Submitted ByEdit Dates
Date Uploaded: September 9, 2009, 8:00 pm Last Edited: January 5, 2013, 5:38 pm |
 Add toSite Favourites Print this Article |
WHATIF - Variants of Jens Pind Linkage
(JPL)
Article © MAIL User: ZiLi
You all know these 'what if?' moments, that sometimes occur. I just had one, and call the result simply 'WHATIF'. As I rate that 'only' as variant and not as weave I include it here into MAIL's library. Basically, it is a simple JPL-3 (Jens Pind Linkage), but every 5th and 6th ring is replaced by a larger one, and the pattern repeated - this variant is named 'whatif-3-4', as it is JPL3 based, and has four JPL sized rings between the large ones.
For this example I used stainless 1.2*3.45mm (1/8" mandrel) with an ~AR of 2.9 for the JPL3 parts, and 1.2*5.5mm (5mm mandrel) with an ~AR of 4.6 as the large ones.
In principle you need two ring types for that: the small ones must be good for the chosen JPL (AR a little bit less than the JPL number), the large ones have simply to be larger while having the same wire thickness as the small rings. And there is no hindrance to use more than four JPL rings between the pair of larger rings - I tried, but 4-2-4-2... looked best for me.
To show, that every member of the JPL weave family has its 'whatif' variant, I did a 'whatif-5-6', based on JPL-5 with the ring pattern 6-4-6-4, to succeed with a stable, repeating pattern including repeating large-ring set orientation, as already shown with the JPL-3 based 'whatif-3' sample.
Stats: springy Bronze 1.2*5.5mm (mandrel 3/16"), ~AR of 4.6 for the basic JPL-5, and 1.2*~9.6mm (mandrel 5/16", MUCH springback here due to a bit loose coiling), ~AR of 8 for the large rings. A little bit smaller rings in the AR of 7 range (1/4" to 9/32" mandrel) would probably have looked a bit better.
The follow-up (not shown here) would be 'whatif-7' (especially version 7-8), that is based on JPL-7, in a 8-6-8-6 pattern. And so on... The optimum ring counts are: Total rings per cell is the double JPL number; the needed large ring number is JPL number minus 1; the remaining rings in the cell (JPL number plus 1) are the small basic JPL rings.
And there is a variant group that uses only ONE JPL sized ring per cell, that (astonishingly) suffices to hold the weave in its form - as I was only re-inventor, these whatif-x-1 variants are named 'Onering' after the creator of the first published whatif-3-1 - the top one is Onering-3, as it is JPL3 based; the bottom, JPL5 (Jens Pind Linkage 5) based one is 'Onering-5'.
And there is more: As the whatif technique gives the easy possibility to weave X and Y crossings into JPL chains, this opens the field to two- and three dimensional weaves - see the X crossing as example.
Concluding, I'd say that the 'whatif' variants principally work. But the higher variants, maybe already the variant 7, are not more good for jewellery, and only 'I can' studies. But have fun doing (or attempting) them, nevertheless, as these variants are a 'mailler's playground', that are the basis for many more weaves...
-ZiLi-
For this example I used stainless 1.2*3.45mm (1/8" mandrel) with an ~AR of 2.9 for the JPL3 parts, and 1.2*5.5mm (5mm mandrel) with an ~AR of 4.6 as the large ones.
In principle you need two ring types for that: the small ones must be good for the chosen JPL (AR a little bit less than the JPL number), the large ones have simply to be larger while having the same wire thickness as the small rings. And there is no hindrance to use more than four JPL rings between the pair of larger rings - I tried, but 4-2-4-2... looked best for me.
To show, that every member of the JPL weave family has its 'whatif' variant, I did a 'whatif-5-6', based on JPL-5 with the ring pattern 6-4-6-4, to succeed with a stable, repeating pattern including repeating large-ring set orientation, as already shown with the JPL-3 based 'whatif-3' sample.
Stats: springy Bronze 1.2*5.5mm (mandrel 3/16"), ~AR of 4.6 for the basic JPL-5, and 1.2*~9.6mm (mandrel 5/16", MUCH springback here due to a bit loose coiling), ~AR of 8 for the large rings. A little bit smaller rings in the AR of 7 range (1/4" to 9/32" mandrel) would probably have looked a bit better.
The follow-up (not shown here) would be 'whatif-7' (especially version 7-8), that is based on JPL-7, in a 8-6-8-6 pattern. And so on... The optimum ring counts are: Total rings per cell is the double JPL number; the needed large ring number is JPL number minus 1; the remaining rings in the cell (JPL number plus 1) are the small basic JPL rings.
And there is a variant group that uses only ONE JPL sized ring per cell, that (astonishingly) suffices to hold the weave in its form - as I was only re-inventor, these whatif-x-1 variants are named 'Onering' after the creator of the first published whatif-3-1 - the top one is Onering-3, as it is JPL3 based; the bottom, JPL5 (Jens Pind Linkage 5) based one is 'Onering-5'.
And there is more: As the whatif technique gives the easy possibility to weave X and Y crossings into JPL chains, this opens the field to two- and three dimensional weaves - see the X crossing as example.
Concluding, I'd say that the 'whatif' variants principally work. But the higher variants, maybe already the variant 7, are not more good for jewellery, and only 'I can' studies. But have fun doing (or attempting) them, nevertheless, as these variants are a 'mailler's playground', that are the basis for many more weaves...
-ZiLi-
Original URL: http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/articledisplay.php?key=547
