captive/orbital definition
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

captive/orbital definition
Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:59 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

as noted in a thread in articles, our description of orbital contains itself...lame.

=============
the glossary:

"orbital ring"
A ring which is connected around either the space where two or more other rings connect or around one or more entire rings, while never passing through the inner plane of any ring.
=============

i have been using:
"rings held in place without other rings passing through them."
i believe this was the definition lorenzo put out there back when he was the weaves guy.
this definition, too, leaves a lot to be desired. it seems to exclude an array of weaves on both sides.

this all being said, is it truly a family? can you have a fundamental unit of orbital which is not based on the ring interactions of another family?

should there be a seperate description for captive? we've historically lumped them together.

anyway, this came up elsewhere and rather than hijack that thread further.....

kim

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: December 29, 2008
Posts: 279
Submissions: 3
Location: Mitchell, IN

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:41 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Well, a ring can still be an oribital or a captive, and have a traditional connection at the same time, in my opinion. Like in King's Scale or Helm Chain.

I know, that thinking totally disrupts some of the current classifications. I'm not suggesting those be moved out of their current families or anything. King's Scale is still E8-2, and it belongs to Euro. I wasn't really thinking about this style when I wrote my definition, though.

I think you're right about orbitals being dependant on other families, as they'll always require some sort of connection to exist. In most cases though they can siginificantly alter a weave's appearance and behaviour.

My thoughts on captives don't really differ from the previous.

I couldn't really argue either way on them being grouped together. Since I started I've thought of them as seprate families, but listed together probably for ease of site management, being two fairly small categories.

From a certian perspective, though, E4-1 can be thought of as a unit weave, if you see it as fivelets woven together.

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1823
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:40 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Description needs updating. I haven't ever done a captive or orbital weave, and I'm probably least familiar with them, so, I don't have all the intricacies in my head.

As to it being a family.. probably not. It's a good label, a good thing to sort and search by, but it's not a family like Euro, Persian, and Japanese are. It's just a thing you do to weaves. In fact, I think perhaps by definition it's only a variant on other weaves.

For most orbitals/captives that I can think of, I would just want them tagged like I'd tag a "mobius'd" weave, or a "kinged" weave. It doesn't change all that much of a weave.

Joined: August 12, 2008
Posts: 776
Submissions: 12
Location: Ketchikan, Alaska

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:09 am || Last edited by Talia on Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Tucked away at the bottom of the Weaves section of the Articles is a category for weave theory, where I found Definitions of Weave Terms:
Submitted by Tesserex
, which I've come back to often:

"Captive:
A decorative ring that is held in place inside a closed section of weave (cage) through no connections with that cage. A captive ring can have outside connections, but is still captive as long as it is trapped by rings with which it does not intersect.

Orbital:
A ring that is held in place between two rings by the connection between them. That is, the intersection of the two rings passes through the orbital ring. "

It still leaves Helm technically neither, as the ring in question is held in place by the intersection of a group of rings within its plane (ie, it is only captive by means of its orbit, and only orbital due to its captivity), leaving it completely outside these definitions, though I've often seen it called an "Orbital/Captive" weave. King's Scale is fully woven, even if the larger ring surrounds the smaller. I don't think there is technically anything either captive or orbital about it.

But an orbital has to surround something, and it cannot pass through that which it surrounds, implying that it would fall away if what it were surrounding weren't there. I don't think that it has to encircle an intersection, for example, a ring could orbit the connector rings on a byzantine chain, being kept from falling off by the two surrounding boxes. But it's got to encircle SOMETHING, therefore, you cannot have a unit of orbitals, nor by similar reasoning, have a unit of captives. And if a weave is defined by repeatable units, you therefore, cannot have a captive/orbital weave, and therefore, not a captive/orbital weave family, technically. Which would leave captives and orbitals as decorative rings (even if they are a distinct element of the weave), and along those lines of reasoning, would be included in the family of whatever they're orbiting/capturing.

But if decorative rings may be removed without consequence, then Halo would be a distinct exception to this, as Halo holds captive a full three-link section of 2in1, and if the captive rings were to be removed, the chain would fall apart. So maybe Halo is truly a captive weave?
Edit: no, doesn't fall apart, becomes 4in2. does, however, hold three-link section captive. sorry- usually check these things first.


Maille Code V1.0 T5.1 R3.6 Feur MAg.t Wcmi Cjwc G2.0/0.6 I38.1/2.5 Pj Dj S99 CCips

Joined: October 21, 2008
Posts: 740
Submissions: 1
Location: Virginia

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:16 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I have also wondered how to classify the around eye rings in the barrel/RSD/jellyfish weaves. they are orbitals in that they orbit the eye, but that doesn't coincide with the orbital definition.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:39 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

RSD is euro-persian.

the around the eye connection is a persian ring interaction.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: October 21, 2008
Posts: 740
Submissions: 1
Location: Virginia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:57 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I've been giving this some thought, and I understand what you are saying about around eye connections being persian, but in the case of barrels/RSD etc., they aren't connecting anything except themselves.

That is the same as the other rings that are called orbitals. They function only to hold 2 other rings in a certain position. They are around eye rings outside of the 2 rings they orbit and in the barrel/RSD family they are around eye rings inside the 2 rings they orbit.

Otherwise they function the same. You could remove them and the other rings would all stay connected, they just would move out of position. (at least that is what I have seen in the weaves I am familiar with)

I think the orbital definition should be based more on function than ring placement.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:04 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

not placement or function.. -interaction-

we are discussing the interaction of 4 rings here. we have the 2 european ring interactions in the 3 of 4. of these the one interacts with each of the two with one european interaction.

the one ring left over, which you are suggesting is orbital, interacts with 2 of the other 3 rings. the reason it is not orbital is that in the interaction with the (2 of 3), the 2 rings pass through the ring..

if you inspect orbital, you will see that the ring everyone calls the orbiting ring is not "linked to" in the traditional sense of a 2-1 simple chain.

cindy, have are you familiar with tesserexs' family demonstration using simple chains in cgi?

i'm not finding the image i'm thinking of, but this article may help you out. one of the first images demonstrates the around the eye connection. notice the similarity to the "barrel" part of rsd.

http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/articledisplay.cgi?key=10999

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: October 21, 2008
Posts: 740
Submissions: 1
Location: Virginia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:16 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

yeah I understand around eye and through eye connections. I just don't see this as a "connection" in the same way it is a connection in a persian weave.

I just see this as orbiting the eye rather than connecting anything other than itself. in a persian weave other rings connect to the around eye ring also. It is an integral part of the chain or sheet.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:28 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ok, i think it's the terminology that is throwing you.

try looking at it as an "interaction" instead of a "connection".

you could make rsd expanded into fabric by sewing up hp3 chains up with an e4 stitch.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: October 21, 2008
Posts: 740
Submissions: 1
Location: Virginia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:42 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

maybe this will help explain the difference I see...this is from the link you gave me...

Quote:
Notice the colors I used. They will follow through the rest of this article. Red coloring is used to highlight the "eyes" that define the connection. Green segments are "through the eye" connections, and blue are "around the eye", which I will call TE and AE. It is important to note that you will find both blue and green on the same ring, as that is part of the definition of persian. The only place this does not hold true is at the ends of a chain where the eye itself is not completed. In this piece, every ring is at the end of the chain, so only one color shows on each ring. Also note that the blue and green segments define another eye and the right ring makes an AE connection, and the left makes a TE.

as I see a persian connection, there are AE interactions and TE interactions, most rings having both. Other rings connect through and around the previous rings. In barrel weave etc. nothing else connects through the AE rings. they never go TE. all they do...the only interaction they have, is to orbit the eye of the other 2 rings. take that ring out and the chain still has all its other rings, they just fall out of position.

but perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this. it's only a different way to see it...or a different way to define what an orbital is.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:26 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

if we arbitrarily assign things here or there based on how they look we have no real system of order. we need consistent description for consistent interaction.

yes, if you take out that one ring throughout the weave, there is still a chain. take out every other ring in spiral 4, you also still have a chain... is every other ring in spiral4 orbital?

have you seen the cgi image tess made showing the basic families all demonstrated with ring interaction on 2-1 simple chains? it is true that the persian example would not hold shape in real life.. it would collapse. however, this is the fundamental ring interaction describing persian.

sorry, i'm not caving here.

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:19 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

hey, what do you know, it's a weave submission.

http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/subcat.cgi?key=127

kim


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:33 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: