




From: Jason Todd <jrtodd@MS.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:21:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Puddle Jumpers (was helicopters)

When I was growing up, we called these things "puddle jumpers."  The ones
I've seen were carved out of pine and usually had a decent pitch to the
rotors.  If you get the motion right, you can get these things to fly pretty
high, but that puts a lot of stress on the model.  I also remember that they
tend to land rather ungracefully because they are generally still spinning
pretty fast when they hit the ground, so they sort of float down until the
rod makes contact with the ground.  Once the rod touches the ground, it gets
pretty ugly as the thing wipes out.

I think Nick's assertion that you'd need really stiff paper is pretty much
right on.  The stiff paper would aid in making the shaft stiff as well as
making the blade not bend, both of which are crucial.  I guess if you take
stiff paper and wet folding to an extreme, you have the wood-fiber
equivalent of modeling clay that you can just sculpt into your item istead
of carving it.

-Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch [mailto:skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 4:50 PM
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
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





From: Ariel <ariel@DATAPHONE.SE>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:21:04 +0200
Subject: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)

> 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.

Would that be illegal ?

It is illegal to exhibit or participate in, or even win a competition, or
seduce a girl,  with a model that I have folded myself from a  book I have
bought in a public shop ?

If it is not, then A.Y. (or whoever could be for the case)  might rest in
peace, get a psychological treatment for his paranoia, or go back to his
backyard until the soul of common sense gets into him after observing it for
a while.

Sometimes we talk as if a simple piece of folded paper were instructions to
make a nuclear bomb or something as important as that, that the pentagon
should keep secret. We get involved in overheated discussions about patents,
secrecy, ownership, transferring of copyright, a lot fo dramatic discussions
on plagiarism....witch-hunting, lynching mobs... are we folding paper or
what ? sometimes it sounds as if we talked about trading military technology
..

One thing is courtesy, another is to obey any pervert or paranoic desire of
any paranoic creator. Can someone prohibit the readers from folding a model
that he published in a  book ? or from showing it to others ? Or exhibiting
it in a museum ? Would that stand in trial ? Maybe in international court in
The Hagues ?

I remember someone on the list having had a conflict on this subject..was in
Jan "Aloha" ? I would like to hear more about what happened then...

I would appreciate to read clarifying comments on this issue.

Thanks





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:02:21 -0700
Subject: Re: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)

At 10:21 99/06/10 +0200, Ariel wrote:
>One thing is courtesy, another is to obey any pervert or paranoic desire of
>any paranoic creator.

And where is the hubris in this comment? In the commentor or the commentee?

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: RPlsmn@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:07:23 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

I think an acceptable auto-gyrator/helicopter can be facilitated by leaving
not only the tail rotor, but the entire tail mast to the imagination -
leaving the location of the windshield on the fuselage ball to be determined
by the position of the viewer. ... in short, making less to be more - as in
much of the traditional Japanese Origami.
                                                                     RPLSMN





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:16:12 +0100
Subject: FAO Northern Britons only

If you can get Granada Vreeze channel (whatever that is!) I'm appearing
on the Livetime 1/2 show this Saturday, between 1/2pm, demoing origami.

all the best,

Nick Robinson

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





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:22:58 -0700
Subject: Re: AY's butterflies ( or whoever's)

At 11:55 99/06/10 +0100, Nick Robinson wrote:
>Ariel <ariel@DATAPHONE.SE> sez
>>peace, get a psychological treatment for his paranoia, or go back to his
>>backyard until the soul of common sense gets into him after observing it for
>
>You might should show a bit more respect for the wishes of one of the
>greatest living origami artists...

Thanks, Nick. Here's something for everyone to think about: Whether you like
him or not, Yoshizawa is one of the greats of origami. It is well known that
he is rather closed about sharing his models. Ariel calls him paranoid, and
many would agree with that opinion. But the fact of the matter is that he
has chosen to be a certain way about his work. And it *IS* his work, not
anyone else's. If we want to be able to enjoy his work, we have to give him
the incentive to do so.

So what does he require? Respect. Is that too high a price to pay? I don't
think so. If we want to continue enjoying what Yoshizawa has to offer,
knowing that he's already holding so much back because of perceived lack of
respect, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot by going on the
offensive and attacking him for his position on his work. I don't care about
legalities, and I don't care about money. I'm talking about working towards
the best possible benefit for everyone.

Yoshizawa is an old man. He's not going to change. Much of his work will die
with him. What little he is now willing to share will decrease to nothing if
we don't encourage him to continue sharing it with the rest of us. Weigh the
consequences, Ariel, and decide for yourself if pitting your own
self-righteous attitude against Yoshizawa's so-called paranoia is worth it.
And remember that the worth is not just for your own personal gain, but for
the rest of the origami community as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Spider Barbour <spider@ULSTER.NET>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:40:53 -0500
Subject: Re: flightless birds

-- [ From: Spider Barbour * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

[vestigial wings of flightless birds]
> "...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)

In fact, some evolutionists suggest that feathers (if not wings) first
served as insulation, also one function of facial hair. I'd suggest also
that both feathers and facial hair may have served in early humans and early
birds (regardless of who got the worm) to protect both animals from biting
insects (at these those not living directly on the birds and men, as these
have adapted to negotiating feathers and hair).
    Spider Barbour
(a bit off the subject of origami, but . . .)





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:55:38 +0100
Subject: Re: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)

Ariel <ariel@DATAPHONE.SE> sez

>It is illegal to exhibit or participate in, or even win a competition, or
>seduce a girl,  with a model that I have folded myself from a  book I have
>bought in a public shop ?

I've never managed to seduce any women using origami, original or
otherwise! I didn't say it was illegal, but potentially problematical if
there is money involved. If you won an expensive prize performing
someone else's song, the composer might reasonably expect a cut. This
said, I've no objections to people using my designs in this way, as long
as they send me a postcard from Sweden!

>peace, get a psychological treatment for his paranoia, or go back to his
>backyard until the soul of common sense gets into him after observing it for

You might should show a bit more respect for the wishes of one of the
greatest living origami artists...

>One thing is courtesy, another is to obey any pervert or paranoic desire of
>any paranoic creator.

I think you're exaggerating somewhat - as David Mitchell discussed
recently, the extent of intellectual copyright is down to the creator.
Oasis recently prevented a band from recording a spoof version of one of
their songs, many other bands have no objection. My point was to avoid
the need for seeking permission by removing the contentious element.

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: "Jerry D. Harris" <102354.2222@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:51:50 -0400
Subject: Re: flightless birds

Message text written by Origami List
>In fact, some evolutionists suggest that feathers (if not wings) first
served as insulation, also one function of facial hair. I'd suggest also
that both feathers and facial hair may have served in early humans and
early
birds (regardless of who got the worm) to protect both animals from biting
insects (at these those not living directly on the birds and men, as these
have adapted to negotiating feathers and hair).<

        The presence of symmetrical, non-flight feathers on some theropod
dinosaurs (e.g., the recently discovered _Protarchaeopteryx_,
_Caudipteryx_, and _Beipiaosaurus_) in China indicates that feathers
evolved for some purpose _other_ than flying...asymmetrical flight feathers
evolved later as a reaction to evolutionary impetus.  (The nature of what
that impetus was is still being debated.)  An even more primitive theropod,
_Sinosauropteryx_, possesses what some have erroneously termed
"protofeathers" (erroneous because their relationship to true feathers
isn't yet understood)...at any rate, _Sinosauropteryx_ possesses some sort
of superficially hair-like integumentary structure all over its body; this
indicates that the presence of some sort of dermal covering long predates
the appearance of feathers, and again presumably has a function other than
flight...thermal insulation is a plausible idea, as is display.  One
scientist, noting a high sulfur content in feathers, even hypothesized that
feathers originally appeared as an excretory measure for excess sulfur in
the body!

        Hair, on the other hand, is not a homologous structure with
feathers (they differ even at the embryological level).  Since we are much
less sure precisely when hair evolved, and under what paleoecological
conditions, it's harder to hypothesize an original function.  There are
some proto-mammal fossils which possess small pits at the end of the snout
(seen on the skull); some people believe these may be associated with
whiskers, which are used as sensory organs (if you shave the whiskers off a
cat, for example, it will become much more clumsy moving around in narrow
areas, around corners, etc.)  Whether the proto-mammals which may have
whiskers also had hair is uncertain; likewise, it is uncertain whether
hairs evolved from modified whiskers or vice-versa.  Again, the origin of
hairs may be involved with thermoregulation, display, or other reasons.

        The presence of dermal structures does nothing, however, to protect
against biting insects -- a recently discovered fossil feather from Brazil
possesses numerous tiny mite eggs clinging to the barbs and barbules,
indicating that the association of such parasites with feathered organisms
goes back a long, long way.  In many ways, integumentary structures
_protect_ the parasitic bugs by allowing them to hide more easily on the
organisms body -- they're harder to remove that way!

                _,_
           ____/_\,)                    ..  _
--____-===(  _\/                         \\/ \-----_---__
           /\  '                        ^__/>/\____\--------
__________/__\_ ____________________________.//__.//_________

                     Jerry D. Harris
                 Fossil Preparation Lab
          New Mexico Museum of Natural History
                   1801 Mountain Rd NW
               Albuquerque  NM  87104-1375
                 Phone:  (505) 841-2809
                  Fax:  (505) 841-2866
               102354.2222@compuserve.com





From: madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:58:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [NO] Flightless birds [was: Re: Realistic flying origami heli

I thought men grew facial hair so that women could watch them shave!  <grin>

MASD

-----Original Message-----
From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [NO] Flightless birds [was: Re: Realistic flying origami heli
copter?]

>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: Allan findlay <a_findlay@EXCHANGE.CREATIONS.CO.UK>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:51:10 +0100
Subject: Re: [NO] Flightless birds [was: Re: Realistic flying origami heli

"...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: "<Ryan Becker>" <RyBecker@AOL.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:10:40 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Maekawa's Winged Devil

Does anyone know who holds the copyright for Maekawa's Devil?  Is it Sanrio,
the original publisher of "Viva Origami," the Tanteidan organization, Jun
Maekawa or none of the above?  I realize the near impossibility of finding
the copyright holder and contacting them.  If anyone knows anything at all,
please let me know.

Ryan Becker





From: "Wu, Sonia" <swu@BANSHEE.SAR.USF.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:25:49 -0400
Subject: Re: NO (respect for creators)

I have the most enormous respect for the designers of origami models.
Even if a model is not particularly attractive or interesting to me,
what a wonderful drive they have to create, and how generous of them to
share the models and/or diagrams and talk about their work.

I was so moved when I got my first copy of one of Mr. Yoshizawa's books.
The models are beautiful but also the book is like an original symbol of
his enormous contribution to the sharing of original designs--the
development of the international diagramming system that allows folders
to "talk" to one another (even those of us with little or no experience
in original design).  How glorious it is to have even a handful of
people to fold with (let alone a convention of hundreds)!

Sonia Wu





From: Evi <d.evi.l@MUENSTER.DE>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:35:50 +0200
Subject: Re: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)

I want to use the color "blue" on my paintings, too. Whom do I have to ask
for permission? Unfortunately Picasso is dead.

I know, I'll be in hell for this.
hi, hi, hi,...
d-evi-l

By the way (nebenbei bemerkt), casalonga where are you?
Somebody has to play your part!  :o)





From: Allan findlay <a_findlay@EXCHANGE.CREATIONS.CO.UK>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:48:32 +0100
Subject: Re: [NO] Flightless birds [was: Re: Realistic flying origami heli

But why just the lower face?
--------------------------
        Allan           (a_findlay@exchange.creations.co.uk)

> ----------
> From:         david whitbeck[SMTP:dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU]
> Reply To:     Origami List
> Sent:         10 June 1999 16:46
> To:   ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [NO] Flightless birds [was: Re: Realistic flying origami
> heli copter?]
>
> 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: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:05:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

>On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 08:01:36AM +0100, Nick Robinson wrote:
>> 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....
>
>Not really, since the centrifugal force draws the rotors outwards, so
>they will always try to be orthogonal to the rod.
>
>--
>Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
>                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)

That statement says nothing since the centripetal force is fictitious, one
must look at what is causing it.  If you're applying torque to the model,
the response of the rotors to the torque will be dependent on the angle of
the rotors with respect to the axis of rotation.

David

"At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi."





From: Xuxa Rojas <RojasXu@AOL.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:02:06 -0400 (
Subject: Re: AY's butterflies ( or whoever's)

In a message dated 6/10/99, 2:26:48 PM, ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU writes:
<<
respect, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot by going on the>>
I agree with Joseph. Wait until he's dead, then sell his models.





From: Joyce Saler <ladyada@TIAC.NET>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:02:50 -0400
Subject: Formal Butterflies

The Momotani book is entitled "Wrapping Origami"  with an August 1993 intro
by Y. Momotani so i assume that the publishing date is close to this time.
This book would be a good candidate for reprinting because it contains both
formal and original noshi and other ceremonial wrappings.

I will be teaching the formal wedding butterflies at this years convention
because of the lack of diagrams for these models.

Joyce





From: Robby/Laura <morassi@ZEN.IT>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:13:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

Kim,
At 15.49 9/6/1999 -0600, you wrote:

>> 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.

Hmmmm..... no air on the moon ! I'm afraid it would fall like a stone
there.... ;-)

Roberto





From: Robby/Laura <morassi@ZEN.IT>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:25:38 +0200
Subject: Re: Sv:      Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

ThoKalmon,
At 00.46 10/6/1999 +0200, you wrote:

>Does the Kiwi have wings ?
>

No. It belongs to the genus Apteryx, meaning "without wings". To be exact,
its feathers hide a pair of rough useless "wings" a few cm. long.

The kiwi FRUIT, however, has NO wings at all. Not even beak, legs or tail.
A very sad thing.

Roberto





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:00:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Elephant fold

>On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 05:32:26PM -0700, Dolphin G. wrote:
>> I've always wondered if John had thought of Dave's rhino himself.
>> It's interesting that two of John's (In Sculpures and African Animals)
>> rhinos are very similar structurally to Dave's.
>
>Are they? I don't think so. John's two rhinos you mentioned are from
>different bases; the one in OS shares the base with his hippo, whereas
>the one in AAIO is made from the dog base. The dog base is slightly more
>efficient than the hippo base, so the rhino from AAIO is slightly bigger
>when made from the same size of paper. But unfortunately, the dog base
>is better suited for ... well ... dogs (and camels!) than for rhinos.
>
>And Dave uses yet another base, which is shared by a rhino by Kunihiko
>Kasahara, as Kuni notes somewhere in one of his "Nuev[ao]" books.
>
>--
>Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
>                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)

I think that the Sculptures rhino looks more lifelike, but I find the
folding steps for the formation of the horns in the African Animals rhino
to be elegant and beautiful.  But I just love that little tongue in the
Sculptures one, my God Montroll thinks of everything!

I've folded Lang's elephant and Montroll's Rhino (sculptures) out of
origami paper and have them stand by each other along with a Kawasaki
shell. The rhino looks harder to fold than the elephant, but to me it's
just the other way around!  I have folded that elephant countless times
trying to make it look right, but the rhino came out fine on the first time
I folded it!  Not to say that I didn't fold it better the next time, etc.

While I'm at it, has anyone folded everything from the Origami Insect book?
And if so, how long did it take to perfect each one?

David





From: Kimberly Shuck <atsina@HOOKED.NET>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:18:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [NO] mens beards & moustaches

And, naturally, there are other permutations... those who are not particularly
fearful of sharp edged objects may grow facial hair in order to inspire someone
to shave them (cough).

Susan Dugan wrote:
>
> no,no,no the hair is for women to nibble on.
> I like them fuzzy
> hobbit
>
> >I thought men grew facial hair so that women could watch them shave!
> <grin>





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:30:42 +0200
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 08:01:36AM +0100, Nick Robinson wrote:
> 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....

Not really, since the centrifugal force draws the rotors outwards, so
they will always try to be orthogonal to the rod.

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





From: "Ewen,Tony (Aust)" <Tony_Ewen@AVCO.AFCC.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:28:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [NO] Re:      Re: Sv:      Re: Realistic flying origami helic ...

And "flightless" birds will also fly - in just the same manner :)

Tony Ewen
Technical Manager, New Technology
Avco Financial Services Ltd.
Current Direct Line 61 2 9324 7166

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RPlsmn@AOL.COM [mailto:RPlsmn@AOL.COM]
> Sent: Friday, 11 June 1999 12:27 pm
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NO] Re: Re: Sv: Re: Realistic flying origami helic...
>
>
> In a message dated 6/10/99 8:11:14 PM EST,
> madawson@SPRYNET.COM writes:
>
> << Kiwi - A wingless, flightless fruit.
>
>  But the apple.......... while it does not fly up, Newton
> discovered that it
>  does fly down! (Although not gracefully)  But does it rotate while it
>  falls????? <g>
>   >>
> Yes ... clockwise in the northern hemisphere, counter-clockwise in the
> southern hemisphere                                      -RPLSMN-





From: Susan Dugan <florafauna@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:24:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [NO] mens beards & moustaches

no,no,no the hair is for women to nibble on.
I like them fuzzy
hobbit

>I thought men grew facial hair so that women could watch them shave!
<grin>





From: madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:15:53 -0700
Subject: [NO] Re:      Re: Sv:      Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

Kiwi - A wingless, flightless fruit.

But the apple.......... while it does not fly up, Newton discovered that it
does fly down! (Although not gracefully)  But does it rotate while it
falls????? <g>

MASD

-----Original Message-----
From: Robby/Laura <morassi@ZEN.IT>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Sv: Re: Realistic flying origami helicopter?

