Help with estimating #of rings - roundmaille
Author Message
Cipher

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: July 13, 2003
Posts: 656
Submissions: 18

 Help with estimating #of rings - roundmaille Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:42 am Link to Post: Hey all, I've been commissioned to do a roundmaille necklace in either gold fill or (customers preference) solid 10k, and I need help estimating the number of rings I'll need. Here are the details: I did a 4in1 roundmaille necklace for him in stainless, 18g 5/32", and he wants the same thing, now done in gold. I estimated there were roughly 1200 rings in the stainless piece, but that was just a ball park based on the number of rings in a single row in one inch x 6 (the number of rows) x 24 (the length in inches) I had no idea when I made it that I might be asked to replicate it in gold, so I didn't bother with a more accurate count. Here's the problem: TRL only has 10k up to 20g so the same stats are out of the question in solid gold, but I'm thinking I can convince him that 6in1 roundmaille done in 20g 5/32 will be just as beefy and robust as the 18g. If he agrees then I need to be able to estimate accurately, the number of rings I'll need. Those 10k rings are not cheap, and I don't have as much wiggle room to overestimate as I would with gold fill. Logic argues that 4in1 = two thirds of 6in1 and if I needed 1200 rings for the 4in1 roundmaille, I'll need 1600 rings for 6in1 roundmaille. But I don't trust that to be accurate enough when your talking about something in the range of \$3500 in materials. Plus I'm not sure if my reasoning is sound. My question(s): 1- Does anyone have a really accurate formula that can be used to estimate the # of rings needed? Both for the 4in1 and for the 6in1 if possible. 2- Do you think 20g 6in1 will look as beefy as 18g 4in1? The IR stays the same. I would really hate for him to be even slightly disappointed in the look of the piece considering the immense cost involved. I think it would be just as beefy and manly, just a little sleeker if that makes any sense, but I'd like as many opinions as possible. Thanx in advance everyone!Too much confusion! I'm going metric

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: February 24, 2010
Posts: 551
Submissions: 4

 Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:06 am Link to Post: what I do for rough estimates is make a small sample in the same AR as what will be used and watch from a perpendicular view to the sample for where either the ID or ED is repeated (ie. if the overlap is such that at the end of one ring, you can see a different ring's start lined up with the prior's end) and then I do a rough calculation of how much space is used (rough because a difference of 10 degrees wont make a huge difference in trigonometric calculations) and then count the rings in each section (by section, i mean how many rings correspond to that first ring before reaching the one lined up with it) and use that many rings for that unit of length, and go from there. for example, if I may use the dragonscale weave's archived picture: now, using only the large rings... notice how the the ring second from the top on the far right's bottom seems to line up with the top of the ring that is 3rd from the top to the 2nd farthest right that is, of course, including wire thickness... for simplicity, let's just assume that the angle of it makes it's change in length according to perspective equal to one wire thickness... thus, it would be one ID and one Wire thickness in length per 2 rows, which in that picture would be... 17 large rings and 15 small rings, for that patch. does that make sense? though remember to always buy extra just in case and 6-1 is denser than 4-1, and would require larger AR rings as well, which should cover and make it adequately thick, if not appearing more so.
lordmcfuzz

[ Big Voice ]

Joined: June 13, 2010
Posts: 117
Submissions: 5

 Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:50 am Link to Post: I would personally make one out of cheaper material to see how many rings you will need, and if it will look beefy enough. You will then know the amount of rings you will need so there is no guess work with formulas and estimations.
lorraine

[ Uber Mouth ]

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

 Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:54 am Link to Post: Is an AR of 5.1-5.2 high enough for 6-1 Roundmaille. I've never made it, so I don't honestly know. You really do need to make up a couple of inches of what you need ring counts on to be accurate, especially when you are talking about something this expensive to get materials for. And gold filled is a wonderful thing. Really! It's lovely to work with and lovely to look at. It doesn't chip or wear off like plated crap. I love it. http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=15329 Also, don't forget to take into account that using smaller rings means you will be spending more time weaving the piece. Don't sell yourself short by giving your time away for free. "I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash Lorraine's Chains Gallery Submission Guidelines
Pfeiffer

[ Major Voice ]

Joined: July 17, 2009
Posts: 451
Submissions: 76

 Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:36 am Link to Post: I agree with above comments. You should definitely make a prototype from an inexpensive material using the same ring size and weave you want. Once you are happy with every aspect of the prototype, you can just count the actual number or rings needed. For a commissioned piece of that price, your labor and materials to make the prototype is relatively small. If customer like the prototype, then you can go to gold material and be 100% confident that every detail will work out. That is definitely the way I would handle it. https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipP5bWooxHx5gOGwEjdl3Na9gyQsDA1yOPktF2p0
twilightbanana

[ Big Voice ]

Joined: June 08, 2006
Posts: 209
Submissions: 0
Location: the Netherlands

 Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:00 am Link to Post: One important detail: E6-1 actually contains twice the amount of rings as E4-1.
Vorondil

[ Ancient Forge ]

Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1015
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

 Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:55 pm Link to Post: Have you considered using a different supplier? SpiderChain says they will do gold on a custom basis. You could at least ask them for a quote of what it may cost. For that matter, you could also ask TRL directly if they would be able to make a custom order of what you need. I thought there was a supplier somewhere who offered the thicker gold rings, but I don't recall the name off-hand. You may want to try looking around a bit more for someone who can supply the 18g 5/32" that your customer is looking for. Oh, btw, you realize that gold is going to have significantly less springback than stainless, right? That may throw a wrench into your calculations.

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: February 24, 2010
Posts: 551
Submissions: 4

 Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:19 pm Link to Post: RioGrande has gold fill rings from 14 to 22 gauge, though it seems to be in AWG, so take that into consideration if you were working with SWG 18 gauge before, which in AWG would be closest to 16 or 17, so if you order them from RioGrande, you'd want to order it 16 gauge. if you were using SWG before, that is. if not, then the 18 gauge. and 4mm is about the size you used before (slightly larger, but the stainless also has spring-back, so it'll keep 'em a bit closer in size) http://www.riogrande.com/MemberArea/ProductPage.aspx?assetName=696104&page=GRID&category|category_root|132=Findings&category|cat_502|1988=Gold-Filled&attribute_value_string|Shape=Round&attribute_value_string|Style=Jump+ring idk on price, though, as it classifies these rings as a "log in for pricing" item
Vorondil

[ Ancient Forge ]

Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1015
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

Posted on Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:07 pm

 Saradamon wrote: RioGrande has gold fill rings from 14 to 22 gauge

That's all well and good, but his customer asked for 10K gold, not gold fill. Gold fill is easy enough to find in other sizes from various suppliers (TRL, Golden Maille, etc.).
Cipher

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: July 13, 2003
Posts: 656
Submissions: 18

 Posted on Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:32 am Link to Post: Thank you all! I have sent an e-mail to Spider asking for a quote, and I've sent one to Jon at TRL to see about a custom order as well. If I can get my hands on 1.2mm wire that will solve the dilemma entirely. Thanx Vorondil. If not I will make a prototype with the new sizes, I was just thinking like a lazy man and trying to get away without putting in the plier time since the weaves / sizes were so similar. Thanx for putting me back in line. And you're right Pfieffer, at that price, the time/mats for a prototype is a 'drop in the bucket'. Good advice about the springback, Vorondil, I hadn't considered that. If I get the 1.2mm / 4.0mm rings it shouldn't be a major issue, Ar will go from 3.4 to 3.3 (or something like that). Saradamon: Huh? I think I almost understood that, but you're kinda making me feel like I should be on the short bus! Is it really that much more accurate than counting all the rings in a sq. in. and multiplying by the total area? It seems complicated, and I'd probably mess it up. Also, a question for anyone who has worked in gold: should I consider nylon jawed pliers? The jaws look really thick and awkward, but I'm used to stainless, and I'm worried about tool marks. Thanx again!Too much confusion! I'm going metric

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: February 24, 2010
Posts: 551
Submissions: 4

 Posted on Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:41 am Link to Post: meh, it's basically doing that, but making it a quick conversion for that AR in different wire sizes, as it's "x wire thicknesses for z number of rings" (as you'd do the wire thicknesses + the wirethickness * ar etc) if i edited the pic a bit it'd be clearer what I mean... infact, i just did... http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk160/Saradamon_Defender_of_Righteousness/Maille/dragonscaleblablablasample.jpg?t=1277353890 the blue rings are the ones in question. note the red lines. the top-most and bottom-most blue rings seem to align with the central blue ring, as shown by the red lines. correct? now, it's clear that the rings are not lying flat against the surface, and as such, due to perspective, they would not appear in the same proportions. Let's just assume in this, for simplicity, that these rings have an aspect ratio of 6, and are laying at a 50 degree angle, which would make the distance that they take up while in this position is, rather than 8 wire thicknesses, only 6 wire thicknesses (also the ID). From this, we have our unit being as long as 6 wire thicknesses at this large ring AR of 6. then it would just be to count the rings in that row, 17 large and 15 small, and we would come thusly: for every 17 large rings and 15 small rings (at this width of the weave), we would cover 6 wire thicknesses. this is of course, only using baseless measures, though used in such a way to make it as simple as I can possibly state it. though I would normally just assume it the exterior diameter as the unit length in this particular case in order to cover for the extra "just in case" rings. EDIT: apologies, the pic wont work, so i linked it
Vorondil

[ Ancient Forge ]

Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1015
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

Posted on Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:28 pm

 Cipher wrote: Saradamon: Huh? I think I almost understood that, but you're kinda making me feel like I should be on the short bus! Is it really that much more accurate than counting all the rings in a sq. in. and multiplying by the total area? It seems complicated, and I'd probably mess it up.

I think he's overcomplicating it. If you want to be more accurate, use a 3 inch segment instead of a one inch. Still, a similar sized prototype is your best bet.

 Saradamon wrote: for every 17 large rings and 15 small rings (at this width of the weave), we would cover 6 wire thicknesses.

I don't see how that could possibly be right, or helpful. For one, I count 18 large rings. For another, 6 wire thicknesses in which direction? In terms of the picture, those rings cover a lot more than 6 wire thickness going left to right or up and down. That would leave only the depth of the weave (front to back, but you can't see that from a picture). Why do we care about the depth? In this DS sample, the piece will have the same depth at any point. It's a rather flat weave. So how does know this depth at any one point help us to determine how many rings there are in a certain length?

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: February 24, 2010
Posts: 551
Submissions: 4

 Posted on Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:01 pm Link to Post: I count 17 O_O and I was just saying 16 for an example, not the actual. I was assuming an AR of 6 for the large rings for stating my purpose. and as for the depth, the more depth in it, the higher one end of the large rings would be lifted, thus the larger the angle between it and the surface it is upon. thus, as was the main point behind what I was saying, the "unit length" (in this pic, up/down being the direction referenced in "length") is the square root of the depth squared + large ring exterior diameter squared (Pythagorean theorem), as the "unit length" is the factor of the ring's size that influences the length of the weave. that's what I was saying.
Vorondil

[ Ancient Forge ]

Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1015
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

Posted on Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:24 pm

 Saradamon wrote: and I was just saying 16 for an example, not the actual.

You said 6 before...
 Saradamon wrote: for every 17 large rings and 15 small rings (at this width of the weave), we would cover 6 wire thicknesses.

While I see a little more of what you're saying now, I still believe you're overcomplicating things (you have even said previously that you enjoy doing so). Your formula relies heavily on what you THINK the weave is doing. While it seems nice in theory, it may not perform so well in practice. So you can use the pythagorean theorem to find the length occupied by an angled ring. What formula do you use to find the distance between that ring and one adjacent to it? How do you account for overlap between adjacent rings?

I still don't see how this is more accurate than counting rings per inch. Even if you accounted for the two questions I brought up, the unit you're using (a few rings instead of an inch or three) is smaller and therefore less accurate on a larger scale. With a project like this, where the materials are so valuable, he will need the most accurate number possible. To achieve that number, the safest method is still the prototype.

 Saradamon wrote: I count 17 O_O

I still count 18. There are five large rings in the furthest right column. There are four in the offset column just next to that (in between the others). That makes nine. Since you were apparently looking at two columns, that would be another nine. That makes eighteen in total. And for that matter, I only see 14 small rings in a four column area.

[ Grand Master Speaker ]

Joined: February 24, 2010
Posts: 551
Submissions: 4

 Posted on Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:12 pm Link to Post: oh... as for the 18 v. 17, I was counting the other direction. and the 16 was a typo of 6 and sure, i do overcomplicate. but this is something where i take the estimates in such a way that I KNOW that a longer piece will have less rings than estimated. It's more of a way to do only one calculation and not have to guess on how many extra "just in case" rings to buy.