Okay last question I have this pattern #115934 could you calculate string number 2 for me? I am a little confused on how I would calculate it. I tried to calculate it the same way you did with string 8 and 10 by doing string 2 with string 17 but it came out to 0.06% which there is no way that is correct
ive tried this with bracelets with 8 strings and it worked amazingly. I'm doing calculations for a normal pattern that has a lot of strings, the numbers seem a little low but it should still work, right? (mb if the question a lil dumb....) I put 15 cm as the length I want for the pattern: #32405
@panda4eva2 6 inches are 15 centimeters. I'm sure the formula is usable with inches too, but then you need to replace every number that is in centimeters with a number in inches.
@halokiwi the length of the pattern is 20 rows In "length of braclet" I put 6 inches because I want it to be 6 inches. When I put it into the calculator, it came out with 18.65 or something inches. That was exactly enough for one repetition plus ties. Thank you for your patience ❤️
@panda4eva2 length of bracelet is the length of the knotted part of the bracelet without the ties. For me that length is 14cm. It depends on how many rows the pattern has how many repeats of the pattern fit into these 14cm.
Which pattern did you do? How many rows does that pattern have? Most normal patterns won't be long enough, if you do only one repetition.
I needed to repeat pattern #148888 14 times to get to 14cm. That's 14x8=112 rows. So yeah, only a very long pattern only needs one repeat.
@halokiwi is "length of braclet" for the final length of the bracelet or the length of one repetition of a patter.? I did length of bracelet and it was WAY to short and was exactly one repetition plus ties.
@mk22smith I'm actually not sure, but it should work for any six strand embroidery floss, not just dmc, if that's what you mean. It might work for thinner or thicker string too, but I have not tested it. It might work because when tying with thicker strings, you need more string per knot, but you also need to make less knots.
If it does not work, you can still try to figure out a formula based on this formula.
Does this formula assume/require that the string is normal 6 strand dcm to work? I'm working with a few different sizes nylon and paracord and having a nightmare of a time guessing lengths (I did well at first and got cocky, and now am either way over or way under). If it is not materials agnostic, I'll try to get an old friend who actually likes math to help me try myself!
@Jewelti thank you for you detailed feedback. I'm not sure I understand half of it (English is not my first language), but I appreciate it 😄
This method comes from experiments that I did. For me the variable 100 works perfectly. For someone else another number might work better, but I did not want to make the tutorial too complicated to understand. The formula isn't written mathematically correct, but that has the same reason.
I would recommend that you start out your experiments with the length you get from this formula. Measure what you have left over and then adjust the formula. That's what I did when developing the formula. I first made a bracelet, measured the string length, tried to develop a formula from it, applied that formula to another pattern, tied that pattern, measured the string length and adjusted the formula afterwards. I wish you lots of fun experimenting!
This is just one possible formula. Maybe you even come up with another one.
This is more of a scientific method approach than a theoretical one, which I think is probably the better one here. A theoretical approach might calculate the length to circle the width of a string and itself twice, and as string is squishy, the experimental results are more accurate, though also subject to knot tension. The only thing that threw my little nerd brain off was the first formula for knot percentage, because of the x100 in the denominator, because a) that's the variable x not the times x so I was trying to figure out what the variable in the denominator was and b) that being in the denominator means that your dividing into something tiny. As for the formula I might try the length thing with a few other bases and without the safety net FOR SCIENCE! later, so I'll get back to you if I do
