Generator

What a hair layer carries before anything touches the cloth

What a hair layer carries before anything touches the cloth

What a hair layer carries before anything touches the cloth. The pressure a plate feels as it comes down onto sheeting, against how far it still is from the cloth's own crowns. Every hair above the plate is bent as a cantilever and carries 3EIδ/ℓ³ until that reaches its own buckling load, after which it lies over and carries no more; integrating over the population gives the curve. At the crowns themselves the layer is carrying 0.23 kPa, so every pressure below that is a pressure at which the cloth has not been touched at all. The standard thickness test presses at 1 kPa and reads the fabric; a light-pressure test reads this instead; and a fabric brushing skin at fifty pascals is entirely inside the hair layer. The model is a bed of independent cantilevers and does not know that a bent hair leans on its neighbour, so wherever a canopy has closed the curve is a lower bound.

The pressure a plate feels as it comes down onto sheeting, against how far it still is from the cloth's own crowns. Every hair above the plate is bent as a cantilever and carries 3EIδ/ℓ³ until that reaches its own buckling load, after which it lies over and carries no more; integrating over the population gives the curve. At the crowns themselves the layer is carrying 0.23 kPa, so every pressure below that is a pressure at which the cloth has not been touched at all. The standard thickness test presses at 1 kPa and reads the fabric; a light-pressure test reads this instead; and a fabric brushing skin at fifty pascals is entirely inside the hair layer. The model is a bed of independent cantilevers and does not know that a bent hair leans on its neighbour, so wherever a canopy has closed the curve is a lower bound.

12 essays call hair-curve. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the weave its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this generator changes every one of these figures.

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.

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.

A hair layer is a balance, so singeing does not stay done. The hair population of a 20 tex cotton yarn under rubbing, started from a singed cloth and from an unusually fuzzy one. Abrasion does two opposite things: it frees ends that spinning left buried, from a supply of 2.23 per millimetre in the surface shell, and it removes hairs that are long enough to be caught. Where the two meet is a fixed point at 1.43 per millimetre, and the cloth goes there from either side with the same time constant — 248 cycles to halve the distance, whichever direction it is travelling. A singeing is therefore undone in a few hundred rubs, because the flame changed the stock and not the balance. What is predicted here is that a fixed point exists, that it does not remember the starting state, and that one rate serves both directions; where it sits relative to the spun level needs two rates the model does not supply, and it is set to reproduce the one thing everyone has noticed, which is that fabrics get fuzzier as they are worn.

A hair layer is a balance, not a stock

Singeing takes under one per cent of a cloth's mass and changes its lustre, its friction, its printability and its pilling. It also does not stay done, because rubbing frees fibre ends as fast as it breaks them off, and a flame changes the stock while leaving the balance exactly where it was.

Cloth doing a job

Abrasion takes the hairs first

An abrasion test reports milligrams lost against cycles, and the first milligrams off any fabric are not fabric. On a bare cloth that stage is over in a few thousand cycles. On a napped one it is not over by the end of the test, so a Martindale on a fleece never measures the fleece.

The strong fibre is the one that pills. Standing pills per unit area by fibre, relative to wool, at one and the same fuzz supply — every row is the same cloth raised the same amount, so the only thing varying is how long a pill survives once it exists. A pill is not made, it is kept: rubbing generates it and rubbing breaks the anchor fibres that hold it, and an anchor survives in proportion to how much force it takes to break. So polyester carries 18 times wool's standing population from the same generation rate, and the ordering here is exactly the ordering of tenacity and nothing else. Wool sheds its pills because wool anchors break. No two real fabrics have the same fuzz supply, which is why a wool knit still pills more than a cotton shirting in practice — the comparison drawn here isolates the anchor and says nothing about the generation, and reading it as a ranking of fabrics would be wrong.

Cloth doing a job

A pill is anchored, not made

Every account of pilling starts with how a ball of fibre forms and stops there, which explains why fabrics pill and not why some of them stay pilled. A pill is not a thing that happens; it is a standing population, and the number on a fabric at any moment is a generation rate times a lifetime.

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

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.

A fifth of a strong fibre buys most of its pilling. How long a pill survives on a wool fabric as nylon is blended into it, relative to the pure wool. A pill is held by several anchor fibres and survives while any of them holds, so its life is set by the strongest anchor it happens to have — and the chance that a pill with 8 anchors has at least one strong one is 1 − (1 − x)^8, which is already 83% at a fifth. The blend therefore gets 83% of the pure strong fibre's pill life while keeping the whole of the weak fibre's fuzz supply, which is the worst of both. Nine tenths of the way arrives by 30%. No average of the two fibres' properties produces this curve: it is a maximum over a small sample, and a maximum is not an average. It is also why a fifteen-per-cent polyamide in a wool knit is notorious, and the arithmetic says the reputation is deserved.

Cloth doing a job

The strong fibre is the one that pills

A pill survives while any one of its anchors holds, which is a maximum over a small sample rather than an average — and a maximum behaves nothing like an average. A fifth of a strong fibre in a blend buys four fifths of the pure strong fibre's pill life while leaving the whole of the weak fibre's fuzz supply in place.

A thickness is a property of the pressure it was measured at. What a gauge reports for sheeting against the pressure it presses with. At 1 kPa it reads 0.382 mm, which is the cloth; at 0.02 kPa it reads 0.555 mm, which is the cloth plus 87 µm of hair on each face. The difference is 31% of the reading and it is not a compressibility: nothing in the fabric has been squashed, the foot has simply stopped in a different place. That is why every thickness standard specifies its pressure to two figures, and why comparing a thickness from one standard with a thickness from another is comparing two different measurements of two different objects. The dashed line is the cloth's own geometric thickness, which no reading below the crossover ever reaches.

Mechanics and drape

A compression curve is two laws in series

A published fabric compression exponent is a fitted number with no derivation attached, and this site has already said why: the range it is fitted over straddles two regimes. One of them turns out not to be in the cloth at all.

Thirty micrometres is a buckling load. The wool fibre diameter at which a protruding end reaches the measured threshold for prickle, against how far it protrudes. A fibre end pressed against skin is a column held at the cloth and free to slide at its tip, so it buckles at 20.19EI/ℓ² and carries no more load than that; below the threshold it bends away and is felt as touch, above it the load stands and is felt as pain. At a two-millimetre protrusion — which this site's own hair model puts in the top fifth of a wool's population — the threshold diameter is 32 µm, bracketed at 29–34 by the range of the measured force. Neither the thirty micrometres nor the two millimetres was put in. The band is the force bracket, and the fourth power in I = πd⁴/64 is what makes the boundary sharp: at a mean of 21 µm and a spread of 24%, 3.2% of the fibres are over it, and it is that few per cent that decides whether a garment can be worn.

Cloth doing a job

Prickle is a buckling load

The wool trade specifies comfort against skin by the percentage of fibres coarser than thirty micrometres, and the thirty is a measured boundary with no derivation attached. It is a column formula: solve for the diameter at which a protruding fibre end stops bending away and starts standing its ground, and thirty micrometres falls out.

Warmth is a canopy, and a canopy grows as a logarithm. Thermal resistance of sheeting against how much its hair population has been multiplied by raising, both faces counted. The unraised cloth is given no still air at all, because its hairs cannot reach one another — n_A λ² is under one and there is no canopy to hold air still. Past the threshold the canopy's depth is λ·ln(n_A λ²), so every doubling of the hair population adds the same depth of nap and no more: the steps here are 434 µm apiece, all the way up. At 256× the nap is 3.07 mm deep and worth 39 times the cloth it grows on, which is the whole reason a flannel is warm and a poplin of the same yarn is not — a canopy is two parts in ten thousand fibre, so its conductivity is air's, while the cloth itself is a quarter fibre. What is claimed is a conduction resistance across a depth of nearly still air; whether the air is still is a question about flow and is not asked here.

Mechanics and drape

Warmth is mostly the hairs

This collection established that a fabric's thermal resistance is its thickness and not its fibre, and that twice the thickness is twice the warmth. It never asked what the thickness was made of. On a raised cloth almost none of it is cloth.

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.

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

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.

The whole library · All essays