Lamellar

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Tue May 23, 2000 8:34 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janos:
agreed... it does look more rounded.... but I'm not sure its full radius.

btw, not picking, I apreciate your work on this.

Janos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, here it is. 1x4" 3/16 Holes (.1875 Diam) It's a biggie.

[img]http://sca.sts.net/armor/1x4_1875.jpg[/img]

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Tue May 23, 2000 8:36 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rmermuys:
 Okay, here it is. 1x4" 3/16 Holes (.1875 Diam) It's a biggie.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If everyone likes this one, I'd say this is a final draft..

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

APOCALYPSE · Post by **APOCALYPSE** » Tue May 23, 2000 11:15 pm

With a few confirmations, I'll fax it to Jim. It is in inches, no?

Joe Skeesick · Post by **Joe Skeesick** » Tue May 23, 2000 11:32 pm

I think I'm fine with that.

Nice job.

Janos

APOCALYPSE · Post by **APOCALYPSE** » Tue May 23, 2000 11:34 pm

You're up awfully late

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by APOCALYPSE:
With a few confirmations, I'll fax it to Jim. It is in inches, no?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything is in inches.

Talon-of -Pentwyvern sent me a file, the hole placement is different. Lemme see if I can post that file.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

Joe Skeesick · Post by **Joe Skeesick** » Tue May 23, 2000 11:51 pm

always

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Tue May 23, 2000 11:54 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rmermuys:
 Everything is in inches.

Talon-of -Pentwyvern sent me a file, the hole placement is different. Lemme see if I can post that file.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[img]http://sca.sts.net/armor/birka.gif[/img]

Here the file is. Some holes are different and there are no radius, looks more like an oval or something.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Tue May 23, 2000 11:57 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rmermuys:

Here the file is. Some holes are different and there are no radius, looks more like an oval or something.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez that graphic looks huge! It didn't look that big when I had it in the editor!

...Wow...

What does everyone think? I'm afraid I'm going on what you guys are giving me as to what this thing is supposed to look like and the suggestions you are giving me.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

[This message has been edited by rmermuys (edited May 24, 2000).]

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:02 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rmermuys:

Here the file is. Some holes are different and there are no radius, looks more like an oval or something.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going to have to ask some of the guys in the engineering department how I'd do those curved edges... They don't look perfectly round.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

[This message has been edited by rmermuys (edited May 24, 2000).]

Joe Skeesick · Post by **Joe Skeesick** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:27 am

The edge radius looks more accurate now....

As for the size, I'm wondering if you output it at a different resolution (such as 150 dpi) if so, when uploaded it would then be rendered at 72dpi and look 2x as big.

Janos

Dmitriy · Post by **Dmitriy** » Wed May 24, 2000 4:23 am

I think the top of the plate is still a bit wrong -- the top of the pic I posted looks like it's not half a circle, but an ark of about 75 degrees.

Sorry for being such a pain

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 10:50 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janos:
The edge radius looks more accurate now....

As for the size, I'm wondering if you output it at a different resolution (such as 150 dpi) if so, when uploaded it would then be rendered at 72dpi and look 2x as big.

Janos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did the last one on a newer version of cad. It apparently outputs in .JPG. The first one I could only output in a differant format and then convert it to .jpg.

I'm interested in what people think of the last picture that was posted without the dimentions...

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:07 pm

Here's one based on the one that Talon-of -Pentwyvern sent me.

[img]http://sca.sts.net/armor/b1x4_1875.jpg[/img]

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:19 pm

The holes of the last picture (with out dim.) are 1/8-in in dia. and was traced from a small bitmap (I think from Cariadoc's page) so any thing I could not see clearly I had to gess at. Th position of the holes were shifted from slightly from the original bitmap to make them like up, looking back at a few things I would say that if the top of my drawing could be rounded out a bit, and the arks on the bottom shortened (maby round off the bottom edge a bit) I also like the placement Randalls placement of the holes better, but would mover them closer to the edge (say 1/4-inches from center of the hole to edge of the plate with the 3/16-inch)

The next question is what is the proper lacing pattern.

------------------
Talon of Pentwyvern
Legio Darkyard

-Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing copper armour and shouting "ALL THE GODS ARE BASTARDS!"

Joe Skeesick · Post by **Joe Skeesick** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:30 pm

Well, that trouble maker Dmitriy is right... it still seems off a bit. It is definetly better. I made this overlay of the 2 files.... it shows that the more squared off corners of the original plate and the different hole placement (specifically at the top)

[img]http://okcdev.webcasts.com/4joe/pictures/birkaoverlay.jpg[/img]

Janos

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:34 pm

Here's the rounded top with the quarter radius bottom with the same hole placement as the last one with the four radius edges...

[img]http://sca.sts.net/armor/1x4_1875-2.jpg[/img]

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:35 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janos:
Well, that trouble maker Dmitriy is right... it still seems off a bit. It is definetly better. I made this overlay of the 2 files.... it shows that the more squared off corners of the original plate and the different hole placement (specifically at the top)

Janos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So which plate is correct?

I'm wishing I had a primary source to look at on this one...

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:40 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Talon-of -Pentwyvern:
The holes of the last picture (with out dim.) are 1/8-in in dia. and was traced from a small bitmap (I think from Cariadoc's page) so any thing I could not see clearly I had to gess at. Th position of the holes were shifted from slightly from the original bitmap to make them like up, looking back at a few things I would say that if the top of my drawing could be rounded out a bit, and the arks on the bottom shortened (maby round off the bottom edge a bit) I also like the placement Randalls placement of the holes better, but would mover them closer to the edge (say 1/4-inches from center of the hole to edge of the plate with the 3/16-inch)

The next question is what is the proper lacing pattern.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been looking at lacing and interpreting this design. Some of the first designs would have used a large amount of cord, or 3 runs of cord per plate going horizontally. The later designs would only use one cord to attach the top to the bottom I think.

Lemme see if I can make a graphic of the two.

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

Joe Skeesick · Post by **Joe Skeesick** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:45 pm

The black line is the findings sketch (at least thats my understanding of the source) and therefore the "correct" one....or at least as correct as we have.

Janos

Dmitriy · Post by **Dmitriy** » Wed May 24, 2000 12:46 pm

I am fairly sure that the pic I posted is correct -- it's a scan from a book, not sure which one (I just cut it out of the scan). But I've ssen this one before..

So, Randall, can you do arc of less than 180 degrees in the program you're using?

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:05 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janos:
The black line is the findings sketch (at least thats my understanding of the source) and therefore the "correct" one....or at least as correct as we have.

Janos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, then the one with the large radius on top and the 2 smaller radius on the bottom is more correct than the one with the 4 common radius.

How was the lacing done? From the original "2" picture, to me it looks like they'd have to do 4 strands of cord to get it to stay together. (Two in the middle to hold the plates side by side and one on the top to link to the above row, and one on the bottom to link to the bottom row.)

Is this how many they used or did they just havelot of waste cord going from the middle holes to the upper and lower holes?

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:08 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dmitriy:
I am fairly sure that the pic I posted is correct -- it's a scan from a book, not sure which one (I just cut it out of the scan). But I've ssen this one before..

So, Randall, can you do arc of less than 180 degrees in the program you're using?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, the arcs are 3pt or circles that I trim out the extra stuff. The pic with the 4 radii that are all even are accually circles that I placed off the center line and mirrored them, then trimed off the stuff that was outside the 1x4".

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

Hrothgar · Post by **Hrothgar** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:11 pm

Wow, guys, my head hurts reading this, yours must be "bus open"!

Good luck,

Hrothgar

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:33 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hrothgar:
Wow, guys, my head hurts reading this, yours must be "bus open"!

Good luck,

Hrothgar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All in the name of accuracy..

Measure twice... Build a die once...

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:36 pm

Lacing...

Here's a jpg of one design with 6 plates, no lacing... Can someone guess the lacing pattern?

[img]http://sca.sts.net/armor/1x4_1875-2_lace.jpg[/img]

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

[This message has been edited by rmermuys (edited May 24, 2000).]

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:37 pm

Here's one I started on...

[img]http://sca.sts.net/armor/1x4_1875-2_lace1.jpg[/img]

-Randall of Turm An Dem See

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 24, 2000 1:51 pm

Randall, not to make you head hurt but I gust sent you a new Dwg. traced from Dmitiry's plate, (were allposting at once, kind of funny) any why the filc contains the original Dmitiry dwg, and to tracings of my own, one with 1/8-inch holes and one with 3/8-inch holes.with the holles generaly placed 3/32-inch from the edge of the plate, the space vetween sets of holes is 1/4-inch except for the bottom set witch is 1/8-inch apart.

------------------
Talon of Pentwyvern
Legio Darkyard

-Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing copper armour and shouting "ALL THE GODS ARE BASTARDS!"

Hrothgar · Post by **Hrothgar** » Wed May 24, 2000 2:14 pm

Don't get me wrong, just appreciative of all your work!

Regards,

Hrothgar

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 3:00 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Talon-of -Pentwyvern:
Randall, not to make you head hurt but I gust sent you a new Dwg. traced from Dmitiry's plate, (were allposting at once, kind of funny) any why the filc contains the original Dmitiry dwg, and to tracings of my own, one with 1/8-inch holes and one with 3/8-inch holes.with the holles generaly placed 3/32-inch from the edge of the plate, the space vetween sets of holes is 1/4-inch except for the bottom set witch is 1/8-inch apart.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with getting this exact (Damn that accuracy!) is I'm currently typing numbers in Hundred Thousandths into Autocad to get things to come out right.

That first drawing I did never veered from Thousandths...

3/32 = 0.09375
1/2 of 3/32 = .046875

FYI: A human hair is about 0.001 or One Thousandth of an inch. Tight tolerances for machine parts is +/- 0.003

Do you think the guy will get upset if we want these Lamellar to within +/- 0.00001? (Big Evil Grin)...

------------------
-Randall of Turm An Dem See

Joe Skeesick · Post by **Joe Skeesick** » Wed May 24, 2000 3:14 pm

Just had to be number 100.......

The lacing pattern looks correct to me. That results in just a 2 lace pattern correct?

Janos

APOCALYPSE · Post by **APOCALYPSE** » Wed May 24, 2000 3:33 pm

So which pic is the final draft?

rmermuys · Post by **rmermuys** » Wed May 24, 2000 3:34 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janos:
Just had to be number 100.......

The lacing pattern looks correct to me. That results in just a 2 lace pattern correct?

Janos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically, it is 3 laces to attach a top to a bottom.

I've been looking for the one lace pattern.

------------------
-Randall of Turm An Dem See

Joe Skeesick · Post by **Joe Skeesick** » Wed May 24, 2000 3:36 pm

Your right... my mistake

Janos

Norman · Post by **Norman** » Wed May 24, 2000 4:35 pm

Hey guys,
I'm not in on the purchase, but figured i'd chime in 'cause i'm interested in how it's laced (and the mainframe's reaaaaal sloooow today).
Reason I didn't go in on this is actually because I was not sure of the lacing.
But I kept checking back, hoping someone would post proposed lacing patterns.

But -
I think the one currently proposed here must be wrong --
it works if there is One Centered bottom lace hole (though even then, my reconstrructin is a little different), but in this design -
the cords would keep trying to twist the lower plates (mind you, the weight of the plates, and the fact that they're tied to the body would more than make up for it -- but it seems a less than elegant way to go about it).

My own tendency is to see the lacing as follows --
when the plates are fully attached side to side, the spacing for the bottom holes from one plate to the next and between plates looks like it should become about even (what I mean is -- if you disregard the plate divisions, you should just get a continuos strip with equidistantly spaced bottom holes)
The you align the upper holes of the lower plate directly with either bottom hole of the upper plate and lace as you would if you only had one bottom hole per plate.
(the finished look of the shirt will likely be of staggered lines).

My attempt at diagram (periods are for spacing, "o"s are holes, dashes and such are lacing)
.o-o.o-o.o-o ... lower holes of upper plate
.|..|.|..|.|.|
.|..|.|..|.|.|
.o..o.o.o.o.o ... upper holes
.|..|.|..|.|.|.... of
.o.o-o.o-o.o ... lower plate
/...............\
^................end of lace
^
^-start of lace

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Silk Road Designs Armoury
(718) 692-0935
normlaw@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad

[This message has been edited by Norman (edited May 24, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Norman (edited May 24, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Norman (edited May 24, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Norman (edited May 24, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Norman (edited May 24, 2000).]