Generator

The hair population of a 20 tex cotton yarn

How many hairs on a 20 tex ring-spun cotton yarn stand at least a given height off it, per hundred metres, on a logarithmic count axis. The line is straight, which is the whole claim: the distribution is exponential, and it is exponential because a fibre end lands at a random phase of an *irregular* migration, so the length between the end and the last time the fibre was pulled inside is a memoryless residual. A perfectly regular migration would give a uniform distribution and a curve that stopped. The decay length is 621 µm, and it is 56 fibre diameters — a property of the fibre and not of the yarn. The counts marked at one, two and three millimetres are what a hair-counting instrument reports, and they are the counts it does report on yarns of this description. What the figure cannot show is the short population, which lies to the left of everything drawn and carries most of the protruding length.

11 essays call hair-profile. 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.

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

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.

$A 20 tex cotton yarn and the fibre standing off it. 6 mm of a 20 tex ring-spun cotton yarn with the hair population this site computes from the yarn's own count and staple — 0.89 hairs per millimetre, every one of them drawn. The two axes are at different scales and have to be — the yarn is 167 µm across and its hairs reach past a millimetre, so a picture at one scale is either a bare line or a black rectangle. Along the yarn is 99 pixels to the millimetre and off it is 74, a 1-fold exaggeration of the vertical. Lengths are drawn from the exponential the model predicts, mean 621 µm; the rules mark one, two and three millimetres with the count a hair-counting instrument reports at each, and the hairs crossing each rule in the drawing are the ones those counts are about. At the yarn's own surface the long hairs cover 1.1% of the space beside it, which is why the picture is mostly gap. Nothing here is the short population, which carries most of the protruding length and none of the reach; and a hair reaching past the room the canvas has is drawn to the edge of it, so the very longest few are shortened in the drawing and not in the arithmetic.$ What cloth is

A yarn's surface is a distribution

This collection has computed where a cloth stops, and every one of those numbers is a statement about yarn. What a finger, a plate, a droplet or a ray of light actually meets first is a population of fibre ends standing off the yarn — and it is a population, with a count and a length, rather than a layer with a thickness.

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.

One hairiness reading does not fix the other. Every yarn on this curve has exactly the same total protruding fibre length — the quantity an integrating hairiness meter reports — and they differ in how that length is distributed. The count of hairs at least three millimetres long runs from 170 to 4354 per hundred metres, a factor of 26, across decay lengths real yarns actually have. The two instruments read two functionals of one population: the first moment N₀λ and the tail N₀e^(−3/λ). A correlation between them can exist only if λ is fixed across the yarns being compared, and λ is a fibre property, so it is not. That is the whole of why the trade's two hairiness numbers have never agreed, and it is arithmetic rather than instrumentation. What the figure cannot show is which of the two predicts anything: the tail does, because pilling, prickle and a printed edge all need reach.

What cloth is

Two hairiness meters read two moments

The trade has two instruments for yarn hairiness and thirty years of failing to predict either from the other. They are not measuring the same thing badly. One reports the first moment of a distribution and the other reports a tail probability, and two functionals of one curve are related only through a parameter neither of them reports.

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.

What cloth is

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.

After the loom

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.

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

Setting and geometry

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.

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.

Weaves

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.

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.

Setting and geometry

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.

The whole library · All essays