




From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 15:18:19 -0300
Subject: Re: Diagram Index (LONG)

I'd surely appreciate a "complete" model index (just see previous posts
about a book index), but also I'd warn against too much detail level in
a mostly *volunteer* and *collective* work.

Of course I am exaggerating the detail level below, but please bear in mind
I am exactly stressing:
- how many possible (and sensible) criteria one could use to organize his/her
  model/diagram collection
- how difficult would be collecting so much information precisely, in
  a ***consistent*** way, and just, say, browsing the diagrams (we need
  an index quick, don't we?)
- several criteria below are essentially practical: I'd like to leave for
  a trip with a new book knowing I'd need tweezers, but no gl*e or
  measuring ruler.
- do we need a usable/useful index *soon* or a perfect index *someday*?

So, here are some model features I'd LOVE to see in any index (and yes,
I needed them all once or twice) but IMHO are frequently not practical. Note
that some items are just attributes, not necessarily used in taxonomy:

- flat/3D: can it be sent in an envelope? If collapsed, can it be
  restored by a non-folder?

- complexity: this topic is sometimes mentioned in origami-l. A traditional
  scale S/LI/I/HI/C is clearly insufficient (OUSA just added the SC
  category) and hard to objectively apply: a reviewer's "C" could be
  another's "HI". In order to accurately rate a model one needs to
  actually _fold_ it---a long task for making a comprehensive index.
  An apparently objective criterion, number of steps, is not so useful:
  # authors are not consistent about the number of operations of a
    single step. E.g., in most Spaniard creators's (like V.Palacios,
    E.Clemente) diagrams, one step usually takes as long to fold as three
    or two of Montroll or Lang. Diagrammers not using computers are prone
    to be more economical (read terse/cryptical) in number of drawings
  # a little addition solves the case of models starting with "Start from
    step 15 of XXX", but models which share the "middle" of the folding
    sequence (see Montroll's quetzalcoatl/pteranodon in PO, or boxer/scottie/
    horse/bison in OS) are a more difficult case
  # how about repeated steps (repeat behind, repeat in other seven flaps).
    Once I mentioned Lang's sea urchin in OSL had three "nested" repeated
    steps...
  In a related topic, is the model "pureland"?

  As Lang once mentioned, a model could be difficult because
  # there are many steps
  # steps require technical skill
  # both
  Maybe the ultimate "complexity" (and I'm not sure that's the best
  word) measure would be folding/sculpting time, which obviously is
  folder-dependent.

- size ratios for original paper/finished model, in a _consistent_ way
  (length is absolute horizontal distance or measured along the animal's
  back? For a coiled snake it does a difference; and see Engel's
  rattlesnake...)

- paper size; obviously square/rectangle, but do not forget that some
  models can use different shapes (circles, triangles, tea papers) or
  proportions (Engel's centipede and van Gelder's caterpillar both need
  a _minimum_ rectangle length, but the longer the better).

- landmarks: does a fold lay in a position
  # easily noticed in the diagram (like in the previous step)
  # reached through a long sequence of steps (like in OSL's nautilus
    or OF's unicorn)
  # precisely stated by measuring, not previous creases (like in OZ's
    skunk, something like fold from 5/7 AB to 7/10 CD)
  # completely arbitrary, found by trial-and-error

- color: does the model
  # require duo paper? if not used, how detracting the effect?
  # use color changing? (note that these two questions are not opposite
    each other)
  # require some decoration (like in H.Rojas animals)?

- homonymous models: how do you separate different models with same name
  *and* author (in a previous post I mentioned three Kawahata pteranodons).
  How about works published with different names and/or details in different
  books (see history about Nishikawa-san's clown/pierrot)? And I didn't
  even mention plagiarism (any book by Ayture-Scheele) or unmentioned
  variations (did you notice the shark/dolphin in Fascinating Folds is
  structurally identical to the one in OO??? I know, could be coincidence...)

- language: sometimes a name in the author's language is more precise
  than in English; however, English is much better for searching. Precise
  translation is always difficult. Just two anecdotes as illustration
  (these happened some time ago, the Model Index could be updated now):
  # I saw something as "animal carrying something on the back". It probably
    was a model of the racoon turning into a kettle, the subject of a
    Japanese folk tale
  # a Maekawa model was labeled as a "wolf"; the title in V!O is kitsune,
    or japanese for "fox".

- wet-folding, foil, tissue foil...
  does the model require/abhor/benefit from special media?

- gl*e, adhesive t*pe, paper cl*p (yes, there are more 4-letter words
  in origami), etc. How essential are they? For instance, one of Maekawa-san's
  best chinese dragons is compound, but the two pieces lock perfectly with
  no gl*e; Robert Lang's plane in OiA cannot fly (well) without a paper
  cl*p; the same for most of Thai Yang's planes and t*pe.

- cuts: approximate number, how mandatory they are (in a hypothetical
  animal model, a cut could be essential to create the tail; in a *flying*
  bird, the cut would only turn a leg into two (thus nice, realistic,
  but not essential since in nature the legs would be almost united);
  finally, a tiny cut could open an angelfish's mouth (probably irrelevant)
  Also, does the cut *remove* material?

- compound models are a chapter in themselves. All the problems mentioned
  above apply. In addition:
  # units could be similar or not, so it's enough mentioning the features and
    say: multiply by n
  # do joining tabs (common in polyhedra) which sometimes require not
    folds count?
  # the number of units may not be fixed---a bridge model could grow
    and grow (forgetting physical limits). And how about fractal-inpired
    models?

Abridged book titles (if you do not know what "O." stands for then why are
you reading this? :) ):
OZ O.Zoo, PO Prehistoric O., OSL O.Sea Life, OO O.Omnibus, OS O.Sculptures,
OiA O.in Action V!O Viva! O., OF O.Fantasy

        Sincerely,
                Carlos
        furuti@ahand.unicamp.br www.ahand.unicamp.br/~furuti





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:17:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Tall Vases
Rob Moes indited:

> Instead of a 12 by 12 grid, I use a 16 by 16 grid.  The folding sequence is
> essentially the same.  You still end up with a 2 by 2 footprint at the
> bottom, but the vase flares out more when you open it up...and it ends up
> basically 5 squares high on each side, rather than 3.  In my variation, I
> fold the 4 corners at the top of the vase into the center, creating an
> octagonal top, rather than a big square top.  The opening remains small at
> just 2 by 2:  perfect for just a few stems to fit inside.  I put a few
> marbles inside mine, just as you might do with a conventional vase, and it
> works very well.  Do give my version a try!

Just tried your version this morning.  Do you fold the corners of the top
underneath the side pleats, or next to them?

Oddly, when I folded it with a 8x8, I got only a height of 4 squares...

The "make it 3D" step is quite interesting, I haven't yet figured out how to
keep from wrikling the paper.  It also looks as one should be able to make the
size of the top arbitrary, either taller and narrower, or shorter and squatter,
but its not clear that there is an EASY way to do that. ;-)

-D'gou

--
end
<a href="http://www.pgh.net/~dwp">Doug's Fun Page</a>





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:52:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Diagram Index

I haven't seen anyone mention - subjective "like" rating. I'd like to be
able to identify 1 (or 3 or 10 (whatever)) models as my favorite. When lots
of people have done this a query on top 10 models (or top 10 flower models
?) could prove very useful - insightful - helpful ...

Thanks for all your effort, this could be TERRIFIC!!!
Jeff





From: Gallo P & H <halgall@NETVERK.COM.AR>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:01:51 -0300
Subject: diagrams

Hello everyone,

For no problems with copyright. I change the name of Mickey for "raton
Miguelito" y Minnie for "Mimi", but the diagrams are mine, and the photo of
the fold are mine too.

Bye for now.

Patricia Gallo

http://www.netverk.com.ar/~halgall/





From: Gallo P & H <halgall@NETVERK.COM.AR>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:41:20 -0300
Subject: Have Mexican in the list?

Hi,
Apologize to the list for this message, but I need a person who live in
Mexico, I need a medicament that only sell in this country, is urgent for me.

Si algn mexicano est en la lista, por favor que se comunique en e-mail
privado, necesito saber como puedo conseguir el medicamento "Bilona" de
400mg, es para un familiar con problemas de hepatitis cronica y en mi pas
no lo venden.
Solo necesito nombre de farmacias o el laboratorio que lo vende para poder
comprar desde aqui los tres (3) frascos que necesita), si es posible por
internet, esto es URGENTE.
Desde ya muchas gracias!!!!!!

Patricia Gallo





From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@ALOHA.NET>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:46:56 -1000
Subject: Re: Thread For Mobiles

Display
> fish from the bottom upwards, that is, give them the illusion of floating,
> with support only from below. Experimentation with sea grass forms, and
> balancing models on top of these is working to a small bit, but only goes
> so far. Anyone got any good ideas?
>
I have set fish on glazed rocks (acrylic lacquered) with bits of seaweed
glued on the back of the rocks.  I s'pect its much like setting them on
seagrass but rocks are nice too.  I've also used coral but that's hard
to come by unless you frequent the beach; also some people don't like it
when you use coral.   Aloha, jan

--
<http://www.gotomymall.com/hawaii/origami/>
Origami by Jan website...the Fodor folder





From: Rob Moes <robert.moes@SNET.NET>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:20:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Tall Vases
D'gou in reply to my Chinese vase variant idea:

>Just tried your version this morning.  Do you fold the corners of the top
>underneath the side pleats, or next to them?

I guess I've decided I like the underneath-style the best, so that I can
just tuck the tip of each of the four corners into the vase opening to lock
them in place.

Forgive my feeble attempt at ASCII art below (it works on my screen--use a
fixed-space font to view)....

This is the top view, so it's more of a Maltese cross I guess than an
octagonal top:

    _
   | |
 _/   \_
|_  <> _|
  \   /
   |_|

>Oddly, when I folded it with a 8x8, I got only a height of 4 squares...

  ____
 /    \      --------
<      >     \      /
 \    /       \    /
  \__/         \__/

Mine looks like the shape on the left from the side view--the top has been
lifted up a bit to create a bit of a lip--it stretches the opening just a
bit wider, but I like the look better.  I guess the result is maybe half a
square higher.

I think the blintz fold to lock the top before you make it 3D takes away
the potential 5th square of height potential.

>The "make it 3D" step is quite interesting, I haven't yet figured out how to
>keep from wrikling the paper.

Yeah, it's not quite as easy as blowing up the waterbomb, is it?   :)  I
try to release the entrapped layers very carefully.

Rob





From: "Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon" <fishgoth@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 23:08:20 +0100
Subject: Re: Diagram Index (LONG)

Interesting, some of the points in Carlos's e mail...a few illuminations
and cogetatations;

-What is 'Pureland'? I've seen the terms many times in origami, but am
uncertain of its precise use.

-I use paper clips and glue all the time, even the occasional paper tape.
If you are wet folding something with many layers, a clip is sometimes
needed to allow it to dry. I also challenge someone to make Brill's woven
dodecahedron (Brilliant Origami) without paperclips! Locking models are
great, but if you want to give them as presents, or present them as display
pieces, I guarentee that at least one will fall apart (Murphy's law states
it will just as you are giving it/setting the display up). So long as clips
and adhesive media are used sensibly, they can be tools to an Origamiist,
rather than a shunned hinderence. However, when one starts to glue legs
onto a model, that is when it becomes a dirty word.

-I still, however, consider 'C*t' to be a dirty word.

-The five tier system of complexity; S,IL,I,HI,C (simple, low
intermediate,intermediate,high intermediate, and Christ almighty!) seems to
work quite well as a rough guide...perhaps the best judge of how difficult
a model is being its creator. Montroll, for example, gives his four star
guide in his books. Before designing a twenty scale system for the new
index, perhaps the OUSA system is quite sufficient; I tend to prefer HI and
C models, a beginner would know to avoid these.

-Again, the size of a model is not terribly important...IMHO, no two
animal/plant models should be the same on completion. Details such as '2
inch ant from a 9 inch square' work fine by me. I dont think Ive every been
asked to fold a 2.34 inch model on demand :-)

-I do agree strongly on one point, that or colour (color in US speak, I
believe). There is nothing more frustating that to get to step 20 of a
model with normal origami paper, and find out that the head/hind
quarters/etc are going to be a different colour (Lang, for all his
magnificence, is a major culprit, esp in his earlier books). Perhaps one of
the best ways of demonstating this would be to include a photo of each
model in a comprehensive index...remember that a lot of author now include
such photos, an bi-colour diagrams are becomming very common.

-As for models with the same name, perhaps the authors name should be
included after each model. Problem laden, prehaps, as book authors are not
always the creator. And to my knowledge, there are several Montroll
elephants (Favourite animals, O ft Entusiast,Animal O ft Enthusiast, O
inside out, African animals in O...can anyone name any more...?) However,
something such as :
Elephant #4 (Montroll) would be quite acceptable, I'm sure

Nice to seem serious thought about this..lets hear/read some more,

Take care,

Dr Stephen O'Hanlon





From: "Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon" <fishgoth@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 23:12:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Thread For Mobiles

Ive got an opposite problem to the 'Thread for hanging' dilemma...I wonder
if anyone can make suggestions. Im trying to display some sea life, such as
ones from the Montroll & Lang book and I am wondering how I can display
fish from the bottom upwards, that is, give them the illusion of floating,
with support only from below. Experimentation with sea grass forms, and
balancing models on top of these is working to a small bit, but only goes
so far. Anyone got any good ideas?

Dr Stephen O'Hanlon





From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 23:58:32 -0700
Subject: Pine Cones help

I'm trying to do the pine cones in OftC and need help.

The 'backside' of the cone comes out fine, the repetitive squash folds
which turn in to the 'spikes' (for lack of a better term) look correct to
me when compared to the diagrams in the book.

The other side of the model is where I have my problem.  It starts at the
point at which the model looks like a simple pinwheel.  I follow the
diagrams step by step, and all along the way my model appears to match the
diagrams, but the end result doesn't look right.

"Doesn't look right" is defined as: Pointy, Not locked very well, not
pine-conish, etc.  And as a final insult it doesn't look like the
photographs in the book.  The diagrams for this section are somewhat
lacking (IMHO) - it simply says something like "transform the model into
the result shown" (!) -

I saw some finished pine cones last year in Portland - the end result
appeared to force the 'spike' part of the cone to open out and give the
completed model more dimension.  My end result seemed to leave these parts
resting comfortably and standing as it seems they should be.

Any advice, commiseration, blinding flashes of insight?

Origami:  "Stop Drop and Fold!"
Steve Woodmansee
stevew@empnet.com





From: DRAPY1@AOL.COM
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 00:20:11 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Thread For Mobiles (opposite problem)

Dr. O' Hanlon wrote:

<< I am wondering how I can display
 fish from the bottom upwards, that is, give them the illusion of floating,
 with support only from below. >>

You might try steel music wire.  It comes in very fine gauges yet remains
rigid.  I found it in a hobby shop for plastic and scale modellers.  I
inserted the end of an 18 inch length of it into the underside of a Yoshizawa
butterfly (a little hot glue helped keep it there) and the slightest movement
of the wire made the butterfly appear to flutter.  You might try the same with
a fish.   Perhaps you could hide the wire behind seaweed, although letting the
wire show wouldn't seem all that obtrusive to me.

Hope this helps!

Dana





From: =?iso-8859-1?B?VEhPUktJTEQgU9hOREVSR8VSRA==?= <thokiyenn@GET2NET.DK>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 00:25:45 +0200
Subject: Re: Diagram Index (LONG)

To Stephen Harland's Question

>-What is 'Pureland'? I've seen the terms many times in origami, but am
>uncertain of its precise use.

It is a term that is crewated by John Smith of British Origami Fame.

it means just pure land - only valleys and mountains folds.

Thoki Yenn





From: David Chow <Davegchow@AOL.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 00:51:53 -0400 (
Subject: Calculus and origami

Greetings all!
        I am attempting to begin a study of some sort that relates calculus and
origami.  I am aware of the many varied and brilliantly done studies of
geometry and origami, and thought I might try and add something original to
the store of knowledge.  I have had some various and very random ideas, but
would be very appreciative if anyone who has had any experience or interest in
the matter might provide input- especially with regard to the direction the
project might take.  (read that: What kind of goal, if reached, would be
appreciated by the general origami public?)
Thank you very much!!
Have fun!

David C.





From: "James B. Raasch" <jbraas01@STARBASE.SPD.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 01:43:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Thread For Mobiles

> I am wondering how I can display fish from the bottom upwards, that is,
> give them the illusion of floating, with support only from below.

I don't know if they have this stuff in Europe (I think it might be hard
enough to find here in the States), but there have been a few kits put out
that use a clear gel for supporting small plastic figures.  You fill the
aquarium (that's what most of them are at least) with the goop, let it set
part of the way, and then insert the figures.  It then sets all the way,
providing invisible support, and maybe even a water look.  I would almost
think that you could use plain gelatin for this, but (as I don't cook much) I
am uncertain as to the spoilage of gelatin vs. the goop with the kits.  A
friend of mine bought a Star Wars one on sale; I'll ask him about the goop,
and get back to you on it.

As an aside, I had thought about doing the same thing (Sea Life from the
Montroll and Lang book in a bowl), and if I ever got around to it (yeah,
right), I was going to use this goop.

J.B. Raasch





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:14:20 -0400
Subject: enigma cube

Well, it is possible to do it without clips or
tape; I've never had to use anything like that.
But it is a whole lot more difficult to assemble
than make the units. There is no simple answer,
you just have to develop a stategy that works for
you. I usually put together one set of three, and
then just keep adding units one at a time, and
tightening up the previous ones that tend to fall
apart or slide out.

I don't think there are any diagrams; assembly
diagrams would be difficult to do, beyond just
how one unit fits into another. David Mitchell
is a member of this mailing list, by the way.

Valerie Vann





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:15:51 -0300
Subject: Re: Diagram Index (LONG) - CORRECTION

First of all, a correction: when I mentioned in my post "Fascinating Folds"
I meant of course "Fantastic Folds". My deep apologies to the "Fascinating
Folds" site for any confusion.

Thanks for your comments, Dr. O'Hanlon. I left some points obscure.

>>From: "Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon" <fishgoth@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>

>>-I use paper clips and glue all the time, even the occasional paper tape.
Maybe I should have (at a risk of even *greater* complexity) divided
4-letter words as [1] aid/tool in folding and [2] present in the final
model (my examples about this topic were all geared towards [2])

>>needed to allow it to dry. I also challenge someone to make Brill's woven
>>dodecahedron (Brilliant Origami) without paperclips! Locking models are
I decline, you won this particular point...

>>-The five tier system of complexity; S,IL,I,HI,C (simple, low
...
>>work quite well as a rough guide...perhaps the best judge of how difficult
>>a model is being its creator. Montroll, for example, gives his four star
Not always a consistent measure. John's most recent books like FAO and BO
(I still haven't TYO) lack the scale. And his latest books (after OIO)
present models much easier to fold and IMHO very far from the Lang-esque
"realism" of, say, AOftE, OSL and OS. (This is not a critique)

>>guide in his books. Before designing a twenty scale system for the new
I wanted to stress the different reasons a model could be considered
"difficult". If a model is labeled C because it has 100 steps (but
no particularly hard maneuvers) should the beginner avoid it
because he can't close-unsink?

>>-Again, the size of a model is not terribly important...IMHO, no two
If you fold dioramas with different models, it is.

>>inch ant from a 9 inch square' work fine by me. I dont think Ive every been
>>asked to fold a 2.34 inch model on demand :-)
I don't either. I only want to know:
- what's the appropriate paper size to make e.g., the Montroll giraffes in AAO
  the same height
- if I make Kawahata's stegosaurus from a 6" square of medium-weight paper
  how large a crumpled ball of paper will I get? (I'm kidding, but knowing
  the final length will be 1/2" is a good hint to choose a larger/thinner
  paper, otherwise the details will be to small for ordinary hands).
I usually fold my "first" from ordinary copier paper just to get a measure
of final size and usual complexity. Sometimes this is just a nuisance.

>>-I do agree strongly on one point, that or colour (color in US speak, I
>>quarters/etc are going to be a different colour (Lang, for all his
>>magnificence, is a major culprit, esp in his earlier books). Perhaps one of
Actually only CBO. All other books by him use clear-cut shading (it's
implicit in OSL's blue crab---and this one illustrates a previous point: if you
insist and use ordinary paper, which parts will get white? :^( ).

>>the best ways of demonstating this would be to include a photo of each
>>model in a comprehensive index...remember that a lot of author now include
yes, but photos don't replace a duotone diagram. OF's photos use dual-faced
paper (tissue foil, I think) so they don't hint about results with ordinary
paper.

>>always the creator. And to my knowledge, there are several Montroll
>>elephants (Favourite animals, O ft Entusiast,Animal O ft Enthusiast, O
>>inside out, African animals in O...can anyone name any more...?) However,
Yes, OS. And according to an anecdote by JW, NAAO almost had an e. too!

>>something such as :
That was exactly my point! Same author, same name, different model!

>>Elephant #4 (Montroll) would be quite acceptable, I'm sure
Unfortunately one reader who saw the index could have difficulties telling
another who didn't. It's better mentioning the source (book title) instead
of a number.
Since one model can be present in several sources, the book and model indices
must be kept separately.





From: Julius Kusserow <juku@STUDI.MATHEMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:32:52 +0200
Subject: lizard skin

Hi all

I search a paper nameed "lizardskin". You can
found a picture of a model made by lizardskin at Joseph Wu`s Origami Page
->Galleries->Nippon Association ->Alien.

Can anyone give me brand name of a some "lizardskin"producer ?

Thanks in advance
        Julius





From: Pierre Hyvernat <Pierre.Hyvernat@CIPCINSA.INSA-LYON.FR>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:54:13 +0100 (
Subject: enigma cube
Priority: normal

Hi!
Could anyone here give me some hints on how to assemble the 12 units
of the "enigma cube." (the 12 ones starting as a waterbomb base.)
Is there a subtle way of achieving it, or do I have to use a lot of
paper clips; (this is what I already did once, but it really is
a lot of trouble.)
Do you know of any other solutions to it. (Diagrams anywhere?)
So, if any of you has advices...
  Pierre Hyvernat
phyvernat@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr





From: Stephen Hudson <Sah5234@AOL.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:19:10 -0400 (
Subject: assembly help!

ok, I made 270 sonobe units, but I can't assemble them, if anyone knows where
there is a picture on the web of the completed model that would help.  Verbal
explainations are also welcome. Thanks!

Stephen





From: "R. Sutherland." <RGS467@AOL.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:40:40 -0400 (
Subject: Last Nite's chat on AOL is POSTED

Greetings Fellow Folders:

Last night's Origamichat on AOL lasted over 3 hrs....  so there is a lengthy
log(38 pages)...  There were a couple of lulls, but overall, a great chat.

Here is the link:   <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/RGS467/chatlog2.1.html">
AOL's Origamichat: May 28, 1998</A>
and the URL:   http://members.aol.com/RGS467/chatlog2.1.html

Topics of discussion were  new books,  Momotani, Stoker and Williamson,
Kasahara, "microgami",  origami groups, debate with a purist(?), etc....

If you can make it through the lulls and typos, I'm sure you'll enjoy reading
this chatlog.

      Russell : \
RGS467.AOL.com

DARE TO FOLD!!!!!





From: "Julian A." <hullianx13@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:02:45 -0700 (
Subject: What's your favorite model?

Can each one of you send me information and details about what your top
two or three origami models

-don't send me info about the Kawasaki Rose

There is no excuse for not answering this letter

When is the next origami chat and where?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: "Julian A." <hullianx13@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:05:27 -0700 (
Subject: Magic Rose Cube

Where can I find the magic rose cube?

I thought someone was going to diagram it and post it on the internet.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Rob Moes <robert.moes@SNET.NET>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:55:24 -0500
Subject: Re: lizard skin

>Hi all
>
>I search a paper nameed "lizardskin". You can
>found a picture of a model made by lizardskin at Joseph Wu`s Origami Page
>->Galleries->Nippon Association ->Alien.
>
>Can anyone give me brand name of a some "lizardskin"producer ?
>
>Thanks in advance
>        Julius

There is a paper known as "Lizard Text" which is an embossed leather-like
(sulphite) paper produced in France with a lizard-skin or snake-skin feel.
Kim's Crane has this paper in 8 colors through their website:
http://www.kimscrane.com  I'm sure it is widely available elsewhere, but
this is the largest selection I know of.  They also carry "Shark Text" and
"Papier Leather."

It's an elegant and durable paper--the black sulphite paper is especially
notable for its jet-black glossy appearance that does not crack or show
through as white along creases.  The Fuse twist boxes I made out of it were
quite spectacular.

Rob





From: "K.A. Lundberg" <klundber@MNSINC.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 18:32:36 -0400
Subject: Paper Katana

Hello All,

I find myself in a difficult position.  I hardly ever design models and when
I do they are for a specific purpose...the neighbor wants columbine with
spurs or or someone else would like a bill fold to leave as a tip...that
sort of thing.  Nothing real special to worry about...I have seen a bill
basket similar to mine in the OUSA Collections but with a different
handle...mine will carry coins when lifted.  Usually, my models incorporate
folds that while not easy to describe are accessible to anyone who folds.

Here is my problem...I enjoy a show called Highlander whose main character
uses a katana sword...so naturally I looked for a model of a katana.  I was
unable to find one, so began to work on a solution.  A couple of days ago I
stumbled on a construct that I was pleased with...I offered to send diagrams
got this query from a web site that deals in swords asking if I would like
to have the sword featured.  Just because I came up with this on my own
doesn't mean it doesn't already exist.

I ask the list's help to determine if my model is just a re-creation of
someone else's before I totally embarrass myself.  My model is made from 3x1
paper, finished total length of 6 inches (when starting with 10" paper cut
in thirds),  the hilt takes about 2" of the length, blade width approx. half
an inch, and the hand guard is just about 1 inch in diameter.  The hilt and
hand guard are of one color while the blade is white.  The hilt is an
accordion pleated six pointed star formation.  The guard stands at a right
angle to the hilt and the blade and is the same color on both sides as the
hilt.

I used SmarDraw to do the diagrams...the program will save in enough
different formats to please almost anyone but not PDF...they are not to the
standard symbolism used in origami...I didn't expect to have to send it to
this list, never even crossed my mind...but if anyone would like them for
review, comment, or recognition I can send them in a file attachment
privately as a JPEG or GIF (about 4 pages...19-20 steps to completion
depending on how you count).

I am quite pleased with myself to have found this solution...nothing will
detract from my accomplishment...but if someone else found it before me then
they should get the credit..any assistance will be appreciated.  == No
Kidding.

Thanks for your indulgence,
Kalei -- klundber@mnsinc.com





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:35:03 -0400
Subject: assembly help!

ok, Stephen, I assume you're trying to make a Sonobe Unit
Buckyball (soccer ball), a polyhedron with 20 hexagonal faces
and 12 pentagon faces. It has 90 edges, by the way, but the
Sonobe Unit version will appear to have a whole lot more
edges, because it doesn't have flat faces. It will be made
up of little 3 sided pyramids, or actually be a sort of
semi-stellated polyhedron.

Separate the 270 units into three groups:

A. 120 units     (the middle of the 20 hexagon faces)
B.  90  units    (the 90 edges of the polyhedron)
C.  60 units     (the middle of the 12 pentagon faces)

(If you didn't have them made already, you could use three
colors, one for each group, and this would make the structure
easier to follow.)

Assemble 20 six point star shapes using 6 units each of the
A group. Each star will have the valley folds down the
center of the 6 Sonobe Units converging together at a single
point or apex in the middle of the star. These stars will
form the middle part of the 20 hexagon faces.

Assemble 12 five point star shapes using 5 units each of the
C group, similar to the six point stars. These stars will
form the middle part of the 12 pentagon faces.

Use 5 of the B group units to turn a five point star into
a full pentagon by attaching them around the edges of the
star. (The Sonobe Unit valley folds will go around the
outside of the star and define the edges of a pentagon face.)

Do the other 11 5-pt stars the same. Each pentagon face will
now be made of 5 little 3-sided pyramids.

Now start attaching the 6-point stars to the pentagon faces,
using the remaining flaps that are sticking out from the edges
of the pentagon faces.

Each 6-pt star will share every other edge with a pentagon
face, using the B units that you attached to the 5-pt stars.
So the 6 pt stars will attach to the 5-pt stars on 3 edges.

The other 3 edges of each 6-pt star are attached to adjacent
6 point stars using the remaining B units.

Hope this helps.
Valerie Vann





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Thu, 30 May 1998 20:15:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Paper Katana

Dear Kaley,

I have no clue whether there are other origami katanas out there. I
doubt it; maybe there are swords, but a katana is a quite special sword,
isn't it? I am very interested in seeing your diagrams though, because
I'm working on a MUD area that will feature Origami, and most equipment
(armour, helmets, and weapons) will be made from origami. Since I
haven't really seen an origami katana yet, I didn't plan to use a paper
sword. But now that you have designed one: Can you send me the file, or
post it on a website? And if I include an origami katana in my area, may
I link to your diagrams as a reference for anybody who want so fold a
katana?
If you need more info on what a MUD is, feel free to ask :-).

All the best, Matthias





From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@SCI.FI>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 00:25:01 +0200
Subject: Re: Pine Cones help

On 29-May-98, Steve Woodmansee (stevew@EMPNET.COM) wrote:
>I'm trying to do the pine cones in OftC and need help.

>...

>The other side of the model is where I have my problem. It starts at
>the point at which the model looks like a simple pinwheel. I follow the
>diagrams step by step, and all along the way my model appears to match
>the diagrams, but the end result doesn't look right.

>"Doesn't look right" is defined as: Pointy, Not locked very well, not
>pine-conish, etc. And as a final insult it doesn't look like the
>photographs in the book. The diagrams for this section are somewhat
>lacking (IMHO) - it simply says something like "transform the model
>into the result shown" (!) -

Well, don't follow diagrams! :)

Do steps 16-18 for all four sides. Back side down: Make sure 'P' points
down.

     C
A ------- B
  \  |  /
   \ | /
    \|/
     V

     P

Bisect angle BCP with valley fold, bringing P to B. You now have a
triangular flap pointing down, fold it left under one layer of paper.
That layer can easily been pulled away to make things easier.

I hope this helps,
--
Jorma Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi





From: Cathy <cathypl@GENERATION.NET>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 11:23:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Thread For Mobiles (opposite problem)

>Dr. O' Hanlon wrote:
>
><< I am wondering how I can display
> fish from the bottom upwards, that is, give them the illusion of floating,
> with support only from below. >>
>
>

Have you tried florists wire?  It's available in most craft shops.  There
are some very fine wires that would support nothing bigger than a
dandilion-after it had gone to seed!--and yet they remain quite rigid.
They have the advantage of being green, and so would easily be hidden in
the seweed.

                                        Cathy
******^^^^^*****^^^^^*****

Cathy Palmer-Lister
Ste. Julie, Quebec
Canada
cathypl@generation.net





From: John Smith <jon.pure@PASTON.CO.UK>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 12:18:19 +0100
Subject: Re: Diagram Index (LONG)

-----Original Message-----
Date: 28 May 1998 23:22

>
>It is a term that is crewated by John Smith of British Origami Fame.
>
>it means just pure land - only valleys and mountains folds.
>
>Thoki Yenn
>

Thanks Thoki

I thought for one horrible moment you actually meant to type 'cremated' '
I give below the rules as they were first published by me:-

As a result of the Spring convention of 1978, I made a search of published
models and in issue No 70 of the B.O.S. magazine published the 'rules' of
'Pureland' and gave references to some 16 models which conformed to these
rules and thus could be identified as Pureland
Naturally the rules of Pureland are strict but simple:
(1) Only a square to be used.
(2) Only Mountain or Valley folding to be used. It is permissible to unfold
a valley or mountain fold and to turn a model over while folding.
(3) 'Tucking in' or Opening up to 3D is acceptable provided no creases are
made in the process
 (4) In the purest' of Pureland all folds should be exactly locatable

Since the idea of Pureland was to make available simple models it is vital
that all critical folds have landmarks. Curio folding usually has only
mountain or valley folds but it is very difficult to locate the places to
make the folds hence very few Curio models are in fact Pureland.
I prefer these days to say that only one crease is to be manipulated at a
time rather than saying only mountain or valley folds.

Hope this helps

John.





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 14:06:26 -0400
Subject: Magic Rose Cube

I haven't had time to work on diagrams.
You'll have to find someone in your area
to teach it to you.

Valerie Vann





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 14:20:58 -0400
Subject: copyright, art, craft

There is no question (in the USA at least) of how
copyright applies to "engineering drawings" (whether
in a book or not). The subject matter of printed
materials and "drawings" of any type, in any medium, is
immaterial to the issue of copyright: all DRAWINGS and
WRITINGS are copyrighted as soon as they come into existence
in a physical (tangible) form.

The controversy is about how copyright law applies to
the ORIGAMI OBJECT itself, and runs along the lines that if
the object is a work of art, it is protected by copyright
both in itself and for derivative works.

If the origami object is an invention, mathematical
(e.g. geometric) algorithm, or the result of following
a set of directions for making identical objects (i.e.
"craft"), then the process by which it was made may be

In either case, however, any writings or drawings describing
or showing the process are themselves, as noted above,
copyrighted.

Valerie Vann





From: "Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon" <fishgoth@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 17:44:49 +0100
Subject: Re: copyright, art, craft

> Origami, on the other hand is limited to the number of folds that
> can be obtained from the piece of paper. There is only one way
> to make a line on a paper and there is only a limited number of
> shapes that can be folded. A folder will need to work within
> these limitations, using multiples of these shapes. There are
> something that just cannot be folded from paper, just like trying
> to fold a circle.  Origami is technical in nature. It is
> comparable to Architecture and Engineering. This will explain the
> number of scientists and mathematicians among the top folders.
> It takes a technical brain to make complex models. With this, may
> I suggest that Origami be described as Paper Engineering and
> Origamist, the Paper Engineer.
> And how do copyright applies to a book of technical drawings.

Perhaps you ought to look at 'Folding the Universe' (also titled from
Angelfish to Zen), a section of which is dedicated to the link between
Origami and Chaos mathematics, namely the close link with fractals. By very
defination, this implies that the number of folds are infinate. (however,
in practice, factors such as unacceptable thickness and tearing come into
play). Also, origami is not confined to folds alone, people curl and curve
the paper, and also colour aspects of the paper.
If origami is done properly, so that one applies one's own artistic bent to
each model, no two models should be the same (except for the modular fans,
and Im sure most will no that they cannot get all the units exactly the
same :-)  ).
Just hoping to expand on a finite set of limits...

Dr S.G. O'Hanlon





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 18:37:59 +0100
Subject: Anyone use Adobe Illustrator?

Does anyone use Adobe Illustrator for origami diagrams? I've got version
7 for the PC & have been evaluating it. The biggest drawback seems to be
that I can define linestyles (ie mountain/valley) but not apparently
give them a name so I can choose them from a list. I could be wrong, of
course!

Any comments, tips etc. welcomed.

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/
RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk - now with RealAudio clips!





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 21:07:40 -0400
Subject: Re: What's your favorite model?

At 05:02 PM 5/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Can each one of you send me information and details about what your top
>two or three origami models

This is a tough one. I would say it is my "Violinist," "Biplane II," and
"Cankerworm." What information did you need to know about them? Good luck
with your survey. Marc





From: Terry Buse <tbuse@VSTA.COM>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 21:18:35 -0500
Subject: Re: What's your favorite model?

I've found models for a deer, spider, and frog that are pretty complex (for
me) that I enjoy and share with my World Geography classes when we are
studying the Far East

-----Original Message-----
Date: Saturday, May 30, 1998 8:03 PM

>At 05:02 PM 5/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Can each one of you send me information and details about what your top
>>two or three origami models
>
>This is a tough one. I would say it is my "Violinist," "Biplane II," and
>"Cankerworm." What information did you need to know about them? Good luck
>with your survey. Marc





From: Terry Buse <tbuse@VSTA.COM>
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 21:22:37 -0500
Subject: Re: What's your favorite model?

Hi All,
I'm new to the list but have enjoyed orgami for several years now. How many
people are on this list? What is the most complex model that you have made?
I saw a lobster that was about a foot long that looks very complicated and
must take at least a hundred folds.

-----Original Message-----
Date: Saturday, May 30, 1998 8:03 PM

>At 05:02 PM 5/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Can each one of you send me information and details about what your top
>>two or three origami models
>
>This is a tough one. I would say it is my "Violinist," "Biplane II," and
>"Cankerworm." What information did you need to know about them? Good luck
>with your survey. Marc





From: Rjlang@AOL.COM
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 22:02:55 -0400 (
Subject: Re: copyright, art, craft

Paul Ee wrote:

> My impression of Art and Craft is that there are no limitation
> of what can be done. What it takes is just imagination. As in
> painting, you can paint anything. There is no limit on what can
> be painted. It is how good you are at painting that counts...

> Origami, on the other hand is limited to the number of folds that
> can be obtained from the piece of paper. There is only one way
> to make a line on a paper and there is only a limited number of
> shapes that can be folded. A folder will need to work within
> these limitations, using multiples of these shapes. There are
> something that just cannot be folded from paper, just like trying
> to fold a circle.  Origami is technical in nature. It is
> comparable to Architecture and Engineering. This will explain the
> number of scientists and mathematicians among the top folders.
> It takes a technical brain to make complex models. With this, may
> I suggest that Origami be described as Paper Engineering and
> [the] Origamist, the Paper Engineer.
> And how do copyright applies to a book of technical drawings?

An adaptation of this line of thought:

 Music, on the other hand is limited to the number of notes that
 can be played from the instrument. There is only one way
 to make a note of any pitch and there are only a limited number of
 notes that can be played. A composer will need to work within
 these limitations, using multiples of these notes. There are
 some sounds that just cannot be played on a piano, like trying
 to play the sound of a whistle. Music is technical in nature. It is
 comparable to Architecture and Engineering. This will explain the
 number of scientists and mathematicians who compose music.
 It takes technical skill to play complex music. With this, may
 I suggest that Music be described as Tonal Engineering and
 the Composer, the Tonal Engineer.
 And how does copyright apply to a book of musical notes?

I doubt that there are many people who would accept the argument that music is
not an art and should not be copyrighted. The same goes for origami.

Robert J. Lang
rjlang@aol.com





From: Paul Ee <pebclhsf@PACIFIC.NET.SG>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 00:01:53 +0800
Subject: copyright, art, craft

In the discussion on copyrights, there are reference to Origami as Art
or Craft.
Why not Science or Engineering?
Here is my two cents worth of layman view.

My impression of Art and Craft is that there are no limitation
of what can be done. What it takes is just imagination. As in
painting, you can paint anything. There is no limit on what can
be painted. It is how good you are at painting that counts. I
will consider Kirigami as a craft. Just cut the paper and you
will be able to create anything.

Origami, on the other hand is limited to the number of folds that
can be obtained from the piece of paper. There is only one way
to make a line on a paper and there is only a limited number of
shapes that can be folded. A folder will need to work within
these limitations, using multiples of these shapes. There are
something that just cannot be folded from paper, just like trying
to fold a circle.  Origami is technical in nature. It is
comparable to Architecture and Engineering. This will explain the
number of scientists and mathematicians among the top folders.
It takes a technical brain to make complex models. With this, may
I suggest that Origami be described as Paper Engineering and
Origamist, the Paper Engineer.
And how do copyright applies to a book of technical drawings.





From: Kenny1414@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 11:37:29 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Paper Engineer (was Re: copyright, art, craft)

In a message dated 98-05-30 12:15:28 EDT, you write:

> I suggest that Origami be described as Paper Engineering and
>  Origamist, the Paper Engineer.

Sorry, that term "Paper Engineer" is already in use, for people who design
paper or cardboard packaging, pop-up cards, pop-up books,
cardboard POP (point-of-purchase) displays, and the like.

At best, Origami can be described as a special branch of
Paper Engineering.

Aloha,

kenny1414@aol.com (Kenneth M. Kawamura)





From: "Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon" <fishgoth@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 15:35:25 +0100
Subject: Re: What's your favorite model?

> Can each one of you send me information and details about what your top
> two or three origami models

In terms of the ones I've memorised :
  Lang's Scorpion from Complete book of Origami   (Complex)
  Variation of Montroll's Western Dragon, Mythological Creatures (High
Intermediate)
  Montrolls elephant from Origami from the Enthusiast (Intermediate)
In terms of the ones from books :
  Any model from Insects and their kin, Lang (Complex)
  Brill's George and the Dragon scene, from Brilliant Origami (High
Intermediate)
  Weiss's eagle from Origami Zoo (High Intermediate)
I also rather like my own creation of the Tatsu dragon on my website :-)
(Complex)

> -don't send me info about the Kawasaki Rose

Er, I like that one too...

> There is no excuse for not answering this letter

There is...you havent said please. But I'm a nice guy anyway.

Dr S.G. O'Hanlon
www.geocities.com/athens/academy/4800





From: "K.A. Lundberg" <klundber@MNSINC.COM>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 16:57:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Paper Katana

Matthias writes:
>I have no clue whether there are other origami katanas out there. I
>doubt it; maybe there are swords, but a katana is a quite special sword,
>isn't it? I am very interested in seeing your diagrams though, because
>I'm working on a MUD area that will feature Origami, and most equipment
>(armour, helmets, and weapons) will be made from origami.

________________
First I would like to thank publicly the members of this list that have
assisted me through private e-mail on my problem.  I do think there are
differences between a katana and other swords. Those are some of the
questions I have been asked...I don't know much about arms and based my
design only on the major characteristics I observed in a TV show...the shape
of the tip, hand guard and hilt for example.  It seems to me that I have
seen a Calvary like hilt in a sword model somewhere, it may have been
something I stumbled across while seeking something that looked like a
katana as I haven't been able to find in my books what I remember <bg>.
When you get older your mind goes doncha know.

Matthias continues:
>If you need more info on what a MUD is, feel free to ask :-).

________________
I'm sure I should know what a MUD is...I've seen the acronym before on the
Highlander List...but usually in connection with discussions beyond my
expertise.  Perhaps for the list you could give a description.  From the
e-mail I have received there seems to be an interest in this type of model,
and you might find that, like me, people have come up with models strictly
for their own and their friends entertainment.

I will try to send an attachment to the tanjit address...if this is the
wrong place let me know.

Kalei -- klundber@mnsinc.com





From: Sy Chen <sychen@EROLS.COM>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 17:29:43 -0400
Subject: Re: What's your favorite model?

At 03:35 PM 5/31/98 +0100, Dr S.G. O'Hanlon wrote:
>  Weiss's eagle from Origami Zoo (High Intermediate)

My copy of Origami Zoo credits eagle to
Robert Lang. Are we talking about the same model?
Golden Eagle used to be one of my favoites.

|------------------------------------------------------\
|  _   Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy) <sychen@erols.com>     |\
| |_| Folding http://www.erols.com/sychen1/pprfld.html --\





From: Terry Buse <tbuse@VSTA.COM>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 18:36:49 -0500
Subject: question

I'm a novice at origami. What is a rabbit ear fold. None of my books show this
     fold and several of the models I've seen on the internet require this
     fold. Needless to say, I can't finish the model. Help!

Thanks Terry





From: Boseditor@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 18:42:23 -0400 (
Subject: Enigma Cube

Sorry to be a bit slow on this one but I got behind reading the digests!

<<Could anyone here give me some hints on how to assemble the 12 units
of the "enigma cube." (the 12 ones starting as a waterbomb base.)
Is there a subtle way of achieving it, or do I have to use a lot of
paper clips>>

First a bit of history ... My first Enigma Cube was made from just two pieces
of paper. I sent it in some excitement to Dave Brill and it came back twice as
good. So the score is that while the shape was my discovery (the use of
folding as a design tool for the creation of form is my chief interest in
origami) the 12 module method is Dave Brill's.

(For those interested, there is a third way of making the Enigma Cube that
begins with Ed Sullivan's XYZ - heavily precreased and with the normally
inverted corners brought out to form a stellated octahedron in the centre -
and transforms from there once the modules are together. This method is the
most interesting of the three - and quite the most difficult too!)

But back to the question ... Valerie's advice is good as always. I don't know
of any subtle method. Yes, it can be done without clips - though not easily.

It does help if you start forming the curves straight away, rather than
waiting until the model forces you to form them.

If you do use clips try putting them across the points not on the curved
collars. They mark the paper less that way.

There aren't any diagrams, I'm afraid.

Dave Mitchell





From: "R. Sutherland." <RGS467@AOL.COM>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 19:20:37 -0400 (
Subject: Re: What's your favorite model?

In a message dated 98-05-30 22:51:19 EDT, you write:

<<
 In a message dated 98-05-30 02:28:25 EDT, you write:

 <<
>>>Can each one of you send me information and details about what your top
>>>two or three origami models?

 Only 3 , eh??   Let's see....  One would have to be dedicated to
Lang...perhaps his paper wasp in "Origami Insects and their Kin."...because it
is SO appropriate to origami.  Another would have to be a "Montroll"...perhaps
his blue shark from "Origami Sea Life", and maybe a money fold...the whimsical
"two frogs on a see saw" by Herman Shall published by OUSA.  Tomorrow my
answers will be different... These are models I have successfully done, so I
am judging them on a "design" criteria rather than solely on "aesthetics."
There are models out there which astound me and puzzle my mind... EX:  Lang's
Blackforest Cuckoo Clock... but models such as Jeremy Shafer's 3D flasher and
Joisel's faces...are quite impressive as well.   I could go on..  All are the
best in their own ways... all great works of art.  We are fortunate to be
living in the days of living legends...   We all anticipate the newest books
by noted designers such as Kasahara, Biddle, Nolan, Montroll, Lang, etc....

>>>don't send me info about the Kawasaki Rose

What's up with that??   <g>

>>>There is no excuse for not answering this letter

I can think of a few, but will honor your request because..........   I care.

>>>When is the next origami chat and where?

The next scheduled chat will be this Tuesday, June 2, at 9PM (EST).
@ the Village:  http://www.the-village.com/origami/talk.html

Here is the link:    <A HREF="http://www.the-village.com/origami/talk.html">
Origami Talk</A>

Good luck on your project, Julian.

      Russell : \
RGS467@AOL.com

DARE TO FOLD!!!!!!





From: Jeadams1@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:32:04 -0400 (
Subject: Origami Clubs in Rochester, NY?

Are there any origami clubs in Rochester, NY, or in upstate NY, in general?

Jim Adams





From: STEVE179 <steve179@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 21:23:14 -0400
Subject: Re: enigma cube

I think the model and solution are in The New Origami by Steve Biddle

----------
> From: Pierre Hyvernat <Pierre.Hyvernat@CIPCINSA.INSA-LYON.FR>
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: enigma cube
> Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 9:54 AM
>
> Hi!
> Could anyone here give me some hints on how to assemble the 12 units
> of the "enigma cube." (the 12 ones starting as a waterbomb base.)
> Is there a subtle way of achieving it, or do I have to use a lot of
> paper clips; (this is what I already did once, but it really is
> a lot of trouble.)
> Do you know of any other solutions to it. (Diagrams anywhere?)
> So, if any of you has advices...
>   Pierre Hyvernat
> phyvernat@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr





From: Karen Reeds <reeds@OPENIX.COM>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 21:23:54 -0100
Subject: origami sighting (hearing, really)

In a pretty funny skit on this weekend's edition of Prairie Home Companion
on National Public Radio, Garrison Keillor--in his role as the gentle
cowboy, described his room in the boarding house--"my satin comforter, my
origami..."
Karen
reeds@openix.com





From: "Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon" <fishgoth@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 23:34:18 +0100
Subject: Re: What's your favorite model?

> At 03:35 PM 5/31/98 +0100, Dr S.G. O'Hanlon wrote:
> >  Weiss's eagle from Origami Zoo (High Intermediate)
>
> My copy of Origami Zoo credits eagle to
> Robert Lang. Are we talking about the same model?
> Golden Eagle used to be one of my favoites.
>

Youre right, thats the one. I'll read the credits next time. Mind you, it
doesnt seem very 'Langesque' when I fold it. Still a damn fine model,
though!

Stephen





From: Chinh Nguyen <chinhsta@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 01:00:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Favorite Folds

Of late, I've found myself doing the Lang seashells alot, from _Origami
Sealife_.  In many ways, I think they rank amongst his best works...
perhaps moreso than his insects/other super complex thingies.  Why?
Because not only are they beautiful, they're also fairly easy to do...
"anytime, anywhere" origami.  They just *look* intimidating.

(Nah, the nautilus ain't that hard... I did the Kawahata Dimetrodon once,
figured the nautilus had the same approach... voila... it gets stressful
on the paper towards the end if you assemble it crimp by crimp, but I'd
rather deal with that than get burrs...)

--Chinh Nguyen chinhsta@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

"Life is hard... and life is good."  -- Splinter, _TMNT_
        (Yes, it's a cliche.  Sometimes things are cliches because they're
        *true*!)
