Let 2017 henceforth be known as . . .
The Seemingly Endless Year of Triangle Pin Loom Reasearch
(and let that be an end to it).
I can’t say I’ve enjoyed the frustration and masses of computer and paper work associated with my research. I feel I’ve been reasonably thorough, have answered all the questions I’ve come up with (feel free to ask yours because the year isn’t technically over yet), and am finally (at least for the present) satisfied with the results.
What I envisaged cannot be done.
And it’s possible my envisaged result may not have turned out to be satisfactory, so I think it’s a good thing it didn’t work out as anticipated. At least now I KNOW it can’t be done (or at least won’t be done) by me.
I don’t want to bore anyone with all the details I considered, but here are some. I wanted to end up with two triangles that could be joined down the center with their loops offset (so they could interlock when joined) and I wanted all the sides of the resultant square to correspond with the 1-2, 1-3, 3-4, and 2-4 sides of a three-layer-method woven square. I feared it would be necessary to have two looms and that one of them would have to weave a slightly smaller triangle. I tried weaving a smaller triangle on my existing loom and I designed looms that would weave a smaller triangle.
All the time I was trial-and-erroring, I never actually joined two squares with an overlapped join. I assumed it wouldn’t produce a desirable result. I did try offsetting the loops and joining the triangles, but that resulted in offset corners—not a square—and a gappy join. If I had joined via overlap earlier on, I would have arrived at my destination a lot sooner. But I was still pursuing the dream and it’s a good thing I did because otherwise I’d always be wondering, What if . . .
Turns out “my heart’s desire” was in my own backyard all along; it just looks a bit different from the dream.
Rather than interlocking the hypotenuse loops, it turns out they need to be overlapped when joining. (I’m convinced they can’t be made to interlock without a whole new loom design which would nullify the original intention of making a loom compatible with the Weave-It style looms.) I feared this would create a lot of bulk, but the join isn’t significantly bulkier than a “regular” mattress stitch join. I can’t figure out any way of making the joining yarn match on both sides though, so I suggest using the front side yarn to make the join. The overlapping join helps stabilize the exposed bias edge along the center line too.
There’s a way to weave a triangle with a flat (unscalloped) hypotenuse edge which can then be joined to another flat-edge hypotenuse, but that weaving method is extremely tedious and complicated and edge-to-edge joining is more than I care to engage in. Weaving the triangle via my method will be complicated enough, but it works. Once you understand it, it’s not at all difficult. (Ask me. I’ve woven, like, thirty of them and they’re no sweat now!)
The following photos illustrate various aspects of the triangles.
The addition of the triangle loom to the square loom line-up opens a whole new world of possibilities.
One last question: When will it be available for purchase? That remains to be seen—Wunderwag has to approve the design and start pre-production . . .