>ThoKalmon,
>At 00.46 10/6/1999 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>Does the Kiwi have wings ?
>>
>
>No. It belongs to the genus Apteryx, meaning "without wings". To be exact,
>its feathers hide a pair of rough useless "wings" a few cm. long.
>
>The kiwi FRUIT, however, has NO wings at all. Not even beak, legs or tail.
>A very sad thing.
>
>Roberto





From: Spider Barbour <spider@ULSTER.NET>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:23:28 -0500
Subject: Re: flightless birds

-- [ From: Spider Barbour * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

Good to hear from a professional paleontologist on this subject. To clarify
my view on biting insects, I refer to Jerry Harris' following words:

>        The presence of dermal structures does nothing, however, to protect
against biting insects -- a recently discovered fossil feather from Brazil
possesses numerous tiny mite eggs clinging to the barbs and barbules,
indicating that the association of such parasites with feathered organisms
goes back a long, long way.  In many ways, integumentary structures
_protect_ the parasitic bugs by allowing them to hide more easily on the
organisms body -- they're harder to remove that way!<

I understand that hair provides protection and "footholds" for biting
parasites living on an animal, and never meant to suggest the opposite. I
was speculating about insects that stay on an animal only long enough to
bite it. At this point in evolution, even many of these biters can negotiate
hair pretty well. However, I have noticed that the mosquitoes attracted to
my long-haired dog go for the nose more often than not. Those that land on
the dog's fluffy coat can't seem to penetrate it. I also have a short-haired
dog, and its coat also seems to stump mosquitos, by presenting a stiff,
bristly barrier. As to the genesis and first appearance of hair, it seems
there is little fossil evidence . . . so far.
        Spider Barbour





From: RPlsmn@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:26:56 -0400 (
Subject: Re: [NO] Re:      Re: Sv:      Re: Realistic flying origami helic...

In a message dated 6/10/99 8:11:14 PM EST, madawson@SPRYNET.COM writes:

<< Kiwi - A wingless, flightless fruit.

 But the apple.......... while it does not fly up, Newton discovered that it
 does fly down! (Although not gracefully)  But does it rotate while it
 falls????? <g>
  >>
Yes ... clockwise in the northern hemisphere, counter-clockwise in the
southern hemisphere                                      -RPLSMN-





From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@EROLS.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:35:12 -0400
Subject: Re: pop up heart card

I can't speak for Jeremy Shafer and I don't have all of his models in list.
I would guess you probably thought about his Heart Attack model. As for pop
up heart card I do design a card as you described. It (version 3) is
published in OrigamiUSA annual collections '98 and was taught in convention
'97. It is still one of my own favorite designs. I am going to teach version
4 in NY this year. Heart part is improved in version 4 but folding steps is
longer. I like both of them.

Sy Chen (sychen@erols.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Portugal <howardpo@MICROSOFT.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 6:04 PM
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: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@EROLS.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:38:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Realistic flying origami heli

My head starts spinning! Maybe we should propose a helicopter
(or like) race instead of tradtional airplane race for future
convention activity.
Sy Chen





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:41:19 +0200
Subject: Re: Elephant fold

On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 05:32:26PM -0700, Dolphin G. wrote:
> I've always wondered if John had thought of Dave's rhino himself.
> It's interesting that two of John's (In Sculpures and African Animals)
> rhinos are very similar structurally to Dave's.

Are they? I don't think so. John's two rhinos you mentioned are from
different bases; the one in OS shares the base with his hippo, whereas
the one in AAIO is made from the dog base. The dog base is slightly more
efficient than the hippo base, so the rhino from AAIO is slightly bigger
when made from the same size of paper. But unfortunately, the dog base
is better suited for ... well ... dogs (and camels!) than for rhinos.

And Dave uses yet another base, which is shared by a rhino by Kunihiko
Kasahara, as Kuni notes somewhere in one of his "Nuev[ao]" books.

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





From: madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:04:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [NO] Re:      Re: Sv:      Re: Realistic flying origami helic...

And at the equator ..........???????????

: - o

MASD

-----Original Message-----
From: RPlsmn@AOL.COM <RPlsmn@AOL.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [NO] Re: Re: Sv: Re: Realistic flying origami helic...

>In a message dated 6/10/99 8:11:14 PM EST, madawson@SPRYNET.COM writes:
>
><< Kiwi - A wingless, flightless fruit.
>
> But the apple.......... while it does not fly up, Newton discovered that
it
> does fly down! (Although not gracefully)  But does it rotate while it
> falls????? <g>
>  >>
>Yes ... clockwise in the northern hemisphere, counter-clockwise in the
>southern hemisphere                                      -RPLSMN-





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:13:33 -0700
Subject: Lang's insects (was Re: Elephant fold)

At 05:00 PM 6/10/99 -0700, <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU> wrote:

>While I'm at it, has anyone folded everything from the Origami Insect book?
>And if so, how long did it take to perfect each one?

As one of the people proofreading that book, I was required to fold each of
the models (all "torture" should be so enjoyable). It was a while ago, but
I guess the models took about 45 minutes each (with a lot of that time
devoted towards catching the occasional error). If anyone finds a mistake
in that book, I am one of the people you can blame.

Marc





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:20:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Lang's insects (was Re: Elephant fold)

>At 05:00 PM 6/10/99 -0700, <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU> wrote:
>
>>While I'm at it, has anyone folded everything from the Origami Insect book?
>>And if so, how long did it take to perfect each one?
>
>As one of the people proofreading that book, I was required to fold each of
>the models (all "torture" should be so enjoyable). It was a while ago, but
>I guess the models took about 45 minutes each (with a lot of that time
>devoted towards catching the occasional error). If anyone finds a mistake
>in that book, I am one of the people you can blame.
>
>Marc

You mean Marc that you just sat down and folded one after another, till you
got to the end, said something like "that was easy."  I am impressed.  I
guess Lang will just have to come up with harder folds to stump people like
you :)

To everybody: And while I'm at it (don't just love those horrible
transitions) I just got Origami Inside Out (John Montroll)today and I was
wondering if anybody knew how big does the paper have to be for the chess
pieces so that they'll fit on the chess board.  I'm planning on using a 9x9
piece of paper so the chess board will be 2x2 which means that each square
will be 1/4x1/4 which puts an upperbound on the base of each piece.  Has
somebody on this group folded the chess board and pieces and can tell me
the dimensions for the pieces?  I can't wait to fold the racoon, tiger and
cow.

David

"The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moons by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule."





From: Wayne Ko <wko@ISTAR.CA>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:58:07 -0700
Subject: Think Quest Junior Contest Winner

One of my colleagues passed this info to me and I thought some of you on the
list, especially educators, will be interested.  It is the the 1999 Think
Quest Junior contest winner for 1999 - The Pieces and Creases Origami site:

http://tqjunior.advanced.org/5042/

(I've been too busy to keep track of the list the last little while and my
apologies if someone has mentioned this already.)

Wayne Ko





From: Rick Beech <Ricknbeech@AOL.COM>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:08:58 -0400 (
Subject: Creative Folders Attending Origami USA

Dear Friends,

OUSA is soon upon us!! As Editor for the British Origami Society magazine, I
am looking
for exciting new models for our publication, so, may I challenge any of you
attending this
convention to find me out, and hand me your diagrams????????!!!!!!!!

Sincerely, Rick Beech.





From: Kimberly Shuck <atsina@HOOKED.NET>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:30:17 -0700
Subject: Re: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)

I am both an artist and a scientist and I find this behavior in both avocations
(and have written ghastly numbers of papers on the subject, and if they are in
fact different pursuits). Do we really want our creative thinkers to be "normal"
in that way? My personal specialty is fairly obscure and I often find myself in
rooms where I am the only woman, in rooms where I am at least thirty years
younger than everyone else. Many of these men have no concept of social rules or
what most would call common courtesy. I have only recently changed my ID on my
e-mail account to Kimberly from the more genderless "K" because I am not taken
seriously at first by the boys. But, they are often brilliant, and the intense
pleasure I get from their work and the clarity of their thoughts is worth the
effort it takes to work with them. And whatever character traits I would have
them display, they are who they are ( none of which prevented me from bringing
my newborn to work with me and nursing him there. Which probably displays one of
my own character flaws).

This is not meant to be a direct parallel. I do not know anything about AY's
spiritual views or his personality. I will also say that I don't particularly
care about them. If he, in fact, has such a high level of visual spatial acuity
that he can cold fold a piece without corrections, fantastic. If he is instead
referring to his view about the meaning of origami to him, who has the right to
challenge his point? He folds pieces that interest me, and as long as his
personal behavior does not exceed what is safe for others, why dwell on it? I
don't know anyone interesting who is not subject to fits of childish or selfish
or awkward behavior. It is easy to be exasperated with those who we admire for
their gifts when their other characteristics fall short of our expectations.
That is also childish...

Urgh, I apologize for the length of this...but really,

Kim
Evi wrote:
>
> Hi Ariel,
>
> >...Or of a higly
> >...educated man. Or of a hiugher spirituality and mastery. So we have to
> admit,
>
> >For me, that affirmation is of a childish nature. That is conciously trying
> >to create a mystical atmosphere around oneself, which many pop and rock
> >stars do.
>
> Well, this is exactly what almost all artists act like. This may first of
> all be a result of society's attitude towards artist and their work.
> ! :o))))
>
> Happy folding
> d-evi-l





From: madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:51:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Creative Folders Attending Origami USA

Is there a way for O-List members to idendtify each other at Convention
(other than recognising names on the name tags)  ie a symbol on the name
tags?????

MASD

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Beech <Ricknbeech@AOL.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Friday, June 11, 1999 1:08 AM
Subject: Creative Folders Attending Origami USA

>Dear Friends,
>
>OUSA is soon upon us!! As Editor for the British Origami Society magazine,
I
>am looking
>for exciting new models for our publication, so, may I challenge any of you
>attending this
>convention to find me out, and hand me your diagrams????????!!!!!!!!
>
>Sincerely, Rick Beech.





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:04:50 +0100
Subject: Kiwis

Robby/Laura <morassi@ZEN.IT> sez

>The kiwi FRUIT, however, has NO wings at all. Not even beak, legs or tail.
>A very sad thing.

But much tastier & you don't have to peel all the feathers off ;)

Nick Robinson





From: Allan findlay <a_findlay@EXCHANGE.CREATIONS.CO.UK>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:10:05 +0100
Subject: Re: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)

..."but  apart from origami, he is a mere human being"...

Isn't that the whole point? He has created these models that I, another
human being, could not.

For Example. If I were to write a library for writing game programs (or any
other sort) and sold it I could include a clause saying I had to be paid a
royalty on each program which uses it. I could equally add a clause saying I
didn't want it to be used in anyway which will involve the user of my
library being paid in any way.

These clauses exist and are honoured properly, and it is exactly the same
situation with A.Y. and his origami.
--------------------------
        Allan           (a_findlay@exchange.creations.co.uk)

> ----------
> From:         Ariel[SMTP:ariel@DATAPHONE.SE]
> Reply To:     Origami List
> Sent:         11 June 1999 08:40
> To:   ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)
>
<big snip>





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:13:30 +0100
Subject: Re: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)

Ariel <ariel@dataphone.se> sez

>Secondly, I do not subscribe to the worshiping and gloryfication of a normal
>human being just because he is smart at folding models.

I don't subscribe to worshipping *anything* and glorification is a
shallow pursuit. What I do admit to is bowing with respect to someone
who has a rare gift and has taken that gift about as far as it is
possible for anyone to do so.

I know many people who are "smart at folding models" - a phrase which
seems to side-step most of the joys of origami for me, but I'll waive
discussion since you're not writing in your native language!

I know precious few who can breathe life into a sheet of paper!

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: Ariel <ariel@DATAPHONE.SE>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:40:36 +0200
Subject: Re: AY's butterlfies ( or whoever's)

I will try to answer to all those who missunderstood my email about
butterflies.

First of all, the subject stated "A.Y. or whoever's butterflies", because
the goal with the email was to question up to what extent can a creator,
**ANY CREATOR**  stop, deny or prohibit someone from folding models and
using them in an exhibition. I was publicly asking where the limits between
a belief and legality are. So the mail was not centered of treating any
specific creator as a paranoid, but questioning if copyright is for the
diagrams, not for the physically folded models. I still, expect comments on
that, since it was the main goal of the mail.

I beg those that felt that my email was a cheap attack on A.Y please re-read
my email after this clarification.

Once again, I tried to generically ask about the legal problem between any
creator's belief ( paranoic, mystical, religious,etc), a folder, and law.

I mentioned A.Y just because of quoting Nick's remark that contained a
reference to A.Y. Otherwise I wouldn't have even mentioned him. However he
is a good example of a conflicting creator.

Secondly, I do not subscribe to the worshiping and gloryfication of a normal
human being just because he is smart at folding models.

A.Y is a human being. Not more , not less. He is not halfway between the
Gods and we, mere mortals. He is just like you and the guy next door. I
think many in the list forget that he is a human, and he is as imperfect as
any human is.

For example, let's remember how Yoshizawa handled the Cerceda issue. He
believed that Cerceda had copied him and, instead of frontally calling
Cerceda and working out the issue, he instead started a rather ugly
widespreaded gossip, trying to undermine Cerceda's reputation. Cerceda had
to trace painfully the origins of that gossip. Such way of handling things
is not what I would call a behaviour worth of an english Lord. Or of a higly
educated man. Or of a hiugher spirituality and mastery. So we have to admit,
he makes nice models, but he is a human like the rest of us and behaves
consequently.  Even my neighbourd next door might have been able to handle
such a problem with more style. Only because he is smart at folding paper
doesn't me for me he has the moral status of Ghandi or something. He folds
paper, he is not Garibaldi, nor Mother Theresa of Calcuta. He is a person
like anyone else.

Though the aim of this email is not trying to probe that A.Y is a human
being like the rest,  let's anyway continue a little bit more with that:

He said that his methodology for creating a bird model, for example, was to
sit in backyard/garden and watch the bird until the spirit of the bird came
unto him and then, without hesitation, he folded the model in one run.

So he never makes a mistake, he doesn't use trial and error, he never
experiments with a form until he reaches a goal.
For me, that affirmation is of a childish nature. That is conciously trying
to create a mystical atmosphere around oneself, which many pop and rock
stars do. Does anyone disagree on this ? Does anyone believe he really
designs all his models in the first try because the soul of the animal gets
into him ? Can we take that seriously ?

Thirdly, he said " everone copies me", but that maybe was a translation
mistake, so let's be as fair as possible.

Nonetheless he is known ( please correct me on this) for not wanting to
teach his best models, but the simplest. He doesn't even let creators take a
close, detailed look at his models, he shows them at distance and for some
seconds, in case someone would copy him. Again, I see no trace of a higher
spirituality behind that.

And I openly raise the question whether his strange behaviour ( like not
letting paper touch the table while folding and the like) is really a true
mystical or religious belief, or just a planned, concious way of creating an
atmosphere of mystery around him.

Finally, he is a guy that folds paper. And for the points exposed above, he
behaves, in my humble opinion like, say, any other human being. I am sorry
to say it, but that is what I think.  And to this I also refer myself to the
attitude with which he attended the spanish convention a few years ago. He
is known to behave like a Hollywood diva and so he did in Spain. He can
perfeclty overcome any language barrier if he believes he is not treated
enough like a Diva. Anyone disagreeing on this ?

The spanish organizers had a lot of problems with him, because, for example,
he refused to sit in the same table as other japanese creator invited to the
spanish convention. Once again, I hardly see any traces of a higher
spirituality, but rather of a behaviour of a Diva. I am sorry, but that is
what I see, and I am hopefully explaining it well down to earth.

So, we like it or not,  he can be the greatest paper folder, but  apart from
origami, he is a mere human being. And sometimes, if not often, he behaves
like anyone else in the show biz.

****************************

Finally, and once again, the goal of my email was questioning up to what
extent can he (or for the case, any other) prevent, say, Jan, from selling
butterflies. A.Y says that his creations have a life of their own and blah
blah blah. Even though one can respect any religious belief, even if it is
grounded on things that nothing have to do with religion, the question is,
still, up to what extent can a creator on behalf of a non-standart mystical
belief prohibit people from exposing folded models that were just folded
upon a publicly published book.

Thanks.





From: Scott Cramer <scram@LANDMARKNET.NET>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:58:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Pop-up Heart Card

The model you are looking for is most likely the "Beating Heart Card" on page 8
     of the Winter '97 BARF. You can run the finished model thru your printer
     to designate copyright and design credits, if necessary. [ 8 ^ )
Scott





From: "Jerry D. Harris" <102354.2222@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:23:09 -0400
Subject: Re: flightless birds

Message text written by Origami List
>I understand that hair provides protection and "footholds" for biting
parasites living on an animal, and never meant to suggest the opposite. I
was speculating about insects that stay on an animal only long enough to
bite it. At this point in evolution, even many of these biters can
negotiate
hair pretty well. However, I have noticed that the mosquitoes attracted to
my long-haired dog go for the nose more often than not. Those that land on
the dog's fluffy coat can't seem to penetrate it. I also have a
short-haired
dog, and its coat also seems to stump mosquitos, by presenting a stiff,
bristly barrier.<

        For the kinds of quick, kamikaze biters like mosquitos, that's
probably correct (although I personally tend to be fairly hairy, and that
doesn't seem to deter them!  ;-D  )  Incidentally, the premise of "Jurassic
Park" is more likely than not fictitious in this respect as well:  the
larger dinosaurs, regardless of whether or not they possessed some sort of
integumentary covering, probably had skin much too thick for the average
mosquito to bite through!

 _,_
 ____/_\,) .. _
--____-===( _\/ \\/ \-----_---__
 /\ ' ^__/>/\____\--------
__________/__\_ ____________________________.//__.//_________

 Jerry D. Harris
 Fossil Preparation Lab
 New Mexico Museum of Natural History
 1801 Mountain Rd NW
 Albuquerque NM 87104-1375
 Phone: (505) 899-2809
 Fax: (505) 841-2866
 102354.2222@compuserve.com
