Generator

A 20 tex cotton yarn and the fibre standing off it

40 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 15 pixels to the millimetre and off it is 74, a 5-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.

11 essays call hair-section. 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.

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.

Knits and other structures

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.

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

Compound and figured cloths

Hair, nap and pile are one construction

This site now has three surfaces made of fibre standing off a cloth, arrived at from three different directions and in three different fields. They are the same object at three settings, and what separates them is not what they are but how much of them anybody decided.

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

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.

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.

What cloth is

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.

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.

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.

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