Triple layers - variation for easier weaving

Yesterday I stopped before doing what I always do: rearranging the treadling for easiest actual weaving:

Unless I have very fat yarns in my double (in this case triple) cloth, I try to arrange the treadling so that I can do two picks per shuttle (layer).
It is so much faster to do two picks before having to change shuttles...

(Yes, it shows in the end product:

These are two not quite focussed pictures of double-layer shawls.
They are approximately 2 x life size, and has the ends one-by-one and the picks two-by-two.
The warps are a combination of cottons, 16/2, 20/2, 22/2 and maybe a few 30/2.
The wefts are of course only one quality per shuttle, but I don't remember which grist. The sett was probably somewhere about 10 ends/cm (25 epi).

And no, I haven't tried it for three layers.)

So: here is what I would do before sitting down to actually weave.

First: use the existing tieup, but rearrange the colour sequence.

Next: rearrange the new treadling to straight:

As I weave from bottom to top, and have an overhead beater, this is the treadling I would use, namely start in the bottom layer, working up to the top layer, as seen in the widest section of the warp.
(Yes, on the loom there will be "gaps" where the layers change. I have never seen these gaps after wet finishing - see pictures above.)

Hm.
Remembering one of my doodlings from yesterday (which did not reach publication) - another way of making more-than-two-different narrow stripes - a shift in the warp sequence can accomplish that:

Of course it depends on the actual colours used etc etc, but something to consider, perhaps?

A challenge? - I always love a challenge...

So, the question was: how to make a three-layer weave, with warp-wise layer changes?
(and preferably on 12 shafts "only")

This is how I approached the problem:

(To all Swedish readers (and Ellen: hi, Ellen!): note that all tieups are for rising shed. This means that the layers/colours will be reversed if the tieup is used "as is" for a CM.)

Started with a three-layer (three independent layers) weave - for plainweave layers, that takes six shafts.
For instance like this:

(To make things clearer in my mind, I threaded the first (turquois) layer on shafts 1-2, the next (purple) on shafts 3-4, the third (red) on shafts 5-6. When the construction is ready, the threading can be rearranged for easier threading.)

I made the top layer turquoise, the middle layer purple, the bottom layer red-orange. The three layers do not interact at any point. (Note that the difference in nuances between warp and weft makes It easy to see that the bottom, red-orange, layer has a correct interlacement, even without using the "back view".)

Now, we wanted a lengthwise (warpwise) layer exchange. I decided the left hand side is a good place. Thus, to start the construction, assume another "block" of the same threading and colour to occur at the left side. Like so (left pic):

The same threading on a new set of shafts (= a new block), with the same colour order. We want to shift the layers, so I let them "cycle": the middle, purple, layer goes on top - the bottom, red, goes in the middle and the top, turquoise, layer has to go to the bottom.

OK, I hear you: how do I do this?
I am using Fiberworks PCW (silver, if that matters).
By clicking in the drawdown, I can get ends/picks to the top (for instance).

Middle pic above: all purple threads, both warp ends and picks, are taken to the top.
Next is to fix the interlacement: right-hand pic above. Note that the interlacement should be a continuation of the purple plainweave in the right-hand (first) three-layer block.


Now to fix the middle layer, the red-orange one. Click all ends and picks so that they are under the purple layer, but on top of the turquoise (left picture below). Fix the interlacement - easy because of the difference between the red and the orange - right-hand picture below.

For the bottom (turquoise) layer, it is easier to use "back view".
As it happens, all turquoise threads are already at the bottom... fix the interlacement, go back to "front" view again:

Unfortunately, all the 12 shafts are now used.
As we want another stripe, we add another block (6 shafts) - now the total is 18.

The same procedure again: make the red-orange layer top, the turquoise will be in the middle and the purple layer will go to the bottom layer:

In the hopes that I had missed something important, I let the software analyse my result - alas, I had not: it really takes 18 shafts to do this.

But...

What if: let one of the layers stay in the same position for two stripes: this will reduce the goal to two blocks. With the three "open" layers on the right-hand side of different widths, and several narrow-ish stripes on the left-hand side... voilà, only 12 shafts. An alternative?

(As I, personally, prefer straight threadings whenever possible, I rearranged it for this final picture, showing both front and back:

(Remember: click pictures to enlargen)

Doodling for Halloweave

Well, that is not the whole truth.

By February I have to have something for an exhibition. That something has to be hung from a dowel, it can be max 80 cm wide and 160 cm long. It can also be some 10-15 cm deep.
So of course I want to weave something with a little depth :-)

The first thing that came to mind was a three-layer structure with offset layer-crossings, sort of like this: (never mind the colours, I have to see what I am thinking, here)

But... if that is going to be hung from the top, it will fall to be all flat. (Unless: maybe some strategically placed wires? But then: would wires survive packing?)

So I thought that maybe the outer layer(s) can be made longer? That way there will always be some depth, admittedly not much.

Hm. *Could* the outer layers be made longer?

As my scanner is out to lunch I tried to do all this drawing on the 'puter. (As you can see, I wasn't entirely lucky, but I think I can understand what I mean, at least)
By some cutting and pasting I think I have it, sort of:

Of course, this would require three warp beams, but perhaps the third can be improvised?

New try, only requiring two beams (I think):

But the middle layer would not be visible. Is that a good or a bad idea?

So I tried yet another idea, where all layers would have their "length of fame":

(yes, I just "painted over" the old colour... it is but a sketch, after all)

... and I am back to three beams, again.

What this has to do with Halloweave? Oh, over at Weavolution Sarah started a "Halloweave House" about 3D weaving...

Further experimenting

The three-layer false doubleweave got another washing, this time with a gentler program (I did not want it to shrink further, I just wanted to get rid of the pressed look).

Of course I forgot to measure brfore, but it can't have shrunk much (I think). However, the pressed end still showed as flatter than the rest. I think the mangled end reverted to "almost untreated".
I let it dry out completely. It then had this, um, slightly hard hand that line-dried things can have.
So it got re-moistened (not much!), put in the mesh bag again and was sent into the dryer for 10 minutes (no heat, of course). I think it improved the hand some, and it got more difficult to recognize the pressed end..
I also retrieved the "failure", wet it through, let it become almost dry amd mangled it properly. It came out flatter than before (of course!), but not as flat as the pressed variant.
Gave both to several people for hadling, and again got most votes for the mangled.

- my problem is that I still like the look of the un-treated/tumbled so much better!

I also tried to fix a threading/treadling (for three layers) to make the right-hand edge easier to shuttle.

For the "summer skies" it was easy - I just put the outer band on it's own shafts, and added treadles as needed. (I wove it on the dobby, but think it is easier to see what happens if shown in treadle mode).

(I opted for the easiest lifting, which is why the white "back-and-forth" ends come out over the edge. After all, I had 24 ends/picks of the cotton, so it made quite a difference. What can I say - lazy?)

So I tried to do something similar to the three-layer one. But I only have 16 shafts, so I had to restrict myself to the two outermost bands. I could not find an easy way, but after a while I think I found a work-around. It has to be woven on the dobby, and would rely on a couple of "empty picks" to make me notice when the light blue should cross to the other side.

From the bottom up:
The blue comes out on top of the green (it should go over the red, too - for some reason I didn't see that before making a picture of it :-(
It comes out over the green, because the unwoven blue warp goes over the green.

The green comes in fron the bottom, goes out on top, because unwoven green goes over red.

Before the red picks, the blue should cross to the underside - the two outer bands go up, to make that easy.
Blue stays on the underside for the red band.

Blue goes in from the underside, and goes out still on the underside (because the unwoven goes under green).
Green comes from the top, but comes out under (unwoven green goes under red)

Before the red, the blue should come up - outer bands go down to make that easy.

And so on... I think.
- probably I will have to make some adjustments, once I start weaving, or rather: IF I start weaving.

Experimenting

I had been thinking of "upgrading" this old idea - making it in wool-only. Would the pattern be visible, if doing it with the same open structure as the simple lattices?

Just cut off, it looked very un-interesting:

Well, if I was in for a disappointment, I might as well try another idea: a three-layer all-wool version.

I decided to make the grids the same size as for the two-layer versions - would it be possible to tease the layers apart after the machine-finishing? Or would the whole thing come out hopelessly felted?

After pre-sleying it looked open enough:

Of course, it was a bit less open on loom:

Each layer has 1 cm (8 ends) wide "bands" placed 5 cm apart, which only gives 1 cm of empty dents when combined (1cm layer1; 1cm empty; 1cm layer2; 1 cm empty; 1cm layer3; 1cm empty - repeat)

Both experiments fringed and ready for their bath - each in it's own mesh bag:

After washing, they both looked, well, tangled...

The brown-and-blue looked exactly as uninteresting washed as it did before. One disappointment done with. (Maybe I will look closer some other time, but for now it is placed in the "failure" bucket.)

The three-layer one was surprisingly un-felted - that is, it was quite easy to tease the layers apart. I liked the look, but we all know that pressing is part of the wet finishing, right?
I decided to experiment further, so I pressed one end as hard/flat as possible. The other end got treated in the mangle - but not very much. (As I wanted to leave the middle untreated, I had to wind it on and off the mangle many many times - it got maybe 6-7 short passes.)

The mangled end to the left, the pressed to the right:

Completely dried, arranged on a mannequin:

I have showed the result to several persons, both weavers and non-weavers. So far, ALL have preferred the mangled end. Myself, I think that perhaps "nothing" is good enough, maybe it could be treated with a short time in the dryer.
And maybe I could try with a slightly more open "mesh" - like 2 cm empties instead?