Field

Setting and geometry

Yarn diameter, crimp and cover. How close threads can be set, why thread count is not what it is taken for, and which model produced any number.

$The same thread count, twice. Two cloths with identical thread counts and different yarn. The count is the same number in both; the fraction of the surface the threads actually occupy is not, and that fraction is what thread count is usually taken to mean.$

Thread count is not quality

It counts threads. It says nothing about how much of the cloth they cover, it can be inflated by counting plies, and it ranks fabrics in nearly the wrong order. The quantity it is mistaken for is cover factor, and that one is computable.

Pull it lengthways and it narrows. The same cloth before and after a small extension along the warp. No thread has stretched: the extension came out of the warp crimp, that crimp went into the weft, and the fabric is narrower for it.

Crimp, and why cloth narrows when it is pulled

A thread in cloth is longer than the cloth it crosses. Pull the fabric one way and that extra length is taken out of one direction and put into the other, so the cloth gets narrower without a single fibre stretching.

What an interlacing costs. Each weave's interlacing count beside the closest it can be set in the same yarn. The two run opposite ways, because a thread that changes face often has to bend often and a bend takes room.

How close can threads be set

There is a maximum. Push more threads into a cloth than the geometry allows and they simply will not go, and the limit depends on the weave as much as on the yarn.

Six ways of saying how fine a yarn is. The same four yarns written in six count systems, all placed on one axis of tex. A direct system states mass per unit length and rises as the yarn coarsens; an indirect one states length per unit mass and falls. Both kinds are in daily use and neither says which it is.

The yarn count systems, and why there are several

Half the ways of saying how fine a yarn is get bigger as it gets finer and half get smaller. That is not carelessness — and one of the constants buried in the oldest rule of thumb turns out to be a measurement nobody wrote down.

Two sections, one yarn. The same yarn given a circular cross-section and a racetrack one of equal area, both jammed. The spacing the two models allow is nearly the same; the cover and the cloth thickness they predict are not.

Peirce against the racetrack, measured

Two models of a yarn's cross-section, given the same yarn and the same closure condition, agree on how densely the cloth can be set and disagree by nearly half on how thick it is. Which quantity is being asked about decides whether the choice of model matters at all.

Balance, and what an unbalanced cloth does

How much of the surface each thread system takes is the mean of the weave matrix, and it is one of the very few quantities in this subject that can be read straight off. Almost nothing that follows from it can.

The weave decides the sett, and two models disagree about it

Ashenhurst's rule and Peirce's geometry both answer how densely a cloth can be set, and for a plain weave they are fifteen per cent apart. Only one of them reaches the other weaves at all, and it is the cruder one.

$Where the twenty-eight comes from. The setting a cotton cover factor of 28 prescribes, and the setting at which the threads would cover the surface geometrically, against yarn count. They are one curve: the trade's scale is Peirce's diameter with the units taken out. Below them is the sett at which each weave actually jams, which is a fixed fraction of it.$

Where the cover factor comes from

A cotton cover factor is threads per inch over the root of the count, and the scale says twenty-eight means a covered surface. The twenty-eight is not a convention: it is the reciprocal of Peirce's yarn diameter, and the trade's practical ceilings of fourteen and twenty-two fall straight out of it.

What crimp interchange actually conserves

Pull a cloth lengthways and it narrows, because the crimp moves from one system to the other. Inextensibility says that much and no more — it is one equation short of an answer, and the second equation everybody uses is an assumption with a name.

Z twist at 800 turns per metre. A 20 tex cotton yarn, 0.167 mm across, with its surface fibres drawn as the helices they are. The angle between a surface fibre and the yarn's axis is 22.8°, and it is the only quantity in this family: the yarn is 4.1% shorter than the fibre in it and carries 85% of the strength the same fibre would give lying straight.

