Things I Learned Today
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
   
Author Message

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Things I Learned Today
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:28 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

or: let me write this down so I don't forget (and maybe it'll help someone else).

I'm really in love with Lorraine's Turkish Orbital earrings. So I've been trying to recreate them.

I've discovered a couple of things: she said she did them in 20 gauge (awg) 4.75 mm links, which would be an AR of 5.94. The Turkish Orbital info says that the idea AR is 6.6.

What I've learned: I think Lorraine probably hit the minimum AR (which isn't listed). I was using 20 awg 3/16" rings, with an AR of 6.0, and it was really difficult. Could be because I'm a newbie, but I think it's also because I was getting close to the minimum AR. I'm tempted, but also hesitant, to work with the same rings that she did as they're a bit smaller. I was also thinking of finding rings in AR 6.6 and I worry if they won't brace each other the way the ones at 6.6 do, which is important when the earring is assembled. In other words, the ideal AR for a weave may not necessarily be its ideal AR for a specific application.


earring parts in a temporary holding pattern

I also learned: it's useful to use t-head pins and a kid's foam mat square (as well as those chainmail mats they give you if you shop at Weave Got Mail). I must have dropped my work a bajillion times (and emitted a similar number of profanities) before I hit up on the idea of pinning the work down. The hardest thing is attaching the orbital rings: there's a very specific and small "bottleneck" for them to go around, and the pins keep wanting to jump and flip. Pinning them down really helps.


setting up


orbital ring in place

Lastly, I learned: for regular rings, I open them so that the open ends are slightly overlapping, so that when I close them they want to snap together. For orbital rings, I need to open them up so that there's a gap, and not open them very far, either. The it's easier to snake them around where they need to go, although you have to do a little bit of extra work easing the ends back together in pretty tight quarters.


left: normal linking ring - right: orbital ring (although open about twice as wide than I actually want

I invite anyone to post a comment here if you've learned something in your most recent crafting session. Thank you!

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1945
Submissions: 582
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:18 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Jackalgirl wrote:
I've discovered a couple of things: she said she did them in 20 gauge (awg) 4.75 mm links, which would be an AR of 5.94. The Turkish Orbital info says that the idea AR is 6.6.


I get closer to 5.85 (pre-springback + cutting)
Assuming the 20AWG is .0319”, or .8128mm

4.75mm / 0.8128mm = 5.84
or
.187” / .0319” = 5.86

After springback, they may well be closer to 6.0 though.

Regarding ideal ARs, you’re definitely right about them being application-specific. They are rather subjective: those who want something tight will ideally use ARs closer to the minimum, while those going for a certain amount of flexibility will use larger ones. Units, for example in most cases have very specific ideal ARs because the structure is preferred to be tight. This is similar to what you’ve made here, and your being concerned that using the larger AR of 6.6 will cause the units to not brace each other desirably is completely founded.

Sometimes a small section of a weave can be made, and sometimes ideally, at ARs even below the minimum possible, but expanding it further would cause it to eventually lock up.

Regarding orbital ring application, it appears as though you are adding the orbital ring around the connection point after making the connection. In most cases it is easier to preclose the orbital ring and make the connection as demonstrated in this article:

Creating an Orbital (Animated GIF)


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

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1945
Submissions: 582
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:29 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Also, the true minimum AR for this weave would likely be multiple values, since there are multiple ring types present (even though the weave is typically made in a single ring size): three by my reckoning, but I’d have to examine the weave more to be sure.

Maybe not three values, maybe just two, but I see three ring types in there.


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

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1945
Submissions: 582
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:34 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Well I know that’s not what you were asking for, so here goes. As for what I’ve learned most recently: today I learned of the somewhat unforgiving nature of Conundrum 2, when compared with Conundrum.

Conundrum keeps the rings that surround the small set truly orbital. It goes together with ease using ring sizes similar to its Helm Chain base, although with the large outside layer horizontal rings needing to be raised a bit to accommodate the connectors. The connector rings themselves can even be kept minimal- AR of 3.2, the same size for the small rings in the Helm Chain.

Conundrum 2 is a whole other deal. When you pass through each large ring in the Helm Chain- the two outer layer ones plus the (now no longer exclusively orbital) middle horizontal ring it really brings things in. After a few false starts, even bringing the large rings up to AR of 6.2, and AR of 6.4, with the small Helm Chain rings up past AR of 4.0, just so they fill in the space better, connector rings to bolt the Helm Chains together had to be at least AR of 3.4. Doesn’t seem like a big increase over 3.2, but this caused the undesirable tendency of the sets of large rings in each Helm Chain to lean against one another, not that unlike what is seen in a directional weave, even though this one is Japanese family-based, for those who still consider weave families.

I guess it’s not necessarily that bad, since it’s slight, and the rings in successive Helm Chains lean in opposite directions, so at least the distortion is consistent.

Conundrum, I’m in love with, but Conundrum 2 is a cruel mistress.

I’ve found the minimum AR combination for Conundrum in two attempts.
Small rings: AR of 3.2
Orbital rings: AR of 5.4
Large, layered rings in Helm Chain aspect: AR of 6.3
Small connectors: AR of 3.2 (same as small Helm Chain rings)

Best I can do with Conundrum 2 is try increasing each ring size in its Helm Chains to find something more “ideal”, since this weave wouldn’t be great minimized anyways.

This is interesting: both Conundrum, and Conundrum 2 each had their ideal ARs listed at the impossibly low combinations of 3.0, and 5.0. Surprised ( this gets an emoticon, since that combo is even impossible for Helm Chain itself ). I updated them, educated guessingly with a 2 ring combo. Karpeth might want me to adjust them though. Coif LoL ( this gets an emoticon too ).

Also, since the Conundrum 2 weave entry was packaged with no description, I editor noted one in.

Conundrum: 5/5
Conundrum 2: 3/5 (tentatively)


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

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:43 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:

I get closer to 5.85 (pre-springback + cutting)
Assuming the 20AWG is .0319”, or .8128mm

4.75mm / 0.8128mm = 5.84
or
.187” / .0319” = 5.86

After springback, they may well be closer to 6.0 though.


That's a good point; I'm just going by the stated measurements of my rings, but have noted (for example) that the bright aluminum rings I have are "tighter" than the stainless steal ones for the same stated size.

I guess I need to go out and buy a micrometer. Darn! (j/k; I love tools)

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:


Regarding ideal ARs, you’re definitely right about them being application-specific. They are rather subjective: those who want something tight will ideally use ARs closer to the minimum, while those going for a certain amount of flexibility will use larger ones. Units, for example in most cases have very specific ideal ARs because the structure is preferred to be tight. This is similar to what you’ve made here, and your being concerned that using the larger AR of 6.6 will cause the units to not brace each other desirably is completely founded.


That's good to know, and thanks for the confirmation; the earrings I made look nice with 8mm beads, but I'd like to go smaller (6mm or so). I think I will continue to shoot for 6.0 for this particular application.

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:

Regarding orbital ring application, it appears as though you are adding the orbital ring around the connection point after making the connection. In most cases it is easier to preclose the orbital ring and make the connection as demonstrated in this article:

Creating an Orbital (Animated GIF)


That's exactly what I was doing, and seeing that animation makes me both much happier (especially at the prospect of working with smaller rings) and also makes me smack my head for not thinking to search this site more carefully. Thank you!

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:52 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:

This is interesting: both Conundrum, and Conundrum 2 each had their ideal ARs listed at the impossibly low combinations of 3.0, and 5.0. Surprised ( this gets an emoticon, since that combo is even impossible for Helm Chain itself ). I updated them, educated guessingly with a 2 ring combo. Karpeth might want me to adjust them though. Coif LoL ( this gets an emoticon too ).

Also, since the Conundrum 2 weave entry was packaged with no description, I editor noted one in.


Interesting! I'm not surprised to hear that the listed ARs aren't accurate. I'm sure the original author was thinking, "let me just get this into the database; I'll fix it later". But it is good to know that for the library of weaves, to proceed with caution. Maybe that might be something to propose: some kind of tag or marking to indicate that the ARs have been independently verified?

Joined: March 26, 2002
Posts: 1945
Submissions: 582
Location: Chainmailland, Chainmailia

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:12 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

A lot of the AR info was added post-weave submission, mostly with conservative estimates.

Quite a few entries have been updated since, especially with the more popular weaves.

It’s a work in progress and will be for awhile.


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

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:42 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Things I learned today: I am not the brightest bulb in the lamp.

I'm working on a project that I intend to be in green, so I bought shamrock green anodized aluminum rings. But it's not quite working, so I keep buying half-ounces of rings in difference sizes/gauges. I think I've just about got it, but the end result is that I have half a zillion bright shamrock green rings I probably won't have much of a use for. I know that the forum has a search-weaves-by-AR function, which is awesome, but everything I make is going to be bright frickin' green!

The thing I learned today is this: if you're not 100% sure that what you're going to do is going to work, and if you feel like you're edging into experimentation territory, use rings you think might be useful for other projects if they don't turn out well for what you're doing. Wish I'd gone for bright aluminum.

The other option: make your own rings, if you have the tools (I don't, yet).

Joined: July 5, 2018
Posts: 4
Submissions: 1
Location: Florida

Re: Things I Learned Today
Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:18 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Jackalgirl wrote:

I also learned: it's useful to use t-head pins and a kid's foam mat square (as well as those chainmail mats they give you if you shop at Weave Got Mail). I must have dropped my work a bajillion times (and emitted a similar number of profanities) before I hit up on the idea of pinning the work down.


I swear a LOT when I am working on a new weave, usually for that very reason (dropping it and losing my place). Mad


*MJ*

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:11 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Things I learned today:

Chainmailbasket_com wrote:


Creating an Orbital (Animated GIF)


Ohmygosh you're right this makes it SO MUCH EASIER! I'm working on a smaller set of Turkish Orbital a la Lorraine earrings and although there were some expletives involved, there weren't nearly so many.

I also had some hands-on experience about the spring-back you mentioned. I've been working on my Ankh Necklace, which uses 20 awg 7/64" stainless steel rings to make the mainly Turkish Round chain. At one point, I completely lost track of what I was doing and put on a whole section of the same sized rings in bright aluminum. I really, really wish that I'd taken a photo (note to self, take photos of interesting errors!); the section that was bright aluminum was markedly different not just in color, but it also looked to be probably 1mm wider in diameter, too.

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Things I Learned Today
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:14 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I've been playing around with Turkish Orbital earrings a la Lorraine, which I consider the masterpiece to study.

Her earrings used 20 AWG 4.75mm rings, with an AR of 5.94. I ended up using 20 AWG 3/16", with a stated AR of 6.0. I say "stated" because I still don't have a set of digital calipers/a micrometer, so I'm just going by the Ring Lord's handy chart and/or math.

The TO cage I made from these rings fits 8mm beads snugly, meaning that I had to apply some pressure (and ensure my wire ends were bent as to maintain that pressure) so that the beads wouldn't pop out of the cage.

I wanted to go a bit smaller and have earrings with 6mm beads. So I tried 22 AWG 5/32" rings (stated AR of 6.6). The earrings on the right are what I made. But the beads are not flush up against the cage, as you can see: it's loose.



So I tried 22 AWG 9/64" (stated AR of 6.0. The earrings on the left are those, and those are what I prefer -- like the larger ones, I needed to apply (and maintain) pressure to keep the beads in the cage. But the ones on the right look a bit closer to Lorraine's in proportion (the cage bulges out ever so slightly in the middle).

I think that I'm approaching the minimum AR for this weave. Once I have my calipers, I'll take measurements, because I'm not at all convinced that the AR for these rings is correct. It was extremely difficult, and very frustrating, to get the orbital ring on (especially when I was putting on the last "leg" of the half). I think I might have a better idea of how to use a needle as an awl to shove the orbital into place, and I'm going to give that a try -- after I take a break and let my hands stop hurting. ; )[img][/img]

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:22 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Fun items to ponder about for a bit...

Scales are just oddly shaped rings. Anyone that has scales to play around with should think about weaves, then which rings could be replaced with scales. Makes guestimating ring sizes for scale projects a lot easier.

That turkish orbital sure looks like it could have some rings replaced with scales.


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: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:22 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Fun items to ponder about for a bit...

Scales are just oddly shaped rings. Anyone that has scales to play around with should think about weaves, then which rings could be replaced with scales. Makes guestimating ring sizes for scale projects a lot easier.

That turkish orbital sure looks like it could have some rings replaced with scales.


It's an interesting idea. It probably would work as long as the hole in the scale is big enough, and there isn't so much "meat" in between the hole and the edges so that the rings couldn't close. Or you'd have to vary the size of the rings.

Joined: April 30, 2018
Posts: 63
Submissions: 9
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Things I Learned Today
Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:29 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Things I Learned (in the past several days) About X-weave / Spring Chain / Forars Kaede

Besides finding out that, once again, AR is pretty critical, I had to puzzle through a couple of more things.

First off, the article, "X-weave / Spring Chain / Forars Kaede (Updated)", is a little unclear. After you have woven three rings together and overlapped the outer two (right-most over left-most) (pictures #1 and #2 of the tutorial), you simply weave the fourth ring through eye formed by the overlapped rings without turning the work, making sure that as the new ring goes through the eye, it is on top of the middle ring:



Now you turn the new assembly 1/4 turn towards you, so that the ring you just added is now facing you (flat):

The right-most ring is the ring you just added.

Weave the next ring through the eye formed by the two rings that are facing you (flat), making sure that the rightmost flat ring is overlapped on top of the preceding flat ring:



And from there you follow the tutorial and/or the pattern: quarter turn towards you, but now you're looking for the eye formed by the most recent two flat rings (facing you), making sure that the last ring is overlapping the third most recent flat ring (facing you).

It helps me to think of the last ring as the "child ring", the second-most (the middle unshaded ring, bottom-most of the three) as the "mother ring" and the third-to-last (the left unshaded ring) as the "grandmother ring" (terms I've borrowed from knitting). The next ring needs to go through the eye formed by the child and mother rings, making sure that the child ring overlaps the grandmother ring.

However, the tutorial doesn't emphasize the importance of overlapping the rings correctly.

So I kept running into a problem. I'm using 20awg 9/64" stainless steel rings here. I'd turn the piece and discover this:

One of these things / is not like the others...

Arrgh! Well, I figured out the issue: the AR is such that it's possible for the two facing (flat) rings you're trying to weave to arrange themselves with the right-most one under the preceding one.

My apologies for the blurriness of this picture

Hence the emphasis, above: I've learned that I have to double-check to make sure that the three most recent flat rings are overlapping correctly (in my case, child over grandmother, since that's how I started).

I suspect that the tutorial uses rings with an AR that doesn't allow for the rings to overlap incorrectly; my inner diameter is probably just a tad too high. As mentioned before, I'm using 20awg 9/64" stainless steel rings from WeaveGotMaille, with a stated AR of 4.39, which is pretty darn close to the ideal AR of 4.4 for Forars Kaede. Using my trusty brand new digital calipers, however, I measured five rings and got an average AR of 4.45. I'm willing to bet that in between 4.1 (minimum AR for the weave) and 4.4, the rings won't slip under each other like they did with mine, and this is why it's not mentioned in the article (it didn't happen).

In short: if you're using rings with an AR larger than 4.4, you need to pay attention to the overlap before you add the next ring.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:30 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Knitting Circle
Display posts from previous: