I'm playing with very open tabby weaves and wonder if anyone has any tips for beating lightly.  I find that it takes more work to hold back on the beat than it does if I wanted to really pack it.  I'm weaving 20/2 at 18 epi on a Macomber so don't have a particularly heavy beater but am still finding it a lot of work to prevent packing.  I'm not too concerned if it doesn't beat perfectly every time, nor if it all shifts once it's off the loom.

Comments

Thu, 12/25/2014 - 21:15

laurafry

Are you beating on an 'open' shed (same shafts up as for your pick) or closed (shafts at rest)?  Sometimes I find that closing the shed helps to hold the beater back.

cheers,

Laura

Thu, 12/25/2014 - 23:18

sequel (not verified)

You could try attaching a counterweight to the beater.  Take a string, tie it to the end of the beater, run it to the back of the loom and hang a weight off the back beam.  One on each side.  Or tie the beater to a loop of elastic from the castle to the beater on each side to resist pulling the beater too far forward with too much energy. 

20/2 at 18 epi is probably going to make a sleazy cloth instead of a gauzy one and you will have troubles with the weft separating as the cloth moves over the breast and cloth beams.  Gauzy weaves are usually woven with high twist or overtwisted yarns that are kind of "grabby" which helps keep them in position.  At least that's my memory from the Indian gauze fabrics of the 1970's.

Fri, 12/26/2014 - 05:08

morgan clifford

Hi Laura, I'm new to these comments pages so I apologize if I don't enter this correctly. Thanks for the help. I have experimented with both and yes, it seems that a closed shed allows for more control.

Fri, 12/26/2014 - 05:13

morgan clifford

Thanks for the help.  That's an interesting idea.  I did think about attaching strong elastic to the beater to discourage too much momentum.  I used to attach a bungee cord to my beater when I wove on a Cranbrook so its resting position was against the castle.  I agree about the loose weave dangers and appreciate your advice.  They may end up as wall piece structures so won't be handled much.

Fri, 12/26/2014 - 06:46

laurafry

You seem to be doing fine. Welcome to weavolution. Cheers Laura
Fri, 12/26/2014 - 14:53

Woodburner

How about a (thicker?) supplementary weft in 1 or 2 centimeter wide selvedges? I imagine you will still have to be careful not to beat too hard as the entire pressure of each beat will be concentrated in those two spots. (Disclaimer: I have never tried this and it might result in damageing those sections of the reed. Use your own judgement. :) )

 

eta sorry this is a stupid idea as it will also cause problems on the cloth beam, as the cloth will be thicker at the selvedges.

I can't figure out how to delete this all without leaving a wierd looking blank post.

 

 

 

Fri, 12/26/2014 - 15:04

dteaj (not verified)

The idea of a thicker selvage could be pretty effective, although time consuming. Just use slats at the front cloth beam, as you might for the back beam to prevent packing in. It would also stabilize the cloth at the selvages quite effectively.
Fri, 12/26/2014 - 22:19

Joanne Hall

Since you have a beater attached at the bottom of the loom, it is easier to get a light beat if you don't advance your warp very far.  You will then be weaving closer to the beater.   Then the beater does not have as far to move, you won't have as much speed, the beater won't fall on the fell and best of all you will be able to see the fell better.

Joanne

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 17:28

mneligh

I also look for lightening my beat on a B-type Macomber. Since I've been working at this for a while, I can say that I have taken up habitually beating on a closed shed. Keeping the line of the warp (fell line) close to the true "upright" position of the beater is the key, along with working to slow the movement of the beater.  The cloth area in front of the beater has two possible widths, and you want to use the narrower of these. (There are two screws holes in the cast iron housings to which the iron braces can attach -- use the back one.) If you just let the beater fall forward of upright, it gains force with the distance it travels.  

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 17:50

morgan clifford

Thanks for the ideas everyone, I appreciate it very much.  Sorry but I'm confused by what you mean mneligh about: "The cloth area in front of the beater has two possible widths, and you want to use the narrower of these. (There are two screws holes in the cast iron housings to which the iron braces can attach -- use the back one.)"  Would you mind elaborating?  Joanne thanks for that tip, very helpful! And...the thicker selvedge is also something to consider.

Is it ok to respond to these comments in bulk? :0 )

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 19:54

mneligh

The cast iron piece that holds the end of the cloth beam and its rachet & pawl has a screw  to which the iron braces attach.  There are 2 screw holse on either side, however.  By using the one closer to the weaver, you can extend the cloth area by an inch and a half, or so.  However, if you use the position closer to the loom, you still have a large cloth area.  

When the beater is at rest back by the heddles, the reed has to travel uphill to reach the top of its arc.  After it passes the top, it travels downhill, with gravity accentuating the force the weaver puts into "beat".  The more it travels downhill without active restraint, the more this effect increases.  

By keeping the fell line up by the highest point, as Joanne points out, the less this effect.  On the Macomber, this is easier if using the brace screw position by the loom rather than the one towards the weaver.

I find the Macomber does have a heavy beater by my reckoning, but I have never used an overhead beater for any large project. To me, weft-face is easier to do than balanced on that loom, and I've had to work at lightening my touch to keep square motifs square.  Krokbragd, on the other hand, is easy.

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 19:54

mneligh

The cast iron piece that holds the end of the cloth beam and its rachet & pawl has a screw  to which the iron braces attach.  There are 2 screw holse on either side, however.  By using the one closer to the weaver, you can extend the cloth area by an inch and a half, or so.  However, if you use the position closer to the loom, you still have a large cloth area.  

When the beater is at rest back by the heddles, the reed has to travel uphill to reach the top of its arc.  After it passes the top, it travels downhill, with gravity accentuating the force the weaver puts into "beat".  The more it travels downhill without active restraint, the more this effect increases.  

By keeping the fell line up by the highest point, as Joanne points out, the less this effect.  On the Macomber, this is easier if using the brace screw position by the loom rather than the one towards the weaver.

I find the Macomber does have a heavy beater by my reckoning, but I have never used an overhead beater for any large project. To me, weft-face is easier to do than balanced on that loom, and I've had to work at lightening my touch to keep square motifs square.  Krokbragd, on the other hand, is easy.

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 19:54

mneligh

The cast iron piece that holds the end of the cloth beam and its rachet & pawl has a screw  to which the iron braces attach.  There are 2 screw holse on either side, however.  By using the one closer to the weaver, you can extend the cloth area by an inch and a half, or so.  However, if you use the position closer to the loom, you still have a large cloth area.  

When the beater is at rest back by the heddles, the reed has to travel uphill to reach the top of its arc.  After it passes the top, it travels downhill, with gravity accentuating the force the weaver puts into "beat".  The more it travels downhill without active restraint, the more this effect increases.  

By keeping the fell line up by the highest point, as Joanne points out, the less this effect.  On the Macomber, this is easier if using the brace screw position by the loom rather than the one towards the weaver.

I find the Macomber does have a heavy beater by my reckoning, but I have never used an overhead beater for any large project. To me, weft-face is easier to do than balanced on that loom, and I've had to work at lightening my touch to keep square motifs square.  Krokbragd, on the other hand, is easy.

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 19:54

mneligh

The cast iron piece that holds the end of the cloth beam and its rachet & pawl has a screw  to which the iron braces attach.  There are 2 screw holse on either side, however.  By using the one closer to the weaver, you can extend the cloth area by an inch and a half, or so.  However, if you use the position closer to the loom, you still have a large cloth area.  

When the beater is at rest back by the heddles, the reed has to travel uphill to reach the top of its arc.  After it passes the top, it travels downhill, with gravity accentuating the force the weaver puts into "beat".  The more it travels downhill without active restraint, the more this effect increases.  

By keeping the fell line up by the highest point, as Joanne points out, the less this effect.  On the Macomber, this is easier if using the brace screw position by the loom rather than the one towards the weaver.

I find the Macomber does have a heavy beater by my reckoning, but I have never used an overhead beater for any large project. To me, weft-face is easier to do than balanced on that loom, and I've had to work at lightening my touch to keep square motifs square.  Krokbragd, on the other hand, is easy.

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 19:54

mneligh

The cast iron piece that holds the end of the cloth beam and its rachet & pawl has a screw  to which the iron braces attach.  There are 2 screw holse on either side, however.  By using the one closer to the weaver, you can extend the cloth area by an inch and a half, or so.  However, if you use the position closer to the loom, you still have a large cloth area.  

When the beater is at rest back by the heddles, the reed has to travel uphill to reach the top of its arc.  After it passes the top, it travels downhill, with gravity accentuating the force the weaver puts into "beat".  The more it travels downhill without active restraint, the more this effect increases.  

By keeping the fell line up by the highest point, as Joanne points out, the less this effect.  On the Macomber, this is easier if using the brace screw position by the loom rather than the one towards the weaver.

I find the Macomber does have a heavy beater by my reckoning, but I have never used an overhead beater for any large project. To me, weft-face is easier to do than balanced on that loom, and I've had to work at lightening my touch to keep square motifs square.  Krokbragd, on the other hand, is easy.

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 19:54

mneligh

The cast iron piece that holds the end of the cloth beam and its rachet & pawl has a screw  to which the iron braces attach.  There are 2 screw holse on either side, however.  By using the one closer to the weaver, you can extend the cloth area by an inch and a half, or so.  However, if you use the position closer to the loom, you still have a large cloth area.  

When the beater is at rest back by the heddles, the reed has to travel uphill to reach the top of its arc.  After it passes the top, it travels downhill, with gravity accentuating the force the weaver puts into "beat".  The more it travels downhill without active restraint, the more this effect increases.  

By keeping the fell line up by the highest point, as Joanne points out, the less this effect.  On the Macomber, this is easier if using the brace screw position by the loom rather than the one towards the weaver.

I find the Macomber does have a heavy beater by my reckoning, but I have never used an overhead beater for any large project. To me, weft-face is easier to do than balanced on that loom, and I've had to work at lightening my touch to keep square motifs square.  Krokbragd, on the other hand, is easy.

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 19:54

mneligh

The cast iron piece that holds the end of the cloth beam and its rachet & pawl has a screw  to which the iron braces attach.  There are 2 screw holse on either side, however.  By using the one closer to the weaver, you can extend the cloth area by an inch and a half, or so.  However, if you use the position closer to the loom, you still have a large cloth area.  

When the beater is at rest back by the heddles, the reed has to travel uphill to reach the top of its arc.  After it passes the top, it travels downhill, with gravity accentuating the force the weaver puts into "beat".  The more it travels downhill without active restraint, the more this effect increases.  

By keeping the fell line up by the highest point, as Joanne points out, the less this effect.  On the Macomber, this is easier if using the brace screw position by the loom rather than the one towards the weaver.

I find the Macomber does have a heavy beater by my reckoning, but I have never used an overhead beater for any large project. To me, weft-face is easier to do than balanced on that loom, and I've had to work at lightening my touch to keep square motifs square.  Krokbragd, on the other hand, is easy.

Sat, 12/27/2014 - 19:54

mneligh

The cast iron piece that holds the end of the cloth beam and its rachet & pawl has a screw  to which the iron braces attach.  There are 2 screw holse on either side, however.  By using the one closer to the weaver, you can extend the cloth area by an inch and a half, or so.  However, if you use the position closer to the loom, you still have a large cloth area.  

When the beater is at rest back by the heddles, the reed has to travel uphill to reach the top of its arc.  After it passes the top, it travels downhill, with gravity accentuating the force the weaver puts into "beat".  The more it travels downhill without active restraint, the more this effect increases.  

By keeping the fell line up by the highest point, as Joanne points out, the less this effect.  On the Macomber, this is easier if using the brace screw position by the loom rather than the one towards the weaver.

I find the Macomber does have a heavy beater by my reckoning, but I have never used an overhead beater for any large project. To me, weft-face is easier to do than balanced on that loom, and I've had to work at lightening my touch to keep square motifs square.  Krokbragd, on the other hand, is easy.

Sun, 12/28/2014 - 02:38

morgan clifford

I understand, and my looms are already set up this way.  That's good to know for the future however.  Thanks again for the time and wisdom.

Sun, 12/28/2014 - 16:28

ReedGuy

I've done linen scrim with 12/2 and it could be described as burlap, and that is the effect I wanted. So, the size of the yarn can often help the closeness of a weave structure.

Tue, 12/30/2014 - 10:15

ReedGuy

A picture is worth a few words some times.

 

Scrim

I also did closer woven scrim in 16/2. I also bought some to compare the drape and texture, no difference. Pricey stuff though. But I need good strong cloth for upholstery as it lies on springs before the stuffing is ever applies. So it has to stand were of springs. I doubt cotton would last long.

Tue, 12/30/2014 - 13:50

sequel (not verified)

I forgot... use minimal tension on the warp.  A soft warp will resist the beater, a tight warp will allow the weft to pack down more.