Cathie VS Fuller.

Fir col. is n form (2**n) , Second col. is 2**n, third multiplied by 1.125, forth multiplied by 1.125**2, and fifth another constant (all contants from same formula). The next three are the same as the preceeding three only +2 for Fuller's polarity..? Bold and Ittalic values in Third to Fifth collum appears in Bruce Cathie's Books, no doubt other values in those collums in his calculations as well.

So called Harmonics?  Asterisk in sixth to eight collum appear in Fuller's calculations shown in the table below. Allso most of the values match if the second table below is extended. But that not all of the values. 83. 434. ..1730..6914.Adding 4 in addition to the primes in Fullers equation does not work as some numers only get double in the tables produced. Alot of the values match Fuller's equations but some figures stand on their own.

Also binary "and" operation on 3rd and 4th return the binary 2**n the values are derived from. i.e. 576&648=512. But with other operands we get new values: 648|864=1000, 1296|1728=2000, which seems to be interesting from evident reasons.


n 2**n *1.125 S*1.265625 S*1.6875 **1.125+2 *1.265625+2 *1.685+2
5 32 36.0 40.5 54.0 38.0 42.5 56.0
6 64 72.0 81.0 108.0 74.0 83.0 (9*9+2)
110.0?
7 128 144.0 162.0 (10*4**2+2)
216.0 (6**3) 146.0 164.0 218.0
8 256 288.0 324.0 432.0 290.0* 326.0* 434.0 (216*2+2)?
9 512 576.0 648.0 (72*90 deg) 864.0 578.0* 650.0* 866.0*
10 1024 1152.0 (144*8) 1296.0 (36**2)
1728.0 1154.0* 1298.0* 1730.0? (288*6+2)
11 2048 2304.0 2592.0 3456.0 2306.0* 2594.0* 3458.0*
12 4096 4608.0 5184.0 6912.0 4610.0* 5186.0* 6914.0 (144*8*6+2)?
13 8192 9216.0 10368.0 13824.0 9218.0 10370.0 13826.0
14 16384 18432.0 20736.0 27648.0 18434.0 20738.0 27650.0
15 32768 36864.0 41472.0 55296.0 36866.0 41474.0 55298.0
16 65536 73728.0 82944.0 110592.0 73730.0 82946.0 110594.0
17 131072 147456.0 165888.0 221184.0 147458.0 165890.0 221186.0
18 262144 294912.0 331776.0 442368.0 294914.0 331778.0 442370.0
19 524288 589824.0 663552.0 884736.0 589826.0 663554.0 884738.0

The following is from Bucky's eqautions 2nf**2+2:

[4, 6, 8, 12]
[10, 18, 26, 42]
[20, 38, 56, 92]
[34, 66, 98, 162]
[52, 102, 152, 252]
[74, 146, 218, 362]
[100, 198, 296, 492]
[130, 258, 386, 642]
[164, 326, 488, 812]
[202, 402, 602, 1002]
[244, 486, 728, 1212]
[290, 578, 866, 1442]
[340, 678, 1016, 1692]
[394, 786, 1178, 1962]
[452, 902, 1352, 2252]
[514, 1026, 1538, 2562]
[580, 1158, 1736, 2892]
[650, 1298, 1946, 3242]
[724, 1446, 2168, 3612]
[802, 1602, 2402, 4002]
[884, 1766, 2648, 4412]
[970, 1938, 2906, 4842]
[1060, 2118, 3176, 5292]
[1154, 2306, 3458, 5762]
[1252, 2502, 3752, 6252]


What that we are wondering about is wether or not , which significance we now can draw from Bruce Cathie's viewpoint and what from Buckminster Fuller?

Index
(C)2012 ..