terminology
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 618
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

terminology
Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:46 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

i have some terminology questions. is there a commonly used term for a weave that is all _ in 1? is there a term for a weave that uses all the same size rings? is there a term for a weave that is all _ in 1 and uses all the same size rings? i feel like making up a term like "true" or "natural" or "pure," but i don't know. i desire a term because a weave that is all _ in 1 and uses all the same size rings is very special. that kind of weave is balanced in a way that no ring gets stressed more than another - no weak link. combine this attribute with flexible and low ar and you get "super" weaves that end up being the most versatile and loved weaves.



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

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:54 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

There are to my knowledge no terms to describe those things. It’s interesting that you bring up symmetry as it’s something I’m also quite interested in and I’ve started an article on it. Part one deals with sheet weaves. I was going to post what I had so far to the article forum but haven’t gotten around to it yet. Soon though.

The special # in 1 (or in 2) sheet weaves where every ring does the same thing are what I call “directional sheets”. They have rows that lean in alternating directions. “Chain sheets” are those which are made up of established chain weaves bolted together. Half Persian 3 Sheet 6 in 1 (and it’s logical progressions) fall into the former category. Hp3s6-1 is not a progression of Hp3-1. Hp3-1 is a contraction of Hp3s6–1.

The two types of fully symmetrical sheets are Hex sheets and square sheets. But these don’t necessarily have to use a single ring size and none of them seem to contain all of the same type of rings.


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: October 22, 2010
Posts: 618
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:26 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

yes, digm calls those sheets that every ring doing the same thing "universal." not sure which term came first. on fb, we have been discussing terms for what i describe and so far the most agreed upon term for weaves that are both _ in 1 and have the same ring size "prime" weaves. as in ideal, or good to go, or special like prime numbers.



Joined: July 17, 2009
Posts: 414
Submissions: 20
Location: Palm Springs, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:47 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I like the prime weaves designation.



Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 618
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:53 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

is the "prime" term something we can get the admins to approve of and possibly add to the glossary of terms? and then eventually make it a search parameter?



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

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:26 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I rather like the term prime. Directional sheet is a little ambiguous because it could be used to describe chain sheets that are comprised of directional chains (coming from European and Persian families), most of which are technically not weaves anyways, but I digress. I think I’ll still use directional sheet. It’s being reflected on my next website update which is a few months off.

Directional sheet refers to sheets more in regards to symmetry as opposed to purity even though the terms would refer to the same thing. These types of weaves are, to me, the purest weaves.


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 Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:05 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Actually no. Dragonscale is a directional sheet but most certainly is not prime.


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 Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:52 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Oops I just used prime where I meant what dgjm called universal. I personally don’t see the need for two terms that describe physically the same thing with the only distinction being the weave name containing # in 1. Weaves that have this in their name are there either because of convention or because the submitter happened to choose to use it. Since every ring in these weaves does the same thing they are all # in 1 weaves. In my opinion “prime” is the best term. Universal would be ok, except for the fact that there is a series of established weaves with universal in their names and this may cause unnecessary confusion.

I’m curious what other members of the community think, but when I look around I see tumbleweeds blowing around where a thriving community once existed.


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: February 15, 2002
Posts: 382
Submissions: 10

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:39 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

For weaves that only use one ring size, I've just called them "normal". I never had a special term for those weaves, but I instead marked other weaves as "Requires multiple ring sizes", and would list my known sizes that worked together.

As for a new term, I'd prefer something like equally distributed stress, or EDS for short.


IGP (Irregular Grid Painter) Links:
Home | FAQ | Downloads

Joined: March 11, 2010
Posts: 87
Submissions: 4
Location: NOLA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:11 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm still a little confused as to what would even constitute "prime" here. Is Euro 4 in 1 "prime" because each ring is doing the same thing as others in the weave? Would Full Persian 6 in 1 be "prime"? What is an example of a single ring size weave that would not be "prime"?

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 618
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:45 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

StudioCastile wrote:
I'm still a little confused as to what would even constitute "prime" here. Is Euro 4 in 1 "prime" because each ring is doing the same thing as others in the weave? Would Full Persian 6 in 1 be "prime"? What is an example of a single ring size weave that would not be "prime"?


the connection type is irrelevant in this. what i'm talking about would be _ in 1 connection # and all one ring size in the weave - that would be prime. prime as a good term because these weaves are special in that they usually show more strength and versatility. they are "classic" weaves as _ in 1 because historically most weaves were _ in 1. _ in 1 puts equal stress on each ring - no weak link. same size rings in the weave as "natural" because of similar reasons. larger rings open up easier than small rings. that makes "prime" weaves ideal weaves for strength. if the weave also has low ar, this increases the strength too. prime weaves also tend to have high flexibility and high symmetry, but that is not always the case.



Joined: March 11, 2010
Posts: 87
Submissions: 4
Location: NOLA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:07 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

So the real point of the term here is that it denotes a weave in which each ring bears equal stress? I suppose that's worth noting, but difficult to determine. Certainly, other accompanying terms such as N in 1 being in its name are not reliable.
For example, in lopsided weaves, usually odd-numbered, such as Euro 5 in 1, or Half Persian 5 in 1, the ring's stress is not symmetrical. It will have 3 rings pulling on it in one direction and only 2 in the other. Of course, all the rings are "doing" the same thing, but if that is the standard, look at the Japanese family. In Japanese 6 in 1, the connector rings are not actually going through 6 rings. They only go through 2.

So, if you want to make a new term, I suggest finding very firm ground for it to stand on. It needs a rule which can be clearly applied to determine a binary answer. As examples, look at the terms Captive and Orbital. There is never confusion as to whether they apply or not.

I would also take issue with the term itself, Prime, if it is ever to be an accepted term. Prime suggests specialness or superiority. While these are accurate descriptions in some sense of a weave with an even stress distribution, it is still very general. Look again at the terms Captive and Orbital. It is very nearly understood even by new maillers what those might mean and is abundantly clear when they see examples. The term actually describes the aspect it is denoting.

Chainmailling already has so much terminology, I don't think it is a good idea to try to add more unless we can make it very clear.

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 618
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:55 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

StudioCastile wrote:
So the real point of the term here is that it denotes a weave in which each ring bears equal stress? I suppose that's worth noting, but difficult to determine. Certainly, other accompanying terms such as N in 1 being in its name are not reliable.
For example, in lopsided weaves, usually odd-numbered, such as Euro 5 in 1, or Half Persian 5 in 1, the ring's stress is not symmetrical. It will have 3 rings pulling on it in one direction and only 2 in the other. Of course, all the rings are "doing" the same thing, but if that is the standard, look at the Japanese family. In Japanese 6 in 1, the connector rings are not actually going through 6 rings. They only go through 2.

So, if you want to make a new term, I suggest finding very firm ground for it to stand on. It needs a rule which can be clearly applied to determine a binary answer. As examples, look at the terms Captive and Orbital. There is never confusion as to whether they apply or not.

I would also take issue with the term itself, Prime, if it is ever to be an accepted term. Prime suggests specialness or superiority. While these are accurate descriptions in some sense of a weave with an even stress distribution, it is still very general. Look again at the terms Captive and Orbital. It is very nearly understood even by new maillers what those might mean and is abundantly clear when they see examples. The term actually describes the aspect it is denoting.

Chainmailling already has so much terminology, I don't think it is a good idea to try to add more unless we can make it very clear.


i respect your input. some good points here. in regards to the e5 example, you point out that stress is not equal, but i would argue that it is. i picked up my sample, stressed it in multiple directions, and there was no particular ring or row that started opening up. every ring started opening equally. it still may be true that certain rings might bear more stress when a weave is stressed in certain ways, but i expect the stress is not as pronounced as other non prime weaves.

the japanese family is just labeled wrong. i don't think there is any other way to say it. it's a separate issue. japanese 12 in 2 is not 12 in 2. so, it needs to be called something else. i've long fought for this and even came up with my own labeling system for them.

you bring up the comparison of terms like orbital and captive. these are specific connection type terms. to me, prime, is a term that is more general like persian. persian describes many kinds of connections into one family. this is what prime does. it combines all _ in 1 and one size ring weaves into one term.

i do agree that it would be arbitrary to just come up with a term without having some use for it. i mean, who cares if some new term is out there among the hundreds that are already out there that no one uses? i would agree, but i've actually gotten to the point of classifying my weaves into my weave library where i need a term that separates prime weaves and non prime weaves. most of my customers are chainmaille artists and they come to me and ask "what is a good weave that i can make with 16swg 1/4" rings?" so, i go looking for it. i find a few and i offer them to the artist. but what if i could send them a list of all the options available in an instant? what if i could send them to my website and they could click off prime weaves? these would be the best weaves for one size ring.

i'm not randomly suggesting an arbitrary term. i actually need a better way of classifying weaves that separates the best weaves from the not so good ones. it's a quality issue. but yes, i do know that some of the best weaves have 2 ring sizes or are not _ in 1. but if a weave has both attributes, it's most likely a high quality weave - strong and consistent. i think prime is a good term for describing quality.



Joined: March 11, 2010
Posts: 87
Submissions: 4
Location: NOLA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:03 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

My point with e5 wasn't that any particular ring is more stressed than others, rather, the stress is not evenly applied to the ring itself. It's a minor point though and overall, yes those weaves still apply stress rather evenly over the whole of the weave. I'll take your point about Japanese weaves, I agree.

I disagree with using the Persian family name as an example though. Much like Euro, some of these family terms are very old and certainly predate maillers as a modern group attempting to codify and explain what we do. A better example is the Spiral family of weaves which did not have a name until recently, and when we gave it one, we used a descriptive word.

I also am not so sure that weaves, where all ring interactions are the same, are necessarily stronger, or rather the corollary, I don't know that having differences in the weave from ring to ring makes it weak. For instance, is Byzantine weaker than 4 in 2 simple chain? I doubt it.

As I said, denoting a weave as having an even stress distribution may be important, but it is not simple to determine conclusively.

About the only thing I can say would be conclusively true in all cases is multiring size weaves are not going to fit in this group. They will always distribute stress differently over their different ring sizes. That said, I don't need a new term to search for those. I can ask the M.A.I.L. Weave Library search for an AR and check off "single ring size only" to find such weaves.

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 618
Submissions: 378
Location: Yucaipa, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:45 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

StudioCastile wrote:
My point with e5 wasn't that any particular ring is more stressed than others, rather, the stress is not evenly applied to the ring itself. It's a minor point though and overall, yes those weaves still apply stress rather evenly over the whole of the weave. I'll take your point about Japanese weaves, I agree.

I disagree with using the Persian family name as an example though. Much like Euro, some of these family terms are very old and certainly predate maillers as a modern group attempting to codify and explain what we do. A better example is the Spiral family of weaves which did not have a name until recently, and when we gave it one, we used a descriptive word.

I also am not so sure that weaves, where all ring interactions are the same, are necessarily stronger, or rather the corollary, I don't know that having differences in the weave from ring to ring makes it weak. For instance, is Byzantine weaker than 4 in 2 simple chain? I doubt it.

As I said, denoting a weave as having an even stress distribution may be important, but it is not simple to determine conclusively.

About the only thing I can say would be conclusively true in all cases is multiring size weaves are not going to fit in this group. They will always distribute stress differently over their different ring sizes. That said, I don't need a new term to search for those. I can ask the M.A.I.L. Weave Library search for an AR and check off "single ring size only" to find such weaves.


i ran the search like you suggested. i picked 3.0ar with +-.3 variance. i clicked off single size ring weaves. i got some good weaves, but most were crappy. i even got one that was 13.1 ideal ar. without the _ in 1 check off, you're just never going to get quality weaves on that search. but if you like it and it works for you, then by all means stick by it. most of the people i talk to and not happy with the search here.



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 Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:27 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: