Textile Structure
how cloth is put together
Series

Faults — the series

3 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. The same fault in the warp and in the weft. A 50 m piece 1500 mm wide, with a 3-thread fault in each direction. The width is drawn 9.3 times over scale so that the piece is a rectangle rather than a line, and the two faults are drawn as marks rather than at their own widths, which at this scale are a fifth of a pixel. They have the same cause size — 3 threads — and they condemn 0.063 m² and 0.0020 m² respectively, a ratio of 31 to one, because a warp fault runs the length of the piece and a weft fault runs its width. That ratio is the aspect ratio of the piece and nothing else, so it is a property of how cloth is made rather than of what went wrong. It is why a broken end stops the loom and a mispick often does not, and why the two faults are priced by every grading scheme as though they were different kinds of thing.

    A missing end is a fault the length of the piece

    A broken end and a mispick are the same size of accident — one thread — and they condemn areas that differ by a factor of thirty. The ratio is the aspect ratio of the piece and nothing else, which makes it a fact about how cloth is made rather than about what went wrong.

    part 1 · applied
  2. What the four-point system charges for a fault, and what the cutting room pays. For a single warp fault of each length: the points the four-point system scores it — one up to three inches, two to six, three to nine and four beyond — and the number of 900-millimetre panels it condemns. Below a panel's length every fault condemns exactly one panel while its points run from one to four, so the scheme charges four times as much for a fault that costs the same. Above a panel's length the panels grow without bound and the points stay at four, so the scheme stops charging exactly where the cost starts rising. A ten-metre fault scores 4 and condemns 12 panels. What the chart cannot show is the marker, which decides the panel size and therefore the whole of the second curve.

    A grade charges by the length and a cutter pays by the panel

    The four-point system scores a fault by how far it runs — one point to three inches, four beyond nine — and caps a linear metre at four points however many faults it holds. A cutting room pays by how many panels the fault lands in. Below a panel's length every fault costs exactly one panel while its score runs from one to four; above it the panels grow without bound and the score does not move at all. Two fifty-metre pieces built to the same 267 points a hundred square metres lose 33 per cent of their panels and 92.

    part 2 · applied
  3. The first 12 metres of a bolt, cut three ways. A bolt of 50 metres carrying 40 faults, with its first 12 metres drawn: the fault positions above, and below them the 900-millimetre panels a cutter gets cut blind, cut with the same rigid tiling slid to its best offset, and cut around the faults with the map in hand. Over the whole bolt the three yield 28, 30 and 40 sound panels of 55. Sliding the tiling buys 2; breaking it buys 12, which is 43 per cent more cloth from the same roll. What the strip cannot show is the width, across which the same argument runs again with a different panel dimension.

    A fault map is worth most where the grade is worst

    A cutter who knows where the faults are can slide the marker or break it, and only one of those is worth anything: sliding a rigid tiling to its best offset recovers two panels of fifty-five, and letting the tiling break recovers twelve — two panels in five more cloth from the same roll. The gain has a maximum in the middle of the range, because there is nothing to recover on a clean bolt and nothing to be done on a ruined one. And the prediction the grading essay made, that a map is worth most on a bolt whose faults are bunched, is false: bunching leaves clear runs for the blind cutter too.

    part 3 · applied

All series