Quote Originally Posted by hakan View Post
One weakness with your analysis is that you are lumping cut and stroke together into one. Is it possible to apply force in different "ways" for the same stroke? That would imply that one stroke can create several different cuts?
This, in turn, forces an analysis of what a "cut" really "is" before a macrolevel study of strokes can be done?
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I fully understand your point. I will admit that I was loose with the terms stroke and cut, using them somewhat interchangeably. I had enough definitions that were critical for the analysis already, and didn't think to include others that were less critical. I think you can safely replace any use of the word cut in the OP with the word stroke (and vice versa) if that eases your confusion. The results of the analysis should hold up in either case as the math won't change. Simply stated, there were no variables assigned to "cut" or "stroke," they were used colloquially.

What is the purpose of this analysis? What do you mean by "no better than a basic straight cut" ?
The purpose of the analysis was to take a close look at a commonly used stroke (there I go again - cut works too) and understand it better. I found that a rotational cut/stroke/motion does almost no slicing through the hair. This makes rotational cuts/strokes/motions similar to straight cuts/strokes/motions - neither slice. It also sets rotational cuts/strokes/motions apart from guillotine and diagonal cuts/strokes/motions, which do slice.