Where do you purchase your rings?
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: November 6, 2013
Posts: 1
Submissions: 0
Location: WA

Where do you purchase your rings?
Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:02 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I have noticed that on alot of the tutorials, it shows the ideal ring sizes for the weave.

I purchase my rings from the ring lord and the ring sizes never seem to match what is listed on the tutorial.

For example, I want to do the Full Persian 6 in 1...the tutorial says that the ideal size ring has an AR of 5.5 and lists different size rings. But when I look at the sizes at TRL, the AR doesn't match what I need.

So, where are people purchasing their rings from? Confused


Thanks!

Joined: February 4, 2014
Posts: 23
Submissions: 3
Location: Derry, New Hampshire

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:32 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I've done Full Persian with TRL 18swg 1/4" rings which have an AR of 5.6. My understanding is that unless you're doing a weave which is super AR specific (JPL comes to mind, I bought the specific JPL rings from ChainWeavers, but also did a test run in TRL copper 20swg 3/32" which is AR 3), you can be off a bit, which I have been several times Smile.

I think the only way to always have exactly what is specified (especially odd sizes) is to make your own, I haven't gotten there... yet.

Remember to account for variations is wire sizes from manufacturer to manufacturer (and sometimes batch to batch), springback, and actual real life measurements. My calipers are my friend, I get them out and go through every batch of rings that I order when they come in.

Specifically, I've purchased from TRL, B3, C&T Designs, ChainWeavers and West Coast Chainmail and have been able to do every weave I've tried.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3095
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Re: Where do you purchase your rings?
Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:00 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

DianaC wrote:
I have noticed that on alot of the tutorials, it shows the ideal ring sizes for the weave.

I purchase my rings from the ring lord and the ring sizes never seem to match what is listed on the tutorial.

For example, I want to do the Full Persian 6 in 1...the tutorial says that the ideal size ring has an AR of 5.5 and lists different size rings. But when I look at the sizes at TRL, the AR doesn't match what I need.

So, where are people purchasing their rings from? Confused


Thanks!


"Ideal" ring size has a bit of wiggle room in it Wink
Specifically, if you're working in a weave that only uses ONE size of rings, you can easily move .5 or more in EITHER direction in the AR without making much difference at all.
Hell, I've made Full Persian at AR 7 and it still looks sexy.
So long as you don't go below any listed Min. AR info, (or above any Max.)you should be fine.

As far as where to purchase from? There's DOZENS of suppliers... Check our links list Smile

Personally, I buy from TRL for large projects or make my own small batches.



Joined: August 10, 2004
Posts: 395
Submissions: 76
Location: Holland

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:10 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I prefer my AR for FP lower around 5.3

I sometimes don't like the way a pattern looks with the suggested AR in the weaves. The gallery sometimes helps and gives suggestions for sizes that work.
I prefer to make my own rings, it gives more flexibility. TRL sells great mandrel sets. But a good set of knitting needles will work also.

Joined: February 8, 2013
Posts: 737
Submissions: 61
Location: Australia

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:44 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Yeah, what DL said.

The term "ideal AR" can mean one of two things:

1. It is the "ideal" or "best" aspect ratio for this weave.
2. It is an aspect ratio which is known to work for this weave.

In either case, what it does not mean is that it is the only aspect ratio which will work for this weave.

When a minimum aspect ratio isn't given, I guestimate the minimum AR to be 0.2 smaller than the Ideal AR (a bit more conservative than DL's estimate). On the other hand, I'm more generous in regard to estimating the maximum AR, because most weaves work fine with looser weaving; I tend to add 1.0 rather than 0.5 to the Ideal AR to get a probable maximum.

Yes, it depends on the weave: if it is a weave which requires the links to be tight in order to lock them in place, then they won't work if the rings are too large. But these weaves may have a maximum AR explicitly given, such as with Jens Pind Linkage. Weaves I've found that fall into this category (besides JPL): Archimedes, Daisy Chain 0 (and I would expect the other Daisy Chain weaves to be like this too), Mystique, and Sierpinski's Triangle.


Craft isn't cheaper than therapy, but it's more fun.
http://www.essence-of-eclectic.com

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

There's somewhat a rule, that MOST single-ringsize weaves look and behave best at documented low AR limit plus 0.5 - this 'sweet spot' rule is not a fixed rule, but a fair approach for many weaves.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: February 8, 2013
Posts: 737
Submissions: 61
Location: Australia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:33 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
There's somewhat a rule, that MOST single-ringsize weaves look and behave best at documented low AR limit plus 0.5 - this 'sweet spot' rule is not a fixed rule, but a fair approach for many weaves.

The problem with that is that most weaves in the weave database don't have a documented minimum AR; they just have "Ideal AR".


Craft isn't cheaper than therapy, but it's more fun.
http://www.essence-of-eclectic.com

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:10 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Then find out and document.

-ZiLi- Coif LoL


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: September 30, 2012
Posts: 255
Submissions: 13
Location: Kumla, Örebro Län, Sweden

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:52 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I make my own rings using wire bought at a local crafts store. Cheap, although very time-consuming!


"When in doubt... C4" - Jamie Hyneman

My YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/wpa09
My band: http://www.facebook.com/carnosus

"This is an art form, and we love to be recognized for our own work, and we'd all hope not to be confused with someone else."
- Charon, March 27, 2009

Joined: February 8, 2013
Posts: 737
Submissions: 61
Location: Australia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:15 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
Then find out and document.

There are other things which are a higher priority for me. I don't actually enjoy making maille that is so tight that it's impossible to continue - which is, I gather, the method by which one determines the minimum AR of a weave.


Craft isn't cheaper than therapy, but it's more fun.
http://www.essence-of-eclectic.com

Joined: October 26, 2013
Posts: 4
Submissions: 0
Location: Missouri, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:02 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Hey DianaC,

I have found that jump rings coiled in millimeter (mm) sizes tend to give a closer to true Aspect Ration (AR). I have attached an AR table (below) for jump rings in millimeter sizes.

That being said, to make the Full Persian 6 in 1, I tend to use an 18-gauge 5.5-mm jump ring which will give you a 5.4 AR, close to the 5.5 AR that is suggested. Below is a photo of a necklace I am making using 18-gauge 5.5-mm jump rings in Silver and Hot Pink.



I am thinning out the weave by stepping down to a 20-gauge 4.5-mm and finally a 22-gauge 3.5-mm. This is allowing me to then attach the Full Persian 6 in 1 section to a section of European 4-in-1 chain. This section of chain is also using the 22-gauge 3.5-mm jump rings, which makes for a smooth transition to the chain while keeping your eye on the focal point in Hot Pink.

Here is the Aspect Ratio Table:



WireForHire.co/
wire products for the artisan

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3095
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:00 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

WireForHire wrote:
Here is the Aspect Ratio Table:


I really wish that chart gave the precise mm measurements you use for Wire Diameter... As well as listed whether these are measured from the rings, or just calculated at Mandrel and Wire...
As, by my nominal conversions, a lot of the aspect ratios of these are slightly off mandrel, but also seem to ZERO springback...

EG: You list 16g AWG (1.29mm) at a 5.5mm ID as being AR 4.3
It's 4.26 as I calculate it, but that's at zero springback... It'll wind up being likely closer to 4.6 or 4.8 post springback.



Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1923
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:44 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

WireForHire wrote:
I have found that jump rings coiled in millimeter (mm) sizes tend to give a closer to true Aspect Ration (AR).



It doesn't matter if metric or imperial mandrels are used. If the material is consistent, so will be the AR increase.

Ex: If I coil a specific type of metal wire around a 1/4" mandrel, then wrap some around a 6.35mm mandrel and keep the coiling method consistent, each will yield the same amount of springback, and thus experience the same AR increase.


Chainmailbasket.com (2019-01-01) - 376 + 79

Joined: October 26, 2013
Posts: 4
Submissions: 0
Location: Missouri, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:06 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Hey Chainmailbasket_com,

My statement is based on using standard sized millimeter rods, which step in 0.5-mm increments. You are absolutely correct though, if I used a millimeter rod that was the exact same size as an imperial rod then the AR would be equal.

Hey Daemon_Lotos,

The wire diameters that I used for my table calculations are the American Wire Gauge standards (as stated in the footer of the table) with a precision of three (3) decimal places for millimeters. Therefore, for 20-gauge I used 0.812-mm in my equations. As for AR's, I have not seen an issue with rounding the results to the tenth decimal place. This also seems to be the norm on most suggested AR's on the weaves here on Mailleartisans.org.

You would be correct in that my calculations are based on mandrel size and wire diameter and therefor calculating at a zero spring back. You are also absolutely correct that the spring back of a coiled wire will result in a slightly larger AR. However, I have found that if you take the time to slowly coil the wire, this tends to cut down the spring back. This is how I tend to make my jump rings.

Thank you both for the responses. Smile


WireForHire.co/
wire products for the artisan

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:47 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

WireForHire wrote:
The wire diameters that I used for my table calculations are the American Wire Gauge standards (as stated in the footer of the table) with a precision of three (3) decimal places for millimeters. Therefore, for 20-gauge I used 0.812-mm in my equations. As for AR's, I have not seen an issue with rounding the results to the tenth decimal place. This also seems to be the norm on most suggested AR's on the weaves here on Mailleartisans.org.

Are you actually measuring the wire diameter with calipers? The reason I'm asking is that tables listing precise numbers next to gauge numbers are very rarely correct anymore. Those tables are ancient and the wire being made today is rarely made to those specs. If a buyer doesn't have calipers, then the tables are okay as a guess, but you can't count on them if you need precise information. Enameled copper is especially wildly off gauge listings. The only way I have ever been able to know for sure what the WD is, is by measuring it myself. Each batch.

WireForHire wrote:
You would be correct in that my calculations are based on mandrel size and wire diameter and therefor calculating at a zero spring back. You are also absolutely correct that the spring back of a coiled wire will result in a slightly larger AR. However, I have found that if you take the time to slowly coil the wire, this tends to cut down the spring back. This is how I tend to make my jump rings.

This is only true for soft wire. Winding certain alloys of stainless steel and titanium, for instance, will give you significant springback whether you wind it slowly or not.


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:42 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: