Problems with JPL7
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 612
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Problems with JPL7
Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:13 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I have come to believe that the JPL7 in the library is not actually the "real" JPL7. I believe that I have discovered the "real" JPL7. I know that sounds strange at first, please let me explain. it's going to take a really long time. And on top of that, I have a tutorial out that is for sale, so i can't really take you step by step through the construction.

I'll be submitting my weave later after this discussion, the only problem is - what to name it? and what to do with the previous JPL7?

here is the old JPL7:
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=889

here is my new JPL7:


In 2011, I made my version of JPL7, but I thought is was the same as Lorraine's JPL7. I didn't discover that it was different until this month - September 2016.

In order to prove that they were different, I did a deconstruction. I took each ring out, one by one, and took a picture at each step so that I could get back to where I was. The deconstruction proved that they were different in 2 ways. 1) my weave flips 2 or 3 rings for each new ring added (Lorraine's JPL7 flips only 1). 2) The beginning structure in my JPL7 is not a Mobius4. It is a Mobius3.

So, I proved that they had different structure, but who cares? Why should should my weave replace Lorraine's as the real JPL7? Well, I started to analyze the specs on my JPL7. Turns out that it has a minimum of 6.1AR and is loose enough for a bracelet at 6.3AR. Lorraine's JPL7 has a range of 6.6AR - 7.2AR. Next, I looked closely at the structure. Because I flip 2-3 rings, each ring is closer to the central core of the chain just like JPL3 and JPL5. This helps each ring not to stick out as far as Lorraine's JPL7 does. This, combined with the lower AR, convinced me that my JPL7 is the "real" one.

The JPL series is unique in that they cram the most rings into the smallest space. They have the highest "blank in 1" for their given ring size. This also makes them the strongest chain for their ring ratio. But, if you don't accept these rules or you don't really understand the chainmaille theory, then this is all mute.

As Lorraine has already explained to me, she does not believe in "true" progressions. So, if you fall in this category, my JPL7 is just another variant with nothing special about it. It's impossible to convince people otherwise. I expect that people fall into 2 categories with this issue and there is really not much I can do about that.

so, what to do? Is there a "real" JPL7? And if so, how do we go about changing the database? Let me know what you think.



Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2260
Submissions: 96
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:51 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Interesting. Well, since you can show that there is a structural difference between them more than simply being a progression (particularly, that one of them may not be a direct progression, but a progression variant), then both are able to exist in the library. As to their names: technically, they can both be seen as types of JPL7 so the first one's name would not necessarily have to be renamed. However, there is precedence for adding the name modifier of 'true' to a weave's name when a truer form of a preexisting weave was later discovered. This naming convention would work for this situation. If it can be shown that yours is a 'truer' progression than it could simply be named 'Jens Pind Linkage 7 True Chain' or 'True Jens Pind Linkage 7.'


Insistence is futile.

We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile.

Handmaden Designs LLC
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Handmade Artists Shop
Amazon Author Page

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2176
Submissions: 39
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:56 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

In the spirit of friendly conversation/debate/discussion let me give you my thoughts on your question. I will start by saying that I am no expert on weaves or weave theory.

I don't know if I agree that the new one is a "true" jpl7. For a true progression I have always understood/believed that a pattern is followed through out the entire progression. For example: European 4 in 1 to European 6 in 1 to European 8 in 1 and so on. If your weave flips 2-3 rings each progression it would not follow the same "pattern" as JPL 3 & 5 like the first JPL7 does (which you referred to as Lorriane's, but I want to take people out and just look at the weaves) so would not be a true progression.

I agree totally with Narrina that you have proven them to be different and it deserves to be in the gallery, but it might be might be more accurately named a "dense" jpl7 instead instead of a "true" jpl7.

This all depends on your perspective of which is the "true" chain. Personally, I feel that a pattern of modification should be held for it to be a "true" progression, like in the first JPL7. While your thought on the density of this weave being the "truer" form is interesting I would hold that this thought should be the same for other weaves as well and I cannot think of another chain where that standard would hold true.

What are your thoughts?


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 612
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:53 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

thx narrina, i think you get it.

music man - i think you are not understanding. if you understand jpls like jpl5, it flips 1 ring in order to cross the previous ring. for jpl5, you can actually flip 1 or 2 depending on the direction you weave. so, with jpl7, you have to flip 2 or 3 to get to the crossing effect. the crossing effect gets you closer to the center core of the weave and is thus more efficient and can use smaller ars. what i'm saying is that the actual formula for jpls is different than what lorraine describes in her tutorial. the old formula says that you always flip one ring. the old formula says that you start with mobius4 for jpl7 and increase as you do higher jpls. i think that formula is not true. look at it this way, if you start with mobius4 and flip one ring, then 3 of those rings are spiraling in the same direction. no where in any jpls should there be 3 spiraling rings in the same direction. they are supposed to alternate direction every layer. so, if you always start with mobius3 and flip 1, then you get this alternating layer effect on every row. so, my formula says you always start with mobius 3 and then increase the flip # based on how high your jpl goes.



Joined: February 15, 2002
Posts: 382
Submissions: 10

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:06 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

The current strain of odd-numbered JPLs is based on the variables/constraints that I chose to be the defining characteristics of JPL when I originally created my POV-Ray scene code to render them, back in 2004. Per my constraints, even-numbered JPLs are not possible. Since even-numbered JPLs exist in the weave library, my constraints do not exactly match other people's chosen constraints, nor do they need to, as long as we understand which constraints are being followed to come up with a specific JPL progression strain.

A massive, in-depth discussion can be found at Another JPL question (JPL5, JPL7 and so on...).

Further explanation of my methods and how I defined "skip" variations can be found at JPL7 variations, rendered.


IGP (Irregular Grid Painter) Links:
Home | FAQ | Downloads

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 612
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:29 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Zlosk wrote:
The current strain of odd-numbered JPLs is based on the variables/constraints that I chose to be the defining characteristics of JPL when I originally created my POV-Ray scene code to render them, back in 2004. Per my constraints, even-numbered JPLs are not possible. Since even-numbered JPLs exist in the weave library, my constraints do not exactly match other people's chosen constraints, nor do they need to, as long as we understand which constraints are being followed to come up with a specific JPL progression strain.

A massive, in-depth discussion can be found at Another JPL question (JPL5, JPL7 and so on...).

Further explanation of my methods and how I defined "skip" variations can be found at JPL7 variations, rendered.


i totally agree that it depends on the definitions you are following. the rule that i follow that few people understand is that odd # jpls have the highest ring ratio in chain form possible. it's not a constraint. it's a condition.

the truth is we are explorers of new weaves. we don't invent or create new weaves. the universe already knows what can exist and we find them. when people tried to make up rules for what jpls should be, they guessed. and there is nothing wrong with that. it's how we eventually figure things out. in this case, i think the rules are slightly off and need reconfiguring. the evidence is in the smaller ar.



Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2176
Submissions: 39
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I think I am starting to understand clearer. I will have to get back to you once I have thought things through more. Smile


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: May 26, 2010
Posts: 210
Submissions: 30

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:53 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

mithrilweaver wrote:
the truth is we are explorers of new weaves. we don't invent or create new weaves


I'm glad to hear you say this because every time I come up with a new weave I never know whether to consider it "invented" or "discovered," much like the age-old question about the nature of mathematics.

Concerning your proposal though: have you applied this method to higher JPLs also? I agree with your premise of JPL progressions being defined by their AR / N-in-1 efficiency.

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 612
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:21 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

i like the way you think slaqr. i was just thinking today that if i applied my formula to jpl9 and got the same efficiency, then that would prove my point further. i'll let you know what i find.



Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 612
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:12 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

well, to my surprise, jpl9 is not cooperating using my formula. it works, but it's no more efficient than lorraine's formula. so, looks like my jpl7 is a special case that happens to be more efficient and can handle lower ars.



Joined: June 19, 2013
Posts: 94
Submissions: 8
Location: Rotterdam

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:41 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Whether or not your JPL7 should replace the old one or be called the 'real' or 'true' JPL7, it looks awesome! I was never taken by the original JPL7, I think I'd only try it for it's puzzle value and for being able to say I did it. However this JPL7 I'd wear.

Personally I'd like to see it added as Jens Pind Linkage 7 + 'cool nick name' and keep the original one as just Jens Pind Linkage 7.



Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2260
Submissions: 96
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:56 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

It's been submitted as 'JPL7 Alternate,' and I should be able to approve it early next week.


Insistence is futile.

We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile.

Handmaden Designs LLC
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Handmade Artists Shop
Amazon Author Page

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:46 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: