Weaves applying the wrong theory.
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 627
Submissions: 15

Weaves applying the wrong theory.
Reply with quote
Posted on Thu May 03, 2018 11:16 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

True Boxchain Sheet references True Byzantine Sheet, but it would rather be Dense Byzantine Sheet, right? That's worthy of an editors note, right?


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Weaves applying the wrong theory.
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:50 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
True Boxchain Sheet references True Byzantine Sheet, but it would rather be Dense Byzantine Sheet, right? That's worthy of an editors note, right?


I'm not so sure. The description of True Byzantine Sheet says:

Quote:
...think of the top ring of a box as also being the bottom ring of a box facing the other way.


The True Boxchain Sheet appears to be following this basic principle: the chains are linked in alternating directions "as the ox plows", or at least that's how it looks to me.

In the Dense Byzantine Sheet, it looks like the Byzantine chains are not so much alternating direction "as the ox plows", but that they are staggered/offset by one-half of the Byzantine pattern repeat.

Note: I'm going by the description because the picture is not so good, so I'm open to the idea that I'm interpreting the description incorrectly (I'm focusing on "a box facing the other way" rather than the interaction of top rings and bottom rings). I'm going to go play with some rings and see if I can't make a better picture of this.

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Weaves applying the wrong theory.
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:23 pm || Last edited by Jackalgirl on Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:51 pm; edited 3 times in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Jackalgirl wrote:

In the Dense Byzantine Sheet, it looks like the Byzantine chains are not so much alternating direction "as the ox plows", but that they are staggered/offset by one-half of the Byzantine pattern repeat.


Nope, I'm wrong. In the True Byzantine Sheet it's the same thing: two chains offset by on-half of the Byzantine pattern repeat. It's just that in the Dense weave, the flaps of the new row go through two rings (the wings and the flaps of the original row), whereas in the True weave, the flaps of the new row just go through the wings. Because the flaps of the Dense sheet go through the wings and flaps of the preceding row, the rows are snugged up more closely together. This is why, IMO, the Dense weave looks better than the True weave.

Edited to add: also, the flats of the second row go through the wings of the first, which they don't in the True weave, as far as I can see.

I need to redo my work in two colors to be a bit more clear and then get some pictures up. Also, I think my AR is slightly too large for this (I'm working with AR of 4.0), but it looks like this particular weave is going to need a very specific AR. The True Byzantine Sheet states that the ideal AR is 3.8, but that the pictured rings are not that AR. Wish I knew what they were!

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 627
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I’d interpret it as it’s to low AR for the cube.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:46 pm || Last edited by Jackalgirl on Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

[quote:a619bc58ad="Karpeth"]I’d interpret it as it’s to low AR for the cube.


I will defer to you; I've never made a cube. But I did try to make a clearer picture of the True Byzantine Sheet:


Edited to add: I realized I'd left off a couple of green rings, so I've made a new picture.

Note that it's extremely difficult to see what's going on in the original weave photo because it's small and blurry. I printed it out and traced it to see if I could see what's going on. If I did it right (and I'm not by any means sure of this), this is how I arrived at the conclusion that the sheet is a series of staggered Byzantine chains that are connected by means of a shared wing, which I've marked them out in green.

Back to the original topic: the box chain sheet seems to be individual box chains linked with an intervening row of flaps; the two chains don't seem to share any components. Whereas in the Dense Byzantine Sheet, there aren't any intervening elements: they rows are linked directly into each other.

So, to recap:

- In the True Byzantine Sheet, multiple Byzantine chains are linked together by shared rings (the wings).
- In the Dense Byzantine Sheet, multiple Byzantine chains are linked directly to one another.
- In the True Boxchain Sheet, multiple Box Chain 4 in 1 chains are linked together with intervening components (additional flaps).

So my general conclusion is that they're not really related to one another. But I realize that I am not sure what the word "theory" means here, which I probably should have understood before commenting. Could you clarify?

(My apologies for the crappy execution of the sheet, btw; I still haven't mastered closing rings without marring them or figuring out how to deal with the fact that most of the rings aren't circular, but are rather helical.)

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 627
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:45 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Sorry for being short.

My interpretation is the same, and I love your image. Please submit it!

Regarding the likeness; start by rotating the TBoxS 90*.

If you, in the DByzS read the grains peripendicular to the box units in Classic byz, it acts the same as the corresponding TBoxS grain. If you fold the dual connectors out from DByzS, and link them in the same fashion as the box units, you should end up with TBoxS.

Try it. Wink


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
Sorry for being short.

My interpretation is the same, and I love your image. Please submit it!


Done! But I feel like I'm missing some green rings on the end.


Karpeth wrote:
Regarding the likeness; start by rotating the TBoxS 90*.

If you, in the DByzS read the grains peripendicular to the box units in Classic byz, it acts the same as the corresponding TBoxS grain.


Okee - quick newbie question: what do you mean by "grain", here?

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 627
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:46 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

It’s hard for me to explain, but grain is basically a description of the vectors Chains and sheets generalise to.

One explanation:
Used in Maille, you have Either 2 grains ({4.4} weaves) or 3 grains ({4.3.4} or {6.3}/{3.6}). In a {4.4} weave, you can reduce it to Two different Chains, peripendicular to eachother. (A good example is GSG and HP3-1, being reductions of HP3-1S6, each representing one of the grains.)


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1907
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:22 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Half Persian 3 Sheet 6 in 1
Half Persian 3 in 1
GSG

Links to save searching for them.


Chainmailbasket.com (2019-01-01) - 376 + 79

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 627
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:23 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:
Half Persian 3 Sheet 6 in 1
Half Persian 3 in 1
GSG

Links to save searching for them.


Thanks!

On My phone right now, so linking is a bit annoying. Smile


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1907
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:27 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

No problem.

Actually I threw in an editor note to link GSG from the weave entry for HP3S6-1. Come 3.0 this editor note thing should mostly become moot. Until then...


Chainmailbasket.com (2019-01-01) - 376 + 79

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1907
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:41 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Another example of grain is to compare Full Persian 6 in 1 to Full Persian 6 in 1 Grizzly. The lean direction is opposite on adjacent sides of FP6-1, while it goes in the same direction on all four sides of FP6-1G.


Chainmailbasket.com (2019-01-01) - 376 + 79

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:27 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Thanks, gents!

Another question, though: I can totally see how the two row-elements of Half Persian 3 in 1 are actually perpendicular to one another. But in GSG, the two row-elements don't appear to be perpendicular (at least, to my eye): they're staggered (offset). Am I seeing it incorrectly?

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 627
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:16 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Jackalgirl wrote:
Thanks, gents!

Another question, though: I can totally see how the two row-elements of Half Persian 3 in 1 are actually perpendicular to one another. But in GSG, the two row-elements don't appear to be perpendicular (at least, to my eye): they're staggered (offset). Am I seeing it incorrectly?


It’s a manner of perspective. While the weave has a bias or slant to it, it can be reduced to following a {4.4} geometry, and for clarity, on the theoretical level, I call it peripendicular.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:25 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:

It’s a manner of perspective. While the weave has a bias or slant to it, it can be reduced to following a {4.4} geometry, and for clarity, on the theoretical level, I call it peripendicular.


Okay, so one other question (I'm getting what you're saying around the edges, but I don't fully understand it): when you say "4.4" or "4.3.4", what do those numbers reference?

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2. Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:52 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: