I was referring more to the sites that were "formatted" as repositories as opposed to sites with maille information. MWW was a forum and CGM was tutorials.
Dolphin Inspired Potential New Weave
- Thread starter moaatt
- Start date
wasn’t MWW trying to build a repositry? i have a distinkt memory of that.
And CGM had structure to it’s tutorials in such a way that it helped me get into the mathy stuff.
Ok, sorry for not seeing that.
Ok, so right now what I made only clears 2/4 checks and needs checked against Chainmail Basket, and Tome of Weaves? I could see how one could check Chainmail Basket, but how would one check Tome of Weaves as it has no form of tagging or weave relation?
Look.
Joshua has a handy pic link you can hovet for a thumbnail on the ones he has Done.
Ok, so the Tome of Weaves is meant to be a list of all weaves, and the ones with pictures are the ones he has made himself? So therefore the only ones that might be unique to the Tome of Weaves would have a picture right?
Exactly.
Thank you for the confirmation.
chainmaillers.com
, does a weave need to be compared to all other weaves in the other repositories before it can be classified as a new weave?
I'm not sure what others might think, but I'm fairly sure that this is a sequence of connections that hasn't been described before and, I at least, consider it to be something "new". There is one other thing I would like to see.
Can you take a "flat" picture of the other side (bottom) of the weave?
I'm assuming that it should look something like this:
As It's not found at a deep search on MAIL, and a cursory search at the rest, I agree that we can assume it's new.
This makes me quite excited. What is the general process to get this into the Maillepedia/name this weave?
Sorry about the lack of quality and new photo, I had to make the item again with less rings and use a worse camera. I have included a top and bottom shot to help make things clearer. Also, from my experience your render is accurate about the bottom of the weave. Please let me know if you have any more questions about it.
Attachments
What were your thoughts on a name?
Please keep in mind:
- It can't be something already in use.
- Should show a relationship rover if possible
What were your thoughts on a name?
Please keep in mind:
- It can't be something already in use.
- Should show a relationship rover if possible
I was thinking more along the lines of Dolphin related since that is what I was trying to make. For that route I was thinking about "Dolphin Pod", since a pod is a group of Dolphins and I made Dolphin but closer together. Though if something closer to Rover is desired I am thinking "Greyhound", as you could say that it jumped higher to land on the other side of the ring and it is a Greyhound that has the highest jump on record for a dog. Though I do prefer "Dolphin Pod".
Hello
chainmaillers.com
, please let me know if either/both of the names I proposed for the weave would be acceptable.
chainmaillers.com
, please let me know if either/both of the names I proposed for the weave would be acceptable.
I didn't forget about you, it's just that the answer to your question is a little more "in depth" than a simple yes or no. It actually has more to do with the problems of the whole dolphin naming scheme. I fully intend to reply more fully, I just need to formulate that replyHello
On a side note, I'm of the mind that "rover" is not based on a dog name, but a vehicle type as in Moon Rover/Mars Rover, based on the other weaves that ZiLi described.
First things first, how you start, or what you were trying to make, doesn't matter, but where you end up does.
To understand "Dolphin" and some of the problems with its naming, we first need to understand where it comes from. According to the description on MAIL:
Please note: A direct translation is a duplication of a cell and movement without rotation along a single axis (This is a primary concept in Cellular Chainmaille Theory - CCT)
The following image shows the difference between a terminated segment of RSD, a terminated segment of "Kora Twisted" (which is an expansion of RSD), and a segment of Dolphin (based upon the picture provided for the weave at MAIL).
Please note: "Kora Twisted" was described as different weave (not accepted as a weave at MAIL) by the same person that described Dolphin. In the MAIL image there are 3 different configurations shown. Based on our classifications, the top, would be considered "Kora Twisted", the middle would be considered "Kora Twisted Segmented" and the bottom would be considered "Kora Twisted R3"
The first problem with Kora Twisted segments is that they introduce Chirality to the RSD segment. Chirality (for the purpose of chainmaille) is when rotation of a form cannot give you a reflective version of the form. Because the additional rings in Kora Twisted create a spiral with their connections through the reinforcing ring, to make a true mirror image of the segment, you must connect the rings differently to get a reflection.
The second problem is that the rotation of the Kora Twisted segments to make the Dolphin segments is that rotation creates different top and bottom sides to the weave.
Now, where was I going with this, lol
If this is a Dolphin segment and as per the description (and the original MAIL image) they are additionally connected (we currently call that "tethered" or "spaced", still working out the actual defining characteristics) then what is currently called Dolphin, would, based on CCT, actually be Dolphin Tethered or Dolphin Spaced.
I feel that actual Dolphin would be something like this, which is a direct translation of Dolphin cells.
How does this all relate to your weave and why I suggested "Rover" related as opposed to "Dolphin" related? Its relation to Dolphin is what CCT currently defines as "symbiotic" or "sympathetic" (I forget which word I used, lol). The Dolphin cells are only created as a result of the connection of two base cells used in the weave. If you take away the rings that make up the "Dolphin" cell there are rings leftover. Technically, your weave would be senior on the hierarchy as segments of your weave would make Dolphin as it currently stands. The cells in the weave you're describing have 5 rings while Dolphin has 7. Rover on the other hand also has 5 rings per cell and the only difference between it and yours is the placement of a single connection (over opposed to under).
Dolphin vs Moaatt:
Question to ask yourself: forgetting the paired "spacing rings" in Dolphin as currently described, what rings are missing in the "Moaatt" version?
Moaatt vs Rover:
Question to ask yourself: what is the difference between "Moaatt" and "Rover"?
These are just a few of the things that I look at when evaluating weaves both old and new at this point in my examinations. Most of the weaves listed in the Maillepedia have either not been given these examinations or were given it in a cursory manner.
