/design?

 ----------------- Tom "Tom" Hull





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 15:10:21 -0300
From: Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.COM>
Subject: RE: origami copyright

Valerie Vann writes:
>
> "Our attorney advises that an origami DESIGN [emphasis added] is not
> tangible. It is not 'fixed in a tangible medium of expression' and since
> you cannot copyright an idea or procedure, you cannot copyright an
> origami design. YOU CAN HOWEVER, COPYRIGHT THE DIAGRAMS AND THE
> COMPLETED MODEL."  [emphasis added]
>
        Interesting.  This then begs the question, what good is a
        copyright on a completed model?  According the same OUSA
        lawyers, it's quite legal to fold a model from published
        diagrams and sell it.  If you can make a duplicate of the
        original and make a profit from it, what does the copyright
        on the model protect?

Regards,

  Sheila Davis        Hewlett-Packard IC Business Division
 sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com          Fort Collins, Colorado





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 16:49:12 -0300
From: Kevin Nara Park <prank@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mathematica

Tom "Tom" wrote:
>
> there's one problem I run into:  When you make a 3-D image on Mathematica
> and export it to a drawing program, Mathematica always converts the image
> to a big bitmapped pixel thing - i.e., a paint object.  For 3-D polyhedra

There should be a "PostScript output" function in one of the preference
menus which tells Mathematica to keep all plots in PostScript format.
Else the output may very well be bitmapped.

> never used Maple, but many mathematicians I know swear by it because
> it uses less memory and (I think) costs less than Mathematica.
> Can anyone out there comment on how well Maple works with mathematical
> origami diagramming/design?

Considering that Maple is, essentially, free for anyone in academic or
in scientific fields, Maple is indeed a great deal.  I am quite sure that
I have seen 3-D packages and output from Maple that looked very good.  I
don't know any command or toolbox routines which will export a 3-D
polyhedron in a vector format, but you can get a decent 2-D representation.
The best thing about Maple is that people write their own code for it
all the time and everywhere, so if you don't see a command or a function
included with the version of Maple you received, ask around.

If you have already calculated all of the angles/side lengths for a
particular model, it should be fairly easy to create a polygon or
wireframe model in a CAD program, like 3D Studio or Infini-D.  Then you
can see the model from almost any angle and even animate the folding
sequence of the model(!!).  On the Mac, Infini-D is exceptionally easy to
learn and use towards this end.

--Kevin





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 21:10:09 -0300
From: dragon@freenet.edmonton.ab.CA
Subject: Re: Favorite Origami Model

Hi, I have been lurking for just over a month now and have really enjoyed
everyones comments, suggestions etc.  I was wondering what everyones
favorite model is.  Mine is the dragon adapted from Elias, and Kasahara.
I am continually amazed of the breadth and depth of this model when wet
or dried folded and depending on the papers used.  I would be interested
in any comments anyone has to offer and if they have folded the same etc.
Thanks and have a great origami day.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 21:23:41 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: RE: reverse engineering

<This is the third time I'm mailing this note.  I don't get error
messages but I haven't seen it come back to my screen in a
group message set.  I wonder where they are going.  >

There's a special place for them...





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 21:57:55 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Favorite Origami Model

Kasahara peacock - simple, elegant, artistic, impresses kids,...





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:39:07 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: origami copyright

Sheila Davis asks:
<<If you can make a duplicate of the
<<original and make a profit from it, what does the copyright
<<on the model protect?

Well, in the first place, there are a lot of things about copyright law
that don't seem to make sense on first impression :-)

But I would suggest the following in reply:

I think most origami artists who sign and copyright notice their
individual models do it for the same reason other artists do, to
establish it as THEIR work, and also to date it, or stake a claim to
have thought of it first in some cases, though actually that purpose
pertains more to patent law than copyright.

I do it for those reasons and
also to distinguish models I claim as my own original work from those
I have folded from others designs or variations of others' work. And
some of us probably do it because as artists we routinely sign our work,
and since you CAN copyright it while you're at it, what the heck, why not?
:-)

Another reason is that, especially for more complex models with judgement
folds, wet folding, materials that contribute special character, etc.,
the model may be to a large extent a one of a kind paper sculpture, i.e.,
even the designer can't make another just like it... Even assuming that
you survive the experience of working your way through the 145 closed
interior sinks etc of some mind boggling 11-legged masterpiece designed
by [fill in the blank...], it ain't never going to be the masterpiece that
[fill in the blank] created in the first place!

And, though legal to fold and sell models from others copyrighted models,
you may not claim, for example, that you are selling a "genuine [you know
who] pond hopping bumble wasp", without exposing yourself to serious legal
consequences. All you can claim to sell is an origami pond hopping
bumble wasp that you whipped up yourself from somebody else's directions.
In fact, it is ill-advised to use someone else's name without permission
in a commercial venture, quite aside from copyright issues.

Finally, if anybody profits from origami [and I doubt anyone is getting
rich at it: comments invited from those with first hand experience], the
copyrighted diagrams, and even photos of a model, are more valuable
commodities than the model itself, as the first two can be published for
money, while the model cannot be published, only sold itself as a physical
object.

Unless maybe you were charging admission to view a pond hopping
bumble wasp by you-know-who, though I bet you'd make more money exhibiting
the poor slob who spent 93 hours straight trying to fold one ;-)
(But you'd better have you-know-who's permission to use their name..)

And then again, ETHICAL, which set off this whole discussion, is not the
same as LEGAL, but a kinder, more civilized, and consequently perhaps more
stringent set of considerations...
[Also addressed, by the way, by OUSA in the Annuals]

--valerie
Compuserve: Valerie Vann 75070,304
Internet: 75070.304@compuserve.com
Internet: valerivann@aol.com

<< A rose is a rose is a rose is a Kawasaki rose>>





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:40:53 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: reverse engineering

<<They reverse engineered it (being engineers). The fun
thing was that they came up with five ways to make it and non of the
ways they did it was the way I made it.
>>

V'Ann has hit on it precisely: "The Joy of Reverse Engineering".
Its Puzzle Solving! It stimulates the Brain Cells!
And of course every red-blooded engineer is convinced 1) they CAN
reverse engineer it (solve the puzzle...) and 2) figure out a
better/different way to do it..
[tinker tinker tinker]

--valerie
<<It is the art of engineering
to reach sufficient conclusions
from insufficient data.>>





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:40:29 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: origami copyrightable  contin

Rona, no apology called for; I hope that in striving for clarity I didn't
give the wrong impression of lecturing. The issue is both confusing and
"fuzzy" and there is a tendency in the case of origami to lose the
distinction between the DESIGN and the MODEL. Some of the earlier
phrasings of the FOCA/OUSA policy were not as clear I think as the 1995
issue.

<<Now, how does one copyright a completed model?>>

In the USA, copyright is very simple. In point of law, an author's/artist's
work is protected as soon as it comes into being as a physical (tangible)
work. However, lawyers consider this protection pretty minimal in
real life. The next level of protection is simply to write on the work
"Copyright 199- J. Doe", and some add "All rights reserved" etc. [if you've
got room!] This, the lawyers believe, may even survive an real life legal
fight. Ultimately, if you're really serious about publishing, you would
go through the actual formal procedure with the US copyright office. (A
library can help you find the info to do that; it's not as complex as
getting a patent. And there are some books about copyright issues
specifically for artist and craftspeople.)

But just putting the notice on the work yourself is legally sufficient
under current USA law to "copyright it". As some of the earlier
exchanges point out, this final formal step is not terribly useful in the
case of origami models (though it IS for diagrams and instructions, videos,
etc.), unless perhaps you happen to be one of the masters, whose individual
models might very well have considerable value.

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 01:42:23 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: RE: reverse engineering

>And of course every red-blooded engineer is convinced 1) they CAN
>reverse engineer it (solve the puzzle...) and 2) figure out a
>better/different way to do it..
>tinker tinker tinker]

They can also drink a carton of beer and eat the cardboard





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 03:26:40 -0300
From: Brian@goodallb.demon.co.uk (Brian J. Goodall)
Subject: Re: Throwing star

There is a model sheet in the BOS library entitled
        SHURIKEN ( Japanese Throwing Knife)

It is a four pointed star made from two interlocked folded modules, each module
is folded from a square, one left handed, the other right handed. The model is
stated to be Traditional. The drawing is a BOS copyright.

Hope this helps.

--
Brian J. Goodall             * Experience is what you get when *
Sutton Coldfield             * you're too old to use it!       *
West Midlands                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:44:14 -0300
From: Rjlang@aol.com
Subject: Re: Mathematica

> there's one problem I run into:  When you make a 3-D image on Mathematica
> and export it to a drawing program, Mathematica always converts the image
> to a big bitmapped pixel thing - i.e., a paint object.  For 3-D polyhedra

Mathematica can convert graphics to several different formats, including
vector formats. (The following applies to the Mac version of Mathematica, but
I imagine there's something analogous for other versions.) If you use the
Copy command (Edit menu), Mathematica makes a private copy and a bitmapped
copy of the graphic. To export it in a useful format, after copying the
graphic to the Clipboard, select the "Convert Clipboard..." command
(command-M). This puts up a dialog that gives you eight kajillion different
formats for the image, including PICT (Macintosh native format), PICT with
embedded PostScript (same thing but prints better), Encapsulated Postscript
(the most bulletproof, but not editable) and Adobe Illustrator 1.1 format
(which is an editable variant of EPS). This last is what I used. Export the
image to a file in Illustrator 1.1 format and you can then import the image
into either Illustrator or FreeHand for editing and touch-up.

> Last time I looked, Mathematica was a pretty expensive (> $600) for
> Non students.  It may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but > for
those
> of us who aren't making books, I think it is unreasonably expensive.

It's pretty dear even to those of us who _are_ making books. It helps to have
an employer who is willing to foot the bill (I hasten to point out -- in case
my boss is lurking -- that the vast majority of my Mathematica programming is
in fact non-origami-related. Really.)

Robert





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:52:00 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@tritec.demon.co.UK>
Subject: Throwing Star origins

> Nick, is this something you picked up at school?

No, someone at a school taught it me when I visited to teach. A few
well-read folders have assured me it's trad. I learnt precious few folds
at school, the boat, snapper, waterbomb, paper hat, planes,
fortune-teller. Well, go on then, I learned quite a few at school!
Sadly, I only started it seriously in my late twenties, so missed out on
a lot of fun.

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 15:40:27 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Australian Origami Socs

>   Who's keen? Whadda we do? How much does it cost?

Well, there's several options.

Portfolio. This is how the BOS started, so it *does* work. You mail a sturdy
     box to a member on a preset list. They add new material (folds,
     photocopies etc.) then pass it on to the next person on the list. When
     they get it back (!) they replace their
ontributions with new ones & off it goes again! It needs a reasonable speed of
     turnover to work. I'd have thought a dozen members would be feasible. When
     it gets larger, you're perhaps looing at a society!

Listserver. Ori-l could start the ball & when enough Aussie members contributed
     it could become independant. Someone would have to have the technical
     facilities to oversee this. A web page is another option, with an editor
     posting a few pages on their
eb site at regular intervals. Obviously, all would need net access & also web
     space so it might not be suitable.

APA (amateur press alliance). FOLD has shown that this is a long-term option,
     reaching issue 50 earlier this year. An editor recieves enough copies of a
     persons contribution to collate them & remail to all members. Each member
     would need to commit appr
ximate postage costs in advance and submit a minimum contribution of (say) 4 A4
     sides. 4/6 issues a year would be reasonable and the editor should change
     on a regular basis. This has the joy of establishing close friendships & a
     free exchange of folds/
ews & personal support (FOLD members help each other through life crises!) It
     also means each issue is packed with exciting things - Mark Kennedy
     regularly folds 20 Montroll designs so every member can have one, but
     that's typically Mark, who deserves
 sainthood for his selfless work.

Magazine. Some kind/keen soul would need to collate, duplicate & mail this, so
     sights should be set low & the editors commitment would need to be high!
     No formal rules need be set until numbers grew & mailing costs would be
     low.

I wouldn't advise forming a society until there were 20/30 regular folders
     prepared to form a committee (e-mail would help here!) If you did, the BOS
     (& others I'd imagine) would help with publicity & possibly a gift of BOS
     booklets or something simila
 to launch a library. Origmi Deutschland started small in this fashion, but has
     been blessed with the talent & love of Paulo Mulatinho without which it
     would have been still-born. You *must* beware putting promotional/financial
     /ego motives on the agend
 or it wouldn't reflect the true spirit of origami. A *few* societies sprint to
     mind here :(

The first step is to guage interest by mailing all know Aussie members (raid
     the membership lists of the BOS & OUSA to start with). Check all known
     "celebs" such as Steve Casey & (perhaps) Campbell Morris. If you can find
     a suitable source, you might g
t sponsorship from somewhere like a paper company or book publisher - Origami
     Munich & the MFPP get help this way.

Any way you try will be a long haul with lots of frustration, but surely worth
     the effort. I'd be happy to contribute articles, folds & publicity to any
     such endeavour, as I'm sure most of us would.

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 19:21:07 -0300
From: Todd Graham <toddag@phoenix.phoenix.net>
Subject: Re: Mathematica

>there's one problem I run into:  When you make a 3-D image on
Mathematica
>and export it to a drawing program, Mathematica always converts the
image
>to a big bitmapped pixel thing - i.e., a paint object.  For 3-D polyhedra
>and such, I'd much rather have the image as a vector-based drawn object,
>but I can't find a way to make Mathematica do this for me.  Does anyone
>have suggestions as to how I might do this?  (Of course, I can use the
>bitmapped paint object as a "backdrop" and redraw it using "point-and-
>click" polygons and such, but this is way tedious and uncool.)

CorelDRAW (and other drawing packages, I'm sure) can import .dxf and
other CAD files. If you can save the Mathematica file in such a format, you
should be able to import it.

- Todd





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 19:25:34 -0300
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Looking for British BOS member(s).

[Thanks to many people for suggesting this! -dwp]

I am looking for a member of BOS living in Britian interested in doing an
exchange of origami related materials.  With the BOS convention coming up, a
convention attendee would be ideal, to save on shipping charges.  I am willing
to send OUSA and other materials available in the US in exchange for like
priced (after appropriate currency conversion) BOS and other origami materials
available in Britain.

I have had one volunteer for a one=time deal (you know who you are!), but am
looking for someone who doesn't already have an origami "pen pal" but would
like one.

Save the list and reply directly to me at:
        dwp@transarc.com

Thanks!

ObOrigami:  My favorite Dragon, so far anyways!, is Tom Stamm's Dragon from
his booklet available from OUSA.  Not a very hard model, but it looks so cool,
his computer generated diagrams don't do the final model justice!

I have seen a few others (including Nolan's), but I like the overall
structure (even though there are no legs) of T.Stamm's dragon the best so
far, the wings esp.  With other "animals" there can be a consideration for
"correspondence with reality", but that doesn't apply here, just personal
aesthetic considerations.

[If you reply to the ObOrigami part, please change your 'Subject:' line!]

-Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:25:21 -0300
From: Kevin Thorne <C598033@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: Back again :-)

     Hi everyone, just thought I'd put in a quick word now that I'm back
at college with access to my account.  It seems like the hot topic these
days is reverse engineering and overall, what rights a person has regarding
the protection of diagrams and completed models.  This is also of some
interest to me since I have sold plenty of origami artwork and created my
own models.  I was wondering what John Montroll and Robert Lang had to
say on this particular subject since I'm sure they have had many experiences
with these subjects.

     I've seen many references to a "package" people are recieving from
the '95 convention and was wondering if it was available to those who could
not make it.  Or if there is other information, booklets, etc. available.
Anyone with info send me a note please.  8-)

Kevin Thorne
c598033@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Columbia, Mo
USA





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:26:43 -0300
From: gjones@yeti.polarnet.fnsb.ak.us (gj)
Subject: RE: origami copyright

Valerie Vann wrote:
>In fact, it is ill-advised to use someone else's name without permission
>in a commercial venture, quite aside from copyright issues.

While this topic is interesting and confusing I now have a question which
may simply be a difference between what is legal and what is morally right.
I was under the impression that if you sell (or even give away) some
origami that it is *polite* to state something like "This [whatever] was
originally designed by {Whoever]"  Now I am confused completely :-(

TIA -- gj





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:31:16 -0300
From: Maumoy@aol.com
Subject: Trip to New Delhi and Amsterdam

Are there any folders or sources of marble paper in the Delhi area?
I'll be in Delhi from Oct 1-5 for a high school reunion.  This is a reunion
for the entire school.  Three of us (5%) from  the Class of '65 will be
there.

I'll be teaching origami at my alma mater, the American Embassy School, on
Wednesday, Oct 4.  For our prom in 1964,  we hung hundreds of cranes from the
ceiling of Roosevelt House, the American Ambassador's residence!

Then I'll be in Amsterdam from Oct 6 thru 18.  Will definitely be getting
together with Alie Bolding and Elsje van der Ploeg, possibly others, too.

Marcia Mau





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:31:59 -0300
From: a.mccombs3@genie.geis.com
Subject: Re: Favorite Origami Model

I would have to say that one of my two favorite models is a "golden oldie" --
the Tyrannosaurus Rex by George Rhoads, shown in "The Best of Origami" by
Samuel Randlett (yes, I have a copy -- nyaah, nyaah!).  It's made from the
blintzed bird base, and has the enchanting feature of two hidden flaps that
can be pulled out to make wings.  The book calls it a "Gryphon", but I think
it just looks like a winged T. Rex, a ridiculous and charming thought.  The
other is the SR-71 by Toshikazu Kawasaki, in "Origami for the Connoisseur"
by Kasahara and Takahama.  Since I work at the National Air and Space
Museum, I use this one as my "signature" fold to give as gifts (for example,
as a going-away present to summer interns).  I have a pack of 6" black kami
used almost exclusively for SR-71s!

Anne





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 23:17:43 -0300
From: GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: RE: origami copyright

Don't be so sure that models aren't worth some money.
The modular I donated to a charity ball easily fetched $75 and the
buyer was thrilled with it, never having seen anything like it.
I felt like $150 was more appropriate but haven't tried it.

And have you seen the prices Michael LaFosse charges?
As I recall a number of his pieces are in the thousand(s) and
they are not even limited editions.

(They are very well done, though.)

Rona





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 23:25:40 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: origami copyright

<<under the impression that if you sell (or even give away) some
origami that it is *polite* to state something like "This [whatever] was
originally designed by {Whoever]" >>

Sadly, legality and ethics and good manners may seem to be unrelated at
times, or even at odds. I really don't know the answer to your question,
and doubt anyone does.

But assuming your sales of origami are a small operation and not wildly
profitable nor in competition with sales by the original designer to
any great degree, such as selling jewelry at craft fairs, street markets,
magic shows, etc.  I'd suggest (not advise, mind you) that you might
choose the polite course rather than the "legally safe course", You're
unlikely to get sued for small potatoes activity. And you could
ask the designer how they feel about it whenever possible. Origami folks
don't seem to be a terribly profit motivated lot in general. Most, in
the tradition of the FOCA/OUSA founders are wildly engaged in giving it
away, and politeness and giving credit where due is, to me, one of the
most attractive characteristics of origami & its practitioners.

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 23:26:30 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: beer cartons, cabbages & kings

Glenn Reynolds wrote:
<<They can also drink a carton of beer and eat the cardboard>>

??
??
??

This one sailed right past me.
Is it meant to convey a dislike of engineering,
engineers,
just reverse engineering,
or reverse engineers?
perverse engineers?
backward engineers?
bored with the topic?
??

hmmm... beer in cartons... never run into that.
If I had, I'd probably be folding the carton instead of
eating it, like happens to every other piece of paper
material that comes my way..

A whole new branch of origami may be unfolding [sorry] before
our very eyes to join the family of money folds, ticket folds,
business card folds, we'll have BEER CARTON FOLDS!

How much beer would be involved in constructing a 900 piece
Sonobe Unit Sphere, assuming 1 beer carton per unit?
Assuming a team of 30 folders, would the team be in any condition
to assemble the sphere after liberating the necessary 900 cartons?

[apologies to the List...
would you all rather I went back to
the esoterica of origami ethics?]

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:07:12 -0300
From: logician!sophie!pat@uunet.uu.net (Pat Zura)
Subject: Art vs. Craft via Copyright

Hear are some disjointed thoughts on Art, while thinking about the
copyright debate:

Works of art are generally considered to be unique.  The Origami process
_invites_ replication, you publish step-by-step how-tos.  Maybe the
great master who hides his collection and shows it only briefly to
visitors has the right idea.  His work, in his mind, and in many others,
is considered Art.  But many also consider him selfish, because he
does not share his technique, which is the manifestation of his art, with
the little people.  Given the pitiful protection of the copyright laws
as they apply to origami, why _should_ he share his secrets?

Since the dawn of the Modernist movement in art, Art schools (as
opposed to commercial art schools) have cut back, or completely
eliminated classes in technique.  Several of my friends have lamented
the unavailability of basic painting and drawing instruction in such
schools as the SF Art Institute, and the Beaux Arts in Paris.  You
are encouraged (forced) to find your own way, produce your unique
product, discover the _technique_ that works for you, and learn
how to talk about it in $.50 words.  Another friend, a painter who has had
moderate success in the art world, says it is ALL technique.  And someone who
has found a formula that works doesn't give it up easily, ie they are not out
giving workshops in "How to Paint Like Joe Famous."

Does anyone know how copyright applies to 3-dimensional art such as
sculpture?  Maybe this is how one should approach protecting a model.
It seems to me, however, that giving out instructions on how to create
a duplicate precludes any possibliity of uniqueness, which is what the
copyright protects (...send SASE + $1.00 for a mold of my "Thinker" statue...)

So: if you copyright _only_ the completed model maybe it would be best NOT
to publish the diagrams, if you don't want anyone making money off your model.
Would reverse engineering then be considered breach of copyright?
Of course, now no one will know how brilliantly you used that double
reverse sink fold in step 109 to get the octopus to smile :-)

Just my $.03 worth,

Pat

--------
Pat Zura     <pat@sophie.logician.com>





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:50:31 -0300
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: (Fwd) RE: beer cartons, cabbages & kings

On Wed, 30 Aug 1995 Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com> said:

>A whole new branch of origami may be unfolding [sorry] before our very
eyes to
>join the family of money folds, ticket folds, business card folds, we'll
have
>BEER CARTON FOLDS!
>
>How much beer would be involved in constructing a 900 piece Sonobe Unit
Sphere,
>assuming 1 beer carton per unit? Assuming a team of 30 folders, would the
team
>be in any condition to assemble the sphere after liberating the necessary
900
>cartons?
>

I'm still thinking about the hangovers that the folders would incur from
such a project..

Staying sober in folding, Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:50:58 -0300
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: origami copyright

On Wed, 30 Aug 1995 GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU said:

>
>
>Don't be so sure that models aren't worth some money. The modular I
donated to
>a charity ball easily fetched $75 and the buyer was thrilled with it,
never
>having seen anything like it. I felt like $150 was more appropriate but
haven't
>tried it.
>
>And have you seen the prices Michael LaFosse charges? As I recall a number
of
>his pieces are in the thousand(s) and they are not even limited editions.
>
>(They are very well done, though.)

In light of the time, effort, skill, and expertise that Michael brings to
his models, I would have to say thet the receipient would be getting an
absolute bargain. The paper alone involves much effort. He will often use
ten foot squares of paper that he made himself. The paper is engineered to
last practically forever. He also often custom designs models for his
clients. He is quite easily the American equivalent of Yoshisawa (sans the
hype).

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 04:50:37 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: RE: beer cartons, cabbages & kings

>How much beer would be involved in constructing a 900 piece
>Sonobe Unit Sphere, assuming 1 beer carton per unit?
>Assuming a team of 30 folders, would the team be in any condition
>to assemble the sphere after liberating the necessary 900 cartons?

A case of beer is called a carton here. Or a slab. But you can't fold a
slab. I wondered if the puns would come back, and they did. Some of our wine
also comes in 4 litre cardboard 'casks' (in a foil/plastic/unfoldable
insert). Ah, marketing.

No dis to Engineers intended. When I was at University, the Eng. students
had an iron man comp every year. Sometimes  teams of 4 would each drink 24
cans of Foster's between them and eat the cardboard carton. No, I don't know
why. Probably because they'd each just had a six pack in five minutes. Then
they'd run until they were sick.

Can corrugated cardboard be folded?

Regards

Glenn





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 07:17:18 -0300
From: John Olsson <d91johol@und.ida.liu.se>
Subject: Robert Neale's address

Does anyone now how I can contact Robert Neale who designed the
"Winged European Dragon" that appears in Jay Ansill's book
"Mythical Beeings"?

John Olsson





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 09:07:31 -0300
From: vann@tredgar.cardiff.com (VAnn Cornelius)
Subject: RE: Copyrights and Confusion

Gail commented on the difference between commercial endeavors and being
polite ...

We are fortunate in the origami 'community' because we have the
privilege of being able to be polite.  All the people I have
meet who are publishing books have kept their day job. Many
do not recover the money they must front to get the book
ready.  They go through all this stress to share new ideas
with those of us who are 'hungry' for understanding
processes.  We don't seem to be able to do this paperfolding
intuitively until we have been lead by the hand for many miles.

We don't have the power to pay these authors adequately for
the joy, challenges and terrific feelings they have enabled.

The greated gift that I see that I can offer is respect and
recognition when opportunity presents itself.

V'Ann
vann@cardiff.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 13:50:48 -0300
From: ACPQUINN@myriad.middlebury.edu
Subject: RE: Robert Neale's address

Robert Neale lives 3 miles away from me in Cornwall, Vermont.  I have his
address somewhere, as well as his phone number etc, but I'll have to dig it up
before I can post it.
I'm also not sure how Bob would like having a bunch of unknown folders mail him
letters...
I'll see what I can do,
-Alasdair
acpquinn@myriad.middlebury.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 14:28:14 -0300
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Robert Neale's address

I think I agree with Alasdair, if Robert Neale's address isn't easy to find,
it is probably on purpose.

Tom Hull:  Does St. Martins forward mail sent them?  If I write you and/or
Robert c/o St. Martins do/will you eventually get it?

If so, that is probably the best way to reach Robert Neale.

-Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 16:28:05 -0300
From: "Dorinha M.S.S. Vitti" <dmssvitt@carpa.ciagri.usp.BR>
Subject: Re: Favorite Origami Model

I AM PREPARING AN ORIGAMI EXHIBITION BASED ON STORIES FROM A BRAZILIAN
AUTHOR WHO WROTE CHILD STORIES . I NEED DESPERATE A DRAGON MODEL. HOW I
CAN GET THIS MODEL FROM KASAHARA?PLEASE, HELP ME...DORINHA

On Tue, 29 Aug 1995 dragon@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:

>
> Hi, I have been lurking for just over a month now and have really enjoyed
> everyones comments, suggestions etc.  I was wondering what everyones
> favorite model is.  Mine is the dragon adapted from Elias, and Kasahara.
> I am continually amazed of the breadth and depth of this model when wet
> or dried folded and depending on the papers used.  I would be interested
> in any comments anyone has to offer and if they have folded the same etc.
> Thanks and have a great origami day.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 18:10:14 -0300
From: hull@hypatia.math.uri.edu
Subject: Re: Robert Neale's address

St. Martin's Press does forward mail to Robert Neale and myself.
Here's the address:

        St. Martin's Press
        175 Fifth Avenue
        New York, NY 10010-7848
        ATTN: Barbara Anderson

        Barbara Anderson is our editor.  You'd better send it attn to
her and have a note inside asking them to foward the letter to Bob
Neale.  I doubt anyone there besides Barbara knows who Bob Neale is!

-------------- Tom "I'll take a sausage" Hull





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 20:29:17 -0300
From: DBSH47B@prodigy.com (MRS. JANET J HAMILTON)
Subject: Re: Looking For Throwing Star

-- [ From: Janet Hamilton * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --

> Has anyone seen the Throwing Star published commercially anywhere
other than Toshie Takahama's HAPPY ORIGAMI?
>
> Someone is developing a lesson on team management using this model >
and need to show it published is several commercial published books
> to support the idea that it is truely a public domain item.

Well, I searched my office and all I kept of the "Airborne Data
Diskette" exercise was the job titles (Creasers A, Creasers B,
Integrators, Material Handlers, Supervisor, Quality Control, and
Customer), the diagrams, and the text description of the folding and
assembly process (which constituted the job descriptions for the
creasers and integrators).  There is no copyright notice on the
diagrams.

Janet Hamilton





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 01:00:13 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Art vs. Craft via Copyright

<<because he
does not share his technique, which is the manifestation of his art, with
the little people.  Given the pitiful protection of the copyright laws
as they apply to origami, why _should_ he share his secrets? >>

Obviously the framers of copyright law didn't have origami specifically
in mind :-) It started out primarily for printed/published works, as
the standard terminology reflects ("author"=creator,artist), and was only
later extended to works of art.

<<technique>>
Technique is NOT COPYRIGHTABLE. Copyright does NOT apply to ideas,
procedures, process, technique. ONLY to the tangible, material, concrete
physical result, that is the book, diagrams (=drawings and/or printed
works), postcard, painting, SCULPTURE. (Music gets more complicated.)

The "protection" provided by copyright to origami diagrams, books, written,
audio-taped, video-taped instructions, photos, etc. is real and substantial.
It is only the actual MODEL that poses the problem, because while fully
possible to copyright (as a paper sculpture or physical art work),
nobody can quite figure out what "protection" is thereby provided,
especially for models impossible to exactly duplicate even with
"directions", due to their judgement folds, unusual or unique material etc.

To say nothing of the fact that the artist most often actively encouraging
others to (try) to duplicate the beastie... But that sort of thing would
never trouble a "legal mind": the beastie is can still be copyrighted.
The law is full of possibilities untainted by practicality...

<<sharing secrets>>  The keeper of secrets can PATENT the PROCESS, though
he can't copyright it, if he cares to go to the considerable effort and
expense of the patent process, to say nothing of defending it, should
every emerging capitalist cottage industry in the world decide to start
mass production of it.  And if he then publishes the diagrams, the patent
will be more difficult to defend.

But most masters WANT to share their secrets because they want to advance
the art with new techniques, or teach, or even just defend their art
against the instant oblivion of a house fire, volcanic eruption, flood,
war; think of the works of artist (in media less fragile than paper) that
survive only in books and photos and the minds and skills of their pupils..

<<NOT to publish the diagrams, if you don't want anyone
 making money off your model>>

Diagrams and books are not copyrighted to prevent others from making money
off the models THEY make from your instructions; the copyright is to keep
others from making money by copying the book or diagrams, and to prevent
others from reducing the amount of money YOU MAKE from the diagrams, by
copying them or distributing them. Selling models made from others'
designs, especially the question of attribution, is a separate legal
question (using someone else name for commercial purposes; fraud;
forgery), as well as as ethical ("moral") one.

<<Would reverse engineering then be considered breach of copyright?>>
Reverse engineering is not a breach of copyright. Selling or distributing
diagrams of a model for which there are published diagrams may be. This
is an ethical question also.

Copyright protection has to do with duplication for profit and duplication
to avoid just payment to the copyright holder. It is a legal concept
related to commerce, not ethics. Ethics only starts to come into it from
the aspect of "fair use" perhaps. For example, considering that most
origami authors are doing it more for love than profit, dos anyone really
want to be the one to keep them from recouping some of their expenses
incurred making the pleasure of their art available for a small price
to others, by churning out dozens of copies of a set of diagrams,
thereby reducing the number of books sold? (Even if it were technically
"legal"?)

Lastly, and once again:
SCULPTUREs, including origami/paper sculptures, meaning the individual
physical concrete THING ("the model") can be copyrighted. The copyright
applies ONLY to the the specific individual sculpture.

Diagrams, books, tapes, etc. ABOUT the model are also copyrightable, not
because they have anything to do with the model, but because they are
things that meet the criteria for copyright.

--valerie
Compuserve: Valerie Vann 75070,304
Internet: 75070.304@compuserve.com
Internet: valerivann@aol.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 01:02:46 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: $$ Value of Origami

Please, I didn't say origami models weren't valuable from a
monetary standpoint. My point was that in selling origami other
than your own designs, a decision to follow the polite ("ethical")
route and acknowledge the designer, rather than the legal ("safe")
route might depend on the nature of the commerce and/or whether
the designer was also engaged in origami commerce. I believe I
also said that most designers who are so engaged are probably just
recouping expenses, not getting rich at it. One would perhaps want
to avoid impacting the business of the original designer after all,
which is of course the point of copyright of published materials.

Also, I think selling origami jewelry at craft fairs, or even the
occasional $75 super model is not in the same league as a "pro" like
LaFosse or Paul Jackson. Nor did I mean to imply, and don't think I
did, that the "time, effort, skill, and expertise" involved in making
a model is not worth a high price. I think most of us would find however,
that there are few buyers for $75 models. The perception of the medium as
ephemeral makes people inclined to discount the result, for one thing.
Fewer still understand the time & effort involved in making or preparing
special papers, etc., a problem shared by artists who grind their own
pigments or inks, gather or grow special natural materials, or engage in
art forms closely allied to or rooted in traditional or "folk arts".

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 01:04:49 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: beer cartons, cabbages & kings

<<A case of beer is called a carton here. Or a slab>>
<<No dis to Engineers intended>>

I didn't seriously suspect an aversion to engineers of the reverse
persuasion. [Unthinkable; how could anyone object to something as
innocuous as an engineer?] And I did suspect that the old translation
problem among the English-speaking tribes was rearing its head...

But I succumbed to the vision of individual serving beer cartons as
folder fodder; we have every other kind of liquid in paper cartons,
why not beer? And what use is a beer can (except recycling and providing
a pleasant rattle in the back of your truck), when you could have a
a paper carton to inspire flights of folding fancy?

I suppose now that cardboard is being printed with soy ink, eating it
might be simply a good source of fiber..

<<Can corrugated cardboard be folded?>> Well yes, though I was thinking
of the thin non-corrugated heavy paper used for USA drink cartons.
Corrugated cardboard, especially the thinner Asian variety can be
"soft scored", i.e. not cut, just the inner corrugations flattened,
by using a heavy metal rule or similar and hitting it to make a
straight dent or "score" across the corrugations. The other direction,
with the corrugations, is a bit trickier, as the cardboard tend to bend
in other places (between the corrugations), so it helps to bend along
a sharp table edge. Don't think I'd attempt anything but some large scale
simple modulars though.

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 01:38:18 -0300
From: JRMetzger@aol.com
Subject: 30 Unit Multimodular Sphere

I'm attempting to construct the 30 Unit Multimodular Sphere as pictured on
page 45 of Origami for the Connoisseur (and on the cover of AITOH Wavy paper
packs) and am having a pretty tough time. Kasahara barely and enigmatically
explains (or fails to explain) how to build it. I have something which sort
of looks like his single pyramid structure (but reversed, sort of, I can only
get the 'H' side to point to the right, not to the left as shown on page 46)
and I can't get much further. I looked in Fuse's Unit Origami
Multidimensional Transformations book, but she doesn't have this figure. I
can do a Sonobe cube, but that's it. Is there any other publication which
perhaps details this figure more thoroughly? Or do I need a human to show me
how? Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, Jacob





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 07:00:36 -0300
From: Richard Kennedy <KENNEDRA@ibm3090.bham.ac.UK>
Subject: Re: 30 Unit Multimodular Sphere

I can still remember my first effort at this gem. It took hours. I gave
it to the daughter of a friend, who promptly fell on it! Since you've
made the cube, you understand the basics of assembling Sonobe modules.
There is a 'change' you need to make to the modules if you're going on
to the larger constructions. For the cube, the central square was flat,
for the 30 sphere you need a valley fold along one of the diagonals of the
square. As far as I can remember, it's parallel to the ends (I think a
diagram in the connoiseur shows what to do). Gradually build up the
structure which looks like sets of linked pyramids. It holds together
during the assembly quite well, if you use small squares of 'normal'
weight (80 gsm) paper. If you go for larger squares, and/or light
paper, you'll probably need some paper clips. I build the sphere up
one unit at a time, rather than linking bigger fragments.

I did my first one from just the Kasahara book. It took a few more goes
before I succeeded in building a three colour sphere, according to the
rules in Kasahara.

Making these things is quite addictive. I've done all the spheres up
to 100 units, and managed to find a solution to the 3 colour problem
for each. I guess a topologist could write down the rules for doing
this, I've done it by trial and error (very frustrating if you reach
your last few units and realise that you cannot satisfy the three
colour rule with the last few units). The bigger structures are not
as stable and robust as the 30-unit, I've had to use a little glue
during assembly to ensure that they do not fall apart if they are
touched.

The Connoiseur book also shows a number of sculptures assembled from
Sonobe units - bird, dog, merry-go round horse. Does anyone know how
to build these? I've had a few goes, but with just the photo's my
'reverse engineering' skills have been inadequate. I think various
different types of Sonobe unit are used in each sculpture (in terms
of creases on the central square).

Regards

Richard K.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 09:08:52 -0300
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: 30 Unit Multimodular Sphere

+Making these things is quite addictive. I've done all the spheres up
+to 100 units, and managed to find a solution to the 3 colour problem
+for each. I guess a topologist could write down the rules for doing
+this, I've done it by trial and error (very frustrating if you reach
+your last few units and realise that you cannot satisfy the three
+colour rule with the last few units). The bigger structures are not
+as stable and robust as the 30-unit, I've had to use a little glue
+during assembly to ensure that they do not fall apart if they are
+touched.

I am pretty sure that Fus`e's _Unit_Origami_ does show a 30 unit Sonob`e
sphere...  Since the various Sonob`e variations aren't on consecutive pages
you might have to look a bit to find it.  My copy is currently on loan or I
would give you the specific page number.

Since this is somewhat of a puzzle, you will learn more if you solve it
yourself.  Having the picture to look at helps a lot.

I'll give you a hint though:

    Look at the structure of the 12 unit "sphere" and the 30 unit "sphere",
    note that they have a certain similiarity, and a very important, though
    perhaps subtle, difference.

Further hint:
    Your individual pieces of paper are not the largest "unit" of the
    construction, there is an "assembly" of some number of the raw pieces
    which form a larger "unit" in the construction of the 12 and the 30
    piece "spheres."

I hope I haven't given too much away, since puzzling this out is the best,
really, yes, really the best, solution.

Anyone stumped can send me private email (NOT TO THE LIST!) and I'll pass on
more info, also by private email.

+The Connoiseur book also shows a number of sculptures assembled from
+Sonobe units - bird, dog, merry-go round horse. Does anyone know how
+to build these? I've had a few goes, but with just the photo's my
+'reverse engineering' skills have been inadequate. I think various
+different types of Sonobe unit are used in each sculpture (in terms
+of creases on the central square).

Ah...  I haven't yet tried any of those, but you might find the 9 unit
"intersecting cubes" model that is in Fus`e's _Unit_Origami_ a more
tractable puzzle.

I should also think that large "flat" areas would have some trouble locking
together and might need adhesive assistance. ;-)

-Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 10:57:24 -0300
From: Tim Rueger <rueger@areaplg2.corp.mot.COM>
Subject: Re: 30 Unit Multimodular Sphere

Hi,

>>>>> "jrm" == JRMetzger  <JRMetzger@aol.com> writes:

    jrm> I'm attempting to construct the 30 Unit Multimodular Sphere as
     pictured on
    jrm> page 45 of Origami for the Connoisseur (and on the cover of AITOH Wavy
     paper
    jrm> packs) and am having a pretty tough time.
..

The base geometry of this sphere is an icosohedron (20-sided polyhedron
of equilateral triangles).  Where three Sonobe modules connect, the
triangle formed by the "diagonals" of each module corresponds exactly to
one of the triangles.

The way I do these is to first build a set of five pyramids around a
point (five triangles around a vertex), build up two interlocking rows
around the edge of that set (ten more triangles around the sides), then
build the last set of five on the opposite corner (the final five
triangles).

An old girlfriend taught me a 12-unit version, with a base geometry of
an octahedron (this is perhaps an easier one to start with than the
30-unit version, but I don't have a picture to point you to).  The
6-unit (cube) version is based on a tetrahedron.

Noting the octahedron inside it, I extrapolated the 12-unit version to
the 30-unit version.  I saw it in Kasahara's book years later, much to
my surprise (independent discovery strikes again).  My first version had
five colors, not three.  (It's an interesting exercise getting five
colors symmetrically placed.)

>>>>> "rk" == Richard Kennedy <KENNEDRA@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk> writes:
..
    rk> Making these things is quite addictive.
..

Yep.  I've got a box full of the things.  Said girlfriend gave me a
couple packs of 5cm paper as a gift, which is just about the ideal size
for these models.  OUSA's Supplies Center sells "Japanese Brilliant
Foil" in this size, which is great for Christmas ornaments (and
life-sized insects, but I'll not go into that now).

A source I've found useful for models like this is "Polyhedron Models"
by Marcus Wenninger (I don't have publisher's info handy, email me if
you're interested).  It has instructions on how to construct all sorts
of regular polyhedron models with index card stock and white glue.

The variety of polyhedra in it is astonishing.  Platonic, non-Platonic,
concave, convex, uniform, nonuniform, stellated, snub-symmetric, you
name it, it has it.  "Polyhedron Models" is a really good source for the
base geometry of Sonobe module spheres (as is the Kasahara book, which
has a well-distilled collection of similar information).  It also has
information on symmetric colorings, which is where I got the five-color
scheme from.

Have fun with the modules!  Don't forget to sleep.  :^)

-Tim
--
Tim Rueger             Motorola CCRL IC Design Laboratory, IL02-2921
Fax  : (708) 538-4593  Internet: rueger@areaplg2.corp.mot.com





Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 16:34:55 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LaFosse's work

> And have you seen the prices Michael LaFosse charges?
> As I recall a number of his pieces are in the thousand(s) and
> they are not even limited editions.

I know Micheal through the pages of the a.p.a. FOLD & AFAIK his pieces
are *very much* limited editions, each created from a sheet of paper
made by Micheal for that particular piece. If anyone can persuade the
world at large that ori is an art (*not* wishing to start that thread
again :) then it is he. I have a frog he sent me on my shelf & it is
SUPERB.

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html






Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 00:00:00
From: ADMIN@ADMIN

SORRY, but the information of 2 up to 7 (including) September got lost during
maintenance actions.
