




From: Charles Knuffke <knuffke@SIRIUS.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:11:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Magic Rose Cube

John Marcolina wrote regarding the magic rose cube...

> First question - Think of the assembly in three steps: The joining of the
     three "calyx" pieces to each other, the joining of the three "flower"
     pieces to each other, and the joining of the "flower" pieces to the
     "calyx" pieces. What order are these thre
  steps done in? I can't remember, and I've been doing it basically "bottom to
     top", but I'm not sure if this is the easiest way.
> Second - The flower piece has two raw corners at each end. Where the flower
     pieces fit into each other, this corner is in the "unfolded" state. The
     other end of this flower piece is connected to the calyx piece. When the
     flower piece is connected to the
 calyx piece, is the raw corner of the flower piece unfolded, or is the corner
     folded in to make a triangular flap? Both ways are possible, but leaving
     the raw corner unfolded gives a little more holding power. It's more
     difficult as well.

Your timimg is terrific - I just taught someone last weekend how to fold the
Rose Cube, so it's still fresh in my mind.

The way I teach it (which I hope is the way Valerie wants it taught) is to first
assemble the three calyx pieces together. Doing this is pretty simple, and the
only caveat is to ensure the when you're inserting the triangle end of the one
module into the pocket of the other, make sure it goes underneath the small
hidden flap inside the pocket. If you make the model but find that it comes
apart when you open it, chances are this is where you went wrong.

As I see it, there are three moves involved in doing the second part of the
assembly. They are:

a. Slide the end of one flower piece into the pocket of one calyx. Notice that I
said "Slide". Since it's going to wrap around an edge of the cube, sliding it
works the best for me, especially since there is a inclinded flap in the the
calyx module that the flower should slide along. The flower piece should have
the end in the "unfolded" state that you mention to completely wrap around the
edge.

b. Insert the small folded triangle of the calyx into the pocket of the flower

c. Lock the flower's other end into the side of the flower piece next to it. As
in step a, keep the end in it's "unfolded" state

Once all three calyx pieces are joined, I completely insert the three flower
pieces into the calyx unit, then do the next two steps on each flower piece.
Here's the step by step version for everyone who wants to follow along at home
;-) Pieces are numbered 1 to 3 right to left.

1. Flower 1 slides into Calyx 1 (Step a above)
2. Flower 2 slides into Calyx 2 (Step a above)
3. Flower 3 slides into Calyx 3 (Step a above)

4. Calyx 2 triangle into Flower 1 pocket (Step b above)
5. Flower 1 end locks inside Flower 2    (Step c above)

6. Calyx 3 triangle into Flower 2 pocket (Step b above)
7. Flower 2 end locks inside Flower 3    (Step c above)

8. Calyx 1 Triangle into Flower 3 pocket (Step b above)
9. Flower 3 end locks inside Flower 1    (Step c above)

The only really hard part is that last step, since you're trying to insert a
flower end inside a flower that's already completely assembled. The trick here
is to first "open" flower pieces number 2 and 1 using the same maneuver as when
you "open" the complete rose. Once these pieces are opened, it is much easier to
insert the last piece. When the last step is finsihed, close up the entire
figure, and you're done!

Hopefully this isn't as confusing as it looks ;-)





From: Michael LaFosse <info@ORIGAMIDO.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:14:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Magic Rose Cube

We are currently in production on a two-hour VHS videotape of selected
works by Valerie Van.  It will include the Magic Rose Cube.  We are
hoping to have it debut at ORCA.  I will keep you all posted; it will be
available on our web site by the end of July.

Michael LaFosse
Origamido Studio

Dorothy Engleman wrote:

> Whatever happened to Valerie Vann and her plans to diagram the Magic
> Rose Cube?
>
> Enquiring Cubehead





From: "Brannon, Dennis" <Dennis.Brannon@COMPAQ.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 15:50:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Magic Rose Cube

John Marcolina wrote:
>I hope this makes sense. Which way were you all taught?

I join the "calyx" pieces to each other, then add on each "flower" piece.
I found that easier than trying to connect the "calyx" to the "flower".

I fold the corner in to make a triangular flap.

Dennis Brannon
Ayer, MA USA





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 15:57:08 +0100
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU> sez

>>The big problem is, I think, how to fix the rotor to the body of the
>>helicopter so it can rotate freely,

Interesting that this should form a thread, since I've been working
(sporadically) on this problem for over a year, with no real success.

My basic thought was to form the rotors with some kind of modular
construction (such as "skeletal " units) with a hole in the centre. The
top of (say) a frog base could then be squashed open to form a joint.
Alternatively, some kind of "hook" might hold the two together as the
contraption descended. Aside from the problems of friction, the main
issue is keeping the body still whilst the rotor, errr  rotates.

I'm sure there's a solution to this that doesn't involve cutting, but
I'm blowed if I know what it might be.

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: Megan Newman <afn05199@AFN.ORG>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:31:30 -0400
Subject: Origami Torch

Does anyone know how to make an olympic torch-or anything similar to it?

Thanks,
Megan





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:44:44 +0100
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Butterfly competition!

madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM> sez

>This is not a competition for creating an original butterfly model, correct?

Although the exhibiton should be wide opne, I'd have hoped the
competition was for original work - a trip to Sweden just for folding
someone else's design?

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:09:57 +0200
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

Peter Budai schrieb:
> Actually I have made at least one wreck-o-gami model: an airplane which
> flies, though backwards...  Not a successful model, eh?  ;-)

Well, at least your model flies! Most of my airplanes just crash. But
since there are flightless birds, why not flightless airplanes...

Matthias





From: Ariel <ariel@DATAPHONE.SE>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:16:44 +0200
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Butterfly competition!

>This is not a competition for creating an original butterfly model, correct?

No, you can fold whichever butterfly. That one of your favourite creator, your
own design, whatever.

>We may fold anyone's model as long as we give credit?

Right.

>  Or are you looking
>for new models?

no. any butterfly. The most beautiful or so will win. there is a jury
consisting of one guy from the Stockholm's butterfly House ( like a living
museum of living butterflies) plus two more guys.
You can read  more in detail at >http://welcome.to/origami.sverige





From: madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:23:36 -0700
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Butterfly competition!

That is why I asked the question.  It seemed a little unusual to me!

MaryAnn

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Butterfly competition!

>madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM> sez
>
>>This is not a competition for creating an original butterfly model,
correct?
>
>Although the exhibiton should be wide opne, I'd have hoped the
>competition was for original work - a trip to Sweden just for folding
>someone else's design?
>
>all the best,
>
>Nick Robinson
>
>email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
>homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda
syphons!
>BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:57:16 -0700
Subject: Re: More about Butterfly competition!

Thank you!!!! Just what I wanted ........ official rules for the
competition.  Now it is very clear to me.

MaryAnn

-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Andreozzi <dion@HEM.PASSAGEN.SE>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 5:12 PM
Subject: More about Butterfly competition!

Dear Folders,
I would like to clarify something more about the butterfly
competition/exhibition. As you already know Origami Sweden will arrange an
origami butterfly exhibition in Stockholm, the idea is the show to the
public a collection of wonderful origami designs. To make the exhibition
more interesting for international paperfolders (and for the public) we have
included the competition. YOU CAN SEND US ORIGINAL MODELS, CREATE NEW ONES
EXPECIALLY FOR THE EXHIBITION/COMPETITION IF YOU ARE A CREATOR, but we don't
want to limit the exhibition by having as partecipators ONLY  CREATORS. If
you are a good paperfolder, having a good choise of model and paper used you
may have a chance to win the competition. IT  IS NOT ENOUGH TO SEND ONLY THE
DIAGRAMS WE WANT MODELS. You can use every kind of paper you like, any size.
The only limitations are:
-You must credit the creator if the model you are sending is not your own
model
-You are not allowed to cut or glue the model
-You must use a partecitation form for each model you send (you can find the
form in our homepage: http://welcome.to/origami.sverige
- All submissions shold arrive by 14/August 1999

Note: Origami Sverige will not send the models back, the creator/folder must
give Us the right to use the model (or a picture of it) inother exibititions
arranged by Origami Sverige or to be published in our website and/or
magazine.

We hope to see your models in Stockholm!

Happy folding/creating and good luck!

Dino Andreozzi

----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Frn: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Till: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Skickat: den 8 juni 1999 19:44
mne: Re: ATTENTION: Butterfly competition!

> madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM> sez
>
> >This is not a competition for creating an original butterfly model,
correct?
>
> Although the exhibiton should be wide opne, I'd have hoped the
> competition was for original work - a trip to Sweden just for folding
> someone else's design?
>
> all the best,
>
> Nick Robinson
>
> email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
> homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda
syphons!
> BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 23:19:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Money Rose Tape

Yes thank you, Dorothy!   I'll make time to watch it tomorrow!

Dorothy





From: Daniela Carboni <s134259@STUDENTI.ING.UNIPI.IT>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:45:25 +0200
Subject: Re: Sci-fi model

You can rename it Mr Spoch, everyone will understand and the attorneys will
bite the dust. Just check before, that Spoch is not a registered TM.

Good luck.
          Daniela.

>-- [ From: Spider Barbour * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
>
>Dear fellow folders (no sexism intended) --
>        There is a new model on my web page for sci-fi fans and
>face-folding fans.
>It is a portrait of Mr. Spock, from the first Star Trek series.  I have been
>warned that corporate heavies might object, so if you are interested in the
>subject, please visit:
>
>http://ulster.net/~spider/origami.htm
>
>before attorneys descend and demand its removal or else!  My next letter to
>the o-list may have to be sent from copyright-infringers' prison.
>
>Anita Barbour

/\_/\    Daniela S. Carboni
 o o     email: s134259@studenti.ing.unipi.it
= # =    -Soon I will have a new web page-





From: Dino Andreozzi <dion@HEM.PASSAGEN.SE>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 02:11:51 +0200
Subject: More about Butterfly competition!

Dear Folders,
I would like to clarify something more about the butterfly competition/exhibitio
     n. As you already know Origami Sweden will arrange an origami butterfly
     exhibition in Stockholm, the idea is the show to the public a collection
     of wonderful origami designs.
 o make the exhibition more interesting for international paperfolders (and for
     the public) we have included the competition. YOU CAN SEND US ORIGINAL
     MODELS, CREATE NEW ONES EXPECIALLY FOR THE EXHIBITION/COMPETITION IF YOU
     ARE A CREATOR, but we don't wan

-You must credit the creator if the model you are sending is not your own model
-You are not allowed to cut or glue the model
-You must use a partecitation form for each model you send (you can find the
     form in our homepage: http://welcome.to/origami.sverige
- All submissions shold arrive by 14/August 1999

Note: Origami Sverige will not send the models back, the creator/folder must
     give Us the right to use the model (or a picture of it) inother
     exibititions arranged by Origami Sverige or to be published in our website
     and/or magazine.

We hope to see your models in Stockholm!

Happy folding/creating and good luck!

Dino Andreozzi

----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Frn: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Till: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Skickat: den 8 juni 1999 19:44
mne: Re: ATTENTION: Butterfly competition!

> madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM> sez
>
> >This is not a competition for creating an original butterfly model, correct?
>
> Although the exhibiton should be wide opne, I'd have hoped the
> competition was for original work - a trip to Sweden just for folding
> someone else's design?
>
> all the best,
>
> Nick Robinson
>
> email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
> homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda
     syphons!
> BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 07:46:57 +0200
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Butterfly competition!

Nick "just for folding" Robinson:
>Although the exhibiton should be wide opne, I'd have hoped the
>competition was for original work - a trip to Sweden just for folding
>someone else's design?

Yeah, and some people even win a trip to Australia just for answering
someone else's questions. Competitions aren't fair, eh?

Matthias





From: Kevin Kinney <kkinney@MED.UNC.EDU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:23:36 -0400
Subject: My class is a go!

Just to let everyone know, I just received "verbal" (well, e-mail) approval
to teach

Origami:  the Art, Science, and Mathematics of paperfolding.

as part of the winter term classes at DePauw University in Greencastle,
Indiana, in January, 2000!

The Winter term is basically 5 days a week, three or more hours per day, for
three weeks, a total of 45 hours.  And class size is generally 20 students.
The purpose appears to be to give students an opportunity to pursue some
subject which is interesting to them, but outside their major.  Classes
range from pretty straightforward (such as EMT training), to esoteric
literature (the detective in American lit.) to the unusual and wonderful
(such as, if I may say, Origami).

Here's the draft of the course description.

Description:  Through lectures and participation, students will be
introduced to the Japanese art of origami, folding paper into complex
shapes.  Students will begin with learning basic folds, to familiarize them
with the constraints and instructional vocabulary, and will use this
vocabulary to diagram models themselves.  In addition to learning how to
fold a variety of models, students will also learn some of the mathematical
and engineering principles behind design of models, as well as some of the
cultural history of the art.  Artistic issues will be considered in the
folding of models and in the choice of appropriate papers for different
subjects.   The final part of the course will involve a group project, in
which the class and instructor work together to create a large, complex
model for display.  Students will be encouraged, but not required, to design
their own models.

I am also hoping that the students will have access to the Web, if not in
class, then at least at home, and I'm planning on having at least one
segment on "Origami on the Web."

So I am excited, and those of you masters on the list, and even people with
strong opinions, can expect to have me asking for advice in the coming
months (after I finish designing my Fall classes, in Biology, that is!).

Kevin Kinney





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:03:36 -0400
Subject: More on the Butterfly competition!

At 10:34 AM 6/8/99 -0700, you wrote:

>Just a clarification please:
>
>This is not a competition for creating an original butterfly model, correct?
>We may fold anyone's model as long as we give credit?

I am sorry that I have not mentioned it in my mail. However, it is written
in the invitation at the Origami Sverige site:

http://welcome.to/origami.sverige

Please read it, if you would like to participate!

The answer is yes, you can fold anyone else's butterfly creation (giving
the credit, of course!) and take part in the competition with that model.
But original creations are also equally welcome!

Happy folding!

Peter Budai





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:03:45 -0400
Subject: More on the Butterfly competition!

At 11:15 AM 6/7/99 -0700, you wrote:

>Is all techniques and paper types allowed?

I think yes, I see no reason to constrain the paper types. I think Dino
Andreozzi will confirm this.

>I mean could we fold from origami paper, foil, typewriter,

Typewriter???

>This sounds like a lot of fun.

Sure! Happy folding!

Peter Budai





From: Julius Kusserow <juku@MATHEMATIK.HU-BERLIN.DE>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 14:30:13 +0200
Subject: Origami Tanteidan Convention '99

Hi,
I have planned to visit the Origami Tantaidan in Tokyo this year.
Have anyone from this list also the plan to participate to this
Convention ?

Julius





From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@SCI.FI>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:57:22 +0200
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Butterfly competition!

On 08-Jun-99, Nick Robinson (nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK) wrote:

>Although the exhibiton should be wide opne, I'd have hoped the
>competition was for original work - a trip to Sweden just for folding
>someone else's design?

>From a Finnish standpoint that isn't too far fetched :)

No, I'm not going to participate, as I will be there anyway.

--
Jorma Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi

Weyland-Yutani - Building Better Worlds





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <contract@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:32:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Origami Torch

At 04:31 PM 6/8/99 -0400, Megan Newman <afn05199@AFN.ORG> wrote:
>Does anyone know how to make an olympic torch-or anything similar to it?

Martin Wall designed one. I do not know if it is in his BOS booklet or not.

Marc





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:40:36 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

At 13:20 99/06/09 -0400, Peter Budai wrote:
>Seriousness regained, let's examine the working mechanism. For example,
>paper airplanes get "continous power supply" from gravitation (until they
>land). What would make the helicopter fly? Now, even if we solved the
>problem of rotating rotors and non-rotating body, I think the rotors
>wouldn't create enough lift to make the model rise up form the ground. Or
>if yes, that would be a very short and instabile "flight" (if that could be
>called so).

If you get the right paper with the right amount of elasticity, you could
theoretically make a one-piece helicopter. However you manage to fold the
shaft that joins the rotor to the body, you could twist it until it is
tight. Then, as the paper unfolds (untwists), the rotor would spin. You
might even be able to achieve a little bit of lift.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:10:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Maekawa's Winged Devil

I found the diagram it is at http://origami.gr.jp/People/MAEK0/devilcr.gif
anyone who can figure it out deserves to fold it, it doesn't even show the
distinction between valley and mountain folds.  It'll be a challenge,
harder than the one in Origami for the Connesseur for the alien fold.

David

>Just because it is publically visible it doesn't mean it is in the public
>domain, you still need to ask permission.
>--------------------------
>        Allan           (a_findlay@exchange.creations.co.uk)
>
>> ----------
>> From:         <Ryan Becker>[SMTP:RyBecker@AOL.COM]
>> Reply To:     Origami List
>> Sent:         09 June 1999 17:33
>> To:   ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>> Subject:      Re: Maekawa's Winged Devil
>>
>> The crease pattern is available on the <A
>> HREF="http://origami.gr.jp/">Origami Tanteidan Home Page
>> </A> at http://origami.gr.jp/.  I don't remember the exact location.
>> Would
>> it be considered stepping over the copyright laws if I put up my own,
>> clearer
>> version of the crease pattern on my web site?  I've been thinking that
>> because the crease pattern's already been made available to the public
>> it's
>> an OK thing to do.  My crease pattern is based on my first devil, folded
>> from
>> the crease pattern on Tanteidan's site.  What do you think?
>>
>> Ryan Becker





From: Kimberly Shuck <atsina@HOOKED.NET>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:39:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

I actually have a helicopter from two pieces of paper that does not exactly fly
but... arrests downward momentum (ok picky destination, I know). I folded it so
that the rotors spun in the same direction as the twist I put in the shaft. That
way the spinning motion does not take the piece apart, the rotor paper is that
parchment type photocopy paper and the body is different and it doesn't seem to
spin the body. I'm really bad at writing down instructions for folds that I've
done, and this helicopter is just a noodle in response to the question posed on
the list, but if you guys think that you can get anything out of it I could try
to generate some notes, at least. I must stress that it is not profound art or
     anything...
Kim

Joseph Wu wrote:
>
> At 13:20 99/06/09 -0400, Peter Budai wrote:
> >Seriousness regained, let's examine the working mechanism. For example,
> >paper airplanes get "continous power supply" from gravitation (until they
> >land). What would make the helicopter fly? Now, even if we solved the
> >problem of rotating rotors and non-rotating body, I think the rotors
> >wouldn't create enough lift to make the model rise up form the ground. Or
> >if yes, that would be a very short and instabile "flight" (if that could be
> >called so).





From: "<Ryan Becker>" <RyBecker@AOL.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:33:19 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Maekawa's Winged Devil

The crease pattern is available on the <A
HREF="http://origami.gr.jp/">Origami Tanteidan Home Page
</A> at http://origami.gr.jp/.  I don't remember the exact location.  Would
it be considered stepping over the copyright laws if I put up my own, clearer
version of the crease pattern on my web site?  I've been thinking that
because the crease pattern's already been made available to the public it's
an OK thing to do.  My crease pattern is based on my first devil, folded from
the crease pattern on Tanteidan's site.  What do you think?

Ryan Becker





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:20:12 -0400
Subject: Re: More about Butterfly competition!

At 10:57 PM 6/8/99 -0700, <madawson@SPRYNET.COM> wrote:

>Thank you!!!! Just what I wanted ........ official rules for the
>competition.  Now it is very clear to me.

Please note that I have told in the original mail that all the information
and the participation form is located at, once again:

http://welcome.to/origami.sverige

Please read all what's there about the exhibition/competition, then you
will get all the answers for what you have asked so far. Please every
interested, read it, because there are the official rules. You must visit
the site anyway, because there is the participation form.

Happy folding!

Peter Budai





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:20:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

At 03:57 PM 6/8/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU> sez

>My basic thought was to form the rotors with some kind of modular
>construction (such as "skeletal " units) with a hole in the centre. The
>top of (say) a frog base could then be squashed open to form a joint.

That's a good idea!

>... Aside from the problems of friction, the main issue is keeping the
body >still whilst the rotor, errr  rotates.

Khm, well, may I suggest folding a tail rotor?... - Just to make things
even more complexxx  ;-)

Seriousness regained, let's examine the working mechanism. For example,
paper airplanes get "continous power supply" from gravitation (until they
land). What would make the helicopter fly? Now, even if we solved the
problem of rotating rotors and non-rotating body, I think the rotors
wouldn't create enough lift to make the model rise up form the ground. Or
if yes, that would be a very short and instabile "flight" (if that could be
called so).

If we start from behind, that is, we "drop" the helicopter from the air
(like with paper airplanes, but then we add some push as well), then
gravitation would solve the problem of landing, and we should only care
about the rotation of the rotors (which should be no other than a rotor
shaped glider, but that's a rotor, so...). To reach the ideal situation,
the weight of the rotor should be about the same as the helicopter's (if
the rotor is heavier, because of its bigger acceleraion compared to the
heli's, it would sit down on the heli;

        ___Friction up here
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Rotor
      ___|___________
     / Heli  _______/
     \______/

on the oppsite, the rotor would hang up because of its smaller acceleration
compared to the heli's).

        ___
         | Friction down here
===================__
     / Heli  _______/
     \______/

But if you think about the first milliseconds, until the rotor doesn't
start to rotate, it will rest a bit above the region where it would be
while it's rotating. This problem could be solved by knuckling the rotor to
rotational phase at the moment you drop it, but then the illusion goes
away. The other solution may be to make the rotor a bit heavier than the heli.

But this is an awful trade-off, so it isn't an easy job...

Good luck!

Peter Budai





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:20:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

At 10:09 PM 6/8/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Peter Budai schrieb:
>> Actually I have made at least one wreck-o-gami model: an airplane which
>> flies, though backwards...  Not a successful model, eh?  ;-)
>
>Well, at least your model flies! Most of my airplanes just crash. But
>since there are flightless birds, why not flightless airplanes...

Hangarigami? (notice: Han-... and not Hun-...  :-)

Have a good flight!

Peter Budai





From: Florence Temko <Ftemko@AOL.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:20:22 -0400 (
Subject: More on European copyright

After I wrote about fees being paid for copyright by European libraries I was
asked whether the fee paid to me two years ago was for origami books.

The Registry does not specify on which books the fee is based. At that time I
had published three new how-to books on traditional crafts which I assume
produced the most use, but my origami titles could have contributed.

