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: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3016
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:30 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Isn't this ENTIRE argument moot after I spent a month or so teaching the entire website to convert AR information into a given user's personal preference?!?!?!?!

http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=15495

Seriously folks... There is no correct measurement system... And there will never be.

Stop the arguing.


Useful Links
Site Help: [ BBCode Help | Weave AR/Ring Size Popup | Login Issues ]
Weave AR Search is back: Try it out!

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:47 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Well obviously it isn't moot, as too many people stick at 'measurement' systems like cat poop at your shoes, DESPITE the fact that a unit-less system (AR) exists, that allows to generate all wished measurements in any preferred measurement system from. And this discussion will probably never die, as long as the submission rules don't get stricter, to MANDATE proper AR data on every weave submission. That said, I have NOTHING against giving reference ring data (measurements), additionally, but the AR should be a minimum submission requirement. The only exception I'd personally allow, were cases, where multiple ring sizes and especially wire diameters are used, and AR(s) do(es)n't suffice to give the needed information.

-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: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1709
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

a few updates
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:24 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Captive Hilt Chain has a minimum AR of 6.2.

Stainless steel rings used (.045" (1.14mm) wire):
-1/4" (6.35mm) mandrel, 280" ID



Someone originally had the minimum listed as 6.4, but it's definitely possible at 6.2. I'm curious to know who set it to that and what they based it on.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Celtic Visions has a minimum AR of 3.0 for the small ring and an AR of 5.1 for the smaller rings. However, the small rings that run up the middle can be brought down to an AR of 2.0 because they only pass through two rings each. The third "knot" (top right corner of the pic) uses a 2.0 for the center ring.

Bright aluminum rings used (.094" (2.38mm) wire):
-33/128" (6.55mm) mandrel, .279" ID (small)
-7/16" (11.1mm) mandrel, .477" ID (large)

-11/64" (4.37mm) mandrel, .185" ID for the 2.0 in the last segment.





--------------------------------------------------------------------

Staggered Bore Worm Sheet has a minimum AR of 5.2, which is only 0.1 above the minimum for Bore Worm.

Bright aluminum rings used (.080" (2.03mm/14SWG) wire):
-3/8" (9.525mm) mandrel, .412" ID



This weave is completely stiff at 5.2, but look at how much flexibility is seen when the AR is raised by only 0.2.


Stainless steel rings used (.045" (1.14mm) wire):
-7/32" (5.56mm) mandrel, .243 ID (AR of 5.4)





Weave entries updated, also AR Capabilities by Number article.


Tell a mailler what ring sizes to use and they'll weave for a day. Teach them AR and they'll weave forever.
Chainmailbasket.com (2016-02-10) 203 + 17

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4602
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Re: a few updates
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:10 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:
Captive Hilt Chain has a minimum AR of 6.2.

Stainless steel rings used (.045" (1.14mm) wire):
-1/4" (6.35mm) mandrel, 280" ID



Someone originally had the minimum listed as 6.4, but it's definitely possible at 6.2. I'm curious to know who set it to that and what they based it on.

I'm the one who set the initial ARs when DL made the feature available. I stole... I mean... used, yeah used... all the minimum ARs that you had listed on your site because I trusted them. I also used other minimum ARs from people if I trusted that they were accurate. I did not add a minimum AR for any weaves that did not have reputable published data. So I'm not sure where the minimum AR for this weave initially came from. Any admin can edit the ARs for weaves.

BTW: Thank for your work on adding data for weaves! It is a huge help. Smile


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

Joined: February 8, 2013
Posts: 728
Submissions: 61
Location: Australia

Re: a few updates
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:37 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

lorraine wrote:
BTW: Thank for your work on adding data for weaves! It is a huge help. Smile

Seconded! Uber


Craft isn't cheaper than therapy, but it's more fun.

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1709
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:24 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Thanks guys.

It appears the tutorial we have for CHC states
"I don't think you can get below an AR of 6.4 as that gets fairly tight."

I'll add an editor note.


I'm going to start documenting all the changes I make to AR information in this thread.

More recently, I changed the ideal AR for Captive Full Persian 6 in 1 (Captured Full Persian) to 5.8 & 7.4.

Bore Worm & Reinforced Inverted Round's minimum AR to 4.7 & 5.1 (with a pending editor note in the weave entry to explain the larger ar is for the captive); Bore Worm's ideal to 5.4. Ideal is very subjective for these weaves, since they vary based on the number of quasi-captives per cell. Since the BW sample pic uses one, I adjusted the ideal value thusly.

Hilt Chain minimum to 5.8.


Tell a mailler what ring sizes to use and they'll weave for a day. Teach them AR and they'll weave forever.
Chainmailbasket.com (2016-02-10) 203 + 17

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1709
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:14 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I adjusted the ideal AR for Half Persian 5 Sheet 10 in 1 to 9.4 based on a sample I made in .035" 17/64" stainless steel (.329" ID).


Tell a mailler what ring sizes to use and they'll weave for a day. Teach them AR and they'll weave forever.
Chainmailbasket.com (2016-02-10) 203 + 17

Joined: July 25, 2013
Posts: 62
Submissions: 0
Location: Huntington, Indiana, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Quote:
And yeah, we all know "aspect ratio" is not the correct term, but its been used so long that it would be difficult to just suddenly change it.


I'd like to offer that the term Aspect Ratio (describing a ratio between an image or object's width and height) is entirely appropriate and correct for describing the ratio between a ring's inner diameter and its wire diameter.

Take a ring's cross section. It looks like this: o o

Draw a rectangle whose top and bottom edges are equal to the top and bottom of the wire, and the left and right edges are tangent to the interior of the ring. That rectangle has the same aspect ratio as the ring. That is what we're all measuring: the aspect ratio of the opening in the ring.

I was overjoyed when I saw that the mail world had embraced a unitless system of measurement for their most important value. In my humble opinion, the fact that it is unitless and based on objective, unambiguous measurements instead of old and ambiguous units (gauge), makes it easily the best system.


-Lucidish

Closing rings since 2013-07-27

A jack of all trades, master of none, often times better than a master of one.

Maille Code V2.0 T4.2 R4.1 En.o Fper MFe.s W$ C$ G0.8-2.0 I3.2-9.5 N8.8 Pjt Djt X0 S13 Hn

Joined: February 22, 2009
Posts: 55
Submissions: 24
Location: Härnösand, Sweden

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:18 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Do we have a way to model the relationship in wire thickness between rings of different wire in weaves?

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:24 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Well, the fact that Aspect Ratio USUALLY describes the relation of two perpendicular measurements in a plane, does not mean, that it weren't appropriate in other measurement pairs that use the same measuring unit, resulting in a unitless measurement relation number. So I find the term absolutely perfect, and can only agree with Lucidish, and even the reasoning, that he introduced to show why it fits.

Another matter is a yet to be resolved one - I continue to vote for the use of 'submitted AR' in the database listings, instead of the subjective 'optimal AR', and for eventually introduction of a 'verified' mark, and NOT for a listing of ARs that were already tested successfully - this belongs imho into the remarks of the submission's text. The minimum AR field should remain in any case, numbers to be adjusted if in need for, if a lower than pulished AR is verified as working - here maybe also a differentiation between published and verified could be made. Whether the 'maximum' AR field should vanish, I don't know. But it exists, and doesn't hurt anybody, so let's simpy retain it, for the (few BUT EXISTING) cases where it needs to be populated with data -such data belong imho to the numbers database, and not to the freeform text. We should just take care, to NOT enter data there, that aren't real geometric maximum data.

Edit @armandur: Currently not - here we currently need to use the freeform text, and publishers who don't shy the effort to publish such relationship data there, if they exist. Note that many useful data are simply not published due to sheer laziness, and NOT due to database format limitations.

-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: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1709
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Don't flip out.
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:23 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I "flipped" the ideal AR for Half Persian 3 in 1 Flip to 4.2 based on a sample I made in .078" aluminum, 19/64" mandrel (.324" ID).


Tell a mailler what ring sizes to use and they'll weave for a day. Teach them AR and they'll weave forever.
Chainmailbasket.com (2016-02-10) 203 + 17

Joined: January 17, 2011
Posts: 66
Submissions: 22
Location: NSW, Australia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:39 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I've discovered that Sunburst has an AR listed as 5, but in actual fact, I could not get it to work as it looked in the associated image until the AR was 3.75. I tried 3.5 but could not fit the final oblique ring in; at 4, the unit would not lock.
NB: I do not cut my own rings and I did not check the wire diameter with calipers, so this may not be absolutely accurate, but is sure as heck better than what was originally submitted!


www.melodytallon.com

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1709
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:51 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Half Persian 5 Sheet 10 in 1: ideal AR set to 9.4.


Tell a mailler what ring sizes to use and they'll weave for a day. Teach them AR and they'll weave forever.
Chainmailbasket.com (2016-02-10) 203 + 17

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1709
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:48 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I raised the ideal AR for Full Persian 8 in 1 Unbalanced (Full Persian Gobi Chain) to 9.1.


Tell a mailler what ring sizes to use and they'll weave for a day. Teach them AR and they'll weave forever.
Chainmailbasket.com (2016-02-10) 203 + 17

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1709
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:22 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I set the ideal AR for Spiral 6 in 1 to 6.0.

I didn't weave any. This number is based on six wire widths lined up across each ring's inner plane, and this being the minimum optimal configuration for this weave as it naturally lays.


Tell a mailler what ring sizes to use and they'll weave for a day. Teach them AR and they'll weave forever.
Chainmailbasket.com (2016-02-10) 203 + 17

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 4 of 6. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:21 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: