Another One Bites the Dust

 

I wasn't exactly sure how many towels I would get off of this warp - it depends on the length of the repeat.  Turns out, it was 22.

I was busy with a Zoom guild presentation this morning, but my energy held and I wove one towel after lunch, then went back down after a wee break and a snack to see if there was warp left for two more towels.  I was pretty sure there wasn't, and if I could cut it off today, that would make me feel very happy.

So I finished off the towel and lo and behold, the knots were just coming over the back beam.  

I have just now cut and serged the six towels and they are in the washing machine.  I'll get them through the dryer until damp yet today, then let them 'steep' in a plastic bucket overnight so that they are evenly damp for best pressing.

Recently someone on line was asking about what size reeds they should have, or could you double up the number of ends in a dent?

Yes, you can double, treble or even quadruple ends in a dent.  I've even done 5 and 6 when working with really fine yarns.

The above photo shows the beige towel just cut off the loom and the red one which has already been wet finished.

In the before towel, you can clearly see the reed marks marching through the length of the towel.  They looked even more obvious under tension on the loom.  But after wet finishing, the threads have moved to areas of least resistance - the gap where the dent moved through the warp - and filled it in.

Sometimes the marks will not disappear entirely, but they will be diminished if not eliminated.  If I look really closely at the red towel, I can still see slight gaps between the threads, but stand back a foot or two and they basically disappear.

If you don't have a reed that allows you to be consistent with the number of ends in the dents, you can do what is called a compound sleying such as:  221221221 or 232323 or any other combination that will give you the density that you need for your project.  Many books have charts in the back showing various combinations, or look on line as a number of weavers have posted charts for people to access.

If you can't be 'perfect', be consistent.

Currently reading the Circle of Magic series by Tamora Pierce.  The first book has spinning, and now magical weaving.  I'm enjoying the series very much.

Time/Efficiency

 

sleying the reed, with bundles of warp ready to be tied on to the apron - about 1" worth each bundle

Video clip

Time becomes more precious the less of it we have (paraphrase from Bonnie Raitt)

When I first started weaving it was with the intention of earning an income from it.  With that intention front of mind, I paid attention to the things, the processes, that took the most time.  As I became better at weaving, I began to see where things could be stream lined.  How spending a little bit more time at one stage wound up saving me a whole lot of time at the next.

One of the things I do that sometimes puzzles people is that I slip knot each group of threads as I thread them.  

On the Leclerc, which has four shafts, my usual group for threading is four or six ends.  When I have them pulled through their respective heddles, they get put into a bundle and tied in a slip knot.  The video clip above shows how I do that.  On the Megado, it is generally 4, 6 or 8 ends in a group that get slip knotted together in preparation for sleying.  It depends(!)

Now it takes a whole lot longer to explain and show what I do than it does to do it.  I think tieing the knot takes one second.  What it does, however, is save me a great deal of time when I sley the reed.  

People frequently assume that I have some sort of magical powers, or that I must spend hours every day at the loom in order to produce as much as I do.  

Well, I used to.  My productivity now is a small fraction of what I used to be able to do.  But I'm 'retired' (for certain values of) and there is little need for me to produce at the levels I used to be able to do.

But my efficient processes continue, in no small part because I don't want to work artificially slowly (as one friend put it).  

The aging process has already slowed me down, I don't see any benefit in working in ways that slow me down even further.  I can find other ways to spend my time than sitting cramped in front of a loom threading and/or sleying the warp.

I'm not saying everyone must do things my way.  I have fine tuned my skills for 4 decades.  People can only rarely pick up a threading hook and thread a warp as quickly as I can, even now with my aging eyes and growing cataracts.  

But here's the thing.  It isn't a contest.  I'm not the 'winner'.  So I share what I do.  I encourage people to find their own 'best practices'.  And above all, enjoy the process.  Because in the end, that is literally all we have - our lives, and living them to their fullest.

Do what makes you happy.  Make what brings you joy.  Invest your time in the way that brings you pleasure.

Oopsie

Sh*t, as they say, happens.  The benefit of experience is that you - generally - recognize it more quickly when it does and know how to best fix it.

I haven't used a 12 dent reed for a while and it's surprising how much finer it is than, say, 8.  I caught myself a few times loading a dent with either too many or two few ends, but obviously missed this one.  Until I started to tie on.

At first I thought I'd skipped a dent entirely, determined that it was closer to the right selvedge than the left, sighed and carried on tieing up.  Because it's easier to move everything over one dent if the part that doesn't need fixing is already secured.

Closer inspection revealed what had actually happened.  Two ends got caught and dragged into an adjacent space, so nothing actually needs to be fixed except the dent that has four instead of 2 and the space that is empty and needs two.

Whew!

A Little OCD

I confess that I may be a little OCD because I tend to obsessively count stuff.  (Maybe it's why I don't get bored - I'm too focussed on my counting?)

Anyway, this warp is 36 epi - 3 ends per dent in a 12 dent reed with a 4 end threading repeat.

When I got to 12 dents full, I should have had no 'extra' ends left - the repeats (threading and sleying) should have lined up.  They didn't.  That could only mean one thing.  I'd made a mistake somewhere in that first group of dents.

Sure enough, one of the dents had 4 ends in it instead of 3.  So I pulled out the threads, fixed the mistake and wahla, everything lined up as it should have.

And then it happened again.  What can I say?  Dark threads.  Fine threads.  Hard to see.  But my somewhat obsessive counting saved me from discovering I had a couple of sleying errors after I was all done and finished.  At which point all my nicely grouped ends (four per slip knot) would have been gone, all the ends would have been 'loose' and it would have been much more difficult to keep the ends in order.

Counting as I do stuff like winding the warp, threading and sleying helps me keep track of 'patterns' such as 'by the time I sley 12 dents there should be an even number of ends in the dents'.

It seems to me that a whole lot of weavers also like to do jigsaw puzzles.  I think it's partly pattern recognition, partly because we are process oriented people.  What do you think?

Lesson in Humbility

It doesn't do to get complacent - that's when you stop thinking.

This warp is 36 epi.  I have a 9 dent reed, but it's very old and rough on the top and bottom so when I checked my stored reeds I noticed that I also have a brand new metric reed (35) which is also 9 dents.  Without thinking too much I popped that reed into the beater and proceeded to sley it.  The entire time I was sleying it I did not once stop to ask myself why I hadn't been using this reed, but the old battered one.  Or if I did, I didn't take the time to properly answer the question.

Turns out that the reed is too 'short'.  When I put the beater top back onto the beater, there was a 1/2 inch gap between the reed and the top. 

Now, you may be asking yourself how it is possible for me to put the reed into the beater without putting the top of the beater on.  The answer is simple.  On the AVL, the bottom of the reed is 'pinched' between two pieces of wood.  And, since the beater top is rather large and blocks the view in order to sley, I leave it off while I do that job.

I really dislike having to change reeds and resley because all my nice neat little bouts which I so carefully tie into slip knots are now gone and the danger of making sleying errors is much, much greater when the warp ends are all loose. 

However since I was not resleying to change the density, merely changing one reed of the same dents per inch to another of the same dents per inch, I realized that instead of pulling the warp out of the wrong reed entirely, I could transfer each group dent by dent which would mean the risk of sleying errors would be low.

How to do this when the AVL doesn't really have side frames that the reed could lay on?  I grabbed a couple of short lease sticks (for the Leclerc Fanny or other smaller loom) and rested them on each side of the loom across the bottom of the shafts and onto the side frame of the loom.  And taped them there.  The reed rests quite comfortably there and it's only taking me a few minutes to pull each group in it's order and put it into the reed which is clamped in the beater. 

If you click on the photo you should be able to see the set up more clearly.

Once the reed is completely re-sleyed I'll carefully pull the reed out and remove the sticks and then I can go ahead and put the loom back together (the sandpaper beam is also out of the loom), tie on and ought to be weaving this afternoon.  :)

And I can be pretty sure there are no sleying errors to fix.  But just in case, I'll be sure to check each shed.  Doesn't do to get complacent!

Currently reading Snuff by (Sir) Terry Pratchett

Minimum Input, Maximum Output

Colour gamp test warp

One of the things I try to do is have the maximum amount of output for the least amount of input. What that means is that I try to do the various tasks associated with weaving with the fewest hand motions possible.

Two years ago, I watched as Syne Mitchell sleyed a warp. It was a colossal duh moment. She was sleying in much the same manner as I threaded. How could I not have seen that sleying could be done in much the same way?

When I got home from that trip, I immediately put the new (to me) manner of sleying into practice. It took about 6 warps to erase the old muscle memory and make this way of sleying into my new default. Yes, I had skipped dents, or doubled dents the first few times, but seriously? - I had those at times with my old way of sleying. :}

Notice the positioning of my hands. My left hand pretty much stays behind the beater, while the right hand stays pretty much in front of the beater.

What makes this method work is the hook. It is made by Harrisville and has a smaller hook on one end for threading, and a larger hook on the other for sleying. It costs just $10.95 US and is worth every penny as far as I'm concerned.

The hook is held downwards instead of upwards. It is gently rounded and never (or rarely) splits the ply of the threads. (It can split the ply of a very gently twisted yarn such as the Bambu 7.)

To sley I separate the threads into their groups, then put the hook through the appropriate dent, capturing the threads for that dent. The hook then keeps that loop of threads on the shank while it dips into the next space to grab onto the next group of threads. Then all the threads are pulled through at once.

I can do up to four dents in one pull. This particular warp the threads have been tied into groups of four, with two threads per dent so I'm just doing four ends (two dents) at a time here.

Sley that Warp

I am always happy to learn a faster more ergonomic/efficient way to approach the various tasks related to weaving.

About 18 months or so ago I was visiting with Syne Mitchell and as we chatted she was sleying the reed on her loom. She was doing something completely different than I'd seen anyone else do so I asked her about it. She said she had learned the method from Peggy Ostercamp (a long time student of Jim Ahrens.)

What blew me away was that it was almost identical to the way I had been threading in terms of using minute hand movements and dealing with multiple ends at the same time. How come I never twigged that the reed could be sleyed the same way????

As soon as I got home I started practising the new (to me) method of sleying and have been happily using this method ever since. It took about 6 warps before I could accurately sley the reed. It was well worth taking the time to learn this method.



I use Harrisville's brass threading/sleying hook. For threading I use the small hook, but for sleying it gets turned over and the large hook is used. Notice the orientation of the hook - it's downwards, not up. It is being held as one would hold a pen.

I begin by finding the next dent I want to fill by inserting the hook into that dent near the bottom of the reed (so that I can more easily identify the correct dent by lining the hook up with the last dent filled.)

The hook is then inserted into the reed and lifted to about the half way point in the reed.



Here I am inserting and beginning to slide the hook upwards. I then reach for the group of ends desired and pull the loop through the dent as shown below. The entire loop is not drawn through, but left on the stem of the hook.

Using the hook as a sort of auto-denter, I leave the loop on the hook and slide it over the spline and re-insert it into the next dent to be filled. The next group of ends is then caught on the hook and pulled through to the front.

When all of the ends in the bout have been brought through to the front, all of the ends are brought through the reed at once in one movement and tied.

The groups are tied with a slip knot in amounts suitable for tying onto the apron rod.

Even if only one group is sleyed through one dent at a time, using the hook in this orientation means that a very small hand movement is all that is required, not the entire arm. When a wide warp with lots of ends is being prepared, reducing hand/arm movements as much as possible means that more work can be accomplished with less effort.

And that is A Good Thing to me. :)

Watch for a guest post in the next few days.

Ergonomics = Efficiency

This is a photo showing how I catch the shuttle as it exits the shed. The point slips through my index and middle finger, and my thumb acts as a gentle brake on the bobbin so that it doesn't over run and let off more weft than required. I catch and throw my shuttle this way regardless of the width of the warp I'm weaving.

I know it's hard to relearn muscle memory if you have been doing something physical another way, but working ergonomically is much kinder to the body than working akwardly. The other bonus is that ergonomic motions generally mean increased efficiency.

The last few days I've received a couple of emails from people that have warmed my heart.

Elaine R writes:

I've been weaving on the shawl on my Kessenich and practicing your technique. While I don't have it down pat yet, I certainly got a lot more woven in a short time than I have before on such a wide piece.

With each bobbin change I try a different shuttle, and I think I've figured out which one works the best. I will have to have Rick flatten out the end a little to get rid of the point so I can push it better with my finger, but that is easy. One of my goals this year is to do more weaving and use up many of these cones of yarn. I mainly do scarves, shawls and table linens, and with
your good guidance, I should get a lot done.

A good shuttle will encourage the holding and throwing of it in this manner. There are many shuttles available that are awkward to catch and throw this way due to the shape and size of the point of the shuttle. What I recommend to people is that they try holding their shuttle this way and if it is awkward, try different styles until they find one that does feel comfortable. My shuttles are all Leclerc boat shuttles. I use the regular ones with my Fanny and the low profile ones on the AVL because the shed on that loom is smaller.

Sharon S writes:

Laura, I have dramatically increased my speed of dressing a loom thanks to your CD Weaver words and videos.

After winding a couple of longish (for me) warps back to front I did a 4 yard warp front to back and even though it went fairly smoothly I still had a few popped threads while beaming and it wasn't nearly as relaxing. So I'm thinking I'm becoming a back to front warper, at least on the standard loom but maybe on the Baby Wolf, too.

But the biggest thing that got faster was my threading. The last threading i did was an 8-shaft lace weave that was threaded 1-8-1-2-7-2 1-6-1 2-5-2 1-4-1 2-3-2. The method you show in CD Weaver was much faster than what I did before but I noticed tonight that you mention the method is best for 4-shaft threadings that are basically "in order" (not so much for the block weaves). I agree with that assessment.

My question, though, is what do you do for block weaves? Is it just slower and I should accept that or do you have some lovely tricks that work in those situations?

I've gone from taking a week of working a couple of hours each night to thread 320 ends to threading 450 ends in two sittings - maybe a couple of hours each? That's nowhere near your speed but it's still a substantial increase in my own speed and I'm enjoying my weaving a LOT more because I'm getting to the cool part quicker. I guess I'm sold on getting better!

Thanks again for the CDs, for your blog, for being so willing to share.

I use the Harrisville brass hook that has the threading hook on one end and the sleying hook on the other.

While threading block weaves is slower than twills if you hold the hook like a pencil, you only need a tiny hand movement to thread. You don't need to move your entire arm and shoulder. This method of threading requires less physical effort on the part of the weaver and is less tiring.

Using the hook in much the same manner, you can sley the reed the same way. A small flick of the hand passes the thread(s) through the dent - no large arm/shoulder movement. Again much less effort required, and less taxing on the weaver's body.

I'm all in favour of working smarter instead of harder and accomplishing more by doing less. :)