With some work, I was able to figure out how to make my second near-miss candidate from two posts ago, using Stella 4d (available here), but the results show it is a “near near miss,” not a near miss. Like the first one, the triangles are visibly irregular — and so are the green rectangles; there are also four edge lengths, the longest of which is ~11% longer than the shortest. This is not close enough to qualify as a near-miss.
Not long after I made the image above, a friend I shall simply call T. (until and unless I have his permission to publish his full name) e-mailed me his own versions he made, also using Stella. Here’s what they look like. Each can be enlarged with a click.
These are improved in the sense that the triangles (and squares, in the second one) are regular, but this was done at the expense of the pentagons. At the top and bottom of the figures, the edges where pentagons meet other pentagons are ~6.8% shorter than the other edges of each figure.
These last two are more likely to qualify for actual “near-miss” status — that has yet to be decided — but I need to make it clear than I did not discover them alone, but as part of a team. In my versions, after all, the flaws are more severe. Also, we do not yet know whether or not a different individual or team found these same polyhedra earlier, as often happens.
With help from friends on Facebook, I was able to figure out how to make the second of the near-miss candidates in the last post, using Stella 4d: Polyhedron Navigator, a program available here. This is quite helpful, for Stella has a “measurement mode” than lets me determine just how far off from regularity a given polyhedron is. This is what the “unbelted” polyhedron from the last post looks like, with the pentagons regular:
In this polyhedron, although the pentagons are regular, the triangles are scalene, with angles measuring ~55.35, ~60.81, and ~63.84 degrees. Of the three edge lengths needed for this, the longest is ~9.1% longer than the shortest, and the triangles are definitely non-regular — by visual inspection alone. It is possible to “tidy up” the triangles a bit, but only at the cost of making the pentagons visibly irregular. This is enough to make the call on the “unbelted” near-miss candidate from the last post — it’s a “near near miss,” not a true “near miss.”
For detailed information on this newly-discovered polyhedron, which is near (or possibly in) the “fuzzy” border-zone between the “near-misses” (irregularities real, but not visually apparent) and “near-near-misses” (irregularities barely visible, but there they are) to the Johnson solids, please see the post immediately before this one. In this post, I simply want to introduce a new coloring-scheme for the chiral tetrated dodecahedron — one with three colors, rather than the four seen in the last post.
In the image above, the two colors of triangle are used to distinguish equilateral triangles (blue) from merely-isosceles triangles (yellow), with these yellow triangles all occurring in pairs, with their bases (slightly longer than their legs) touching, within each pair. This is the same coloring-scheme used for over a decade in most images of the (original and non-chiral) tetrated dodecahedron, such as the one below.
Both of these images were created using polyhedral-navigation software, Stella 4d, which is availablehere, both for purchase and as a free trial download.
[Later edit: I have now found out I was not the first person to find what I had thought, earlier today, was an original discovery. What I have simply named the chiral tetrated dodecahedron has been on the Internet, in German, since 2008, or possibly earlier, and may be seen here: http://3doro.de/polyeder/.]
The images above show a new near-miss (to the Johnson solids) candidate I just found using Stella 4d, software you can try here. Like the original tetrated dodecahedron (a recognized near-miss shown at left, below), making this polyhedron relies on splitting the Platonic dodecahedron into four three-pentagon panels, moving them apart, and filling the gaps with triangles. Unlike that polyhedron, though, this new near-miss candidate is chiral, as you can see by comparing the left- and right-handed versions, above. The image at the right, below, is the compound of these two enantiomers.
Next are shown nets for both the left- and right-handed versions of the chiral tetrated dodecahedron (on the right, top and bottom), along with the dual of this newly-discovered polyhedron (on the left). Like the rest of the images in this post, any of them may be enlarged with a click.
A key consideration when it is decided if the chiral tetrated dodecahedron will be accepted by the community of polyhedral enthusiasts as a near-miss (almost a Johnson solid), or will be relegated to the less-strict set of “near-near-misses,” will be measures of deviancy from regularity.The pentagons and green triangles are regular, with the same edge length. The blue and yellow triangles are isosceles, with their bases located where blue meets yellow. These bases are each ~9.8% longer than the other edges of the chiral tetrated dodecahedron. By comparison, the longer edges of the original tetrated dodecahedron, where one yellow isosceles triangle meets another, are ~7.0% longer than the other edges of that polyhedron. Also, in the original, the vertex angle of these isosceles triangles measures ~64.7°, while the corresponding figure is ~66.6° for the chiral tetrated dodecahedron.
[Later edit: I have now found out I was not the first person to find what I had thought, earlier today, was an original discovery. What I have simply named the chiral tetrated dodecahedron has been on the Internet, in German, since 2008, or possibly earlier, and may be seen here:http://3doro.de/polyeder/.]
In the polyhedron above, the octagons, hexagons, and triangles are regular. The only irregularities are found in the near-squares, which are actually isosceles trapezoids with three edges of equal length: the ones shared with the octagons and hexagons. The trapezoid-edges adjacent to the triangles, however, are ~15.89% longer than its other three edges. As a result, two of the interior angles of the trapezoids measure ~85.44º (the ones nearest the triangles), while the other two (adjacent to the shorter of the two trapezoid bases) measure ~94.56º. In a rotating model, it can be difficult to see the irregularities in these trapezoids. Were someone to build an actual physical model, however, the fact that they are not squares would be far more obvious.
In case someone would like to build such a model, here is a net you can use.
As you can see on this Wikipedia page, near-misses are not precisely defined — nor can they be, without such a definition (including something such as “no edge may be more than 10% longer than any other) being unjustifiably arbitrary. Instead, new near-miss candidates are discussed among members of the small community of polyhedral enthusiasts with an interest in near-misses, and are either admitted to the set of recognized near-misses, or not, based on consensus of opinion. This isn’t an entirely satisfactory system, but it’s the best we have, and may even be the best system possible.
The shortest definition for “near-miss Johnson solid” is simply “a polyhedron which is almost a Johnson solid.” Recently, a new (and even more informal) term has been created: the “near near-miss,” for polyhedra which are almost near-misses, but with deviations from regularity which are too large, by consensus of opinion, to be called near-misses. This polyhedron may well end up labeled a “near near-miss,” rather than a genuine near-miss.
Several questions remain at this point, and once I have found the answers, I will update this post to include them.
Is this close enough to being a Johnson solid to be called a near-miss, or merely a “near near-miss?”
Has this polyhedron already been found before? It looks quite familiar to me, and so it is entirely possible I have seen it before, and have simply forgotten when and where I saw it. On the other hand, this “I’ve seen it before” feeling may be caused by this polyhedron’s similarity to the great rhombcuboctahedron (also known as the truncated cuboctahedron, and a few other names), one of the Archimedean solids.
Does this polyhedron already have a name?
If unnamed at this time, what name would be suitable for it?
All the images in this post were created using Stella 4d, and I also used this software to obtain the numerical data given above. A free trial download of this program is available, and you can find it at http://www.software3d.com/Stella.php. Also, since it was mentioned above, I’ll close this post with a rotating image of the great rhombcuboctahedron. Perhaps a suitable name for the near-miss candidate above would be the “expanded great rhombcuboctahedron,” although it is entirely possible that a better name will be found.
Update #1: I now remember where I’ve seen this before: right here on my own blog! You can find that post here. I could delete this, as a duplicate post, but am choosing not to. One reason: the paths I took to create these two identical polyhedra were entirely different. Another reason is that this post includes information not included the first time around.
Update #2: This was already discussed among my circle of polyhedral enthusiasts. As I now recall, the irregularity in the quadrilaterals was agreed to be too large to call this a true “near-miss,” so, clearly, it’s a “near near-miss” instead.
This is the rhombic dodecahedron, the dual of the Archimedean cuboctahedron.
While the rhombic dodecahedron has 12 faces, there are many other polyhedra made entirely out of rhombi, and most of them have more than twelve faces. An example is the rhombic enneacontahedron, which has two face-types: sixty wide rhombi, and thirty narrow ones. It is one of several possible zonohedrified dodecahedra.
As the next figure shows, the wide rhombi of the rhombic enneacontahedron have exactly the same shape as the rhombic dodecahedron’s faces, so the two polyhedra can be stuck together (augmented) at those faces. These wide rhombi have diagonals with lengths in a ratio of one to the square root of two.
The next picture shows what happens if you take one central rhombic enneacontahedron, and augment all sixty of its wide faces with rhombic dodecahedra.
Since this polyhedral cluster in non-convex, it can be changed by creating its convex hull, which can the thought of as pulling a rubber sheet tightly around the entire polyhedron. Here’s the convex hull of the augmented polyhedron above.
The program I use to make these rotating images, Stella 4d (which you can try here), has a function called “try to make faces regular.” If applied to the convex hull above, this function leaves the triangles and pentagon regular, and makes the octagons regular as well. However, the rhombi become kites. The rectangles merely change, getting slightly longer, while rotating 90º, but they do remain rectangles.
After creating this last polyhedron, I started stellating it. After stellating it eight times, I obtained this polyhedron:
Once more, I applied the “try to make faces regular” function.
This polyhedron has five-valent vertices where the shorter edges of the kites meet. These are also the vertices of pentagonal pyramids which use kite-diagonals as base edges. By using faceting (the inverse operation of stellation), I next removed these pyramids, exposing their regular pentagonal faces.
In this polyhedron, all faces are regular, except for the red triangles, which are isosceles. (There are also triangles — the pink ones — which are regular.) Each of these isosceles triangles has ~63.2º base angles, and a ~53.6º vertex angle, with legs just under 11% longer than the base. This is a judgement call, for “near-miss” to the Johnson solids has not been precisely defined, but I see an ~11% edge-length difference as too great for this to be classified as a “near-miss,” even though I would love to claim discovery of another near-miss to the Johnson solids (if it even turns out I am the first one to find this polyhedron, which may not be the case). It is close to being a near-miss, though, so it belongs in the even-less-precisely defined group of polyhedra which are called, quite informally, “near near-misses.”
For the sake of comparison, here is a similar polyhedron (included in Stella 4d‘s enormous, built-in library of polyhedra) which is recognized as a near-miss to the Johnson solids. (I do not know the name of the person who discovered it, or I would include it here — I only know it wasn’t me.) It’s called the “half-truncated truncated icosahedron,” and its longest ledges are just over 7% longer than its shorter edges, with the non-regularity of faces also limited to isosceles triangles. However, this irregularity appears in all of the triangles in the polyhedron below — and in the “near near-miss above,” the irregularity only appeared in some of the triangular faces.
The regular octagons are of the same size, but of two different types, when one considers the pattern of other faces surrounding them. This is why six of them are yellow, and twelve are red.
If the hexagons and isosceles trapezoids were closer to regularity, this would qualify as a near-miss to the Johnson solids, but it falls short on this test. Is is, instead, a “near-near-miss” — and not the first such polyhedron to appear on this blog, either.