| Author |
Message |
|
Joined: April 21, 2009
Posts: 86
Submissions: 0
Location: Arkansas
|
| Error with ID's on Butterfly weave |
|
| Posted on Tue May 17, 2011 7:16 pm |
Link to Post:  |
|
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=594#
I think there is an error here, I could be wrong since i'm not very experienced.
The AR is shown as 4.0 & 4.0 when the submitters AR's used are 4.6 & 4.0 using AWG using the ring finder excel sheet. |
|
|
Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 3616
Submissions: 99
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue May 17, 2011 7:45 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
The wire thickness gauge system is not specified in the description that was submitted along with that weave, so I had to do a little "educated guessing" when listing AR's. 18g can mean either 1mm or 1.2mm wire thickness depending on whether it refers to AWG or SWG. Since the ID's are listed in fractional inches, I'm assuming they got them from TRL. TRL's 18g is SWG, 1.2mm thick. And TRL's 20g is AWG, .8mm thick. So that's why the AR's are listed that way.
This is an excellent example of why the gauge system is so confusing and why it is so important to give an actual wire measurement number and not just a gauge number. 
|
|
|
Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 3616
Submissions: 99
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA
|
|
|
| Posted on Tue May 17, 2011 8:03 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
I'm also noticing that the Butterfly tutorial has the large rings as a three ring mobius while the weave picture only has them doubled. That would definitely make a difference in making the weave.
|
|
|
Joined: April 21, 2009
Posts: 86
Submissions: 0
Location: Arkansas
|
|
|
| Posted on Wed May 18, 2011 7:50 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| Ahh I see now. Makes sense. Thanks |
|
|