Twist is one angle

Every model on this site treats a yarn as a cylinder with a diameter. It is a bundle of loose fibres, and what makes it behave like a cylinder is twist — which is a helix, so the whole subject is one angle, and the trade's twist factor turns out to be the only combination of count and turns that decides anything.

Z twill, Z twist. A square of cloth with two directions on it. The broad lines are the twill, whose angle 45.0° from the warp comes from the setts alone — 24 ends and 24 picks per centimetre. The fine lines are the surface fibres of the warp ends, at 25.3° from the warp because the yarn is twisted 900 turns per metre. Between them is 19.7°, and that is the whole of the rule.

Twist and the twill line

The oldest rule of thumb in weaving says to weave a Z twill from S-twist warp for a bold line and from Z-twist warp for a subdued one. Both halves of it are geometry: the twill's angle comes from the two setts, the fibres' angle comes from the twist factor, and the rule is their difference.

Every cloth at 150 grams. The counts and setts that all weigh 150 g/m² at a crimp of 7 per cent and a balance of 1. Hollow marks are past the jam — arithmetic rather than cloth. Among the 10 that can be woven the cover factor runs from 0.28 to 0.77, a factor of 2.77, and every one of them is the fabric the specification asked for.

What a fabric weighs

Every fabric is sold by its weight in grams per square metre, and the number is a sum of four products in which no term appears alone. One equation, four unknowns: a hundred and fifty grams describes an open coarse cloth and a close fine one, and the cover factors differ by a factor of nearly three.

The sett moves the flux and not the height. A 20 tex cotton yarn woven at every sett from 8 to 34 threads per centimetre. Above: the hole between the threads lifts from 27 to 234 mm as the cloth closes, while the space between the fibres lifts 6.37 m at every one of them — so the cloth's maximum is the flat line, and the sett does not touch it. Below: the permeability of those holes falls by a factor of 292 over the same range. Both curves are monotone, so there is no optimum — only an interval, ending at the jam at 34.6 threads per centimetre.

The sett decides how much, not how high

Every rung of this ladder so far has found the sett deciding something. This one finds it deciding nothing at all: a cloth's maximum rise is 6.37 m at eight threads per centimetre and 6.37 m at thirty-four, because the sett cannot reach inside a yarn.

The reed is not the sett

A reed holds the warp at a pitch, and the cloth that leaves it is narrower — by exactly the weft's crimp, with nothing fitted and nothing approximated. On a close balanced sheeting that is 12.75 per cent, on an open scrim 1.87, and a weaver who allowed one figure for both would be wrong by a factor of nearly seven.

What the two setts can be set to. Two rules on one scale from 8 to 40 threads per centimetre. The upper carries the 49 warp setts a metric reed catalogue reaches at one to four ends per dent; the lower carries the 4825 pick densities a change-wheel take-up reaches. The mean spacing is 0.656 threads per centimetre in the warp and 0.0066 in the weft, a ratio of 99. The widest gap in the reed's range is 2.10 threads per centimetre.

The setts a loom can reach

Transposing a draft gives a perfectly good draft, and every count this site takes off a matrix either is symmetric under exchanging warp and weft or has a mirror twin. The loom is not symmetric at all: over the range ordinary cloth is woven in, it can choose a pick density 99 times more finely than a warp sett — and the warp sett cannot be changed once the warp is drawn in, at any granularity whatever.

The crimp ratio is not a measurement

Peirce's geometry is two thread systems, four unknowns and three equations. It cannot say how the crimp divides between warp and weft, so every cloth solved so far has been drawn at a ratio somebody chose. Give the threads a stiffness and the missing equation arrives — and for six of the eight cloths in the table it arrives with no material constant in it at all.

The beat-up, at the fell. The last picks of a sheeting at 26 picks per centimetre, with the beat-up zone shaded. Driving the fell forward makes the warp take more crimp and more crimp takes more thread, which the warp can only supply by stretching — so the force is the warp tension times the crimp's elasticity with respect to the pick spacing, 0.182 here. That is 0.205 N per end and 573 N per metre of reed. What the drawing cannot show is that the shaded band's width cancels out of the derivation exactly; it is drawn because a reader needs to see what is being compressed, not because the answer depends on it.

The blow that sets the pick

The take-up gear decides how far the cloth moves between picks and says nothing about the blow that puts each pick where it goes. That blow is a force, and a virtual-work argument gives it in one line — with the length of the beat-up zone cancelling out of the answer exactly, which is the part worth having.

Selectable against reachable. How far up the take-up gear's catalogue a beat-up force reaches, on a sheeting. The catalogue holds 4,825 distinct pick densities between 8 and 40 per centimetre, which is the previous rung's count of what the machine can select. At 200 N per metre only 548 of them can be woven; at 2,000 it is 4,256. The fineness of the choice is untouched by the ceiling and the top of the range is cut off entirely, so the weft direction's advantage is resolution rather than reach. What the chart cannot show is the loom's own force, which depends on the beat-up mechanism and is not a property of the cloth.

A pick density is a force budget

The take-up ladder counted what a change-wheel take-up can select: 4,825 distinct pick densities between eight and forty threads per centimetre, against forty-nine warp setts a reed catalogue offers over the same range. That count assumed every setting is available. A beat-up force says otherwise, and cuts the top off the range without touching the fineness of the choice.

A crossing before and after it is pressed. One warp end of a sheeting riding over three picks, drawn twice to the same scale. Unpressed, both sections are circles and the cloth is 0.388 mm thick. At 0.42 N per crossing the sections flatten to aspect ratios of 1.79 and 1.88, the cloth thins to 0.260 mm, and the warp runs flat for 0.113 mm over each pick before it begins to curve. What the drawing cannot show is why the cloth does not do this by itself: flattening shrinks the arc radius as well as the crimp height, so it costs bending energy, and a relaxed cloth keeps its threads round.

Peirce and Kemp are one cloth at two moments

This site has run two thread sections side by side since the setting field was built — a circle and a flattened racetrack — and said honestly that they disagree and that the disagreement is the point. They are not rival descriptions of the same fabric. They are descriptions of the same fabric before and after something pressed it, and the difference between them is a pressure that can now be named.

The crimp ratios a dense shirting can have. Poplins in 15 tex warp and 20 tex weft at 22 picks, from 32 ends per centimetre to 52. Each bar is the interval of warp-to-weft crimp ratios the construction admits at all: the warp must supply at least the thickness the weft cannot reach, and at most what it can reach itself. The rule at one is this site's standing default. It sits inside the interval up to 44.18 ends per centimetre and outside it beyond — so for a dense shirting an equal division of the crimp is not merely the wrong assumption but a geometric impossibility. The 44-end poplin this site's own cloth table called impossible for a long time sits a fifth of an end below that limit, which is why the solver failed on it: its feasible interval was real and narrow, and a bisection on the whole range walked away from it.

The cloth that was called impossible

This site's own table of fabrics carries a note saying a real 44-end poplin has no solution in its geometry at all, and that the poplin row was therefore set at 32 ends. The cloth solves. What had no solution was the search — a bisection that treated a state it could not reach as evidence of having gone too far, and walked away from the answer every time.

The two halves of a beat-up force. The force the reed must apply per metre, for a sheeting, against the number of picks that are still sliding against the warp. The elastic half — the warp tension times the crimp's elasticity with respect to the pick spacing — is 573 N/m and does not depend on the zone at all; that cancellation is exact and is the result the rung below established. The frictional half is 1133 N/m per sliding pick and is nothing but zone. Against a reported 400–1500 N/m, that leaves room for at most 0.82 picks sliding — so the fell region a weaver can see, ten to fifty picks deep, is not the same quantity as the picks that are still moving. What the rows cannot show is that this is a static friction throughout, and a beat-up is a blow.

The half of the beat-up that is all zone

The elastic half of the beat-up force is exact and the length of the beat-up zone cancels out of it, which is this site's own result and disagrees with every practical account of weaving. The frictional half is nothing but zone — and requiring the total to match the force a loom is actually built to apply puts the number of picks still sliding at about one.

Cover, dry and wetted. Warp cover for every cloth in the table when its threads swell by 20% and its spacings are held, with the dry value and the sett at which the swollen threads touch beside each bar. Cover is a diameter over a spacing and only the diameter moves, so every cover is multiplied by exactly 1.20 and every jamming sett divided by it — an identity rather than a result, and the one statement in this ladder a reader can check by hand. No cloth here reaches a cover of one, so none of them jams laterally on wetting; the closest is the sheeting at 0.628. What the bars cannot show is the through-thickness condition, which the sheeting fails at a swelling of half this one.

A wet cloth is set closer than it was woven

Cover is a diameter over a spacing. Wetting moves the diameter and does not move the spacing, so every cover factor on this site is multiplied by exactly the swelling ratio and every jamming sett divided by it — which is an identity, and the one statement in this ladder a reader can check by hand.

Shrinkage from wetting, cloth by cloth. The change in each cloth's relaxed construction when its threads swell by 20% across and 1.2% along. Both states are least-energy states of their own constant-thread-length locus, which is the only comparison the locus admits: its minimum is a state at its own sett, so it may be compared with another minimum and not with a quoted construction. Positive is smaller. Every cloth that has a wet state closes up except the cheesecloth, which opens by half a per cent because the fibre's extra hundredth of length outruns the extra crimp a thicker partner costs. What the bars cannot show is the three cloths that are missing, which have no wet state at all.

Wetting moves a cloth to another locus

A cloth's constant-thread-length locus is built at a fixed thickness. Swelling changes the thickness, so a wetted cloth is not somewhere else on its own locus — it is on a different one, and the distance between the two least-energy states is the shrinkage. Five of the eight cloths here have a wet state, and one of them gets bigger.

How far each cloth's sett moves between the loom and the finished state. A cloth on the loom is held: the warp is under beam tension and the picks are driven up at whatever density the take-up says. Let it go and it relaxes to the least-energy state of its own locus, which is a state at a different sett. The bars are how far each sett moves, and they always move in opposite directions because there is one locus: warp ends per centimetre fall as the cloth widens and picks per centimetre rise as it shortens. Seven of the eight move a little over one per cent; the poplin, whose two counts and two setts are the only unbalanced pair in the table, moves six and ten. What the bars cannot show is what a designer does with them, which is that the two numbers a specification quotes are not two free numbers — the finished construction is a point on a one-dimensional curve.

The construction a loom must be set to

A specification quotes ends and picks per centimetre in the finished cloth, and a loom is set to neither of them. The cloth relaxes to the least-energy state of its own locus, which is a state at a different sett — and because the locus is one curve, the two numbers a specification quotes are not two free numbers.

The fourth power is a close cloth's rule

Every account of a fabric's air permeability quotes the same thing: flow down a channel goes as the fourth power of its width, so a small change of sett is a large change of flow. That is Poiseuille's result, it is about the viscous drop, and in an open cloth the viscous drop is two per cent of the pressure. The rule becomes true as the cloth closes, and where it starts being true is a number.

How open a muslin is, against where the light is. One minus the cover is a cloth's openness to a light directly behind it, and for this muslin it is 37.9 per cent. Move off the normal and a line of sight has to clear the hole at the top of the cloth and the same hole one thickness below, so what it can use falls as t·tan α is taken off each side — reaching nothing at 36.1° across the ends. Averaged over the whole sky with Lambert's cosine weighting, the cloth is 5.36 per cent open — 7.1 times less than the covering rule says, and the whole of the difference is the thickness. One minus the cover is the openness of a cloth with no thickness, and no cloth has none.

One minus the cover is a cloth with no thickness

The covering rule says a cloth's openness is one minus its cover factor, and this collection derived it and has used it ever since. It is the answer for a light directly behind the cloth. Move the light and a line of sight has to clear the hole at the top of the fabric and the same hole one thickness below, so the openness falls, and it reaches nothing at thirty-six degrees. Averaged over the whole sky a muslin is a seventh as open as the rule says.

Half the air goes through a tenth of the holes

A permeability computed from the average hole says nothing about which holes the air uses. Once the threads have a spread, the answer is: not many of them — and in a close cloth, half the flow leaves through less than a tenth of the openings.

Where a muslin's warp jams, over 40 ends. 40 ends drawn at their own diameters, with every neighbouring pair's combined width plotted beneath. A cloth cannot be set closer than its threads will lie, and the pair that decides that is not the average pair — it is the widest one anywhere across the warp, which here is ends 8 and 9 at 205 µm apiece against a mean of 167 µm. Over the 2000 ends of a real warp rather than the 40 drawn here the worst pair is 42% above the mean, and it goes on growing with the width of the cloth: the same yarn in a wider loom jams sooner. The naive estimate that treats every window as an independent try overstates it by 0.48%, which is small enough to say that the overlap between neighbouring windows is not what is going on here.

A warp jams where its threads are thickest

The closest a cloth can be set is decided by its worst pair of neighbours, not its average thread — and the worst pair depends on how many pairs there are. The same yarn in a wider loom jams sooner, which makes a jammed sett a property of the machine as well as of the yarn.

$20 tex, counted. The cross-section of a 20 tex cotton yarn, with every fibre in it drawn. The count is a division and nothing else: a 20 tex yarn spun from 0.17 tex fibre has 117.6 fibres crossing any plane through it, and the yarn is 14.0 fibre diameters across because n fibres packed at 0.6 fill a circle √(n/φ) times as wide. The arrangement is drawn on a lattice and is not claimed: real fibres are not on one, they migrate between the core and the surface as they run, and everything this collection says about a yarn's strength turns on their doing so.$

How many fibres make a thread

Every number in this collection began with a diameter, and a diameter is not a measurement — it is a count of fibres, divided. Once the division is written down, three quantities that had nothing to do with each other turn out to be the same number.

The evenness a cotton yarn cannot be better than. Lay staple fibres down at random and count how many cross a plane: the count is Poisson, its variance is its mean, and the coefficient of variation of the mass per unit length is therefore 1/√n with no material and no machine in it. The lower curve is that floor. At 5 tex there are 29 fibres in the section and the floor is 19.86 per cent; at 5 tex there are 29 and it is 19.86. The upper curve is what a yarn spun at an index of irregularity of 1.35 actually measures, which is the floor times a constant — so the whole shape belongs to the counting and none of it to the spinning. The exponent is exactly −½ and is asserted as such rather than fitted to the curve.

A finer yarn is a worse yarn

Fineness is the thing a yarn is priced for, and it is bought with irregularity at a fixed exchange rate. Once the spread is a function of the count, every correction this collection computes becomes a function of the count too — and the cheapest yarn on the shelf is the one the arithmetic describes best.

Both halves of the twist curve, at 28 mm staple. The falling curve is obliquity and is exact — the affine end of the bracket, computed from the helix and nothing else. The rising curve is cohesion and is the half this collection had declined: a fibre end is gripped by friction under the twist's own radial pressure, the fibre's strength and the yarn's load cancel out of the comparison, and what is left is a critical length that depends on the twist through a pure function of the angle. Their product has a maximum at a twist factor of 3101 — 693 turns per metre at 20 tex, a surface angle of 20° — which is inside the range spinners use. The scale of the rising curve is fitted, through a contact efficiency of 0.05, and moving it moves the optimum; what it cannot move is the ordering between two staples or two fibres, which is what the two claims made from this figure are about.

The other half of the twist curve

This collection computed the falling half of the strength–twist curve exactly and declined the rising half as being out of reach. It is not out of reach. With the grip derived rather than assumed, the optimum comes out at a twist factor — and the same twist factor at every count, which is why the trade quotes twist factors at all.

Folding, and what it takes out of the singles. Two 20 tex singles spun at 800 turns per metre and folded the other way at 540 — a ratio of 0.675, which is the trade's own and is a measurement rather than a derivation. A single held at its ends and wound round its neighbour turns about its own axis once for every turn of the fold, so it is left with 260 turns per metre of its own: its surface fibres lie at 7.8° to its axis rather than the 22.8° they were spun at. Folding untwists. The short strokes are drawn at that residual angle; the two long curves are centre lines and are not the yarn — each strand is itself a bundle of 118 fibres, and the residual angle is what holds them.

Folding is untwisting

Wind two singles round each other and each one turns about its own axis once per turn of the fold. So a folded yarn's singles are not the singles that went into it, and at a folding ratio of exactly one half the two helices cancel.

A two-fold yarn is not twice a single

Folding halves nothing. It improves a yarn's evenness by exactly √2 and lowers the floor that evenness is measured against by exactly √2, so the index of irregularity comes out identical — folding does not make a better yarn, it makes a bigger one.

One yarn, two packing factors. The same 20 tex cotton yarn — the same fibres, the same count, the same mass per metre — drawn at a packing factor of 0.45 and of 0.75. Its diameter is 192.9 µm in one and 149.5 µm in the other, a difference of 29.1%, because a diameter goes as the inverse square root of the packing. Every cover factor, every jammed sett and every hole in this collection went through that number, and the site's value of 0.6 was obtained by inverting a rule published for cotton yarns at one particular twist. Nothing here models how packing moves with twist; the figure is here to show the size of the thing that has been held constant.

The diameter was quoted at one twist

Every diameter in this collection came from a packing factor of 0.6, and that number was got by inverting a rule published for cotton yarns at one particular twist. Here is what moves if it is wrong by the width of the range real yarns occupy — and which single quantity does not move at all.

The sett owns the pitch and the yarn owns the height

Set a cloth twice as close and its surface does not get smoother. The crowns come twice as often, because that is what a sett is, and they stand at very nearly the same height, because the closure condition pins the amplitude to the yarn — so a fine cloth is finer-grained rather than flatter, and the two are confused in every description of handle.

Hairiness goes as the root of the count

A coarse yarn is hairier than a fine one and everybody knows it. What nobody has said is that its hairs are no longer — the count and the length obey different laws, one rises as a square root and the other does not move at all, and the identity behind both was asserted on this site for an entirely unrelated reason.

Compacting a spinning triangle moves one instrument and not the other. What happens to each hairiness reading when a 20 tex cotton yarn is spun compact instead of ring, as a percentage of the ring value. The total falls by 8% and the long hairs by 65%, a ratio of 8.3. The asymmetry is a prediction rather than a fit. Compaction removes ends that were unbound over a long stretch of the spinning triangle, which is the long population and nothing else; the short population is untouched, and it carries about 88% of the length the integrating instrument is adding up. So the instrument that sees everything barely moves and the one that sees only the tail collapses. The model under-states the fall in the total, because compaction certainly does something to the short population too and nothing here models it — the direction of that error is stated and it is the conservative one.

The spinning triangle decides the hair

A ring frame converges a flat ribbon of fibres to a round yarn, and for the length of that convergence the fibres at the ribbon's edges are held by nothing. Everything a spinner can do about hairiness is done in that triangle, and the two hairiness instruments respond to it by wildly different amounts.

A woven thread has no room to bend

Set an elastica solver on an ordinary shirting and it refuses the problem. The refusal is the finding: a woven thread's whole crimp is spent going round the thread it crosses, between a fourteenth and a half of its length lies inside that wrap, and what is left has no slack to take a shape with.

$A knit's warmth is its thickness, and a rib's thickness is a machine setting. Thermal resistance in tog for a 20 tex cotton at a 3.5 mm loop, for a plain jersey and for a one-by-one rib at four bed gaps. The bar is the lower bound and the mark beyond it is the upper — Wiener's two bounds on a mixture of fibre and air at the fabric's own fibre fraction, which is 26.6% for the jersey and falls to 8.9% for the widest rib. The jersey holds 0.088 tog and the rib at five diameters 0.334 — a factor of 3.8, bought entirely by opening the beds. Every one of these is a small fraction of the still-air layer that clings to a garment's outside, which is worth about 1.2 tog on its own.$

How dense a knitted fabric is

A fabric's areal weight is what the trade specifies and it says nothing about bulk. Divide it by a thickness and the answer is a density — 0.40 grams a cubic centimetre for a jersey, a quarter of the fibre it is made of — and that quarter, the share of the volume that is not air, is the number every other property follows.

A slack twisted yarn takes a coil of one size. A 20 tex cotton at 800 turns a metre. Its own torque is 1.177 µN·mm at the free bound, and a rod under tension T is stable while its torque stays under 2·√(B·T). Below that tension the straight state stops being a minimum and the thread wraps on itself at a radius of 1.59 mm. That radius is 2B/M, which is 2/(r·ω) once the torque is written out: it depends on the twist and on the ratio of the two stiffnesses, and on neither stiffness itself.

Why a slack yarn snarls

Let go of a twisted thread and it wraps on itself. That is not the yarn being badly behaved: it is a buckling, it has a criterion, and the criterion turns a nuisance into an instrument for measuring the one constant this collection cannot pin down.

How much of a yarn has to hang before it stops snarling. The tension a 20 tex cotton needs to stay straight, at each twist level, expressed as the length of the yarn's own weight that would supply it. The two curves are the two ends of the stiffness bracket: the fibres free to slide, and the section coherent. At 800 turns a metre they are 1.9 metres and 616. Anybody who has let go of a twisted yarn knows which of those is right, which makes this one of very few places where the bracket can be closed from the everyday end. Both rise as the square of the twist, because the torque does and the criterion is quadratic in it.

How much yarn has to hang

The tension a thread needs to stay straight, converted into the only unit anybody has an intuition for: the length of the yarn's own weight. One bound says two metres and the other says six hundred, and everybody who has handled thread already knows which.

A snarl comes in one size

The radius a twisted thread coils to is twice its bending rigidity over its torque. Write the torque out and the bending rigidity cancels completely, leaving a number that depends on the twist and on the ratio of two stiffnesses — and on nothing else about the yarn at all.

Where a fold's two moments cancel, and where the trade folds. The two moments about a fold's own axis, for 2 singles of 20 tex cotton at 800 turns a metre. The falling curve is what the singles' own residual twist supplies, which the folding takes out of them; the rising one is what bending each single onto its helix costs. They cross at 161 turns a metre, a ratio of 0.201, and the closed form for that crossing is C/(B+C) — the ratio of the two stiffnesses and nothing else. The shaded band is where the trade actually folds, 0.6 to 0.75 of the singles twist. The balance point is nowhere near it, by a factor of three.

The folding rule is not a torque balance

Fold a two-fold yarn at about two thirds of its singles twist. This collection has carried that as a bracket copied from the trade and derived nowhere. It is now derivable, the derivation gives a fifth rather than two thirds, and reaching two thirds would need a fibre stiffer in torsion than in bending.

Three rules for how hard to fold a yarn, and which one the trade uses. For 2, 3, 4 folds of 20 tex cotton at 800 turns a metre: the ratio that makes the fold's surface helix angle equal its singles', the ratio that sets the fold's net moment to zero, and the ratio the trade actually folds at. The surface rule is 1/√n exactly, because a fold of n singles is √n times the diameter. The torque balance is C/(B+C), which for this fibre is 0.201 and is the same at every count, every twist and every number of folds. The trade's brackets contain the surface rule in all three rows and the torque balance in none of them.

The folding rule is a surface angle

Fold at two thirds for two singles, six tenths for three, a half for four. Those are one over the square root of the fold count, they are what makes a fold's surface twist angle equal its singles', and all three of the trade's brackets contain the number exactly.

The fold the trade actually makes. 2 singles of 20 tex cotton at 800 turns a metre, folded at 566 — a ratio of 0.707. That is 1/√2, the ratio at which the fold's surface helix angle equals its singles' — 22.8° — because a fold of 2 singles is √2 times the diameter. The trade's own bracket for 2 folds is 0.6 to 0.75, and it contains this number.

What a balanced yarn is balanced about

A specification that says a yarn is balanced does not say which of two conditions it means, and the two have different numbers, different dependences and different consequences. One of them is what folding achieves and the other is what folding is said to achieve.

A cabled yarn is a fold of folds

The rule that sets a fold's twist is one over the square root of the number of components. Apply it twice and a cabled yarn's three twist levels are fixed by two integers — which is a prediction with no free constants, about a class of yarn the trade quotes no rule for at all.

What a high-twist yarn costs a cloth

Twist buys strength up to a point and then loses it, and everything else it does is a cost. A crepe twist is chosen knowing that, and the trade's twist limits are a balance among five quantities that this collection can now put beside one another.

The section the fabric asks for, beside the one the model drew. A 20 tex cotton yarn in cross-section, at 900 times life size. The circle is what every solve in this collection has assumed: a diameter of 0.167 mm from the count and the packing factor. The ellipse has the same area and a minor axis of 78% of it, which is the closest the fabric's own adjacent courses come to one another — 0.130 mm. Nothing about that number was fitted to a fabric. It falls out of a solve that knew nothing about flattening, and it lands inside the range the trade reports for yarn in cloth, which this collection has carried as a free parameter ever since it first put a number on a sett.

What a sett is when the yarn is not round

A jamming condition says how close threads can be set, and it says it in terms of a diameter. A thread in a cloth does not have one diameter: it has a wide one and a narrow one, and which of them a jam is about depends on which way the threads are jamming.

What a flattened yarn does to its cover

A cover factor is a sett times a diameter, and it decides how much of a cloth is thread and how much is hole. A flattened yarn is a third wider than a round one of the same area, so a cloth of flattened yarn covers more at the same sett — and every opacity, permeability and shade computed from a round diameter is wrong in one direction.

The flattening a knitted fabric asks for, against its own tightness. Every point is a solved fabric — 18 of them, over five loop lengths, three relaxation states and three counts — and the vertical axis is the closest its adjacent courses come, in diameters. The values run from 0.707 to 0.839 and they fall on one curve against the tightness factor, which is the model's only dimensionless group. That is what makes this a structural requirement rather than an arithmetical accident of one example: a tighter fabric demands a flatter yarn, by an amount its own tightness decides, and nothing about the fibre or the count enters except through that group.

The count that decides how flat

A knitted fabric's demanded flattening is a function of its tightness factor, and a tightness factor is the square root of a count over a loop length. So a coarser yarn at the same loop is flatter — which is a prediction about a spinner's choice that nobody has framed as one.

What the count moves at 150 grams. Plain cotton cloths that all weigh 150 g/m², from 20 tex to 200 tex, with sett and crimp solved together. Thickness, which is two yarn diameters, rises 3.16 times across the line; the cover factor of each thread system falls 2.75 times; their product with one plus the crimp is the same number at every count, because the weight has fixed the volume of fibre and the count only decides whether it is laid out flat or stacked up.

A weight fixes the fibre and not the drape

Every plain cotton cloth of 150 grams a square metre contains the same fibre, and the count decides only how it is arranged. Across the counts that can make that weight, thickness rises threefold and cover falls in step, so their product holds still. The bending length does something stranger: at the bound a woven yarn actually sits near, it depends on neither the count nor the weight, only on the fibre.

All essays