want to make new shirt
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
   
Author Message

Joined: July 10, 2007
Posts: 195
Submissions: 134
Location: Gulfport Mississippi

want to make new shirt
Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:50 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Hey all havenot got on here in forever and I was wonting to know what is the best size ring in 17 gage would be good and strong for a shirt I wont the shirt to not weigh that much lats say about 20 or 25 pounds. I have one I am looking at but I dont know what size rings it is here is the site.


http://www.theringlord.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1740

Thanks for all the help. Josiah Bishop Coif Smiley

Joined: May 08, 2007
Posts: 187
Submissions: 2
Location: Bellingham, Washington

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:37 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I know that 1/4 in id is a good size. However I have heard that it is kinda weak, but I have never had a problem with it.

If you want it to be denser, making it heavy, you could use 3/16 in. With smaller rings it would be stronger.

But I don't know. It is more taste on how dense you want it.


Maille Code V1.0 T5.1 R4.8 Fhp3.1 MFe.s Wgi Cba G2.0/.8 I9.5/3.1 Paj Daj S06 CCp

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:30 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I would NOT say, that smaller rings increase the strength - that is only given, if the wire thickness remains the same. The real strength of a shirt is a direct function of the aspect ratio used, while the area weight is more related to the wire thickness. So the strength of a shirt's weave is effectively higher, if smaller AND thinner rings are used (given a constant weight per area ratio) - or you get a lighter shirt if same strength is achieved. But smaller rings are WAY more work, because half the ring size does NOT only double the ring number, but effectively multiplies it by a factor of four - and so the time needed to make the shirt. But shirts made of many small rings are much fancier than those made of only relatively few big rings, besides the other positive features.

My first, just finished shirt is made of 1,6mm (=16swg) stainless wire with a measured ring inner diameter of around 6.7mm - the mandrel used to coil had 6mm dia (= a bit less than 1/4"), and the shirt weighs just shy of 10 kilograms. My coif, that is in progress now, is made of 1.2*5.5mm rings (5mm mandrel), what gives a bit looser weave, that feels significantly lighter, but NOT necessarily weaker. And so I guess, my next shirt will be made with that 1.2mm (18swg) wire again. But this time the rings will be wound on a 3/16" mandrel, that gives (roughly) the same ring aspect ratio as on the 1st shirt - but will increase the work, because I will get an estimated ring count of 40,000 rings. In case of being a lazy guy, I would use a 1/4" mandrel with that wire, and end up with a figure of shy of 20,000 ...

And: I propose to NOT begin with a FIRST shirt made of too many and too tiny rings - you might grow desperate about that project and lose your patience. Train yourself with an overseeable project - maybe a shirt with larger rings, maybe a smaller piece like a coif.

-ZiLi-

BTW: That panther shirt consisted, when it was finished with long sleeves of around 145,000 1/8" small split rings (as a vest sans sleeves I estimate it having around 120,000 of these) - an amount of work even insane in my eyes - obviously manageable by an experienced mailler - but surely not by a beginner...


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 24, 2008
Posts: 309
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:03 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'd start of with kinda big rings fer yer first shirt so you can maybe get a good idea of how to make one. I've only made one shirt (workin' on another right now with much smaller rings) but the first shirt i used 3/4 inch rings 'cause i had no idea what size rings were supposed to be. But it required so few rings, an' looked pretty good. But unless you've made shirts 'fore, you may not want to start off usin' such little bitty rings. Or i could be wrong, and you do have the patience an' tenacitiy to finish the sucker.


"What's the point of livin' if you don't try?"
"Life goes exactly as you hadn't planned it."
"Don't look back at what might have been, and what you coulda done."

Joined: May 08, 2007
Posts: 187
Submissions: 2
Location: Bellingham, Washington

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:19 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
I would NOT say, that smaller rings increase the strength - that is only given, if the wire thickness remains the same. The real strength of a shirt is a direct function of the aspect ratio used, while the area weight is more related to the wire thickness. So the strength of a shirt's weave is effectively higher, if smaller AND thinner rings are used (given a constant weight per area ratio) - or you get a lighter shirt if same strength is achieved. But smaller rings are WAY more work, because half the ring size does NOT only double the ring number, but effectively multiplies it by a factor of four - and so the time needed to make the shirt. But shirts made of many small rings are much fancier than those made of only relatively few big rings, besides the other positive features.



I had meant that with the smaller inner diameter the rings would be stronger.

True the strength of the shirt is directly related to the AR but if you make a ring with a smaller inner diameter, you not only decrease the AR making it stronger but you also create the need for more rings per square inch. Also with a smaller inner diameter there is less air space in the finished sheet so there would be less stretch. This increases the number of rings to cover an area, also increasing rings per inch. Since more rings per inch square = more metal per square inch and metal has weight to it, more metal = more weigh. You said it your self that the number of rings increases four times when the inner diameter is halved.

Also it is true that a shirt made of 18 gauge 3/16 will be lighter than a 14 gauge 3/8, a 17 gauge 3/16 is going to be heavier than a 17 gauge 1/4, because there is more metal in it.

Sorry if I am sounding a bit defensive, but I think that what I said was misinterpreted slightly.


Maille Code V1.0 T5.1 R4.8 Fhp3.1 MFe.s Wgi Cba G2.0/.8 I9.5/3.1 Paj Daj S06 CCp

Joined: March 27, 2002
Posts: 3494
Submissions: 1

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:26 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Josiah has made at least one haburgeon already.

Joined: June 21, 2002
Posts: 1682
Submissions: 72
Location: Idaho

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:30 pm || Last edited by ~Mical~ on Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Mr. Bishop is already quite experienced, so I'd say that a large project with small rings is perfectly in order.

Since you'll be working with galvy, I'd say 7/32" ought to be the max ID if you want strength. I'm almost finished with an 18ga 3/16" ID stainless shirt, and it actually weighs a lot -less- than I thought it would. In 17ga, your shirt ought to fall right in the 20 to 25 pound area. Of course, if you add full sleeves and make it full length, it'll be a touch heaver than that BUT, with the weight spread across so many rings, it'll be surprisingly comfortable to wear.

I'll be anxious to see pictures of this one! Smile

~Mical~ Coif Smiley

Joined: September 24, 2008
Posts: 309
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:14 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Okie dokie, that works then. Then i guess i'd go with half inch rings, that's what i use Smile Of course, fer a lot of people, that could end up bein' to big.


"What's the point of livin' if you don't try?"
"Life goes exactly as you hadn't planned it."
"Don't look back at what might have been, and what you coulda done."

Joined: December 03, 2006
Posts: 588
Submissions: 15

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:50 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

17 gauge 1/4 is definitely not that strong, my shirt shirt was made of that and rings in high stress areas like under the arms at on the collar frequently pull apart under the stress. 3/16 17 gauge is very tight though and it won't be very flexible, you might want to see if you can find a mandrel that's inbetween the two maybe? i'm not sure, but i know when i've worked with 17 gauge 3/16 it seemed to dense and inflexible for a well-fitting shirt


-'Tis but a scratch!
-What? Your arm's off!
-No it isn't!
-What's that then?
-I've had worse!
-You lie!

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:06 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ok, for answering the original poster's question: It is said 17ga, but not which type of ga: For 17SWG I would use a 1/4" mandrel and be happy; if the wire is 17AWG, I'd propose 7/32" mandrel for a lighter, or 3/16" for a tighter shirt variant. If chosing the lighter variant, I would probably do some ring doublings in stress areas, and end up with a light and convenient to wear shirt, nevertheless.

@coldchicken et al.: Being a relative newbie, but having already a little bit of experience, I answered to my best knowledge - and I think, that we both in principle wrote the same - only your answer was a bit incomplete (saying in an 'ipso facto' manner, that small rings are stronger - without mentioning gauge influence at all), and that could in fact be misleading for a reader, who is inexperienced in making area weaves. I didn't know anything about the asker's experience, but based on this question's formulations I guessed, that he was not too experienced - otherwise he would not have the necessity to ask.

-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: January 30, 2003
Posts: 139
Submissions: 26

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:21 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm not sure what the main consideration is however if it is strength then I would say go as small as you can on the ID and not to worry to much about weight. The reason is your working with butted rings which are already weak.

If weight is the big consideration then your going to need to experiment a bit to find the happy medium between weight and strength.

I went through a similar dilemma with a shirt made with bronze wire. In the end I decided to go as small as possible on the ID for max strength. The rings ended up quite strong however there was a lot of them.


Your experienced so I won't warn you of the woes of such a large project accept to say good luck and post pics of your progress.


I noticed your another MO mailler Smile


For the hauberks of the Dwarves were so fashioned that they rusted not but shone ever as if they were new-burnished. The Silmarillion






Joined: May 08, 2007
Posts: 187
Submissions: 2
Location: Bellingham, Washington

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:03 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I wish the best of luck to Josiah. I am guessing that his shirt will turn out great.

@Zili: Now that I reread my first post I see how it could be misinterpreted. To add to that I wasn't running at full steam last night, so i didn't process everything fully. You are right that a newbie would find it very confusing. It made sense in my head and when the other members post stuff like that I understand it too. I will take into account people with less experience than I next time even if what I say makes sense to me and others, I will try to include everyone.


Maille Code V1.0 T5.1 R4.8 Fhp3.1 MFe.s Wgi Cba G2.0/.8 I9.5/3.1 Paj Daj S06 CCp

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:19 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

@ColdChicken: Don't worry about me - I may have had not my best day as well. If I had been a bit more attentive when writing my reply, I should have noticed, that the wire gauge to be used was already decided in the thread's original post - and should have read your answer as based on that. So your answer makes very well sense. But I just did a bit ignore the OP, and referred only to your post. Mercy for that, please.

But a question: How do you American guys know, which particular gauge system is used if someone tells wire measurements? I seemingly never get it right. Is it material dependent, that particular materials always are measured in one system, and others always in another one? Or how do you check that out? Or are you all fishing in a muddy pond, as I always seem to do? If the latter - Why in hell do all Americans continue to use such (for me metric guy) illogical systems?

-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: May 08, 2007
Posts: 187
Submissions: 2
Location: Bellingham, Washington

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:27 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

We base, or at least I do, our gauges on metal material. Ferrous metal such as galvy or stainless are measured in SWG whereas non-ferrous metals such as copper, brass, sliver are measured in AWG. Or at least they should be most of the time.

The Ring Lord does measure most of their stock in SWG. But their thinner wires are measured in AWG.

It is understandable that you get confused, I do to most of the time Very Happy Which is why it is easier to use decimal inches or millimeters.

So to answer your questions,1.) yes most of the time gauge is based on the material, but not always. 2.) I don't know why we use such an illogical system, I think that part of it is that we are stubborn. Very Happy


Maille Code V1.0 T5.1 R4.8 Fhp3.1 MFe.s Wgi Cba G2.0/.8 I9.5/3.1 Paj Daj S06 CCp

Joined: January 30, 2003
Posts: 139
Submissions: 26

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:51 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
@ColdChicken: Don't worry about me - I may have had not my best day as well. If I had been a bit more attentive when writing my reply, I should have noticed, that the wire gauge to be used was already decided in the thread's original post - and should have read your answer as based on that. So your answer makes very well sense. But I just did a bit ignore the OP, and referred only to your post. Mercy for that, please.

But a question: How do you American guys know, which particular gauge system is used if someone tells wire measurements? I seemingly never get it right. Is it material dependent, that particular materials always are measured in one system, and others always in another one? Or how do you check that out? Or are you all fishing in a muddy pond, as I always seem to do? If the latter - Why in hell do all Americans continue to use such (for me metric guy) illogical systems?

-ZiLi-




Good question and the answer is Yes it really does get confusing. Like back in the 70s when US auto makers couldn't decide wether to use SAE or metric nut and bolts so of coarse they used both Rolling Eyes

I generally don't know because there is no convention. So personally I don't work in gauges to much I prefer actual measurements such as thousandths of an inch or mm. Which one doesn't matter my calculator can work in either LOL.


It's not that our system is illogical it's just that we are patiently waiting for the rest of the world to catch up........ Smile Smile .....LOL


For the hauberks of the Dwarves were so fashioned that they rusted not but shone ever as if they were new-burnished. The Silmarillion






Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2. Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:12 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
Display posts from previous: