Saturday, October 18, 2008

Genius!!

Julia showed us the latest (3/08) VAV Magasinet at the Richmond Weavers meeting, and Pat got me the English edition of the issue from Canada. (I didn't know there were English editions - I use to get Swedish version with English inserts.)

Anyway, my eyes were glued to this little ad at the back. Does anyone weave like this, without the dreaded back beam? This just takes away a whole lot of heartache for me, to weight down the entire warp chain, instead of having to wind it. I've done this with supplementary warps, (I only have one warp beam), but I love the simplicity of it. AND the modification can be made at a relatively low cost; it's simple enough my man can do it in a few hours, with a bit of coaxing of course. He says our ceiling isn't high enough, but I don't mind having to undo the chains a bit more frequently.

Can anyone enlighten me as to the pros/cons of this method? In particular, I want to know how the warp stays spread out around the bottom beam-thing, along where I marked with the red arrow.

In addition to the links provided by Valerie in the comment section, finally, finally I understand what Kaz was on about way back in Jan 2007 here and here.

8 comments:

  1. Sorry to disapoint you. You don't weave like that. But you can dress the loom, just one person.


    (sorry, my language is a bit wonky)

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is what is known as a warping trapeze. Charlene writes about hers Comments link:
    here.

    Purrington looms sell them as an accessory here

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is the vertical version of Peter Collingwood's warp extension. His is horizontal but he says if room is an issue you can do it vertically. I heard him say it on the DVD's that Complex Weavers is selling from his most recent interview. The DVD's are 2 x $18 and well worth the money. NAYY

    ReplyDelete
  4. KD, well, yeah, I know you don't weave like that, but I get your point. No worries.

    Valeerie, aha, I've heard of it on someone's blog before, but I totally didn't not comprehend what was going on back then. Must look up your link.

    Laritza, thanks for that info, too. NAYY??

    ReplyDelete
  5. she's a horsie.

    ok, not really. 'No Affilliation Yadda Yadda" did I spell affiliation wrong, even horsily wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gosh, you're in a good place, Taueret. If you had this, I'm sure your kids would want to hang on/swing from it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't actually see why you couldn't weave in a way similar to that, as long as you had enough weight. You'd basically be turning it into a horizontally woven warp weighted loom. It would probably depend a lot on _what_ you were weaving though, and I think warp weighted looms give a slightly different feel to the fabric. I'm planning (at some point) to do a sampler piece that is a copy of something I've done on my warp weighted loom - if it turns out that I'm not imagining the difference then I may have to try the weighting thing.

    The disadvantage I can see with something like this is that you'd want to weight the warp in sections, and then it gets fairly tedious moving the weights. But with such a long drop you'd get a reasonable run before you had to

    ReplyDelete
  8. You read my mind. I'd be dying to know how your experiment goes, Sonya. Ben might have to go to the Mega Store after all!

    ReplyDelete

I love comments. Thank you for taking the time!