Textile Structure
how cloth is put together
Concept

Hair coverage — where it appears

The fraction of the space beside a yarn that is occupied by protruding fibre, at a stated height. It is a count of shadows rather than a solid fraction, and it is the quantity every instrument reporting a yarn diameter is really taking a contour of.

Named by 8 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A yarn's diameter is a contour, not a length. The fraction of the space beside a 20 tex cotton yarn that is occupied by hair, against height, grossed up from the modelled population by the measured split between the long and short populations. At the yarn's own surface it is 8.9% — the layer is almost entirely gap — and it falls away exponentially from there. Every instrument that reports a yarn diameter is picking a contour of this curve, and the contours are far apart: a threshold that needs half the space filled is never met at all, one that needs a twentieth is met at 355 µm, and a hair counter triggers out at 2353 µm. The earlier model gave the layer a single thickness of 25 µm, which is a fair description of where most of the material is and wrong about its extent by more than a decade. What the curve cannot say is which contour any particular instrument uses, which is a fact about the instrument.

A cloth is more opaque than it is closed

Opacity is not cover — this collection established that already and left the discrepancy attributed to the thickness of the threads. Part of it is not in the threads at all. A hair standing in a hole blocks light exactly as well as a thread does and costs nothing in air.

pattern · Opacity Whether a cloth's hairs can reach one another. n_A λ² for each construction in this site's table — the hairs per square millimetre times the square of their own length, which is the pure number that asks whether a hair can touch its neighbour. It is a count times an area, so it has to be a pure number. Every one of them is under one, which means no ordinary woven cotton cloth has a hair layer at all: it has isolated whiskers on a bare surface. The dashed line is the threshold. The spread across the whole table is only 1.9-fold, because the density goes as the sett times the root of the count and those move in opposite directions as a cloth is made finer — so construction is almost powerless here, and everything that crosses this threshold does so by finishing rather than by weaving.

A knit gives up its fibres more easily

Knitwear pills and shirting does not, and the fibres are often the same fibres. The difference is a count of yarn per unit area and a pressure between threads, and both of them push a knit over a threshold that a woven cloth of the same yarn cannot reach.

knits · Knit A yarn's diameter is a contour, not a length. The fraction of the space beside a 20 tex cotton yarn that is occupied by hair, against height, grossed up from the modelled population by the measured split between the long and short populations. At the yarn's own surface it is 8.9% — the layer is almost entirely gap — and it falls away exponentially from there. Every instrument that reports a yarn diameter is picking a contour of this curve, and the contours are far apart: a threshold that needs half the space filled is never met at all, one that needs a twentieth is met at 355 µm, and a hair counter triggers out at 2353 µm. The earlier model gave the layer a single thickness of 25 µm, which is a fair description of where most of the material is and wrong about its extent by more than a decade. What the curve cannot say is which contour any particular instrument uses, which is a fact about the instrument.

A yarn has a diameter for every instrument

Conservation of volume gives a yarn one diameter and every other route gives a different one. The disagreement is not experimental scatter: a yarn's outside is a coverage that falls away exponentially, and each instrument stops at whatever contour of it will trigger the instrument.

cloth · Hair layer At 0.1 kilopascals the plate is standing on hair. A flat foot pressed onto sheeting at 0.1 kPa, over 3 mm of cloth. It stops 25 µm above the cloth's own crowns, because that is where the hairs it is bending can carry the load: of the 10 hairs drawn, 9 reach higher than the foot and are laid over under it, and the rest are untouched. The vertical scale is set by the approach and not by the layer — 5188 pixels to the millimetre off the cloth against 192 along it — because the foot's height above the crowns is tens of micrometres and the layer it stands in is more than a millimetre, so a picture at one scale shows the second and not the first. The thickness reported is 0.432 mm against 0.382 mm for the cloth itself, so 12% of the reading is a population and not a fabric. The hair layer carries up to 0.23 kPa before the foot reaches the crowns at all. A laid-over hair is drawn as two straight segments where a real one is an elastica: the corner is a convenience and the height it turns at is the measurement. What the picture cannot show is that a bent hair leans on its neighbours, which the arithmetic behind it does not know either.

A light touch never reaches the crowns

This collection found that a plain weave touches at points and every other cloth touches along lines, and that the difference is an exponent rather than a factor. It is a real result about a real surface, and at the pressures a fabric is actually touched at, nothing ever reaches that surface.

cloth · Contact One canopy, two opposite outcomes, decided by a sign. What a canopy does to a drop, for sheeting raised 32-fold. A rough surface multiplies the cosine of the intrinsic contact angle by its roughness ratio, which here is 2.0 — a hair is a cylinder and contributes πd of surface for every d of shadow. So a fibre that wets at all is driven to complete spreading, and one that does not is driven to a Cassie state sitting on 32.4% solid and air. The dashed diagonal is what the bare fibre would do; the canopy pushes every point away from ninety degrees, in whichever direction it already lay. Raising is therefore not a wetting treatment or a repellency treatment — it is an amplifier, and which one it turns out to be was settled by the chemistry before the raising machine was switched on. What the figure cannot show is which state a real drop reaches, because both are available near the hinge and the one it finds depends on how it arrived.

The hairs decide the sign of the wetting

Raising a cloth is not a wetting treatment and it is not a repellency treatment. It is an amplifier, and which of the two it turns out to be was settled in the dyehouse before the raising machine was switched on — by whether the fibre's own contact angle was above or below ninety degrees.

cloth · Water A print is as sharp as the hairs are long. How far ink carried on a hair reaches past a printed edge into the unprinted cloth, for sheeting in three states. A hair lying near the edge bridges as far as its own length, and the number bridging at least a distance x is (n_A λ/2)e^(−x/λ) — an exponential with the population's own decay length — so the visible feather is a quantile rather than a mean, taken here at one hair per 50 millimetres of edge. As woven the feather is 1911 µm, which is a fifteenth of an inch and coarser than any screen worth engraving: the cloth cannot hold better than 7 lines to the inch whatever the printer does. Singeing caps it at the flame's own reach of 200 µm and takes the cloth to 63 lines — a factor of 10, bought by burning off a fraction of one per cent of the cloth's mass. That is why singeing comes before printing and why nobody prints a fine figure on a raised cloth.

A print is as sharp as the hairs are long

Singeing comes before printing in every finishing route ever written down and the reason given is that the cloth must be smooth. The reason is sharper than that: ink carried on a fibre end reaches as far as the fibre is long, so the feather on a printed edge is a quantile of a hair population and nothing else.

finishing · Coating A shot effect needs a fibre with no ends. The peak-to-trough contrast of an eight-end satin in sheeting as the cloth is turned in the light, against how much hair stands on it. Bare, the contrast is 37 to one, because a straight thread's normals lie in the plane across it and the warp and the weft therefore reflect a quarter turn apart. A hair layer does two things and only one of them matters: it blocks, which takes the same factor off the peak and the trough and changes no contrast at all, and it returns light of its own, which is added to both. A hair population points every way at once, so its return has no azimuth in it — and adding a constant to both ends of a ratio of 37 destroys the ratio. On an ordinary spun cotton the contrast is already down to 5.1 to one; singeing recovers it to 29; raising kills it outright at 1.00. The one fibre with no staple length is the one fibre with no fibre ends, and every shot fabric ever woven is made of one.

A hair layer veils a highlight

An eight-end satin's shine swings by a large factor as the cloth is turned, because a straight thread's normals lie in the plane across it. Put fibre ends on it and the swing disappears — not because the hairs block the light, which changes no contrast at all, but because they return light of their own that has no direction in it.

weaves · Shine A woven filter catches what its rating says it cannot. What fraction of a particle stream is intercepted by the hair layer of a filter cloth, against particle size, at three levels of raising. The cloth's own largest opening is 290 µm, so by geometry it stops nothing smaller than that at all — and the hairs catch a few per cent of particles ten and a hundred times finer, because a particle whose path passes within its own radius of a hair touches it. On a bare cloth the numbers are small; the point is that they are not zero, because a cake grows from the particles that stop, and once a cake exists the cloth is no longer doing the filtering. Raising the same cloth 32-fold takes a ten-micrometre capture from 0.8% to 23%, which is why a napped filter cloth exists. Interception is taken as the bare geometric ratio of the two diameters with no flow model behind it, so every number here is a lower bound.

A woven filter beats its own rating

A filter cloth's rating comes from the largest channel through it, and by geometry it stops nothing smaller. It stops a few per cent of particles ten times smaller anyway, on the fibre ends standing in its holes — and a few per cent is not filtration. It is exactly enough to start a cake, and after that the cloth is not filtering.

applied · Filtration

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Hair layerCanopy criterionRaisingSingeingOpacityClear openingContact thresholdCover factorCrown lineOpen areaVeilWicking

All concepts