Vasa - 1:65 DeAgostini [COMPLETED BUILD]

Good morning, Paul, maybe you can clear something up for me concerning rope terminology.
In the first two photos I show examples of some of my source threads, note each thread or 'strand' is made up of 3 plies. The plies themself are manufactured in the Z direction thus is why they have to be unwound and wound back to the left or S position to make Z laid rope. Ok so according to the "notes" section in the photo, all of my ropes would begin with a Lay call of 3x (1,2,3,4), the 1,2,3,4 being the number of strands or threads.

I am totally confused by other lay calls such as 1x3, 1x4, 2x1, 2x2, 4x1 4x2 etc. All of the source threads I have ever purchased have a 3-plie construction of the strands and they are Z laid. Have you heard of source threads with only 2 plies or 4 plies or do people actually take apart the source thread into its plies then reconstruct the plies into the other lay calls??

Or am I totally out of my mind not understanding something that seems simple to others??

IMG_1805.jpgIMG_1806.jpgIMG_1808.jpg
 
Daniel20 said:
Good morning, Paul, maybe you can clear something up for me concerning rope terminology.
In the first two photos I show examples of some of my source threads, note each thread or 'strand' is made up of 3 plies. The plies themself are manufactured in the Z direction thus is why they have to be unwound and wound back to the left or S position to make Z laid rope. Ok so according to the "notes" section in the photo, all of my ropes would begin with a Lay call of 3x (1,2,3,4), the 1,2,3,4 being the number of strands or threads.

I am totally confused by other lay calls such as 1x3, 1x4, 2x1, 2x2, 4x1 4x2 etc. All of the source threads I have ever purchased have a 3-plie construction of the strands and they are Z laid. Have you heard of source threads with only 2 plies or 4 plies or do people actually take apart the source thread into its plies then reconstruct the plies into the other lay calls??

Or am I totally out of my mind not understanding something that seems simple to others??

View attachment 299637View attachment 299638View attachment 299639
Click to expand...
Let me try to help. But I need to back up your question and make sure we are singing out of the same hymnal first. The number before the 'x' represents the number of threads on each hook - the number after the 'x' is the number of hooks in use. Therefore, a 2x3 rope is made up of two threads on each of the three hooks and a 5x3 rope is made up of 5 threads on each of the three hooks. This means there is no such thing as a 2x1 or 3x1 rope - at least the way I am applying the nomenclature.

Have I already answered your question, or have I missed it?
 
Last edited:
Your explanation makes sense in and of itself. Can this be applied to a vertical rope maker such as my Domanoff, I believe you have one but now use the multi thread horizontal if I'm not mistaken. And would you say the description of the lays at the bottom of my photo is misleading?
 
Daniel20 said:
Your explanation makes sense in and of itself. Can this be applied to a vertical rope maker such as my Domanoff, I believe you have one but now use the multi thread horizontal if I'm not mistaken. And would you say the description of the lays at the bottom of my photo is misleading?
Click to expand...
My interpretation of the construction formula works with a vertical ropewalk perfectly. I do it that way all the time. Just use an open hook at the top and run the line back and forth from your hanging weight the number of times the formula calls for on each of the hooks. Start with a 2x3 trial (six total threads) and see how it goes - the more threads you add the more fickle the system gets. You may want to make a three-grooved spindle to control the threads (see Olha's ropewalk video). I actually just stick my hand/fingers into the 'web' keeping the three 'bands' separate (I never make four hook rope).

Worth mentioning is that I am using source threads that are much thinner than I believe you are using. I almost never start with anything larger than Skala 240 (close to Tex 10) which is designed to backstitch seams. It is scary thin. This means my source threads are considerably thinner than even your deconstructed thread. Of course, I also use larger source threads for making larger ropes as well.

I believe the notes that are typed on the bottom of your formula sheet are misleading.
 
Yes Paul is correct. I change my post, because I wrote it wrong. When I speak about 1X3 or 1x2 I ment 2x1 or 3x1. Slip of the pen/finger :)
 
Last edited:
Eureka!! It all makes sense now. I have a whole new avenue to go down now and a new learning curve but this is ok! All this time I have been following the Domanoff video (which works) only in a very limited aspect. Now this photo makes sense. Thank you Paul and you too Stephen @Steef66 for your input.


Rope Elements.jpg
 
Daniel20 said:
Eureka!! It all makes sense now. I have a whole new avenue to go down now and a new learning curve but this is ok! All this time I have been following the Domanoff video (which works) only in a very limited aspect. Now this photo makes sense. Thank you Paul and you too Stephen @Steef66 for your input.


View attachment 299696
Click to expand...
Cool! Time to waste some thread!
 
Outstanding Paul, I took your advice and started with a 3x2. The right lay looks better, the left lay has that weird sheen showing up a little bit. And I can see I will need some smaller dia. source threads because the bundled groups of thread will naturally produce a larger dia. result. This is awesome!!

IMG_1809.jpg
 
I see that the image you posted uses a 3x1 and 4x1 'nomenclature'. I think most rope-making tables will have that reversed: 1x3 and 1x4.
That is: the first number is the number of threads (or thread-groups) being used on each hook and the second number is the number of hooks being used (ordinarily three but sometimes four). Just trying to avoid confusion for you when you start looking at these tables in this new way...

I would call the ropes you just made 2x3 and I think that is the generally accepted naming provision. Perhaps others can confirm or correct me...
 
It is to mine opinion 3 times 1 thread 3x1 or 3 time 2 threads 3x2. So the first number is the amount of hooks. Or I must be wrong
Now it must be correct on all my post
 
Last edited:
Daniel20 said:
Eureka!! It all makes sense now. I have a whole new avenue to go down now and a new learning curve but this is ok! All this time I have been following the Domanoff video (which works) only in a very limited aspect. Now this photo makes sense. Thank you Paul and you too Stephen @Steef66 for your input.


View attachment 299696to
Click to expand...
I would like to add to the above image. For all 4 threads winding, there is a fifth thread required. this thread is called 'core' and it goes in the middle without twisting. The core is usually twice smaller in diameter than the rest of the 4 threads comprising the rope. Generally, four-thread ropes are used to make cables, and the 'core' is used to make even twists.
 
dockattner said:
Let me try to help. But I need to back up your question and make sure we are singing out of the same hymnal first. The number before the 'x' represents the number of threads on each hook - the number after the 'x' is the number of hooks in use. Therefore, a 2x3 rope is made up of two threads on three hooks and a 5x3 rope is made up of 5 threads on three hooks. This means there is no such thing as a 2x1 or 3x1 rope - at least the way I am applying the nomenclature.

Have I already answered your question, or have I missed it?
Click to expand...
Before th x is the amount of hooks after the amount of threads :) and now I stop its confusing
 
Jimsky said:
I would like to add to the above image. For all 4 threads winding, there is a fifth thread required. this thread is called 'core' and it goes in the middle without twisting. The core is usually twice smaller in diameter than the rest of the 4 threads comprising the rope. Generally, four-thread ropes are used to make cables, and the 'core' is used to make even twists.
Click to expand...
That picture is from my log and explains how to start winding the rope between the hooks. Your correct about the core. But that picture shows only how to knot and wind the rope between the hooks.
 
Philski said:
quick question....what lengths are you using?
Click to expand...
As a practical matter...with a vertical rope walk you are limited to what you can reach. For a horizontal rope walk I guess the limit is the size of your room... Set up and running source threads takes 10x longer than spinning rope so basically it takes just as long to make a 21 foot long rope as a 7 foot long rope. I use my longer set-up for the ropes I need the most of and my vertical set-up for shorter lengths. No point in making 21 feet of 1.8mm rope for the main stay if I only need 24 inches.

Is this what you were asking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top