Captive Orbital Hex Cage minimum AR: closing the gap.
Author Message

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1915
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

 Captive Orbital Hex Cage minimum AR: closing the gap. Posted on Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:13 pm Link to Post: I've been messing around with the Captive Orbital Hex Cage weave lately. As was established a few years back, the minimum for this weave is an AR of 6.6. However, that is using one ring size only. And this is despite Blaise's earlier claims of it being as low as 6.0. http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=15663 I took sakredchao's advice and experimented with different ring sizes. Here's what I came up with: I used three different ring sizes and in three different colours to distinguish them. Orbitals: .062" (1.6mm) 23/64" (9.13mm) stainless: AR of 6.4 Connectors: .062" 5/16" (7.94mm) bronze: AR of 5.5 Cage/captives: .062" 15/64" (5.95mm) brass: AR of 4.2 Diameters listed are of course mandrel sizes. Measured IDs of .397", .341", and .260", respectively, were used to calculate the AR's. The orbital ring size allows itself to dip below the single ring size minimum AR of 6.6 with the lowering of the other two ring sizes. The following picture compares the gap between the sections in this piece, and one of 6.6's, with rings used: .048" (1.22mm) 9/32" (7.14mm) stainless (measured ID: .316"). In the picture, it appears that there is still a gap between the lower two of the stainless orbital rings, but that is because of the angle at which the picture was taken. If anyone would like to challenge this and try to push the limits a little further, then please, by all means, do try. You might manage a 6.3 orbital. Maybe.. But use strong rings, or they'll push open. This is why I used .062" wire size. Observation: It is extremely difficult to weave this when the outside diameter of the smallest rings is lower than the inside diameter of the large rings. In this case it was .384" vs. .397". Using this tutorial: Captive Orbital Hex Cage (CGI). And since the minimum AR for a single Orbital is approximately 5.0, I had to use rings of a smaller wire size for the ring that holds it in place (the yellow one in step 4 of the tutorial). I went ahead and updated the minimum AR entry for the weave, but if anyone wants to attempt it lower and challenge my numbers, prepare yourself for a challenge. Chainmailbasket.com (2019-01-01) - 376 + 79
Levi

[ Major Voice ]

Joined: January 17, 2013
Posts: 373
Submissions: 5
Location: Probably in the garage...

 Posted on Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:13 pm Link to Post: Nice work pushing the envelope CMB. I like the look. When built that tightly does it bend/flex at all or is it stiff?Mostly Harmless

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1915
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Posted on Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:47 pm

 Levi wrote: I like the look. When built that tightly does it bend/flex at all or is it stiff?

It can be manually flexed the slightest bit. But holding it by the edge, it remains perfectly erect.

This second image shows the single ring size 6.6 sample being manually flexed (possible due to it being a larger sample):

I would imagine the 4.2, 5.5, 6.4 would flex the same if it were expanded to the same size.

I consider COHC a "minimum AR category 2" inclusion of sheet weaves in terms of being made the stiffest, along side Captive Zen Sheet Full, and Japanese Dragonscale.

Minimum AR category 1, being the tightest, would include the likes of Staggered Captive Inverted Round Sheet, its Quad counterpart, and the slightly stronger Staggered Bore Worm Sheet, and Staggered Quad Reinforced Inverted Round Sheet.

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

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

 Posted on Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:17 pm Link to Post: I added a note about this to the weave description. It's in the queue. "I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash Lorraine's Chains Gallery Submission Guidelines
Flutter

[ Major Voice ]

Joined: January 13, 2013
Posts: 454
Submissions: 16
Location: GA

 Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:19 pm Link to Post: Nicely done This one was in my list to try. I will have to make some notes to come back here when I am ready to attempt it.

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2249
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

 Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:03 pm Link to Post: Beautiful work! I may have to give this a try some time soon! Once you stop learning, you stop living, so... Ask questions. Try new things. Share what you know. MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2249
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

 Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:14 pm Link to Post: I need your help! I was looking at Captive Orbital Hex Cage and on the tutorial here Captive Orbital Hex Cage (CGI). I am noticing some differences. Namely there is not a single captive (as shown in the tutorial) and there are no connector rings (as shown in yours). I am wondering if I am looking at things incorrectly, which happens often, this is a variation, or one of them has been misnamed. I do not doubt your knowledge and expertese, just my lack of understanding. Once you stop learning, you stop living, so... Ask questions. Try new things. Share what you know. MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

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

Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:14 am

 MusicMan wrote: I need your help! I was looking at Captive Orbital Hex Cage and on the tutorial here Captive Orbital Hex Cage (CGI). I am noticing some differences. Namely there is not a single captive (as shown in the tutorial) and there are no connector rings (as shown in yours). I am wondering if I am looking at things incorrectly, which happens often, this is a variation, or one of them has been misnamed. I do not doubt your knowledge and expertese, just my lack of understanding.

MM, they both definitely have captives. The only difference I see is that David has doubled the bronze rings, unlike the sample on the weave page. If I'm wrong, David I'm sure will let us know.

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

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1915
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

 Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:20 am Link to Post: It's a bit difficult to tell from the sample picture for the weave entry, but it does contain all of the same elements and is made the same way. Since the picture is cropped of any sides, the doubled pairs of connector rings are difficult to distinguish. They look like single rings instead of pairs, but they do indeed sandwich around the edges of the captives. What I do is open each picture in a separate window. I also use zooming to closely examine distinguishing characteristics. The CGI image at the bottom of the tutorial, is of course the clearest. But each sample is built the same. I believe the weave can be made without the captives, which provides "Orbital Hex Cage", which was referenced in this thread: http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=15663 I have not tried this version. Again though, neither mine, the COHC sample picture, or the one in the tutorial omit the captives. Actually, I find the captives easy to distinguish in the weave's sample picture. Take a look at lorraine's picture in that thread for another perspective. Her picture is of better quality. As I mentioned in my OP, part of the reason I used three metal types of different colours was for better distinction. There is a lot going on in this weave. Hang in there. Try saving each picture, opening them separately in an image editor and zooming in to compare each one. Chainmailbasket.com (2019-01-01) - 376 + 79

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1915
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:24 am

lorraine wrote:
 MusicMan wrote: I need your help! I was looking at Captive Orbital Hex Cage and on the tutorial here Captive Orbital Hex Cage (CGI). I am noticing some differences. Namely there is not a single captive (as shown in the tutorial) and there are no connector rings (as shown in yours). I am wondering if I am looking at things incorrectly, which happens often, this is a variation, or one of them has been misnamed. I do not doubt your knowledge and expertese, just my lack of understanding.

MM, they both definitely have captives. The only difference I see is that David has doubled the bronze rings, unlike the sample on the weave page. If I'm wrong, David I'm sure will let us know.

You have to double those rings. They sandwich (sammich) the captive rings and hold them in place (more or less), they are also held in place by the inner set of "cage" rings. Inner set, because I see the orbital rings as captive rings too, as they captivate the cage/captive set of rings.. It's just hard to tell that they're doubled in Blaise's sample picture for the weave entry.. Partially due to the completely top-down view, and that no edge of the weave is shown in that picture.

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

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

Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:40 am

 Chainmailbasket_com wrote: You have to double those rings. They sandwich (sammich) the captive rings and hold them in place (more or less), they are also held in place by the inner set of "cage" rings. Inner set, because I see the orbital rings as captive rings too, as they captivate the cage/captive set of rings.. It's just hard to tell that they're doubled in Blaise's sample picture for the weave entry.. Partially due to the completely top-down view, and that no edge of the weave is shown in that picture.

David, you are absolutely right. I'm not sure what I'm thinking when I wrote that! I have the piece I made here in my and hands and am now facepalming.

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

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

 Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:25 am Link to Post: nice work. i don't see any gaps you could pull in and still keep the same design. one way i see that you could reduce a couple ARs is by removing some of the orbitals and having a j3-like overlay instead of the j6-like orbital arrangement, giving you slightly more space where all 6 orbitals meet... i'm a believer that orbital weaves love multiple ring sizes. so, CMB.. what i want to know more than minAR is.. did you like it? will you be doing more of this AR balancing? what about a radial symmetry AR fade, cupping the fabric and making a rigid dome?PSA: remember to stretch. 3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2249
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

 Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:31 pm Link to Post: Thank for the help. I think I understand it better now and once I get the time to actually try it out I am sure I will have more questions for you. I really love the look of what you have done. So do your doubled pair of bronze horizontal rings alternate, two together in one cell than two apart around it, rinse and repeat. I guess that is what I am having a hard time figuring out. Once you stop learning, you stop living, so... Ask questions. Try new things. Share what you know. MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1915
Submissions: 574
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:09 pm

 sakredchao wrote: nice work. i don't see any gaps you could pull in and still keep the same design. one way i see that you could reduce a couple ARs is by removing some of the orbitals and having a j3-like overlay instead of the j6-like orbital arrangement, giving you slightly more space where all 6 orbitals meet... i'm a believer that orbital weaves love multiple ring sizes. so, CMB.. what i want to know more than minAR is.. did you like it? will you be doing more of this AR balancing? what about a radial symmetry AR fade, cupping the fabric and making a rigid dome?

Removing some of the orbitals like you suggested would make what is no longer true Captive Orbital Hex Cage. I would not necessarily call a new weave, but would list it separately on my website, since it would have different AR properties. Not too interested in that though. I -might- do the non-captive version (OHC).

I will do more AR balancing in other weaves that benefit from multiple ARs instead of just finding the one ring size minimum.

The dome concept is interesting, and should the need ever arise, it's an option.

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

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2249
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

 Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:14 pm Link to Post: Wait!!! Is this ring, that the arrow is pointing to, horizontal or the back side of one of the vertical rings. cohc_min_zps7d611ece If it is horizontal that is where I was having my problems. If it is the back side of one of the vertical rings I am just dumber than rocks! Once you stop learning, you stop living, so... Ask questions. Try new things. Share what you know. MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08