Inversions, insides, atomics, oh my!

Oli > Te first post is the most important,than you can get just deeper and deeper and deeper

echoes richee:
the first post has been described as "too simple"
but if you can understand the move, the rest of the thread will fall into place (i hope)
all these moves are analogous to airwraps, with the knots happening in your arms rather than the chains. (or rather without knots at all)
why are all you guys trying to muddle through the text now that I can just show in person soon?!? you're braver than I...

arashi- the thing abotu the term insides, is that inside is so vague...

inside (most common use)- inside plane.. the plane between the arms and the body
half-inside (commonly also called inside)- is the space inbetween the arms... thus it is between -an- arm and the body, but also its between -an- arm and the outside..
outside- between the arms and the far far away..

now antispin weaves use half-insides.. but.. so does ANY threaded motion.. the fact that you -can- make a normal weave spin in the exact same plane happens to be (imo) a product of a lucky alignment of direction and whatnot..Now other weave has this property? even inversions which are also same direction have one fruther in and one further out.. On top of that most people that I've seen spin (myself included) always spin weaves with a threading motion.. even when I keep my wrists together, my hands form almost an 'L' so that one stays inside the and the twisting of my weave plays on this... this is best brought out when you do straight arm weaves.. especially if you keep the arm straight on its side only..

antispin weaves highlight the half-insided-ness more because they spin through the inner arcs rather than the outer ones.. whihc is why when you ahve your wrists near each other the inner poi passes under the arm pit.. but regardless where it passes under that arm, its still just passing under the arm.. whihc is no different than passing under the arm all the way at the bottom of the swing.. otherwise we seem to be saying its different because it swings near the arms rather than at the edge of its length... and I thought that was kinda inherent to the nature of that type of spin.. look at a flower vs antispin flower..

another thing about the timing (which is why it works better wall planed) is because the timing on a normal weave is fron and back.. ie out front, or out back.. the timing on an antispin weave is up and down.. this is what makes it so awkward to spin, makes the timings feel awkward normally, and makes them a pain in some positions.. iso unless someone has developed a comfortable way of turning the pattern 90 degrees to make the crossovers front nd back, we are just going to have to get used to an up and down timing.. whihc sucks because a 5bt is hard to put in time when crossing at the bottom.. and so I've dropped it from my practce session for the time being..

as far as islations go.. its going to feel isolated, because there really isnt any pull at the points that it is at in the circle.. normally we feel the FULL pull of the swing, because the poi is constantly being pulled tight.. but in antispin, its making the top of its swing during the sides (mid move height) (which isnt pulling tight, but kinda just floating there).. because our hands arent a full chain length down.. antispin makes use of the inner parts of the circles put together, rather than norma spin whihc makes uses of the outside.. if I get a bunch of outside arcs, I can put them together and make a circle thats the same as the circles they were cut from.. but by taking all the inside arcs, we kinda need more circle pieces just to make it al the way around.. (halves of circles not quarters of circles.. ) so a lot of those points in the cricle arent being forced like normals spin (thus lots of pull) but kinda glide... so its like using an alternating of accelerating and coasting, to go the same speed rather than a steady foot on the gas pedal.. (sorry if these are bad descriptions.. )


*sigh* I forgot the part on inversions.. (like I havent rambled enough... ) Please bare with me.. I'm sure there's something useful in all this to someone.. ok.. so I think I just suck at antispin too much to make the inversions keep on.. see they antispin, but then the pole fips and they are normal spin, but end right in the spot to continue my antispin on the other side.. (as in they are allready fully normal twisted, and can only anti-twist) this latter part makes me think I got it right.. but I can't figure out why the flipping of the poles would do that.. because I've played a ton with the pole flipping of the normal ones, and never have to antitwist... In fact... the only thing I could say that brings me close to having to anti-twist are the cross side led inversions.. so I'm wondering if I'm just eff'ing up the crossover when I anti-spin an inversion.. I toss it up as possible, though I don't think its likely.. my only other alternative idea is that the inversions are just a mucked up area to begin with.. and only serve to blur the boundary of normal and antispin even more.. because the cross side led antispin inversion seems to be an awful lot like an inside led inversion... Its really confused the crap out of me.. because its all relative to the position..

for example.. clockwise spinning poi. do an inside inversion that leads with the right hand.. odds are your arms are pointing down.. and you right poi leads under the left arm but over the right arm..

now lets take this same example but turn the poi 90 degrees.. what I want you to do is spin clockwise in the wall plane.. with your arms pointing away from you (right hand over the left and to the lleft of it a little bit.. now bring your right hand under the left arm and and up between the arms (and thus over the right arm) you end up in the same position you started in.. (except maybe your right hand is palm up rather than palm down)

now look at these examples.. the first one was an inide led inversion.. and the poi planes were parallel with the arms.. the second is a cross arm led antispin inversion.. and the poi are perpendicular to the arms.. the exact same motion though.. it kinda works the same with the same side led antispin inversion.. the thing is that the closer the poi planes come to being parallel with the arms, the smoother (normal spin) it flows.. (whihc I guess explains the corssover craziness).. the weird part is you can't realy avoid that.. I mean when you crossover your arms have to become parallel with the poi planes for a bit..

I guess learning antispin insides will help a lot, but I'm not ready for that yet.. maybe at the end of the summer.. ayway.. I've said way more than anyone cares to read.. with al lyour atomics and what not arashi, maybe you might better understand some of this parallel, perpendicular business.. I mean.. I never paid much attention to the fact that my normal spin inversions needed to be parallel with my arms.. I just did it because they rolled better.. (I know that sounds weird, but sometimes you do what feels comfortable, not whats 'right' <- using the term loosely)

I say:
Inside plane = inverted plane

= between buzzsaw plane & parallel planetary , only different position (terminology colapse.....).

Antispin /= Isiolation, just same strategy to figure out.
Antispining is in parallels or BTN. I cant imagine st like Inverted antispining, were is inversion there I see cross follow, where is antispin there I see Flowers.

Where I am ?

see ya,

:R

Yea...i still dont get it. Everytime i think "omg thats it!" arashi comes in and says "no". I must have got it right... atleast once...

Im just guessing it's between the arms but im not sure...because you can also do it with one poi ontop of another...like Richee said "flower" but to me it only has 1 petal.

/me goes back to playing

did you guys see this?

ok,ok I get :] I forgot em totally

SO it goies like wall plane < inverted < inside < BTN > inside > inverted > wall plane

right ?

:R

I think I get your notation now... Btn =burn the nose... Couldn't figure that out... Thought it was like between the nutz or something... Lol..

Now arashi can slap me for this.. But this is how I see it..

You can't place the inverted IN a plane... Inversions are a relations BETWEEN planes... As in a relations of how one plane sits relative to another... This relation is what gives inversions that signature 'pull'

See you've got two planes, one for each poi.. And they are in one of three positions: outside, half-inside (buzzsaw), inside..

The reason your spectrum is off richee is because you place your buzzsaw in the middle.. And its not.. Its confusing.. Because most people do a buzzsaw in front of them.. In the middle.. That's the easiest.. BUT... That leads to a bit of confusion because of the body...

Outside|h-inside|inside|body|inside|h-inside|outside

Now since a buzzsaw is just two contrary planes, you can have a buzzsaw made from two half-insides or two insides (<- the common one)

So you can rewrite the spectrum like this:
Outside|buzzsaw|inside|buzzsaw|inside|buzzsaw|outside

Inversions must take place in a buzzsaw space.. That is the only place where you can get two contrary planes to overlap... Normall in a buzzsaw they are next to each other.. In inversions, they cross to the opposite side of center.. Not just that but they are 180 degrees off (which is why you get tangled at the wrist and don't just have a hand over hand roll) just putting them off center and rolling your hands inst an inversion.. It has to cross at the wrists like an airwrap..

This is why the hand over hand, the barrel roll, the buzzsaw weave are all misleading connotations... And so is talking about an inverted 'plane' though one can mak these distinctions correctly, they also lead to valid interpretations that are invalid inversions...

Hope that helps you guys a bit... I'm having to access all this from my phone, so I can't tell how well its coming out...

Ok I think for once I understood all of that, and completely agreed with it!

*falls over in shock*

Oh want to quickly add that you can see in the second spectrum I list, where inversions enter and exit... That have to enter either inside or outside and can move any way along the spectrum... Thus entering right outside and exiting right outside or exiting right inside... What also might clear up some confusion is that inside and outside planes are mirrors...
Thus right outside is the same as left inside (just in a different place relative the body)
Same with left outside and right inside...
So your opposite planes (by these I mean your two opposite polar planes, ie the two that can be stuck together for a weave) are:
R outside and L outside
R outside and R inside
L outside and L inside
R inside and L inside <- real weird because you really have to flip your poles to get it to work...

Now before I get into poles, polar nature of planes, and flipping poles are we all on the same page (not literally )?

Just remember that there's a 3 step spectrum.. Which we've kinda extended in the full spectrum
The full was out|buzz|in|buzz|in|buzz|out but we will mostly use a reduced version, the 3 chunk spectrum:
Out|buzz|in
Out|buzz|out
In|buzz|in <- this being that hard one I mentioned..

You can enter from either inside or outside (because those are on either side of the buzsaw) and can exit to either side (not just go straight across) and you can enter either side with either hand...

This is why there are essentially two inversions, to use old terms the fwd and rev 3bt.. Because they represent the two poles.. And every other inversion is one of those two... But again... Lets make sure we have the above noted and understood before I ramble on..

ooh. i do have a problem with that fundamentally. you're talking about two different types of problems, what i call a 3 body problem and a 1 body problem at the same time. see if this makes sense: outsides is treating the entire body between the poi as a single vertical obstacle. the two body version is above the head (ignoring the head itself) since each arm is your only obstacle. once you move to your "insides" (even just insided betweeen shoulder and crotch for simplicity), you've created a 3 body problem where each arm is a seperate obstacle to make your trunk a single vertical obstacle connected to the arms at the top. below the waist is a 4 body problem, made more complicated by the fact that you can spin h-h-ll (legs as a single obstacle) like a 3 body or h-l-h-l like a 'real 4 body'. then again, you can treat both arms as a single obstacle in the 3 body 'inside' too, making it 2 body with hands together (butterfly), or by putting the torso outside the equasion (buzzsaw)... in any event, outside|blah blah|outside as a 1D spectrum doesn't work for me, but if it helps me or anyone else get antispin and inversions, i'm happy. I've been trying to draw the 3 body version in 2D as Venn Diagrams, and that's making me much happier, conceptually.

crap, now it's making it more complicated. that's got me wondering what happens to the term "inside" when you consider these two possibilities AAB (arm arm body) vs ABA (arm body arm):
1___4
arm__arm
_2__3
___body

-- v/s --

1
_arm
__2__3
___body
___4__5
_____ arm
_______6

i'm not sure what the numbers mean, but they're supposed to suggest places to put your hands/center of rotations. some of the ones for the last diagram are probably waist wraps too, and stuff with each poi half-inside on different sides of your body -- but that's not at all 'inverse' in my book... i think it means you have to treat buzzsaws as two seperate two body problems, and switching from inside to buzzsaw is switching from a 3-body to 2-body problem, which should imply certain transitions that i can't calculate. now my head hurts which means it's time to stop writing and spin more. lol.

-- dut

Dut..
Your confusing yourself man...

1- most of what you call inversions.. Especially if you are using ven diagrams.. Is wrong... The ven diagrams will mess things up because the miss the point of what's going on completely... And I can tell its messing you up becausee you're refering to things as inverted that I never said nor fit with what I described

2- legs aren't a seperate issue.. Legs are part of the body... You go between them and your doing utl/btl stuff... As far as inside outside and whatnot is concerned the legs are the body..

3- your last sections show that you didn't follow what I presented at all...

I'm sorry...

The body represents a line that is parallel with the plane the poi are in... The arms also represent a line that is parallel with the plane the poi are in.. The division there of results in the 7 planar strata as you move from one end of the spectrum to the other (ie one side of the body to the other) and thus accounts for any turning or angle with that simple division...

The only thing that works different is the vertical planes. But they are reduced to the 3 strata that we use most often..

We mainly stay with a twobody problem (ie the 3 strata) which is why insides act like opposite outsides...

I'd go into more.. But i don't want to confues people... I'm sorry you didn't follow what I was talking about... I'd be more than happy to discuss it further via im or email since I'm out of town and won't be back til monday.. That would keep us from confusing others and give you chance to ask more direct questions...

One of these days somebody's gonna have to show me all this, because as I said in the Spherc thread, my brain hurts when I try to think about WTF y'all are talking about. Dammit, I knew there was a reason I shoulda chatted with SpiralX when I was in Londres...

rev i finally think we understand each other, now once i get back from london i'll know what this whole anitspin business is referring to and we'll be rocking the next uberdimension.

thank you for clarifying the distinctions and pointing out the weaknesses in my explanations..." And so is talking about an inverted 'plane' though one can make these distinctions correctly, they also lead to valid interpretations that are invalid inversions..." that's the fuzzy area i wasn't quite able to get around. both are the same math, different notation. but in atomics you'll see why i divided them up that way. it's all in the inside crossovers...

hopefully all this misunderstanding will enable me to be more clear in the future.

this is all making *tonnes* more sense now!

incidentally, i think edits made to starting post make it 100% clearer and coupled with the crossover exercises posted on spherc, make a much more complete and rounded introduction to all of these ideas.


i is wondering...
is there any way of producing a nice little picture with shaded areas to show either the 7 stage plane spectrum or if that is not possible (cos i think for each poi it may depend on where the other poi/arm is at any particular time) 3 little pictures with shaded areas for the more practical 3 stage spectra related to weaves?


that last load of stuff rev posted was not only clear and concise (maybe you should post via your phone all the time dude... ) but filled in a lot of the hazy areas that were in this topic (i.e. the fundamental and essential definitions of what outside, inside, buzzsaw and inverted are).

[i admit i'm still a little hazy about what the relationship between planes has to be for them to be fully or half inverted.
i don't really understand what 'half inverted' means - if it is a relationship between two planes i don't get why if one is not inverted, the other would not be...]


i think before we go into the idea of poles (i recommend everyone read arashi's link on spherc first and try the crossover exercises), the only thing that could help more would be an example description (or video in a perfect world) of a weave for each of those 3 chunk spectra.


and i was going to ask a question about how i think crossovers relate to pole switches but rather than go off rambling on what might be nonsense (;)) i think i'll wait till someone presents that theory and clarify then if i need to


rev - cheers for saying out loud that antispin weave is a top/bottom crossover.
i noticed that difference myself this weekend but i doubted that i was doing it properly if my crossovers weren't exactly the same as a normal 3bt.
confused myself lots by trying to make antispin weave a front/back crossover and headed straight back into the problems i originally had when trying to fathom this move (i.e. poi always hit arms on crossovers).
it makes complete sense that wallplane is the easier place to do them with that explanation - monkey had said it was easier in wallplane but couldn't say why.
in fact, i think your post up there (the one on the 15th) is the most complete and accurate description of the planes and crossover timing of an antispin weave we could possibly get (with the descriptions we have right now) - i said, nice one bruvvaaaaaaaa

*trying very hard to both get all this right in my head and to learn how to spin stuff related to it before july*







cole. x

arrgh!!

arashi is commin to london!!

when, I might have to fly back for the weekend...

T

I hate to throw a lot into this email (since some of it is a bit offtopic...ie antispin) but I'm going to do the best I can to keep it together...

First- arashi.. glad we're in agreement... Let the uber-rockin' commense.. Lol... I still have a lot of catching up to do man.. Just the same direction inversions have me so swamped that I've put antispin, atomics, and other nonsense on the backburrner for a while.. Because.. Well.. I suck..

Second- cole... I didn't say half inverted, arashi did in the atomics post I think... So if you are referring to my post those should (I thought they were, could be wrong) be half insides.. Those are a vague area, which is why I replaced them with buzzsaws in the second diagram.. Essentially you only have outside and inside planes.. If you take the left outside plane and drag it towards the right, it stays outside until it crosses the midpoint on the body, then its inside on the right half... Same with the right outside plane going the other way (outer on right half, inside on the left half)... You also have to realize that outside and inside are only realy related to the arm that's holding the poi.. This is where you get the half-insides... Because between the arms on the left side (like a buzzsaw parallel with the side plane but to the left of the body) is inside for one poi(the outside arm) and outside for the other poi (the inside arm)... Same goes for the between the arms on the right side..(like above but to the right of the body)... so that's why I defined half inside as I did..
This is how the spectrum falls... Either arm can go in place of the arm sections.. This is from left to right.
Out|Arm|half|Arm|in|Body|in|Arm|half|Arm|out

Thus the buzzsaw spaces become like this:
Out|Arm|buzz|Arm|in|Buzz|in|Arm|buzz|Arm|out

When you ar standing with your arms at your sides you have this:
Out|Arm|in|Body|in|Arm|out

So you can weave (like normal weave) between out and in:
Out|arms|in or in|arms|out
Because both arms collapse the half inside section..
Out|arm|half|arm|in (=out|arm|buzz|arm|in)
Is what you are really weaving through but by keeping the arms together and not using the space between it collapses to the smaller diagram above..

Its probably better seen in the normal weave
Which looks like this when collapsed:
Out|body|out
which is kinda misleading since this already is equivalent to its semi-expanded form:
Out|buzz|out
the reason being that
Out|body|out = out|arms|out
Thus the expansion:
Out|buzz|out = out|arm|buzz|arm|out

But we don't want to use that description in the full spectrum because it will lead to misunderstanding I think.
Out|arm|half|arm|in|arm|buzz|arm|in|arm|half|arm|out
Which gets confusing bc half-insides are buzzsaws too.
Out|arm|buzz|arm|in|arm|buzz|arm|in|arm|buzz|arm|out
Not that those are 'wrong' just that they can be veery misleading... I hope none of this is confusing the issue more... I'm just trying to throw out as much as I can so that you can build a better picture.. If you know how it 'can' be interpreted and how those 'can' go wrong, then I think you have a good idea, by remainder, of what we're discussing.. I can see what this looks like in full screen so I can only hope it comes out well.. If it confuses you, just ignore it..

Third- Now this has all been discussion of how to divide the planes...from side to side.. Or front to back.. Any vertical set... The horizontal planes don't have the body... So they are, when fully expanded:
Top|arm|buzz|arm|bottom =out|arm|half|arm|out

I want to move a bit more into the inversions.. Inversions are a relation between the planes.. So it can only occur when you have two contrary planes that overlap (half-insides and insides).. Now atomics may be different.. You may be able to get half inversions in atomics, because the overlap of the plane with one that is perpendicular, will still get the overlap (for one) without necessarily having the other inverted.. I'm not positive on that.. But I can picture it, so I figure that's what arashi means.. However the normal inversions that we are discussing cannot be half done... They are parallel not perpendicular in their relation so if one overlaps, they both do.. You can try to do an inversion with one hand only, but as you exit the inversion, you'll be in a straight jacket.. Crap.. I'm getting ahead of myself again.. If that's confusing, scrap it for now.. We can come back to it later... I don't know how much you guys know about straight jackets... And I can't link to a thread (hint hint anyone).. Suffice to say if you go to spherc and look up straight jacket, the above should make sense (is the wiki up? If not its in the poidia forum)

Anyway.. Point being all we do are full inversions when we do these same direction things.. Inversions must occur in a buzzsaw space (I know I've said all this but I want to go through it again) because when you have a buzzsaw you have adjacent contrary planes.. Granted we kinda push them together into essentially one plane but as far as everything is concerned they are next to each other..
[Code]
(r)
\
--L|R--
\
(l)

---

Pretend thats a buzzsaw and that the right poi (r) and the left poi (l) are actually spinning in a plane parallel with the | in between the right hand R and the left hand L

Now just overlapping our planes will still be a buzzsaw... And you will get a hand over hand roll.. This is why I think a lot of people misunderstood inversions.. (Amongst other things).. So what I want to stress is that the poi need to be off 180 degrees..so that there is a crossing at the wrists, like a tangle (airwrap) does at the string..
[Code]
(l)
|
R-|-
---L
|
(r)

---

Now what I'm probably failing to convey here is that the left poi is going over the right arm (thus the string | over the arm -- ) and the right poi is under the left arm.. (Thus just the arm) that is a buzzsaw that it overlapping planes.. And getting the hand over hand roll.. There is no wrist tangle... And thus no inversion..

I'm sorry I can't even attempt a code at an inversion.. So monday, I'll see about getting into paint and making a horrid pic

Fourth- poles.. I've been thinking about how to address this for a while.. And I'm not sure if I can come up with a good example.. So I ask that you bare with me and ask lots of questions if need be... My connection is Slow and unreliable, but I do have one...

I'm going to describe buzzsaws here.. NOT inversions.. Because I want something we can all do... Ok..
So the fwd buzzsaw will be one polar facing.. And the rev buzzsaw will be our other polar facing..
now to get an idea of how we flip poles.. I want you to do a wallplane clockwise buzzsaw with the right hand out and the left hand in.. This is like a reverse buzsaw turned sideways... Now from here I want you to go into a clockwise wallpane buzzsaw with the right hand in and the left hand out.. This is like a fwd buzzsaw.. Moving between these two positions flips the 'pole'... The rotation is the same, but the poles are flipped...
If you want to imagine that you have the earth in your hands, and that the poi rotation is the earths rotation.. Then initially, magnetic south (the south pole) is in the right hand... However, after the transition, the magnetic poles of the earth would have flipped because the left hand would now have magnetic south (the former north pole)

We use flipping of poles a lot... Fwd to a rev butterfly/ttn, switching sides during a weave, thru-wraps are prime examples since they don't continue wrapping (and thus work like they do) after the pole is flipped..

I've been typing for a while, so I'm going to go get breakfast.. (Good thing I have a keyboard on this thing..) I just want to leave one final note about antispin... I'm not sure about this but a lot of antispin stuff is perpendicular to normal stuff.. The crossovers are perpendicular.. The inversions are perpendicular.. I'm not sure what any of it means.. It could just be coincidence.. But I'm trying to grasp some key that might unlock more of its secrets.. I also want to interject that I really don't think that antispin is 'inside' because you can antispin insides..

Let me know if you guys are still following me on all this.. The fun stuff is coming up, now that the basics are down.. And to think.. It only took 11pages

quote Rev:

1. So you can rewrite the spectrum like this:
Outside|buzzsaw|inside|buzzsaw|inside|buzzsaw|outside

2.Inversions must take place in a buzzsaw space.

3. As far as islations go.. its going to feel isolated, because there really isnt any pull at the points.
-----------------------



1. I think no, because there is "only one" Buzzsaw plane going throught the body.

2.Nope. About inversion and inversions. "Inversion" is between two planes.
Inverted plane is discutable,
becase Poi in a weave motion just pass (they can stop there anyway).
Its pole (Rev nice word not de plane.

3. Disagree. "to Isolate" is technique when you try to get balance between head and hand. BUT you never get there, because "it will stop then". So it meens "there is a pull".

BTN = Buzzsaw = De plane

Rev, Dut - You other post, is too long, hope mine not as well ,

light,

:R

::Peeks into this thread and sees entirely too many posts over 1000 words and quickly exits::

Rev, thanks for trying to help me understand, but apparently my over-complication wasn't over-complicated enough to let you see where i'm going (which is left field and has to do with insides only, not inverted spinning). i left out the poi strings, which if included makes up to 5 bodies, none of which are required to be parallel to the spin planes unless you're specifying that for illustration. but for such an illustration, if your arm is perpendicular to the ground as an obstacle, if your poi are at bottom of arc, arm-body-arm is a 3 body problem. if your arms are pointing down and the poi are at the tops of the arcs, you've added an extra obstacle and an extra hole so it's string-arm-body or arm-string-body for half the rotation with either poi, no matter which way your hand is facing (inversion wise) -- aka a 5 body problem.

think of somehow lining all strings/arms/bodies perpendicular to the ground so you can shoot a horizontal line through all 5 obstacles. here's what i think you mean --
outside: string string arm arm body
buzzsaw: arm string string arm (optional body)
??: string arm arm string body
half inside: string arm string arm body
inside arm arm string string body

1.string-arm-arm-string-body (??) seems like a good definition of 'half inside' i think, but it also applies to string-arm-string-arm-body. god i hate math. (??) has to be the 'two half insides buzzsaw' you mentioned, but lumping them that way is forced because of your spectrum model, not because there's any direct linear relationship between all these. and this's only for ones that don't cross anywhere... is arm-string-body-string-arm (think of pinching the poi heads under your armpits and looking at it from the side) "double half inside"? putting your body in the way might sometimes be half-btb, but since you treat insides the same as btb, this makes sense.

2. legs have 1 outside and 2 insides, actually, depending if you're treating them as seperate entites or as part of the body. i could replace -body above with -leg-leg, or i could replace -body with only one -leg and put the other one on the front as leg- (or anywhere in between arms and strings in my 2D world). which is why you're right, they are a completely seperate issue.

3. i actually did know what my numbers meant, but couldn't defend why i thought your 7 strata sounded like too few planes for considering both poi in motion at once. for half of each beat, you have to consider the string of the other poi as a mobile obstacle, which i'm sure you know instinctively.

other than that, i'd like to see what else you can consider 'inverted' besides the buzzsaw (inside or outside version) with your outlook. so i'll email ya.

-- dut