Generator

Pull-out force against gripped length

One pick of a sheeting in a plain, at a friction coefficient of 0.30. The ruled curve is the capstan model, in which the normal force at a contact has a floor from the cloth's own compression and a part proportional to the tension already in the thread; the straight line is a sum of independent contacts, which is what this site computed until now. They agree near the origin — the straight line is the exponential's first term — and part company well before the horizontal rule, which is the thread's breaking load of 3.74 N. Where the curve meets that rule the thread breaks instead of sliding, at 2.00 mm rather than the 7.44 mm the straight line predicts. What the plot cannot show is that past the crossover the curve is arithmetic about a thread that is no longer in the cloth.

9 essays call hold-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.

A thread withdrawn from a plain weave and from a satin. One pick of a sheeting being pulled from 1.60 mm of cloth, in a plain weave and in a five-end satin, at a friction coefficient of 0.30. The drawn width of each thread is the tension in it at that point, to a common scale; the faint rules are where the thread actually turns, which is at its interlacings and nowhere else. A plain weave turns 2.80 times per millimetre and a satin 1.12, so the plain weave's tension compounds 2.78-fold over this length against the satin's 1.46. What the drawing cannot show is that the wrap angle is taken from a plain-weave geometry in both panels: a satin's crimp is genuinely smaller, so its real turns are gentler than these and its grip weaker still.

What cloth is

A thread is gripped where it turns

The arithmetic this site has used for fraying, seam slippage and tuft anchorage counts every crossing a thread makes as a grip and adds them up. A thread lying flat on the surface of a satin presses on nothing at all, and a thread that is gripped is gripped by a friction that compounds along its length rather than adding. Both corrections were recorded as missing and both are here.

Stick, slip, and the ratio between the two coefficients. The force in a thread as a cloth is agitated, with a static coefficient of 0.300 and a kinetic one of 0.225 — a ratio of 0.75, which is what fibre on fibre measures. The force climbs until it reaches the static limit, the contact breaks away, and while it is sliding it resists only at the kinetic limit. So a cloth that is being shaken can be left anywhere in the narrower band, and a cloth at rest anywhere in the wider one. What the trace cannot show is how much this buys: the band does not narrow in the ratio of the coefficients, because the restoring force stiffens away from the minimum, and the real narrowing is nearer 0.87 than 0.75.

What cloth is

Two coefficients, not one

Every friction on this site is a single number, and the account of why a cloth relaxes better when it is agitated depends entirely on there being two. Separating static from kinetic changes what a resting state is: a cloth at rest is held by one coefficient and a cloth being shaken by the other, and the band it can be left in narrows — by less than the ratio, because a cloth's restoring force is not linear in its extension.

The step between a figure and its ground. Three figures on a plain ground, all in one sheeting's threads at its own setts. A thread presses on the thread it crosses only where it turns, and it turns at its interlacings — so the pressing a region receives per unit area is the contact force at one turn times the turns per unit area, and the second factor is a property of the matrix exactly. A five-end satin turns two fifths as often as a plain weave, is pressed two fifths as hard, flattens less, and stands 55 µm proud of it. What the rows cannot show is that both regions are given a plain weave's weave angle: a satin's crimp is genuinely smaller and its turns genuinely gentler, so the real step is larger than this, by an amount not computed here.

Pattern and colour

A figured cloth has a step in its surface

A damask is one cloth in one set of threads at one sett, and it is not flat. A thread presses on the thread it crosses only where it turns, so a region that turns less often is pressed less often, flattens less and stands thicker — and the step is a ratio of interlacing rates, read off the matrix with no yarn property in it.

A knit's restoring force, and the column that does not move. A plain knit of 20 tex cotton at a loop length of 3.5 mm, over the extension range its own geometry admits. The bending energy stored in one loop is the same number at every extension — the loop's arcs are held to a radius by the thread they wrap rather than by the fabric's dimensions, so extending the fabric does not bend anything more. The frictional resistance at the interlocks is not zero: it is μ times the force pressing there, times 2.34 interlocks per millimetre of width. So a knit's resistance to extension is dissipative rather than elastic, which is why it does not spring back and why its dimensions depend on how much it has been agitated. What the rows cannot show is the interlock force itself, which this site does not have for a knit and which is recorded as missing.

Knits and other structures

What stops a knit extending

A knitted loop's bending energy does not change as the fabric extends — exactly, over the whole range its geometry admits. Something resists, and it is not stiffness. It is friction at the interlocks, which is dissipative rather than elastic, and that single fact accounts for why a knit does not spring back, why a softener changes its dimensions and why the constants its size is quoted with contain no yarn property at all.

The resting band with two coefficients in it. The range of extensions a sheeting can be left in, at rest and while being agitated, at three ratios of kinetic to static friction. The upper bar of each pair is the stuck band, held by the static coefficient; the lower is the band a cloth being shaken can be left in, held by the kinetic one. Agitation narrows the band but by less than the ratio of the coefficients: at 0.75 the narrowing is 0.868. The restoring force is not linear in the extension, so cutting the friction by a quarter does not move the band's edges by a quarter of the way in. What the bars cannot show is where a given piece of cloth actually stops inside its band, which depends on which side it came from.

After the loom

Why agitation helps a cloth relax

Every standard relaxation procedure agitates: tumble it, wash it, steam it, work it. The explanation given is that agitation lets the fabric find its own dimensions, which is true and is not a mechanism. The mechanism is that a sliding contact resists less than a stuck one — and putting a number on it shows the effect is real, is smaller than the obvious arithmetic suggests, and does not account for what a relaxation procedure achieves.

The size of the capstan correction. The ratio of the capstan crossover to the crossover a sum of independent contacts gives, for every cloth in the table at a friction coefficient of 0.30. It is exactly ln(1 + z)/z, where z is the thread's breaking load times the wrap angle, over the contact force — a quantity with no friction coefficient in it at all. That is why the earlier result that μ·L* is exactly constant survives this correction to twelve figures: μ was only ever in the factor outside the logarithm. The correction is largest for the duck, whose coarse strong yarn makes z large, and smallest for the batiste. What the rows cannot show is that a real cut edge frays at a friction nobody measured on that particular cloth.

Cloth doing a job

How far a cut edge frays

A seam allowance, a fray width and a tuft's bound length are the same number wearing three hats, and the earlier estimate of it was four times too long. Correcting it moves the whole table across the boundary an ordinary allowance sits on — from four cloths holding and four slipping, to all eight holding — and turns a specification argument into a different one.

Weaves

A float presses on nothing

The rung below expected the float correction to change how a satin's hold compares with a plain weave's, by something like the ratio of their interlacing rates. It does not change the comparison at all — the interlacing rate leaves the answer outside the logarithm and divides straight out of any ratio. What it changes is the absolute answer, by a factor of four, for every weave alike.

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.

Setting and geometry

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.

The surface of an 8-end shading. The height of the cloth's own surface at each tone of an 8-end shading, for the two chains, on a sheeting at 0.50 N in the end. A thread presses on the thread it crosses only where it turns, so a region that turns more often is pressed more often and finishes thinner — and firmness rises towards the midtone of a shading. The spread chain therefore sinks 84 µm between its ends and its midtone and the consecutive chain 43 µm, with 2 of its steps at exactly one thickness against the spread chain's 0. The tone scale is level by construction and the surface under it is not. What the plot cannot show is the light: a step in the surface reads as a line under a raking beam whatever the tone is doing, which is why a relief nobody specified is visible at all.

Pattern and colour

A tone ramp is a valley, and the satin digs it

A shading's tone is exact and its lustre is measured; its thickness is neither, and nobody specifies it. A firmer weave is pressed harder at every crossing and finishes thinner, so an eight-end shading sinks eighty-four micrometres between its ends and its midtone — about a third of the cloth's whole thickness, on every cloth tried. Build the same chain on a twill instead of a satin and the sag is exactly nothing.

The whole library · All essays