Robert J. Lang - Eupatorus gracilicornis (CP)

Fanatic · Post by **Fanatic** » August 3rd, 2009, 10:23 pm

Well, one day I stumbled upon this thread, which inspired me to try and make that model. It didn't look too hard...

Which brings me to my question. How do you fold the legs? I tried millions of different crease arrangement, but failed in each.

if anyone knows how to collapse the lags, I will be eternally grateful.

Thanks in advance~

federicoh · Post by **federicoh** » August 4th, 2009, 12:04 am

i think you should try wet fold em' ... use a thin paper and model as you see in the picture, you can check those kind of legs in the samurai helmet beetle, from origami insects 2 maybe that helps...

Fanatic · Post by **Fanatic** » August 4th, 2009, 1:01 am

I'm asking how to collapse the leg part of the base; not how to fold the legs. I know (in theory

) how to do that.

Elboberto7 · Post by **Elboberto7** » August 5th, 2009, 7:36 pm

In the other thread it looks like the legs are box pleated, once you collapse it it wont be the finished model u have to finish/shape the model.

Fanatic · Post by **Fanatic** » August 5th, 2009, 7:55 pm

I know that they are box pleated, so let me rephrase my question: How do you fold the part of the leg that joins the horn part of the cp? Sorry for the unclear image.

Elboberto7 · Post by **Elboberto7** » August 5th, 2009, 8:03 pm

ohhh that makes more sense, i havnt made this model i would ask one of the people from the other thread by a privet message.

PauliusOrigami · Post by **PauliusOrigami** » August 5th, 2009, 9:54 pm

Are those box-pleated squares equal? Ik seems going from 5th to 1st every "square" is bigger and bigger. 1st square looks like rectagle. Maybe the CP is drawn poorly? Or it should be like that? The division of paper into ??'s doesn't not work then.

By the way, this one made me unsure. Now the refference points would be helpful. Post them if you have already find out.

origamimasterjared · August 5th, 2009, 10:11 pm

That's one reason why it's better to refer to it as pleat-sinking. In this case, rectangular pleat-sinking. That's a very common thing to run into in Robert's work. He does not fuss in making the areas line up so that all the sinks would be equal. The innermost sink is narrower than the other four. 1-4 are all equal width though.

Also, you are going to have to measure (like, with a ruler) and use Reference finder/a ruler to find the references. That's just how Lang CPs work.

Fanatic · Post by **Fanatic** » August 5th, 2009, 10:36 pm

The reference is 21, seen in the link at the top. The rectangle (10x11) is regular, all the squares are the same.

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » August 6th, 2009, 2:23 am

No it isn't. The design is not based on a regular grid. If the width of one pleats on the leg (1-4) is 1, then the length of the 5th pleat is 2sqrt(2)-2. Based on that, the length of one edge of the square is 10sqrt(2)+6. A 21x21 grid is just an approximation, not the exact reference. I looked at a couple of possible references, but they were really obscure. I think the only way to get an exact (or close enough to exact) reference is to use ReferenceFinder. The width of the strips that run along the top and right edges of the paper (they are the width of the middle legs in the corners of the paper) is (7+2sqrt(2))/41 if the edge of the square is 1.

Fanatic · Post by **Fanatic** » August 6th, 2009, 6:15 pm

Well, using 21x21 is exact enough to fold it; plus the pleats line up better. I see no reason to use some obscure reference that is slightly more exact, unless you insist on doing it exactly at Lang did (maybe he used 21x21?).

Zoraz · Post by **Zoraz** » August 6th, 2009, 6:48 pm

I used that 21 reference, and got this:

I think its a good first try, but the picture doesn't do it justice. (yes, all the horns are there)

I would love to help on the legs, but sadly I have no idea how I did it, the paper just sort of formed itself

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » August 6th, 2009, 7:33 pm

Fanatic wrote:Well, using 21x21 is exact enough to fold it; plus the pleats line up better. I see no reason to use some obscure reference that is slightly more exact, unless you insist on doing it exactly at Lang did (maybe he used 21x21?).

If Lang used 21x21 as his reference, I think his CP would reflect that. There are several solutions on Referencefinder that get the references without much trouble. They aren't exact, but they will get you the references within a thousandth of the paper width in 3 or 4 folds.

Fanatic · Post by **Fanatic** » August 6th, 2009, 7:44 pm

Well, the 21 reference is (in my opinion) "easier" to do, especially if you don't have Referencefinder. But whatever suits you, do it.

topsu · Post by **topsu** » August 8th, 2009, 5:49 pm

Fanatic wrote:...especially if you don't have Referencefinder.

Reference finder can be downloaded for free at
http://www.langorigami.com/science/reff ... inder.php4.