You’re right about the need to understand Aspect Ratio (AR). To get accurate measurements of inner diameter and wire diameter (as there is some variance in thickness in even a single gauge number i.e. As a result of this, you cannot use the mandrel size as the Inner Diameter measurement and expect an accurate aspect ratio, especially with harder metals (except with dead soft metals in which springback is negligible). Metal resists bending to the shape of the mandrel, and as a result, when the tension of coiling is removed, the coil springs away from the center of the mandrel and has a greater inner diameter than the mandrel it was coiled on. Springback is an increase to the inner diameter from the mandrel diameter the wire was wound on that is a result of tension produced by the wire as it is coiled. One very important thing to note when dealing with aspect ratio is springback. In short, choose the aspect ratio that best suits your needs. The opposite also holds true, the greater the difference in aspect ratio, the greater the difference between the same weave made with those rings.
In summation, any two rings with the same aspect ratio will act the same in a weave, and those close to the same aspect ratio will act close to the same. This means that they will have all the same physical properties (except strength), such as flexibility, tightness, and appearance. This means that weaves made with 19g Swg WD, 5/32″ ID rings will be a scaled, shrunk down version of the same weave made with 12g Swg WD, 2/5″ ID rings. In the diagram above you can see that the second row of rings all have the same aspect ratio, yet different wire and inner diameters. Simply multiply the AR by the WD to find the ID needed to reproduce a ring with that AR in that gauge. How, you might ask? Because aspect ratio is a ratio, through some simple algebra you can choose a gauge of wire that you would like to make the weave from, and find the inner diameter that you need to achieve the same appearance as in the original ring size. Once you have found the ring size that you like for a weave, through the use of aspect ratio you can scale the weave to be larger or smaller. Aspect ratio helps a mailler to make the most aesthetic and practical choice. Made with the leftmost ring the weave might look too loose, but made with the rightmost ring it might be too tight to even make, while the two middle rings might fall with the ideal AR range and be perfect for the weave. This means that any weave made with these rings would get smaller and tighter as you moved from left to right. Because of this, the aspect ratio gradually shrinks from left to right. In the first row of rings the inner diameter of the rings gets smaller from left to right, while the respective wire diameter (.10″) stays the same. Simply find your ID, and divide it by the WD.
#CHAINMAILLE ASPECT RATIO CALCULATOR HOW TO#
Here is a fun little diagram demonstrating some important AR concepts.Īt the top it demonstrates how to measure AR. There is a point, or a range of points, between too small and too large where the weave will be the most aesthetically pleasing and is typically labeled ‘recommended’ or ‘preferred’ AR.
Even though all weaves have a minimum AR, most weaves do not have a maximum AR, but, there will be a point where the weave becomes unattractive and loose, due to the excessive amount of space between connections. This is because if the AR of the rings is too small, as subsequent connecting rings are added to a weave, the space necessary to complete the next connecting ring will shrink until the next ring can no longer be added and the whole weave binds up. This ratio controls how tight or loose a particular weave will be, or if the weave can even be made, as all weaves have a minimum AR. Aspect ratio is the ratio of the Inner Diameter of a ring, shorthanded ID, to the Wire Diameter, WD. Aspect ratio is important for selecting the right ring for the right job. Aspect ratio is one of the most important concepts of chain maille to understand, and can also be one of the most difficult to understand.
0 kommentar(er)
