Thursday, October 02, 2014

Pix of 20 fiber bundles

You have seen them. Every serious spinner drafted out super fine as they added lots of twist and the result is a few inches or a few feet of a spin count thread - a bundle of 20 fibers.  It is the natural result, you just did not recognize it for what it was.  There are lots of photographs of such fine threads on the internet. See for example  http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qEtL_fl1do/UaoDcSfsYdI/AAAAAAAACsM/IPTSOA0uSrY/s1600/co6.JPG by li12345 on Ravelery and  http://russianfibers.blogspot.com/

What is less common is folks that spin miles of such threads in a reasonable time.  

I do not seem to have a teacher, so I am still working out the process.  It is slow work.  As I explain it, I get a lot of push back.  I would rather spend my time working forward, than dealing with the same pushback attitudes over and over.  I have a few students, and do not worry about the public.

In 1400, spinners did spin  spin miles and miles of such threads very quickly.  Most modern spinners cannot do what spinners in 1400 could do.  Why is that?  Taking pix of the threads is not a big deal.  Taking pix of how to do it quickly is hard.  At internet resolutions, the moving thread just disappears.  It looks like I am making new clothes for the emperor out of frog hair, so I just post pix of the equipment. Smart ones will figure it out.


15 comments:

Aaron said...

Every so often, I ask myself, what would S Mcgee-Russell have said? He would say the above is an inanity, and everyone should make themselves a twisty stick and go into their stash and pull 20 fiber thick threads from every kind of fiber in their stash. He would go on to say the everybody should do it again and again (while taking notes) until they can do it quickly and perfectly. And, we could be certain that next week there would be a lab practical where we would have to grade 30 wools in 3 minutes.

(Watch how fast JM grades fleece!)

SMR had worked for the Japanese, and was very much a believer in Ed Deming's quality concepts, including, you get what you test.

Anonymous said...

Quoting you on Ravelry: "Show us pix of objects you have made from yarns in which the singles or plys or strands of which contain only 5 staples. Five stands of silk work, as do 5 strands of linen or hemp, but wool or alpaca or gaunco - not so much."

And she did.

So let me get this straight. You feel entitled to demand photographic proof of an assertion. Despite your rudeness, the spinner obliges. But you don't have time to take a picture? Or it's too easy?

Face it, Aaron. Everyone - and I mean everyone, including your guild members - knows you're a fraud.

Anonymous said...

Looks like our Russian friend on Ravelry got under your skin.

Aaron said...

Oh, yes! That is Cormo! ??

Spin a 20 fiber bundle of Cormo. It is easy to get a hank (560 yard) of cormo yarn weight less than 7 grams. Cormo spun at its spin count is hard to photograph clearly. Spun at its spin count a Cormo yarn is less than 1/200" (0.0002 cm) thick.

(In the blog post I was being facetious and satirical. As a student, I passed first year biology mostly on the basis of being able to clearly photograph tiny snail larvae but 45,000 ypp yarn singles are an effort to photograph.)

Then, spin a 20 fiber bundle of a medium fine wool such as Shetland or Suffolk.

Now go back and look at our Russian friend's "fine". Is it like a fine, or more like a 48's (9.5 gr/hank)?

I look at her pix and think that I spin inexpensive 56 count long wool much finer than our Russian friend spins Cormo. Her fine looks very much like what I spin from -- Romney! (e.g., just under 10 gram/ hank).

As I say, everyone needs a microscope. Folks who use mircroscopes (and tachometers and scales) find the truth. I look around and see how many folks do not understand evolution or climate change. From this I expect a large number of the folks who call themselves spinners will never grasp what I do.

Aaron said...

And there is always the point that everybody that did their twisty stick homework knows what an 80 count single looks like and what a 48 count single looks like.

People that did their homework can see where the fraud lies.

Anonymous said...

As always, you ignore your own words and your constant hypocrisy. Demand pictures? Reciprocate. Say you're not interested in how other people spin? Your entire blog, your posts on Rav, your constant comparisons... Oh yes. You care very much how other people spin until it's time to live up to your own assertions.

Anonymous said...

We can all see where the fraud lies.

Aaron said...

Taking pix of "fines" is a high effort activity. I decided, i would rather spin. At ordinary internet resolutions, fines just disappear, so every real photograph of fines ends up taking up a lot of band width. I would take pix of fines, and try to put them on the blog, but at 200 wpi, the yarn was not visible. I was wasting my time.

It is not like you are paying for the pictures, now is it? If you want good pix send me a check and I will send you a thumb drive.

Thus, what we see on the internet are photos of thicker yarns pretending to be fines.

That is why I pointed out how you can use a twisty stick to see, touch, and feel real fines. Then, you will know what is fine and what is not. Then you will know fraud, rather than just slandering and libeling anyone and everyone that has put some effort into learning traditional spinning skills.

Three years ago, I mounted some of my first 56s (from Jacob) in plastic and gave it to a local spinning teacher. She still uses it as a teaching aid because these days, samples of spinning at that grist are rare. A few inches on a twisty stick (or a flyer) do not indicate the spinner is producing useful amounts of the yarn.

Anonymous said...

If you're spinning 200 WPI singles you could easily show them to us wrapped around a WPI tool, or even a simple ruler. The reason you're not doing so isn't that it's too much effort, it's that you aren't actually spinning 200 WPI singles.

I can understand wanting to spin faster, and to a certain extent I can understand wanting to spin finer (I don't enjoy knitting with super fine yarns and I don't share your belief that 5-ply yarns are the be all and end all). Your insistence that your yarn/spinning method is inherently superior to anybody else's yarn/spinning methods are what I find bizarre.

Then again, given that you are comparing yourself primarily to female spinners, and that you've referred to many of those female spinners as "boss cows", perhaps it isn't bizarre at all. Perhaps you're just a boring, garden variety misogynist.

How dull.

Anonymous said...

Paying for pictures... nice try. I don't believe the spinner on Rav asked you to pay for her pictures or time. She offered them as support of her assertions.

No one really wants to see your spinning, Aaron. No one believes it exists. Somehow, due to the terrible difficulty of pointing and clicking a camera (I believe the talented spinner who shared with you used her phone), none of your claims can possibly be substantiated.

You must be a very specialized engineer indeed.

Aaron said...

That spinner on Rav did not spin yarn that is only 1/200" thick.

That is the first point. The second point is that you do not notice the difference.

Even the new Iphone 6 plus will not photograph or display 80 count yarn singles (200 wpi) life size. It does not have the required resolution. Nor will the GoPro equipment photograph at such resolution. Your computer monitor does not have the resolution to display such yarns life size.

Kate Archer said...

I think, the point Anonymous is trying to make here is you asked for photos from said spinner as proof of her assertions (who obliged) but you refuse (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) to provide photos of any of the fine yarn you spin yourself.

If you ask for photographic proof of others, it is only fair that you provide it yourself. That's how you play the game and you know that

Kate Archer said...

I think, the point Anonymous is trying to make here is you asked for photos from said spinner as proof of her assertions (who obliged) but you refuse (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) to provide photos of any of the fine yarn you spin yourself.

If you ask for photographic proof of others, it is only fair that you provide it yourself. That's how you play the game and you know that

Aaron said...

Kate,
Certain well known spinners are playing games by not being honest.

I disclosed their dishonesty.

Fair play is telling the truth. i told the truth, and they lied.

Now tell me about fair play in this game. Is one of the rules, "Everyone but Aaron can lie?"

Is that because I am a male? Or because I have only been spinning for 6 years? Or, because I do my math homework?

Anonymous said...

Is that because you are a male? No. Or because you have only been spinning for 6 years? No. Or, because I do my math homework? Not likely. It's because a) you're providing no pictures, and b) you're an arrogant prick.