[HN Gopher] The surprising genius of sewing machines [video]
___________________________________________________________________
The surprising genius of sewing machines [video]
Author : gumby
Score : 136 points
Date : 2023-12-27 19:41 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Sewing machines are one of those things where I learn how they
| work then promptly forget and they go back to feeling like magic.
|
| I think this video has really made it stick. It's more like a
| knitting machine than something that does "sewing" like how I was
| taught by hand. The thread never goes through to complete any
| knots. It's just tangles.
|
| I also finally understand how the bobbin inside the base can be
| so small: it supplies much less thread to the tangle.
| mikey_p wrote:
| Actually most modern sewing machines use the same amount of
| thread from the bobbin and from the spool on top. The reason
| the bobbin is usually so small is that the thread from the top
| makes a loop and passes it _around_ the bobbin, which must be
| small enough to fit through the loop.
| MilStdJunkie wrote:
| The "knitting" revelation is what made it stick for me as well,
| long ago. I don't remember the name of the person who took the
| the time to explain it to me, but he did so with kelp.
| georgesimon wrote:
| I watched Tim Hunkin explain sewing machines when I was about 8
| and have never lost my fascination with them (or mechanical
| engineering) since then. https://youtu.be/8lwI4TSKM3Y
| eigenvalue wrote:
| He's so great. Secret Life of Machines is one of the greatest
| television programs to ever exist in terms of explaining
| household technology in simple terms. Highly recommend it to
| anyone with kids. I plan to check out his arcade the next time
| I'm in London.
| georgesimon wrote:
| A visit to one of his arcades would be almost like a
| pilgrimage for me. I'd have to make it the centerpiece of a
| trip to London, if I ever get to go. His breadth and volume
| of work amazes me.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Yes, bless him for what he did for engineers, macninists, and
| tinkerers !
| aksss wrote:
| Just a friendly recco for the Technology Connections YouTube
| channel. Really liked his exploration of the Coffee Machine
| and other vids. Not affiliated in any way.
|
| https://youtu.be/Sp9H0MO-qS8?si=PHB0_LqfD5AArdJO
| foobarian wrote:
| The epiphany for me was realizing that there are two separate
| sources of thread. The bobbins are out of sight so I was puzzled
| for a long while as to how the magic works.
| jjnoakes wrote:
| For me the realization that the top thread's loop goes AROUND
| the bottom thread's entire spool is what made it click for me
| originally.
| ssgodderidge wrote:
| The most remarkable aspect of sewing machines to me are their
| durability. Those things last forever. No annual release hype
| cycles. No purposeful obscurity. The good ones are a "buy it
| once" investment.
| whythre wrote:
| In a former life I repaired sewing machines. Singer built a
| reputation for durability, and their old machines still perform
| much as you describe. Modern Singers, however, are bottom-of-
| the-market plastic chunks of crap, their reputation running off
| the fumes of a bygone century. Janome and Brother machines are
| pretty OK, a decent balance of lower cost with reasonable
| durability (some plastic wear parts meant to be replaced over
| time).
|
| Bernina mechanical parts are incredibly solid but their
| electronics are as vulnerable to failure as everything else
| nowadays.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| My mother used to have an old hand-cranked Singer with
| mother-of-pearl inlay. Not as fancy as the really old ones,
| but still a very nice machine! As a boy I was fascinated by
| it, and proud to be able to thread it and use it! It always
| felt as if there was a slight element of danger (needle thru
| finger) to using it!
| jcgrillo wrote:
| Do you have any experience with or opinions of Sailrite
| machines?
| mauvehaus wrote:
| Not the person you're asking, but I've got a little time on
| one. If you aren't pushing it and don't need a zigzag
| stitch and/or walking foot, you'll likely find you'll be as
| happy with an old cast-iron Singer. If you don't already
| have one, pick up a 15 -90 or 15-91 or one of the numerous
| clones (which in my limited experience with them are also
| decent).
|
| I ran an old Singer 127 through a pile of fabric a Sailrite
| was struggling with. The old domestic Singers aren't
| industrial, but if you can't do it once, slowly on a 15,
| it's even odds whether it can be done at all[0].
|
| The 15 (or 66) is a much, much more refined machine. Parts
| (bobbins, notably) are readily available, and if you find
| you do need more, you can sell it for what you paid for it.
| The Sailrite, IME is a clunky, value engineered version of
| what you really need when you hit a problem an old Singer
| can't solve. Once you get to that point, you'll know what
| you need and how a machine should run.
|
| If you've already hit this point, I'd suggest looking for
| an old industrial machine on your local Craigslist or
| Facebook marketplace equivalent. The Sailrite is likely to
| piss you off with how crudely it runs and handles. I'm told
| by my upholsterer colleague that an import servo motor is a
| huge upgrade from a clutch motor. Especially if you're
| coming from a domestic machine with a variable speed
| control. On the rare occasion that I've used a machine with
| a clutch motor, it's a grab hold and hang on for the ride
| kind of experience.
|
| [0] I'm explicitly not including things that require a
| serger, blind-hemmer, cylinder bed or other specialized
| garment/leather machines. The Sailrite won't do those
| either.
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| The drummer in my band is a sewing machine repair tech. His
| wife owns a largish quilt shop and they sell Bernina.
|
| We've been practicing at the shop, and I keep wondering if I
| should pick up some electronics repair from him- he seems
| like he does okay with the mechanical stuff but anything
| electronic is generally out-of-scope for him. In general, it
| looks like interesting work and I was hoping to get him to
| teach me, though fortunately the music and audio work has
| been paying the bills this year.
|
| I'm starting to get okay at fixing some kinds of circuits
| (analog electronics for music), but fortunately I haven't had
| to dig into that stuff. My assumption would be that it's much
| cheaper to replace whole boards as is the case with most
| consumer electronics. But I haven't looked into it, and so I
| am a bit curious.
| whythre wrote:
| With last few decades of Bernina machines in particular,
| techs are very much incentivized to replace failing boards
| wholesale. Older machines from the 70s and 80s don't have
| the compact machine-built boards; in these you can replace
| blown capacitors, ect and that's great. It's one of the
| reasons you still have machines in operation 50 years on.
|
| The Asian-built boards are usually the point of failure in
| the new machines (a distant second are sensors, but those
| also have smaller, simpler boards in em). A few years back
| Bernina actually lost the ability to claim they were Swiss-
| manufactured because the electronics were being made in
| Maylasia (if memory serves, this was back in 2017, I
| think).
| couchand wrote:
| > Modern Singers, however, are bottom-of-the-market plastic
| chunks of crap, their reputation running off the fumes of a
| bygone century.
|
| This is very true. The one exception that comes to mind is
| the 44S, which is notable for being a solid piece of
| equipment, widely available for a reasonable price, and
| without electronics. I suspect it's an old design in a new
| case.
| klondike_klive wrote:
| My mother left me a couple of Bernina machines when she died.
| I'm pleased to hear how solid they are.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| I still have my Mom's sewing machine she bought circa 1958; it
| still works.
| itishappy wrote:
| My family's still in possession of an old foot-powered Singer
| from the 1800s. The belt rotted away during my childhood, but
| the mechanism itself barely squeaks! It probably runs
| smoother than my car...
| xahrepap wrote:
| I have a wide selection of computers in my home. 3DPrinters,
| CNC, Microcontrollers, rpis, desktops, laptops, tablets,
| phones, TVs, etc.
|
| The one computer that "just works" and stays out of the way the
| most? My wife's embroidery machine. When she wants it off, it's
| off. When she wants to do classic sewing, it works like normal.
| It has some buttons to do traditionally mechanical operations
| automatically. But it also has those mechanical options as
| well. (Raising the foot, for example)
|
| And like you said: it has never once asked her to subscribe.
|
| It's my favorite computer in the house. :) (and the most
| expensive)
| jtwaleson wrote:
| I picked up sewing recently to put on the scout badges for my
| kids. After doing a couple by hand the machine is a real treat to
| work with! It's also quite fun, highly recommended if you're into
| making things.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| I really enjoyed learning to sew on my Boy Scout Merit Badges
| with a sewing machine. I do think my parents helped sew the Cub
| Scout patches.
| aksss wrote:
| I never recall sewing my own patches (thanks mom!) but I like
| sewing today, mostly to repair clothing, which gives me an
| absurd amount of satisfaction. It occurs to me that it should
| have been one of the very first merit badges a scout earned:
| sew ur own patches.
| rekttrader wrote:
| My pop was a sewing machine mechanic and my first gig was
| digitizing parts catalogs. Being a mechanic having serviced many
| machines, he knew which competing brands have the same internal
| parts for key functions. Sewing machines are magical things and
| Singer who had the novel idea of a better up and down and Wilson
| had the clever idea of the rotary bobbin. Before that a shuttle
| would be used, it flew laterally and could produce a consistent
| mechanical stitch. The mechanics on these early machines is
| insane... it was a great way for me to get into computing.
|
| Also part reuse happens all over... Lamborghini's have used Mazda
| headlamps.
| fein wrote:
| And Nissan. The Diablo had 300ZX Z32 headlight clusters. There
| was an "eyelash" on the lambo to cover the nissan mfg logos.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| And for a period, Ford Rangers and Mazda B4000s were
| effectively the exact same verhicle with a slightly different
| body.
| doubled112 wrote:
| Ford and Mazda shared a ton of parts and vehicles over the
| years.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| There used to be this place in Denver, Frank's sewing machine
| repair or something, maybe not frank. When I was coming up as a
| mechanical engineer and before we had the resources we have
| today this was the best machine shop in town. They could make
| anything, quickly.
|
| Props to your pop. His skills were probably awesome.
|
| Also agreed on the parts reuse. I design medical devices and I
| know of heart pumps that have Mercedes solenoids in them, I
| just designed a surgical robot that I put a ford part in. One
| of those little clip nuts. It was perfect for what I needed.
| codebrrr wrote:
| The computerized flat knitting machines are even more genius.
|
| I like to call them clothes printers.
| tired_star_nrg wrote:
| Is a there a similar sort of video on how cloth for clothing is
| made/woven?
| zokier wrote:
| As far as I know, the basic operating principles behind power
| looms are quite similar to those of traditional manual looms.
| There is also far more wider range of automation and tech
| available
| dmckeon wrote:
| There is an excellent book that covers the topic: The Fabric of
| Civilization, by Virginia Postrel. The part most amazing to me
| was the pyramid effect of fabric production in the days before
| mechanization - 20 spinners per weaver producing thread, 80,000
| spinners near Manchester alone, thousands of weavers turning
| thread into fabric, etc., and as the spinning jenny and later
| the power loom came along, employment and economic patterns
| changed drastically, giving us the Luddites and similar
| movements. One wonders what programming will look like after 10
| or 20 years of AI.
| atentaten wrote:
| This sounds familiar at the 18:42 mark:
|
| "In 1814, Joseph Madersperger was granted a patent in Vienna. It
| took him a decade to build the machine, but he never
| commercialized it. He spent the rest of his life trying to
| perfect the design."
| oblib wrote:
| Years ago I bought an old Singer sewing machine on Ebay. Those
| are still an amazing, heavy duty, machine. You can stitch thick
| belt leather with those.
| blindstitch wrote:
| In art school I owned an industrial sewing machine. It could sew
| through virtually anything and was great for repairs and
| modifications of heavy garments and bags. It had a "walking foot"
| that moved the needle in sync with the feed mechanism on the
| bottom which let it pull through almost endless layers without
| issue. I think the most it took before choking was about 15
| layers of denim. You could lift the foot with a knee-operated
| lever too which made moving the material while you worked
| effortless. Of all the crap I've sold over the years to buy other
| stuff it's the only one I really regret letting go of.
| RCitronsBroker wrote:
| same here. I got it in the process of sewing my own skydiving
| parachute, still working on that.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| >sewing my own skydiving parachute
|
| How do you walk properly with such sizable cojones?
| huytersd wrote:
| Why? There's no way you can do as much rigorous testing on it
| as the large manufacturers especially when your life is on
| the line.
| yawboakye wrote:
| great explanation. one wonders how many attempts were made at
| mechanizing the exact manual sequence of passing the whole needle
| through, rotating, and passing it back up. because for everyone,
| _that_ was sewing. it's understated but worth the greatest
| emphasis: when trying to improve on a process or mechanize
| /automate, how it's currently done may not be your best guide. if
| anything, it may be the worst. concerning that, gordon glegg had
| this to say in his book, the design of design[0]:
| If you are concerned in making the production of some article
| quicker, better or cheaper, you will naturally study how it is
| being done at the moment. It may seem paradoxical but the man
| least likely to help you is the operator in charge of the
| machine. The more 'down-to-earth' and 'practical' he considers
| himself the more 'unpractical' and 'up-in-the-air' he is likely
| to be from your point of view. He is too near the machine to know
| why it works. He only knows how it works. He will have learnt
| what handwheels to turn or what controls to adjust to keep the
| line running efficiently, and will be able to use that knowledge
| most skilfully and responsibly.
|
| [0]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/aeronautical-
| journal...
| mtreis86 wrote:
| [delayed]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-29 23:00 UTC)