2 in 1 Captive Parallel

[chainmaillers.com]

This thread is for the general discussion of the weave 2 in 1 Captive Parallel. Please add to the discussion here.

 

[chainmaillers.com]

Advertisement

The item 2 in 1 Captive Parallel has been updated:

Updated classifications, tags & cover image

 

[chainmaillers.com]

The item 2 in 1 Captive Parallel has been updated:

Added Maillesplosions.

 

[chainmaillers.com]

The item 2 in 1 Captive Parallel has been updated:

Added link to tutorial

 

[moaatt]

I was trying to make this weave tonight and I tried using AR 4.9 (16 SWG wire 8mm mandrel) and AR 4.3(16 SWG wire 7mm mandrel) rings and found the small rings too big to have the large rings around them to hold them captive. I found success when using AR 4 (16 SWG rings 1/4" ID) for the small rings.

I would like to hear what experiences other people had as this makes me unsure if using rings with AR 5 and AR 4.5 in the same wire diameter for this weave (as listed on MAIL and here) is viable.

chainmaillers.com I am curious if you used those ARs in the same wire diameter without any changes when making the render.

 

[chainmaillers.com]

moaatt Oh boy, you found one of the old entries that apparently is in major need of an update.

Few things:

• The render associated with this entry was made by the amazing Phong , of cgmaille.com fame (whose various tutorials can be found here).
• The render is most definitely made with 2 wire diameters.
• The entry here states that it is a multiple WD weave, however, when I created the entry it was before I was listing which WD was which AR (among other things).

The Aussie Maille tutorial uses two wire diameters, which, I think, is why I marked this weave as using multiple WDs. Based off the ring sizes in the tutorial listing:

Large WD/Small WD

• 14/16 AWG - 4.96/4.37
• 16/18 AWG - 4.79/3.97
• 18/20 AWG - 4.76/3.97

Meanwhile, as per C _CMB_ this weave can be done in a single WD at ARs of 4.5 & 5.3, but his sample uses a 1-2 chain (instead of 1-1) and a 2-2 chain. I've reached out to him for confirmation.

Hope that helps

 

[moaatt]

Oh boy, you found one of the old entries that apparently is in major need of an update.

I am glad I can bring attention to get this post all fixed up.

The render associated with this entry was made by the amazing Phong , of cgmaille.com fame (whose various tutorials can be found here).

Phong's renders and tutorials are amazing and have helped me learn many a weave.

The entry here states that it is a multiple WD weave, however, when I created the entry it was before I was listing which WD was which AR (among other things).

Unfortunately, I didn't see that last night thus I made this post (Though I am somewhat thankful that MAIL didn't state that as I wouldn't have tried it otherwise).

The Aussie Maille tutorial uses two wire diameters, which, I think, is why I marked this weave as using multiple WDs. Based off the ring sizes in the tutorial listing:

This is what clued me in on the fact that it is intended to use two ARs as well.

Meanwhile, as per C _CMB_ this weave can be done in a single WD at ARs of 4.5 & 5.3, but his sample uses a 1-2 chain (instead of 1-1) and a 2-2 chain. I've reached out to him for confirmation.

I am glad to see that someone else had success making this in a single WD. I did make it myself in in a single WD using ARs of 4 and 4.9 while still using a 1-1 chain and a 2-2 chain. I have attached some photos of it as well (sorry for the low quality, I haven't had time to edit the better photos yet so I used a worse camera).

 

[chainmaillers.com]

Here's a new render done in the same WD with ARs 4.0 and 5.0. This is a transformation of Captive 2 in 1 where the captive is, what I would now call, oscillating through the 2-2 chain. If I were to "rename" this weave it would probably be "2 in 1 Oscillating Captive".

From rendering it, I can see why C _CMB_ used a 1-2 chain as it fills in the extra space where the 2-2 is holding the 1-1 chain captive as well as why many use 2 WD for the chain since that would allow the 2-2 chain to make a tighter "sandwich" which would remove the extra space. Either one would make the single edge rings less "floppy".

 

[moaatt]

Here's a new render done in the same WD with ARs 4.0 and 5.0. This is a transformation of Captive 2 in 1 where the captive is, what I would now call, oscillating through the 2-2 chain. If I were to "rename" this weave it would probably be "2 in 1 Oscillating Captive".

That is a beautiful render, also I do think that name would make more sense.

From rendering it, I can see why C _CMB_ used a 1-2 chain as it fills in the extra space where the 2-2 is holding the 1-1 chain captive as well as why many use 2 WD for the chain since that would allow the 2-2 chain to make a tighter "sandwich" which would remove the extra space. Either one would make the single edge rings less "floppy".

Are you referring to the flat rings? If so I wish I thought of that earlier as the length I made is very floppy.

 

[chainmaillers.com]

That is a beautiful render

Thank you.

Are you referring to the flat rings? If so I wish I thought of that earlier as the length I made is very floppy.

Yes, if the flat rings are the rings marked in blue in the following render.

• Top Row - same model as in the previous render
• 2nd Row - Side view of model to show available space.
• 3rd Row - Moving blue rings down to make enough room for another layer
• 4th Row - 2nd Blue ring layer added (changes 1-1 chain to a 1-2 chain)
• 5th Row - Final with 1-2 chain captive

 

[chainmaillers.com]

And this is the same weave, with further Dilation of the (now blue) rings. (in this case, using a smaller WD for the blue rings).

Top 2 rows, single WD with 1-1 captive chain
Bottom 2 rows, two WD with 1-1 captive chain

 

[moaatt]

Thank you for illustrating how the weave changes when adding flat rings or changing the WD of the small rings. I find it very interesting how much room for flexibility there is in a single weave and how that affects the properties of the resulting creation.