Hopefully my explanation is clearer than mud
To understand "Dolphin" and some of the problems with its naming, we first need to understand where it comes from. According to the description on MAIL:
The following image shows what we consider to be the base cell (which directly translates into a chain of RSD) and a terminated segment of RSD (as it can not be directly translated).
Please note: A direct translation is a duplication of a cell and movement without rotation along a single axis (This is a primary concept in Cellular Chainmaille Theory - CCT)
The following image shows the difference between a terminated segment of RSD, a terminated segment of "Kora Twisted" (which is an expansion of RSD), and a segment of Dolphin (based upon the picture provided for the weave at MAIL).
Please note: "Kora Twisted" was described as different weave (not accepted as a weave at MAIL) by the same person that described Dolphin. In the MAIL image there are 3 different configurations shown. Based on our classifications, the top, would be considered "Kora Twisted", the middle would be considered "Kora Twisted Segmented" and the bottom would be considered "Kora Twisted R3"
The first problem with Kora Twisted segments is that they introduce Chirality to the RSD segment. Chirality (for the purpose of chainmaille) is when rotation of a form cannot give you a reflective version of the form. Because the additional rings in Kora Twisted create a spiral with their connections through the reinforcing ring, to make a true mirror image of the segment, you must connect the rings differently to get a reflection.
The second problem is that the rotation of the Kora Twisted segments to make the Dolphin segments is that rotation creates different top and bottom sides to the weave.
Now, where was I going with this, lol
If this is a Dolphin segment and as per the description (and the original MAIL image) they are additionally connected (we currently call that "tethered" or "spaced", still working out the actual defining characteristics) then what is currently called Dolphin, would, based on CCT, actually be Dolphin Tethered or Dolphin Spaced.
I feel that actual Dolphin would be something like this, which is a direct translation of Dolphin cells.
How does this all relate to your weave and why I suggested "Rover" related as opposed to "Dolphin" related? Its relation to Dolphin is what CCT currently defines as "symbiotic" or "sympathetic" (I forget which word I used, lol). The Dolphin cells are only created as a result of the connection of two base cells used in the weave. If you take away the rings that make up the "Dolphin" cell there are rings leftover. Technically, your weave would be senior on the hierarchy as segments of your weave would make Dolphin as it currently stands. The cells in the weave you're describing have 5 rings while Dolphin has 7. Rover on the other hand also has 5 rings per cell and the only difference between it and yours is the placement of a single connection (over opposed to under).
Dolphin vs Moaatt:
Question to ask yourself: forgetting the paired "spacing rings" in Dolphin as currently described, what rings are missing in the "Moaatt" version?
Moaatt vs Rover:
Question to ask yourself: what is the difference between "Moaatt" and "Rover"?
These are just a few of the things that I look at when evaluating weaves both old and new at this point in my examinations. Most of the weaves listed in the Maillepedia have either not been given these examinations or were given it in a cursory manner.
Hopefully my explanation is clearer than mud
Sorry for any excessive pressure. Additionally,z thank you for your interpretation of the name rover.I didn't forget about you, it's just that the answer to your question is a little more "in depth" than a simple yes or no. It actually has more to do with the problems of the whole dolphin naming scheme. I fully intend to reply more fully, I just need to formulate that reply
On a side note, I'm of the mind that "rover" is not based on a dog name, but a vehicle type as in Moon Rover/Mars Rover, based on the other weaves that ZiLi described.
If I understand this correctly this is similar to the Geometric definition of translation, just constrained to a single cartesian axis and discussing a copy of the original.
From this I can see why what I made is more related to rover than dolphin.
Based on your new interpretation of dolphin, the difference between it and what I made is that there is only one of each of the purple and yellow rings joining the units together thus condensing the weave and likely adding stability as well.
The main difference is that what I made goes over rather than under. Additionally, I would expect that rover doesn't have a difference between top and bottom.
Though overall I am not sure if your main point is that Rover and what I made("moaatt") are not distinct enough to be considered different weaves upon further investigation or if I should try to think of a name that is closer to Rover(and perhaps inspired by/related to the lunar roving vehicle). Your clarification here would be most helpful.
No worries at all and you're quite welcome. I just hope it made sense
You understand it correctly, YAY!!!
Another primary concept of CCT is Transformations, which currently include Translation, reflection, rotation, & dilation. Shear can probably be added as well, but I haven't explored it yet Good, I was hoping I didn't muddy the waters further with my attempt at an explanation.
Correct again. I do have an additional question for you. The longer you extend the chain, does it begin to twist?
Once again, correct
Yes and no, when rolled 180 degrees, you get a change in directionality (middle is 90 degree roll towards you from the top, bottom is 180 degree roll towards you from the top):
I believe that the change in structure, due to the change in the connection point between cells, is enough to be considered a different weave (or I probably wouldn't have gone so in depth for my answer
)It was more to explain why I thought the name should be related to Rover as opposed to Dolphin.
This is actually the hardest question in Mailling.I believe that the change in structure, due to the change in the connection point between cells, is enough to be considered a different weave (or I probably wouldn't have gone so in depth for my answer
Based on these terms it seems that it is heavily based on traditional Geometry concepts. Is that correct?You understand it correctly, YAY!!!
It does pick up a tendency to twist, though at the AR I used for the sample(4.3) you can manually lay out the rings to avoid it. Though if made at an AR of 4 it does twist quite a bit.
Thank you, for the clarification.
Ok, thank you for the clarification. I have been trying to think of a few names but so far they have all been taken.I believe that the change in structure, due to the change in the connection point between cells, is enough to be considered a different weave (or I probably wouldn't have gone so in depth for my answer
It was more to explain why I thought the name should be related to Rover as opposed to Dolphin.
I can see how this would be hard to give a definitive answer to.
