
Impressive, isn't it ?
But the most impressive is the CP, it looks quite simple...
http://www.langorigami.com/art/gallery/ ... ?name=rose
Anybody tried to fold it ?
and> However, I've tried collapsing the crease pattern and have a question.
> Is the tube you form before squashing it down a pentagon or a square
> in the cross-section?
I don't form a tube before squashing it down. I pleat the horizontal creases
and then do lots of multiple reverse folds to form the ring. The bottom ring
forms a flat pentagon; the rings above it do not lie flat.
Hope this helps,
Robert
P.S. I'll probably teach this in NY this June.
This is from the messages "Origami flower SOS" and "Robert Lang's Rose (was Re: Origami flower SOS)"> http://www.langorigami.com/art/gallery/ ... ?name=rose
>
> I don't know about Miura ken but the general concept
> with the accordion pleats then multiple reversed
> multiple times to form a spiral sure reminds me of
> Meguro's sea urchin.
The general concept of filling a square with a 5x5 array of
Waterbomb-base-like thingies to get a bunch of flaps reminds *me* of a
different sea urchin ;o).
But to be more specific, for this design, after the initial set of pleats,
you make a series of crimps creating parallel rings, so that alternating
horizontal crease lines end up tracing the circumference of each ring.
Whereas a quick check of "Quarterly Oru Diagrams #2" shows that in Meguro's
urchin each equivalent horizontal pleat goes from the center of the ring out
to the edge and back to the center over and over, rather than tracing the
circumference of the ring.
Or, put differently, Meguro's urchin is formed via a sequence of purely
inside reverse folds, while in this design the reverse folds alternate
between inside and outside reverse folds. (Like the Miura-ori, hence the
homage in the name.) In fact, one way to construct the shape is to start
with a Miura-ori, then stretch it into a ring and join the ends. (Which is
basically what I did in some early versions.)
Of course, there's also a little shaping that goes on at the end. Just a wee
bit.
Hmmm... Let us put our thinking caps!Robert Lang wrote:There is an easier way, and you *don't* actually start by dividing the square into 80ths, fortunately. But it's too much to describe in an email; you'll just have to come to NY and take the class ;o). Or I'll diagram it.