Florence Temko





From: Florence Temko <Ftemko@AOL.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:20:26 -0400 (
Subject: NO Copyright and Fair Use

We are not alone. Not only paperfolders and needlecrafters are concerned
about protecting their intellectual property. "Surfing and Stealing" was the
subject of a lecture delivered by Stephen Manes at the Columbia University
School of Law on March 2, 1999. Besides  addressing the bigger issue of
copyright on the Net he comments about fair use: "... when one steals in
small doses under the special exemption of fair use."

In addition, authors and publishers are addressing the issue of free use by
educational institutions, particularly in the area of "Distance Learning."
Scott Turow said: "Computer manufacturers aren't going to donate computers
for distance learners. Power companies aren't going to give away electricity
to power them. But authors are expected to have their copyright abridged to
subsidize education." (This quotation is permitted "fair use.")

All this relates most closely to professional authors of published books
(whether by established publishing houses or self-published) and websites.
Most paperfolders have to decide whether they want to share their creations
for free or pay which is the debate on the list. Paul Jackson and Joseph Wu
have clearly expressed their methods of creating origami for advertising .

Yes, photocopying of origami designs should not be done without the author's
or publisher's  permission, whoever holds the rights. I have received two
requests from a Kinko shop in Arizona in two subsequent years for a teacher
to make 25 copies from one of my books for a class. Is she the only one who
has copied origami designs from my books?

All this is a tremendous and difficult area of conflicts. Fortunately we can
enjoy folding paper.

Florence Temko.





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:36:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

> At 10:09 PM 6/8/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >Peter Budai schrieb:
> >> Actually I have made at least one wreck-o-gami model: an airplane which
> >> flies, though backwards...  Not a successful model, eh?  ;-)
> >
> >Well, at least your model flies! Most of my airplanes just crash. But
> >since there are flightless birds, why not flightless airplanes...
>
> Hangarigami? (notice: Han-... and not Hun-...  :-)
>
> Have a good flight!
>
> Peter Budai

Or Archeaopterorigami?





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:47:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

At 13:36 99/06/09 -0700, Christopher Holt wrote:
>> At 10:09 PM 6/8/99 +0200, Peter Budai wrote:
>> >Well, at least your model flies! Most of my airplanes just crash. But
>> >since there are flightless birds, why not flightless airplanes...
>>
>> Hangarigami? (notice: Han-... and not Hun-...  :-)
>
>Or Archeaopterorigami?

Ah, but Archaeopterix probably did fly, much like the Hoatzin does today.
How about "Struthiorigami" instead?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Howard Portugal <howardpo@MICROSOFT.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:01:38 -0700
Subject: pop up heart card

Hi all,

I seem to remember Jeremy Shafer coming up with a pop-up heart greeting card
model. One where you open up the card and the heart pops out at you. I took
a look through my BARF newsletters and couldn't find it. Does anyone know
where I might find this model or is my memory faulty and Jeremy didn't
actually create one of these?

Thanks,

Howard

Howard Portugal
Critical Problem Resolution - NT Escalation (CPR/NT)

> * howardpo@microsoft.com
> *Wk: 425/704-4078
> *Pgr: Urgent V-Mail
>
"A problem worthy of attack, proves it's worth by fighting back." Piet Hein





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:26:44 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

At 18:23 99/06/09 -0400, Chinh Nguyen wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Joseph Wu wrote:
>
>> Ah, but Archaeopterix probably did fly, much like the Hoatzin does today.
>> How about "Struthiorigami" instead?
>
>In retrospect, many scientists think that it was pretty stupid to question
>whether or not it flew.  I mean, why would you have wings if you didn't
>fly?

Your rhetorical question is not as rhetorical as you think. We are talking
about flightless birds, right? Penguins, ostriches (that's where the
"struthio" comes from, BTW), emus, cassowaries, kiwis, and so on are all
flightless birds. They all have wings but do not fly.

As for the Archaeopterix, we can only make educated guesses about whether or
not it flew. Unless we get a real one and see it fly, we can't be certain,
right?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Kim Best <kim.best@M.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:49:30 -0600
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

Nick Robinson wrote:
>
> Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU> sez
>
> > that is, we "drop" the helicopter from the air
>
> That's the only possible route. To be honest, I don't think anyone would
> mind if the whole thing rotated, as long as it "fell" to the ground
> slowly!

A while back somebody told me they modified my Lunar Lander so that it
did just that. But I haven't tryied it myself.

And before anyone asks the model is at the FTP site, but I hope an
improved version with corrections will be in the upcoming annual
collection.

--
Kim Best                            *******************************
                                    *          Origamist:         *
Rocky Mountain Cancer Data System   * Some one who thinks paper   *
420 Chipeta Way #120                * thin, means thick and bulky *
Salt Lake City, Utah  84108         *******************************





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:18:47 +0100
Subject: Butterfly competition

Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH> sez

>Competitions aren't fair, eh?

Some aren't, but that's down to whoever sets the rules.

It will be interesting to see what happens if someone wins a free trip
using a design by another creator & that creator objects to their design
being used in this way. Copyright issues usually emerge when there's
money or rewards at stake. You can bet that most entrants won't seek
permission in advance.

This probably won't happen, but my advice is to be careful - what if
someone wins using a Yoshizawa design? AY isn't keen on other people
exhibiting their own versions of his designs, much less winning
expensive prizes using them.

My suggestion is to exhibit all butterflies, but limit the prizes to
original creations.

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: John Marcolina <jmarcoli@CISCO.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:22:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Betsy Ross folding?

