Does this pattern exist yet?

[Alton H]

I was fooling around recently, and I made a weave that I have not seen described before.
Using two aspect ratios of the same diameter of wire (20 gauge, i believe swg, but I'm not certain), inner diameter of 1/8th inch and 3/16ths inch.
I made the jump rings myself, so there may be a bit of a wider inner diameter due to the tolerance from winding.
As a description of the pattern, the geometry of the pattern is rotationally symmetrical at 180 degrees, with alternating columns of the larger rings, each large ring being connected to six (four small, two large) other rings. It can be constructed by taking three 2-in-1 chains (rows) of the larger rings, laying them parallel to each other with the adjacent (column-wise) ring of the next chain overlapping and parallel. then, through the eyes of the larger rings, connect each adjacent pair of rings in a column to the pair in the next column using the smaller rings. each smaller ring should end up linked through 4 larger rings, with the axis of rotation of each smaller ring fitting between each column, parallel to the plane made by the sheet.
Sorry if that was a poor explanation. I will attach a picture.
Due to the geometry of the weave, it can be made into a chain at ether of 90 degree orientations.

 

[Alton H]

by the way, those chains have the same number of rings of each type. 22 small and 36 large.

 

[Karpeth]

Found this; close:

M.A.I.L. - Maille Artisans International League - Weave Info

www.mailleartisans.org

as well as

https://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=419

Seems noone took your route. Checked MAIL, CMB, Here and some more places.

Would suggest a name based on Mage.

 

[chainmaillers.com]

Sorry if that was a poor explanation. I will attach a picture.

Description is good, picture makes it better

To my knowledge, this configuration has not been described. However, what you have woven is, one of many ways to make, a 2 in 1 tethered sheet.

Karpeth linked to 2 others. I'll show you the differences using weave cells Starting from the top left:

1. Sheet 1 on 1 European 4 in 1 Style
2. The weave you're describing
3. 2 in 1 (Tethered)
4. Mageschain

Red and Blue rings are single cells of 2 in 1 chains, at no point do red or blue rings connect to each other. Purple rings are the tethers connecting the chains together. Left to right is the direction of extension. Bottom to top is the direction of expansion

1. Sheet 1 on 1 European 4 in 1 Style
   • Expansion 2 in 1 chains are always under the preceding 2 in 1 chain
   • Tether rings are also connected to each other in line, forming additional 2 in 1 chains
2. The weave you're describing
   • Expansion 2 in 1 chains alternate primacy. The "lean" changes directions.
   • Tether rings run in the direction of extension through the eyes formed by the overlap of the Red and Blue chains.
3. 2 in 1 Tethered
   • Expansion 2 in 1 chains alternate primacy. The "lean" changes directions.
   • Tether rings run in the direction of expansion around the eyes formed by the overlap of the Red and Blue chains.
4. Mageschain
   • Expansion 2 in 1 chains alternate primacy. The "lean" changes directions.
   • Tether rings run in the direction of expansion through the eyes of the Red and Blue chains.

The forms in your picture would be considered terminated bands.

 

[Alton H]

Found this; close:

M.A.I.L. - Maille Artisans International League - Weave Info

www.mailleartisans.org

as well as

https://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=419

Seems noone took your route. Checked MAIL, CMB, Here and some more places.

Would suggest a name based on Mage.

Is there a defining characteristic of the mage family of weaves, other than tethering parallel chains or putting a ring around a link between two other rings? Looking here: Mage family weaves on M.A.I.L., I didn't see one thing that was common between all the weaves, physically speaking. If I'd had to guess, it'd be the rings oriented perpendicular to the plane of the sheet, or with an axis of rotation parallel to the sheet.
At any rate, I'd really like to name the new form something a little goofy, as it reminds me of a lobster tail, and I see the goofy naming thing has been done before, (as with RSD). I was thinking of just any sort of misspelling of the word "lobster," but I imagine it would be confusing if there were multiple names for it.
Some examples:
Lobbder, Lopster, Lobber, Lobfter, Lobter, Pinchy Boi,
or possibly something based on a millipede or centipede, as it rather reminds me of an isopod, especially when it gets longer.
or maybe something like "Krill Issue."
My father suggested "Rock Lobster," which I think is also a solid option if the copyright on the song does not extend to the phrase.
Be warned, I'm a silly lil guy, so I will likely choose something unprofessional.
I'm open to suggestions!

 

[Alton H]

It can be constructed by taking three 2-in-1 chains (rows) of the larger rings, laying them parallel to each other with the adjacent (column-wise) ring of the next chain overlapping and parallel. then, through the eyes of the larger rings, connect each adjacent pair of rings in a column to the pair in the next column using the smaller rings. each smaller ring should end up linked through 4 larger rings, with the axis of rotation of each smaller ring fitting between each column, parallel to the plane made by the sheet.

This was, what I had hoped would be the simplest way to explain the shape of the weave. I do not consider this the best way to construct the weave. I find it easiest to keep a starting chain to construct off of and then separate later, similar to a full persian 6-in-1 chain in that regard.
When expanding columns, row by row, I find it easiest to attach the smaller rings first, then add in the larger rings from the innermost column outward, and to always thread the new large ring through the existing smaller rings first, then through the existing larger rings. This also applies for expanding the rows column by column. That's just my two cents. Starting off the sheet or chain is probably going to be somewhat annoying either way, so you could probably start off by tethering two 2-in-1 chains and then expanding one row out. At that point you'd have a 3 by 3 of large rings, tethered by 4 separate, smaller rings. From there, expand as described above. Feel free to mess around with whichever technique works best for you, and please share your own construction method, or whichever you find easiest and/or quickest.

 

[Alton H]

I've noticed that this weave at this specific pair of aspect ratios seems to make what seems to be a perfect 90° edge if you bend along a seam between two columns of parallel larger rings. From this, I believe you could make a relatively stiff cord or tube, with an inside that isn't cluttered with loose rings. I'll get back to the thread once I determine whether it works.

 

[Karpeth]

mage is most often 2-1chains connected by bolts. I don’t remember a full description tho.

 

[Alton H]

Advertisement

I've noticed that this weave at this specific pair of aspect ratios seems to make what seems to be a perfect 90° edge if you bend along a seam between two columns of parallel larger rings. From this, I believe you could make a relatively stiff cord or tube, with an inside that isn't cluttered with loose rings. I'll get back to the thread once I determine whether it works.

Update: It works, and it makes a very nice chain! It does not have any sort of stiffness, surprisingly. It exhibits similar physical characteristics to a box chain. In a manner of speaking, that's very similar to what it is, so that really shouldn't have surprised me. when you squish it end-to-end, it does the squish. When extended, the turn radius increases. As an effect of the geometry of the sheet, making the tube out of 4 columns (although I suspect this would be true with any even number of columns) lends the chain to a nice rhombic cross-section when squished from the sides of the chain. Also due to the geometry of the sheet, this chain tube is directional. This makes it *so* much harder to expand from the end funneling into the chain. If you make a mistake and it's inside the chain already, it's likely to be a lot stiffer, as I found out myself. It's also nigh impossible to take out the issue by carefully re-threading individual rings, as they (the larger ones) are covered by an overlap of the next row up. The smaller rings are easier to re-thread, but still difficult to negotiate. If you mess up the bottom, I recommend disconnecting it and just fully cannibalizing the segment. Of course, I'm not super skilled at chainmaille, but I might be better than I give myself credit for, as this tube seems to be a new creation too. There may be some trick to it that I simply haven't stumbled upon yet.

More text below the images.

I have other pictures, but they required me to have my fingers in the frame. I haven't posted them because- well, to be frank, I've never seen any chainmaille pictures either here or on MAIL with hands, so I wasn't sure if there was some sort of anonymity type of rule I might've missed. I can post them later if desired. They are just pictures of the top of the tube and how the chain behaves when squished from the top and bottom, as well as a couple attempts at getting my camera to pick up the detail of the chain when I manually curve it.

 

[Alton H]

I may have forgotten to mention this: This weave plays very nicely with European. You could use it as a trim of sorts in a European weave, or you could use a European weave as a trim in this one.

 

[chainmaillers.com]

In regards to Mage, I've always had it described as flat Japanese 2 in 1. Always seemed a bit redundant to me other than as a description. Not something I personally use as classification (although it is used on the site for historical purposes).

Do you have actual measured AR's for the tube?

Essentially what you're doing is nesting box cells and tethering them together. The difference is that in box, the tethers are inherent parts of the cell. Box is a tube of European 4 in 1 which in itself is tethered 2 in 1 chains where the tethers between chains are inherent parts of the chains. This is why the sheet acts like European 4 in 1 and the tube acts like box, same concepts tethered differently. With the right AR's, you should be able to make any even number of sides.

As for having your fingers in the pictures, that's up to you, just know that if you're blocking something, I may ask for additional pictures It's more so you can see everything in the weave, not for any anonymity. Part of the reason we use renders in the maillepedia

 

[Alton H]

Do you have actual measured AR's for the tube?

I could ask my father to borrow his digital calipers, but for now, all I have to go off of is my dowels and the 20swg (.81mm) wire I use.

 

[chainmaillers.com]

I could ask my father to borrow his digital calipers, but for now, all I have to go off of is my dowels and the 20swg (.81mm) wire I use.

If you could give actual measured AR's that would be ideal. With all the potential differences in springback, dowel/mandrel AR's can be very inaccurate.

 

[Alton H]

The small rings are about 3.3 mm inner diameter, from 3.18- 3.44 measuring around the inside of a coil. larger inner diameter is from 5.17-5.29mm using the same method. the wire of the larger is between .77mm and .82mm, most spots being .81mm. I might be accidentally squishing the wire. smaller link wire diameter is between .79mm and .83mm. most is .81. aspect_ratio says 3.95 and 6.49 are the ARs of smaller and larger, respectively.

 

[chainmaillers.com]

I love good AR info