Wallet Chain--Roundmaille vs. Two-in-One
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
   
Author Message

Joined: July 07, 2010
Posts: 3
Submissions: 0

Wallet Chain--Roundmaille vs. Two-in-One
Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:05 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Roundmaille wallet chains look very cool, but how do they compare in strength to a normal two-in-one chain?

Being roughly round, roundmaille looks like on first glance that it can have more metal packed into a given diameter vs. the "dotted line" profile of two-in-one.

But roundmaille has a hollow core and a lot more holes than two-in-one.

If a single link of two-in-one chain fails, the chain breaks. Six have to fail in roundmaille.

Joined: July 13, 2003
Posts: 656
Submissions: 18
Location: CampbellRiver, British Columbia, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:19 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I think you've just answered your own question there... Basically, 2-1 is 6 times more likely to fail than roundmaille by that logic.


Too much confusion! I'm going metric

Joined: August 16, 2010
Posts: 28
Submissions: 4
Location: West Suffield, CT

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:48 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

If youre really concerned about it breaking you should experiment with running a metal cable through the core of your round chain. You said yourself its essentially hollow.
Oh and as you said, 2-1 < 6-1

-kirk

Joined: March 11, 2010
Posts: 96
Submissions: 9
Location: NOLA

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:17 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

If you are really that concerned with strength, learn how to fuse, braze, weld, etc, or use split rings. In all but the finest applications either should hold up well.

Joined: February 01, 2009
Posts: 466
Submissions: 17
Location: Australia

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:50 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Roundmail is actually offset rows of three rings.

You only need 3 to fail to kill the chain (Provided they're the right 3)

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:43 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

If breaking is a concern, the choice of a useable weave is crucial, and there are several parameters that define this useability. Important is the stability of a single ring - material, AR, closing method define this. Another one is redundancy - e.g. a 2-2-2 chain is more stable than a 1-1-1 one, as two rings each share and 'level' the load, and have to break both at the same time to kill the chain. And, as also mentioned by one writer, the possibility to tweak is one in some cases - the possible steel cable inside a hollow weave is one example.

So the roundmaille has more potential to be the more stable weave, but the fact has to be considered that smaller, thinner wire rings have to be used to make a chain of same diameter and weight per length ratio. But if the rings are virtually unbreakable (welded/fused, key rings) - the simple 1-1-1 chain will usually be the strongest weave - not without cause most technical chains are made as 1-1-1. If butted rings are used, often redundancy is needed...

To propose other weaves suitable for wallet/key chains: Interesting choices are imho JPL3 and JPL5, Double Spiral, FP6in1, and HP4in1 (that even allows the hollow core cable tweak) - all of these have 'built-in' redundancy. And there are many more weaves that have favorable features for a high-load environment, AND look fancy...

-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: July 07, 2010
Posts: 3
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:57 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

AdrianHills wrote:
Roundmail is actually offset rows of three rings.

You only need 3 to fail to kill the chain (Provided they're the right 3)


Hmmm, the other three rings do carry some of the load, though, right?

In other words, a length of roundmaille would be stronger than three 1-1-1 chains?

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3056
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:06 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

TheDragoon wrote:
In other words, a length of roundmaille would be stronger than three 1-1-1 chains?


Stronger in what terms?

It will actually be less than 3x harder to break, but it will weigh 3x as much.

Strength-to-weight ratio, 2-1 is almost always the strongest chain.
This is why it's what is used as chain, rather than a different design.

If you need a stronger chain, use bigger/stronger links, not more of the smaller ones Smile

(That being said, roundmaille wallet chains look far cooler than 2-1 chain. Coif LoL)



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

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:48 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

A chain's strength is defined by its weakest link(s); in case of a simple 1-1-1 THE weakest link. In case of chains with redundant links the worst case is breaking two adjacent rings that are redundant to each others, or thre in case of a triple-redundant one. As the statistic probability is relatively low, that just the two or three weakest rings of the whole weave are concentrated in one spot, the probability of breaking such a redundant chain is even lower.

So, if the same rings are used, the break probability of three paralleled (but else independent) chains breaking is naturally lower than that of a single chain - first the chain with the weakest ring will break, then the second one, and finally the third one, so the total load that can be applied to these three parallel chains is NOT the theoretical load of all three chains added - in practice it's not much more than that of a single chain - in doubt experiment yourself - with three paralleled chains of different length, and common attachment points. Arranging the rings in a redundant pattern that achieves load-sharing throughout the complete chain's length changes matters, as load-sharing hinders breaking of weak rings.

But if you want a similar weight per length, or a similar chain diameter, matters change again. You need smaller, thinner rings, with higher AR to achieve this. So in the end a simple, low-AR weave like 1-1-1, or JPL3 will be the best choice to get a strong chain.

-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: July 07, 2010
Posts: 3
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:48 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

How flexible is JPL3?

It has that "looks cool" thing going for it, and has more redundancy than 1-1-1 chain.

Joined: February 01, 2009
Posts: 466
Submissions: 17
Location: Australia

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:52 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Yeah the possibility of using lower AR rings gives a 1-1 chain the potential to be the strongest.

It depends how you compare them.

If say you had a pile of rings and made a 1-1 chain and a chain of roundmail from the same sort then I would expect roundmail to be much stronger.

If we're just comparing weaves you have to assume the same rings are being used to weave each one.

I don't know if roundmail would be stronger than 3 1-1 chains though, you'd have to test it.

Strength testing is something that gets promised and not delivered semi-frequently.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:20 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
Display posts from previous: