Weave AR Information Alterations
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1877
Submissions: 552
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed May 23, 2018 10:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I re-adjusted the ideal AR for TOT Cube and brought it up to AR of 7.5.

7.0 worked very well on the original 2x2x2 I made.

But then I decided to make a larger sample, this time 4x4x4. It's still not quite finished, and as of today it's 4x4x3. The picture shows an earlier incarnation of it at only a few layers, with the top layer only having been started with 4 horizontal orbital, and 4 vertical orbitals set in.



The rings I'm using for this are .048" bronze and stainless steel, each wrapped on a 5/16" mandrel. I don't have the exact specs on my person right now, but the

  • stainless has an AR of 7.2,
  • and the bronze has an AR of 7.3.


The ID difference is pretty low, but they are still differently sized, and I'm not sure if that affects its tightness compared with using all rings EXACTLY the same size, but what I'm putting together is certainly pushing the AR low limits.

And as much as I don't necessarily like setting AR data to something not attempted, 7.5 seems like a safe number.

I highly recommend this weave to anyone interested in dimensional chainmail expansion and sculpture.

I'll get better pictures once I full it out to 4x4x4.


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

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 589
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:07 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Orbital has been confirmed to have an AR that is 2+2?3.

This is noted as the rounded up value of 5.47 in the text, but not in the AR table.

Suggestion: 5.47 in the table, 2+2?3. in the text.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 589
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue May 28, 2019 11:40 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Flagellum is impossibly tight at 3.5. at 4.0 it’s Good.
Pilus is just a smidgen too tight at 3.5.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1877
Submissions: 552
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed May 29, 2019 9:43 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
Flagellum is impossibly tight at 3.5. at 4.0 it’s Good.
Pilus is just a smidgen too tight at 3.5.


Got em.


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

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 589
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:49 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Bubble Chain has an Min AR above 8.0, If it’s Of interest.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 589
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:11 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Criss stitch has ar information in text, but not box.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1877
Submissions: 552
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:50 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
Criss stitch has ar information in text, but not box.


What praytell is “Criss Stitch“?


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

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 589
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:27 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
Criss stitch has ar information in text, but not box.


What praytell is “Criss Stitch“?


I’m sorry. Cross Stitch. Autocorrect...


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 589
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:
Karpeth wrote:
Criss stitch has ar information in text, but not box.


What praytell is “Criss Stitch“?


I’m sorry. Cross Stitch. Autocorrect...


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer. Fluent in c++.

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1877
Submissions: 552
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:07 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Ah yes, the ole Cross Stitch. Well, not so old I guess.

I was never fond of the idea of listing ARs for multiple wire diameter using weaves. That’s not really a valid excuse, but I feel m.a.i.l. needs to reevaluate that choice.

Entry picture uses:
AR of 6.3 in .062” for large rings
AR of 4.2 in .032” for small rings
These are approximate figures.

When I produced a sample, it used:
AR of 6.5 in .062”, .405” measured ID
AR of 5.0 in .040”, .200” measured ID

Other combinations will undoubtedly work.

If both values of a known, working combination aren’t scaled up or down consistently, in both inner and wire diameter, the weave might not work.

What is the ideal AR combination for this weave?

“Measured ID”. I feel so dirty saying this because of its blatant redundancy. But that said, several maillers still refer to mandrel size as ID, and these two values seldom end up being the same.


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

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 10 of 10. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
All times are GMT. The time now is Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:02 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: