WEFT! Right?

 

selvedges - no that is not a plain weave selvedge

I am pleased to say that the Kickstarter for WEFT seems to be going well and it's looking like we will see a 'new kid on the block' in terms of weaving publications this time next year.  (see yesterday's post for the link.)

It is also good to hear more about the project (I finally watched the promo video on the Kickstarter site) and really wish this magazine had been around in my early days when I was fumbling around trying to figure out how things 'worked' - and what didn't.

It also feels good to know that there are some passionate younger folk willing to take up the reins and try to bring good content to weavers who also want to know how things 'work' - or don't.

Over the past 100 or so years there have been a number of people who have similarly tried to write it all down.  From Margaret Atwater, to Mary Black, to Harriet Tidball to David Xenakis, to Madelyn van der Hoogt - and many others - there has been a consistent effort to keep the knowledge alive and getting it out to those who want to know.

But there is a complicating factor right now - the growth of 'artificial intelligence' and the enshittification of sources of information.

Given I rely on the internet for some of my resources when writing, I was concerned about AI interference in my searches, so this morning I tossed a search term onto Google, then figured out how to filter out their AI responses.  Good!  I don't need to foul my searches with verbal word salad.

However, in the search for the way to do that, I typed in an actual search term, and then took a look at some of the links that were provided (after the AI filtering).  And there was a link to an industry publication that piqued my interest.  Because it was something I had observed, and wondered at.  I'd even been about to do some 'testing' of my own textiles to see if what I had observed made an actual impact in my cloth.

Well, industry had already done that inspection, and their link confirmed my observation - that most draw in happens primarily closer to the selvedges, rather than within the body of the textile.  How much?  I'm pretty sure that depends on the width of the cloth.  I suspect that, the wider the cloth, the larger the area of draw in along the selvedges.

The effect is pronounced enough that some industrial looms now come with separate beams specifically for the selvedges, so that the take up that occurs doesn't interfere with the weaving of the body of the cloth.

Now, in industry, looms typically have roller temples, but even so, draw in happens, enough that industry has made mechanical adjustments to counter the negative effects.

Hand weavers work at a much slower speed than industry, we can make tiny adjustments on the fly.  We don't usually weave 1000 yards before we cut off and re-tie.  

Right now I'm weaving 30" in the reed, about 90" in length per shawl, and I'm only weaving 3 shawls before I stop and cut off and re-tie.  Yes, there are minor tension differences in my cloth, but not enough that I'm overly bothered about them.  I know that I will soon cut off, re-tie and resolve some of those minor tension issues.  So a lot of the issues that industry deals with are so far beyond the scale that handweavers are using that it might seem irrelevant to us.

But for me, reading that link today, confirming my own observations and conclusions felt...affirming.  

And it gives me a much needed boost to continue to explore, dig, analyze and write about what I learn.

I really hope that others are as interested as I am in digging deeper, exploring further, and will support this magazine, which I hope will cater to the best of the nerds in all of us who 'play with string'.

And for anyone who wants to read the post I found, link here