I remember doing this as a kid. Here's a website I found that explains it:

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagstar.html

John Marcolina
San Jose, CA.
jmarcoli@cisco.com





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:24:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Sv:      Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

At 00:46 99/06/10 +0200, you wrote:
>Does the Kiwi have wings ?
>
>Kalmon the Great and Glorious

Yes, Kalmon, it does have wings. They are very small and useless, and are
normally not visible under the feathers.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:28:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
To: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

> At 13:36 99/06/09 -0700, Christopher Holt wrote:
> >> At 10:09 PM 6/8/99 +0200, Peter Budai wrote:
> >> >Well, at least your model flies! Most of my airplanes just crash. But
> >> >since there are flightless birds, why not flightless airplanes...
> >>
> >> Hangarigami? (notice: Han-... and not Hun-...  :-)
> >
> >Or Archeaopterorigami?
>
> Ah, but Archaeopterix probably did fly, much like the Hoatzin does today.
> How about "Struthiorigami" instead?
>

Ah, I supposed it would have flown with at least the competenceof an origami
bird, so point well taken. Someone should do an origami ornithology lesson.
Origamiformes--the family of paperbirds.





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:31:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Joseph Wu wrote:
>
> > Ah, but Archaeopterix probably did fly, much like the Hoatzin does
today.
> > How about "Struthiorigami" instead?
>
> In retrospect, many scientists think that it was pretty stupid to question
> whether or not it flew.  I mean, why would you have wings if you didn't
> fly?

I suppose you'd have to ask a penguin or cassowary about that.





From: Chinh Nguyen <chinhsta@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:23:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Joseph Wu wrote:

> Ah, but Archaeopterix probably did fly, much like the Hoatzin does today.
> How about "Struthiorigami" instead?

In retrospect, many scientists think that it was pretty stupid to question
whether or not it flew.  I mean, why would you have wings if you didn't
fly?





From: Eric Andersen <ema@NETSPACE.ORG>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:45:52 -0400
Subject: Betsy Ross folding?

Hi everyone,
I got this email from my Web site recently, wondering if anyone knows
about this:

----------------
Hi! I'm hoping you can help me. My daughter is
giving an oral report on Betsy Ross, who,
according to one of the books, used a 5-point
star for the flag because it was easy to cut by
folding the fabric a certain way and making just
one snip. My daughter would like to demonstrate
this during her report, but we have used an
entire tablet of paper trying to figure out how
it is done! Maybe we are just not spatially
oriented people. Do you have any idea how to do
this??





From: Allan findlay <a_findlay@EXCHANGE.CREATIONS.CO.UK>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:00:38 +0100
Subject: Re: Maekawa's Winged Devil

Just because it is publically visible it doesn't mean it is in the public
domain, you still need to ask permission.
--------------------------
        Allan           (a_findlay@exchange.creations.co.uk)

> ----------
> From:         <Ryan Becker>[SMTP:RyBecker@AOL.COM]
> Reply To:     Origami List
> Sent:         09 June 1999 17:33
> To:   ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: Maekawa's Winged Devil
>
> The crease pattern is available on the <A
> HREF="http://origami.gr.jp/">Origami Tanteidan Home Page
> </A> at http://origami.gr.jp/.  I don't remember the exact location.
> Would
> it be considered stepping over the copyright laws if I put up my own,
> clearer
> version of the crease pattern on my web site?  I've been thinking that
> because the crease pattern's already been made available to the public
> it's
> an OK thing to do.  My crease pattern is based on my first devil, folded
> from
> the crease pattern on Tanteidan's site.  What do you think?
>
> Ryan Becker





From: "Deborah P. Van Treuren" <deborahv@N-JCENTER.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:37:50 -0400
Subject: Re: My class is a go!

Kevin Kinney wrote:
>
> Just to let everyone know, I just received "verbal" (well, e-mail) approval
> to teach
>
> Origami:  the Art, Science, and Mathematics of paperfolding.
>
> as part of the winter term classes at DePauw University in Greencastle,
> Indiana, in January, 2000!
>
> The Winter term is basically 5 days a week, three or more hours per day, for
> three weeks, a total of 45 hours.  And class size is generally 20 students.
> The purpose appears to be to give students an opportunity to pursue some
> subject which is interesting to them, but outside their major.  Classes
> range from pretty straightforward (such as EMT training), to esoteric
> literature (the detective in American lit.) to the unusual and wonderful
> (such as, if I may say, Origami).
>
> Here's the draft of the course description.
>
> Description:  Through lectures and participation, students will be
> introduced to the Japanese art of origami, folding paper into complex
> shapes.  Students will begin with learning basic folds, to familiarize them
> with the constraints and instructional vocabulary, and will use this
> vocabulary to diagram models themselves.  In addition to learning how to
> fold a variety of models, students will also learn some of the mathematical
> and engineering principles behind design of models, as well as some of the
> cultural history of the art.  Artistic issues will be considered in the
> folding of models and in the choice of appropriate papers for different
> subjects.   The final part of the course will involve a group project, in
> which the class and instructor work together to create a large, complex
> model for display.  Students will be encouraged, but not required, to design
> their own models.
>
> I am also hoping that the students will have access to the Web, if not in
> class, then at least at home, and I'm planning on having at least one
> segment on "Origami on the Web."
>
> So I am excited, and those of you masters on the list, and even people with
> strong opinions, can expect to have me asking for advice in the coming
> months (after I finish designing my Fall classes, in Biology, that is!).
>
> Kevin Kinney
Congratulations Kevin!
Deb Van Treuren





From: Joyce Saler <ladyada@TIAC.NET>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 20:27:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Betsy Ross folding?

Eric
In Kenneway's "Complete Origami", pages 162-163 under Stars, is a folded
five pointed star with no cutting.





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 21:43:55 +0100
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU> sez

> that is, we "drop" the helicopter from the air

That's the only possible route. To be honest, I don't think anyone would
mind if the whole thing rotated, as long as it "fell" to the ground
slowly!  I've had a couple of efforts using a paperclip joint which more
or less worked, but nothing with a pure solution.

Just a warning note that my next book, "Rockets UFOs & Spaceships" is
out in a week or two & contains only pure designs.

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 21:45:08 +0100
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

Kimberly Shuck <atsina@HOOKED.NET> sez

>I actually have a helicopter from two pieces of paper that does not exactly fly
>but... arrests downward momentum (ok picky destination, I know).

If you can manage even rough diagrams, I'd be keen to see them. One idea
invariably sparks off another!

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 22:49:37 +0200
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

On the subject of helicopters, I'd like to tell you about a
self-ascending (which is to say that it flies up on its own, not only
down), helicopter-like thingy I saw in Cologne last year.

I was in Cologne at a Japanese festival, and there was one booth by a
bamboo centre that was selling all kinds of things made from bamboo. One
of these was the helicopter-like thingy, which was a bamboo rotor, maybe
10cm across, with a thin bamboo rod attached to it at a right angle:
 ______ ______
/______/_____/    <- rotor
       |
       |
       |
       |          <- rod
       |
       |

You place the bamboo rod between your hands and place your hands flat
together. Then you accelerate the rotor by moving your hand against the
other (horizontally). If you do this quickly enough and with enough
force, the rotor will rotate sufficiently for the thingy to rise some 5
meters up in the air. (Kuni bought one of those, and he was absolutely
delighted!)

Anyway, I've been pondering about whether one could make one of these
from paper. (And now I've given my idea away -- could you please give me
credit if you achieve it? ;-) ) There would be two difficulties, I
think:

a) The rod, or at least the part of the model that replaces the rod,
would have to be rather sturdy in order to survive the
acceleration. This could be achieved with, say, elephant hide, and by
narrowing the rod multiple times. And wet-folding, of course.

b) I don't know (and never tried) whether a paper model would be heavy
enough to rise up in the air. No, this is not a contradiction in
terms. The force that keeps the rotor spinning and thereby lifts it up
in the air comes from its inertia -- and therefore, eventually, from the
rotor's mass. A lighter rotor would have less inertia, and therefore
would stop more quickly. The bamboo model was rather heavy, and you
could feel that you had to build up quite a lot of rotational momentum
in order for it to rise up into the air. Furthermore, the mass of a
paper model would be concentrated in the rod (which has to be rather
thin and long), not in the rotor blades where it is needed to build up
rotational momentum.

BTW, Nick, this is what I was thinking of when you asked me about models
for your new book. Unfortunately, I haven't pursued this idea further.

OK, I should have done this some months ago. I just folded a small
practice model (nothing elaborate -- just a bird base with the bottom
narrowed into thirds, and the top wings folded out), and it doth
rise. Only about 20cm, but ... there you are. And, yes, it does rise
because of its own momentum -- I tried it with the wings folded up, and
with a simple pencil, and both didn't rise at all.

I'll have to experiment further with this -- if none of you is faster
than me (and I don't have any time this week or next, because I'm in the
midst of preparing for the oral part of my school-leaving exams.) I need
to increase the wing area and thin the rod; either, the rod could come
from the middle of the paper instead of the two opposite corners, or I
could use a different paper shape -- an equilateral or a right-angled
triangle, perhaps.

Heck, I'm giving it all away -- I'll never achieve anything that way. In
half an hour, one of you with more time, experience, or stamina, will
have hacked up a perfect version of this, and where will I be then? ;-)

--
Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 22:51:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

>On the subject of helicopters, I'd like to tell you about a
>self-ascending (which is to say that it flies up on its own, not only
>down), helicopter-like thingy I saw in Cologne last year.
>
>I was in Cologne at a Japanese festival, and there was one booth by a
>bamboo centre that was selling all kinds of things made from bamboo. One
>of these was the helicopter-like thingy, which was a bamboo rotor, maybe
>10cm across, with a thin bamboo rod attached to it at a right angle:
> ______ ______
>/______/_____/    <- rotor
>       |
>       |
>       |
>       |          <- rod
>       |
>       |
>
>You place the bamboo rod between your hands and place your hands flat
>together. Then you accelerate the rotor by moving your hand against the
>other (horizontally). If you do this quickly enough and with enough
>force, the rotor will rotate sufficiently for the thingy to rise some 5
>meters up in the air. (Kuni bought one of those, and he was absolutely
>delighted!)
>
>Anyway, I've been pondering about whether one could make one of these
>from paper. (And now I've given my idea away -- could you please give me
>credit if you achieve it? ;-) ) There would be two difficulties, I
>think:
>
>a) The rod, or at least the part of the model that replaces the rod,
>would have to be rather sturdy in order to survive the
>acceleration. This could be achieved with, say, elephant hide, and by
>narrowing the rod multiple times. And wet-folding, of course.
>
>b) I don't know (and never tried) whether a paper model would be heavy
>enough to rise up in the air. No, this is not a contradiction in
>terms. The force that keeps the rotor spinning and thereby lifts it up
>in the air comes from its inertia -- and therefore, eventually, from the
>rotor's mass. A lighter rotor would have less inertia, and therefore
>would stop more quickly. The bamboo model was rather heavy, and you
>could feel that you had to build up quite a lot of rotational momentum
>in order for it to rise up into the air. Furthermore, the mass of a
>paper model would be concentrated in the rod (which has to be rather
>thin and long), not in the rotor blades where it is needed to build up
>rotational momentum.
>
>BTW, Nick, this is what I was thinking of when you asked me about models
>for your new book. Unfortunately, I haven't pursued this idea further.
>
>
>OK, I should have done this some months ago. I just folded a small
>practice model (nothing elaborate -- just a bird base with the bottom
>narrowed into thirds, and the top wings folded out), and it doth
>rise. Only about 20cm, but ... there you are. And, yes, it does rise
>because of its own momentum -- I tried it with the wings folded up, and
>with a simple pencil, and both didn't rise at all.
>
>I'll have to experiment further with this -- if none of you is faster
>than me (and I don't have any time this week or next, because I'm in the
>midst of preparing for the oral part of my school-leaving exams.) I need
>to increase the wing area and thin the rod; either, the rod could come
>from the middle of the paper instead of the two opposite corners, or I
>could use a different paper shape -- an equilateral or a right-angled
>triangle, perhaps.
>
>Heck, I'm giving it all away -- I'll never achieve anything that way. In
>half an hour, one of you with more time, experience, or stamina, will
>have hacked up a perfect version of this, and where will I be then? ;-)
>
>--
>Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
>                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)

You might not need increase the mass, but increase the dimension(s) (I=r^2
dm) I hope that symbol came out right!  Happy folding :)





From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@EROLS.COM>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:55:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Betsy Ross folding?

Thanks. I recalled Gay Merrill Gross told a kirigami Chinese folktale about
a love story of weaver and cowboy last year in Charlotte, NC. The story
features the making of 5 pointed star. I don't know who is the original
maker of that kirigami story.

Sy Chen

-----Original Message-----
From: John Marcolina <jmarcoli@CISCO.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Betsy Ross folding?

>I remember doing this as a kid. Here's a website I found that explains it:
>
>http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagstar.html
>
>
>John Marcolina
>San Jose, CA.
>jmarcoli@cisco.com





From: Thoki Yenn <thok@THOK.DK>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:46:44 +0200
Subject: Sv:      Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

. We are talking
>about flightless birds, right? Penguins, ostriches (that's where the
>"struthio" comes from, BTW), emus, cassowaries, kiwis, and so on are all
>flightless birds. They all have wings but do not fly.

Does the Kiwi have wings ?

Kalmon the Great and Glorious

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?





From: Michael LaFosse <info@ORIGAMIDO.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:07:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Butterfly competition

Nick Robinson wrote:

> It will be interesting to see what happens if someone wins a free trip
> using a design by another creator & that creator objects to their design
> being used in this way.

For the record, anyone can freely use or re-interpret any of my butterfly
     designs
for this contest.  Best of luck; do me proud!

> My suggestion is to exhibit all butterflies, but limit the prizes to
> original creations.

I look at this as a performer's contest and I am glad to see it.  Creators are
important to origami, but quality performers need to be encouraged too.  After
all,  the rendition of the work is done by a folder, whether the folder is the
designer or not. Let's see more venues like this - prizes or not.

Michael LaFosse





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:01:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE> sez

> There would be two difficulties

For me, the main problem would seem to be the stiffness of the rotors,
which need to remain at the optimum angle to the "rod" all the time -
paper invariably flexes....

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos





From: Larry Finch <LarryFinch@AOL.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:45:52 -0400 (
Subject: [NO] Flightless birds [was: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?]

In a message dated 6/9/1999 8:31:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes:

> I suppose you'd have to ask a penguin or cassowary about that.
>

Of course, penguins DO fly (underwater). They use their wings essentially the
same way a bird would in the air.

The question of Archaeopterix is more interesting. Cassowary's (and emus,
ostriches, and kiwis) are descended from birds that DID fly; the wings are
vestigal. Archaeopterix most likely evolved from non-flying creatures, so the
wings would have had a definite purpose or they wouldn't have developed.

Larry





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:46:05 -0700
Subject: Re: [NO] Flightless birds [was: Re: Realistic flying origami heli

But beards and moustaches do have a purpose.  Their a remnant of the time
when we were harrier to trap the heat more effectively.  The question is
can you fold a portrait with a beard such that it grows?

David

>"...would have had a definite purpose or they wouldn't have developed."
>
>Such as mens beards & moustaches?.....;-P
>--------------------------
>        Allan           (a_findlay@exchange.creations.co.uk)
>
>> ----------
>> From:         Larry Finch[SMTP:LarryFinch@AOL.COM]
>> Reply To:     Origami List
>> Sent:         10 June 1999 13:45
>> To:   ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>> Subject:      [NO] Flightless birds [was: Re: Realistic flying origami
>> helicopter?]
>>
>> In a message dated 6/9/1999 8:31:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes:
>>
>> > I suppose you'd have to ask a penguin or cassowary about that.
>> >
>>
>> Of course, penguins DO fly (underwater). They use their wings essentially
>> the
>> same way a bird would in the air.
>>
>> The question of Archaeopterix is more interesting. Cassowary's (and emus,
>> ostriches, and kiwis) are descended from birds that DID fly; the wings are
>> vestigal. Archaeopterix most likely evolved from non-flying creatures, so
>> the
>> wings would have had a definite purpose or they wouldn't have developed.
>>
>> Larry





From: Jane Rosemarin <jfrmpls@SPACESTAR.NET>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:18:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Butterfly competition

Michael LaFosse was generous not only in encouraging folders to use his
designs in the Origami Sverige competition, but also in failing to
mention that his first-rate videotape did not appear in Ariel's list of
published butterfly designs.

Here are the "unlisted" butterflies I am familiar with:
To begin with, the videotape is called, "Origami Butterflies and Moths."

Another by Michael LaFosse is "Butterfly for Alice Gray," found in Alex
Barber's archive:
http://www.the-village.com/origami/diagram.html

Illustrated, but not diagrammed, on p. 35 of Complete Origami by Eric
Kenneway are the ancient butterflies attached to the bride's and groom's
sake cup at the wedding ceremony. These are considered to be among the
oldest origami designs.

These ceremonial butterflies were diagrammed by Momotani in an
out-of-print book, whose title I do not know (not much help!). The titles
of the models are:
Formal Noshi attached to the Sake-Kettle: Male, p. 110
Formal Noshi attached to the Sake-Kettle: Female, p. 111

Happy folding!
-Jane
