Weave Study February 2016 - Oriental Scale
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 491
Submissions: 24
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Weave Study February 2016 - Oriental Scale
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:39 pm || Last edited by TrenchCoatGuy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:05 pm; edited 2 times in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Weave Study Threads
Purpose:
Go more in depth to specific weaves as a community.
Add information to weaves, including:
    Tutorials
    AR limits
    Related Weaves
    Pattern Information


This month we will be/are/were studying: Oriental Scale
Tutorials: Oriental Scale Unit

Related Weaves:


Additional Links:
Link to interest/discussion thread


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 491
Submissions: 24
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:54 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Two notes on this month:

1. Some may be quick to say "isn't Japanese Dragonscale the same as Oriental Scale", to which the response is... Yes, with the exception that (as listed in the description) Oriental Scale is a minimized version that cannot be woven indefinitely. I assume (although haven't tested yet) that this means that it is stable.
This thread's discussion is not exclusive to Oriental Scale.

2. I'm primarily interested in getting an AR relationship (as we have with Dragonscale for not only single WD rings, but multiple WD rings. It may also be of interest to test out making structures similar to Helm Orb.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:55 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Now that I've weaved a few of these in search of AR relationship info, I'm curious as to why its entry doesn't have Orbital listed as a weave tag. That center ring most certainly does not pass through any others.

If you flip the three sets of corner rings you end up with a single (Orbital Inverted Round) segment.


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: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:23 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

In search of the minimum AR combination using a single wire diameter, I made a few of these 10-ring units. There are three ring types involved:
-3 small, nested rings.
-1 orbital ring which goes around these three rings and is sandwiched in by...
-6 corner rings

What I knew already was how well 3.3 and 6.6 work for Japanese Dragonscale. I decided the best strategy was to isolate the small ring AR first. It took many tries until I found it:

AR of 3.1, AR of 6.5 in .048" stainless, 17/128", 35/128" mandrel made a nice effective unit, which has the upper set of corner rings protruding straight out, and being parallel to the bottom rings (which lay on the work surface). Off to a good start.

AR of 3.0, AR of 6.4 in .080" aluminum, 7/32", 15/32" mandrel, just as I suspected increased the angle between each set of corner rings.

AR of 2.9, AR of 6.1 in .062" aluminum, 21/128", 11/32" mandrel, wouldn't allow the orbital ring to pass around the middle, so next I tried:

AR of 2.9, AR of 6.2, replacing the large AL rings with nickel silver, same mandrel size, but larger from springback and this combination worked. Angle increased over 3.0, and 6.4 version, but still can be weaved lower.

How low can you go?

AR of 2.8, AR of 6.0 in .040" stainless, 13/128", 27/128" mandrel worked without a discernible difference in angles from the 2.9, 6.2 model. This is perhaps due to it being of smaller wire.

AR of 2.7, AR of 5.8 in .062" aluminum, 5/32", 21/64" mandrel proved impossible without that orbital ring gapping. Thus I increased the larger ring, and,

AR of 2.7, AR of 5.9, substituting aluminum for stainless still didn't work. There is only an approximately .002" ID difference, which happened to push the stainless barely above 5.85, so I decided to try something on the larger end of 5.9, and with nickel silver (.005" ID > stainless), this AR combo worked. It's tight and can't be wiggled much, but I still tried...

AR of 2.6, AR of 5.8 in .062" aluminum, 19/128", 21/64" mandrels, alas, this is when I discovered that the small ring's minimum AR is 2.7. That last corner ring could not possibly be added.

Thus, the two ring size, single wire diameter minimum AR for Oriental Scale is 2.7, and 5.9.

Next step is to decrease the size of the corner rings. I first tried AR of 2.2, but these rings are too small to properly secure that orbital in there (which is acting a little like a captive trying to escape). I tried increasing to AR of 2.4 for the corners, and while it will sit properly if manually placed in its proper configuration, it will fall apart if mishandled.

That's as far as I got today. I'll post some pictures in the near future, and possibly find that third value. I believe its value will vary depending on the ARs of the other two ring types since they together affect the angle that these corner rings lie on.


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: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:54 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

If you interconnect these units together using the corner rings, you end up with Orbital Turkish Round.


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: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

pics
Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:35 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Oriental Scales:


Orbital Turkish Round:


OTR is .080" bright aluminum: AR of 3.0, AR of 6.4 (Orbital), AR of 5.2 (Roundmaille knots).


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: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:20 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

These two photos display Oriental Scale with the corner rings shrunk down considerably. The two ring size, one wire diameter minimum combo of AR of 2.7 (3 center rings), AR of 5.9 (orbital) were used.

On the left in each pic has corner rings at AR of 2.4. It appears alright, but if the corner rings fold up, the orbital pops out. The one on the right is the unit with these rings increased to AR of 2.7 (same AR as 3 center rings). The second picture shows that the corner rings still will fold up a bit, but the orbital stays in there. Not exactly elegant, but that's the nature of some things pushed to their minimal AR limits.

I can't say for sure, but the corner rings might go down to 2.6. I have my doubts about 2.5. If 2.6 doesn't work, then ironically, the 3 ring type, 1 wire diameter version of this only uses two ring sizes. Smile






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: August 05, 2010
Posts: 491
Submissions: 24
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:20 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

With all of these minimized versions, are you able to pull out the orbiting ring?

I'll start to get to studying when the month actually starts, btw. Coif Cool Smiley


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:35 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

As mentioned, the orbital slips out when the corner rings are too small. This happened with 2.4s on the corner, but not 2.7s.

I know I jumped the gun on this, posting in January and all. I guess I got a little excited. Coif LoL


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: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:38 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

A tutorial is up: Oriental Scale Unit.


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: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:43 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

As it turns out, Inverted Oriental Scale will only work properly with certain ring size combinations nearing the minimum, at least I think. Otherwise whoever took the picture of the sample on the weave page manually placed the smaller rings in the proper orientation. I made one at AR of 3.4, and AR of 6.7 (which is a little loose to begin with), and the small rings flop around and don't remain in their "V" configuration. It stands to reason that they should be an AR of 3.0 (with the large rings adjusted down accordingly), since this size optimally allows for three wire widths to fit. This is of course using a single wire diameter for both ring sizes.

The small rings will stay forced in their "V" configuration if I bend and hold the three corner rings in the same direction. If they can be made to stay this way, there is some potential there. More experimentation and pictures to follow.

I sense that the ideal AR values will need to be adjusted.


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: 4596
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:02 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:
As it turns out, Inverted Oriental Scale will only work properly with certain ring size combinations nearing the minimum, at least I think. Otherwise whoever took the picture of the sample on the weave page manually placed the smaller rings in the proper orientation. I made one at AR of 3.4, and AR of 6.7 (which is a little loose to begin with), and the small rings flop around and don't remain in their "V" configuration. It stands to reason that they should be an AR of 3.0 (with the large rings adjusted down accordingly), since this size optimally allows for three wire widths to fit. This is of course using a single wire diameter for both ring sizes.

The small rings will stay forced in their "V" configuration if I bend and hold the three corner rings in the same direction. If they can be made to stay this way, there is some potential there. More experimentation and pictures to follow.

I sense that the ideal AR values will need to be adjusted.

I remember trying that one a while ago. I never could get it to be stable.


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

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1696
Submissions: 313
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:09 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I put another one together last night at AR of 3.0, and AR of 6.4, and the rings will stay put if you put them in the right configuration, but you can manually fold them, so it's far from perfect. At least they don't flop around like a looser IOS.


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: August 05, 2010
Posts: 491
Submissions: 24
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:15 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

So I've been working on the equations for Japanese Dragonscale.
So far, I have:
ID_large=0.5*WD_small+sqrt(3.25*(ID_small)^2+10*ID_small*WD_small+7.75*(WD_small)^2)

This equation was formed by making the assumption that the minimum orientation of the small rings was in an isosceles triangle and that the orbiting ring makes direct contact with them. (A reasonably good assumption if the weave is at its minimum.)

This relationship holds true for Oriental Scale too, but the second one (for the ID_small) should be significantly simpler from Japanese Dragonscale.
Also, have no fear for the people that don't like maths... this will definitely be simplified.
Once I have the second equation, I can manipulate the equations and make a shorthand method (for things like using the same WD for both ring sizes).


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 491
Submissions: 24
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:46 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

On the topic of the other item that I said I would be working on...


I got to 4 units, and it wasn't curling enough.
The ring ARs are: 3.1, 5.7, and 6.3
The large rings aren't large enough. (0.035" alum, 7/64, 3/16, and 13/64 - going to try 7/32 next) Thought I could be clever enough using CMB's sizes to curl towards itself... but that's not how it worked out.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

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 Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:45 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: