[HN Gopher] 4D Knit Dress
___________________________________________________________________
4D Knit Dress
Author : geox
Score : 224 points
Date : 2024-03-09 14:19 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (selfassemblylab.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (selfassemblylab.mit.edu)
| gilbetron wrote:
| The "4d" refers to the knit, which finishes knitting itself after
| a bit of time. I thought it was like some klein bottle dress or
| something at first. Still cool.
| esquivalience wrote:
| My reading of this was that the fourth dimension was time.
| First, a loose dress is 3D-knit; then, when the owner buys it,
| it's possible to apply heat to cause parts of the fabric to
| tighten up, overall making a bespoke fit without significant
| manual labour.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure how much labour is saved vs making it
| custom cut from the start, having to stand in the reach of an
| industrial robot and get blasted with a heat gun doesn't seem
| like a great customer experience... presumably all the
| relevant measurements had been taken ahead of time so a tool-
| path for the robot could be created
| hammock wrote:
| Seems less about saving labor and more about proving
| technology.
|
| You could take this concept a step further and 3d-scan the
| subject body with a laser, then 3d print a model, and the
| clothing draped on the model and heat-shrunk (rather than
| using a software to decide where to heat shrink and how
| much)
| hammock wrote:
| It's shrink-to-fit denim, with a 3d pattern. Instead of
| wearing your dress in the bathtub, you hang it up and a
| robotic arm blow dries it
| fsmv wrote:
| I feel like adding heat shrink fabric doesn't add a dimension and
| make it go from 3D to 4D. I was expecting a klein bottle or
| hypercube projection or something.
| kahunalu wrote:
| Both of those items are 3D - while the dress transforms over a
| 4th time dimension.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Don't all dresses transform over time?
|
| Eventually 100% of all possible dresses will transform into
| dust.
| dambi0 wrote:
| What about dresses repurposed into non-dresses prior to
| their dusty demise.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Eventually those will too.
| Razengan wrote:
| I mean everything transforms over time.
| omoikane wrote:
| Reminds me of https://xkcd.com/209/
|
| "So the kayak travels through time?"
|
| "Sure! Just like everything else!"
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| This applies to everything so it's moot.
| master-lincoln wrote:
| No, a Klein bottle is an object that can not exist in 3d. The
| one you probably know is an "immersion" into 3d (making the
| object intersect itself, which it wouldn't do in it's
| original shape in 4d)
| dullcrisp wrote:
| I don't suppose it'll help at all if I say that a Klein
| bottle is a two-dimensional surface and four is the
| smallest dimensional Cartesian space into which it can be
| embedded.
| wiml wrote:
| A question for people who know more topology(?) than I
| do: what determines this? Is it possible to construct a
| surface that requires an arbitrary number of dimensions
| for its embedding?
| dullcrisp wrote:
| Good question. Based on googling [0] it looks like any
| surface can be embedded in four dimensions (and any
| n-manifold can be embedded in n+2 space). But I don't
| know enough to explain the construction. Might have
| something to do with the tangent bundle, it sounds like?
|
| [0] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2960093/why-
| do-we-n...
| xelxebar wrote:
| If by surface you mean a 2-dimensional manifold, then no.
| The Nash embedding threorms give upper bounds for how big
| the embedding target dimension needs to be for any
| n-dimensional manifold. In the case of 2-dimensional
| surfaces, at worst you'll need 51 = 2x(2+1)x(3x2+11)/2
| dimensions. Mind this is for isometric embeddings (ones
| that don't squish things around in a sense), which is
| kind of the most stringent constraint possible. If you
| allow squishing things around, then the upper bounds get
| even smaller.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorems#Ck_
| emb...
| lavela wrote:
| Does it really though? The heat setting process doesn't seem
| reversible so it's just one step in the initial manufacturing
| and after that it doesn't seem to be expected to change.
| Anotheroneagain wrote:
| I don't think that you get how revolutionary this is. It has
| the potential to wholly take over all clothing production, for
| the sole reason that it can be fully automated.
| jstanley wrote:
| That's fine but it doesn't make it a 4-dimensional object.
| a012 wrote:
| So you _must_ wash it with cold water, I guess
| tmitchel2 wrote:
| Along with your 4D woolly jumpers
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Watch out for tetrachromatic colors, they can bleed.
| stubish wrote:
| Wash it? Toss it into the recycler and print a fresh one
| tomorrow morning :)
|
| The video show a heat gun at fairly close range shrinking the
| fabric, which would be over 80 degrees. You might be able to
| get away with hot water, but I suspect the label will say 'dry
| clean only'.
| samstave wrote:
| The haptic sleeve is more interesting!!!
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| it needs to be crossed with:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39649184
| samstave wrote:
| NOT A FAN.
|
| Its both terrifying and amazing.
|
| Im going with terrifying.
|
| But, also, this is how Mecha works... but in anime the pilot
| is inside the robot.
|
| Teleportation is Avatar... but yeah, now its a reality is
| super FN scary
|
| ---
|
| WAIT: what was that movie with Dexter where they controlled
| prisoners though such as a game... its a brilliant movie...
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Finding more detailed information has been annoying.
|
| From https://www.dezeen.com/2024/02/09/4d-knit-dress-mit-
| ministry... it says that the heat shrinking material is nylon,
| while the rest of the yarn is a viscose + polyester blend.
| smeej wrote:
| Does that mean the transformation is permanent? Because if they
| created a dress that could be shaped, unshaped, and reshaped in
| different ways using, say, a hair dryer, they'd really be on to
| something!
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| I think it means that it's basically permanent - it cannot be
| unshaped. You can of course keep "tucking it in".
| tbrownaw wrote:
| Need to include a few strands of something like
| https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/metal-that-
| rem... .
| jijijijij wrote:
| There are also memory alloys which can remember two states.
|
| A similar concept is supertwisted nylon fishing line
| "muscles" which contract upon heating.
|
| I think starfish muscles are contracted in the
| default/energy-off mode, so maybe we could make smart
| fibers which are actively elastic/"plastic".
| hammock wrote:
| Nylon is thermoplastic so in theory it could be reshaped but
| the filament would lose a lot of strength and durability in
| the process
| demondemidi wrote:
| I'm curious how the flexibility of the reformed fabric lasts
| over dressing/undressing cycles, garment care, and long term
| storage in a closet. If I'm not careful I can easily stretch
| out a well made alpaca wool sweater if I remove it too
| carelessly (from experience!). I wonder how fussy this is.
|
| Also would like to know more about the machine. Many garments
| are knitted as tube-like structures just look at circular
| knitting needles, where does this differ and how?
| anon84873628 wrote:
| It doesn't seem like this is intended to be reusable or even
| useful.
|
| It's just a college design project that gets the attention of
| MIT branding.
| spaceguillotine wrote:
| its like making nylon stockings but a dress, there is a video
| that shows the process that would answer a lot of your
| questions on the site near the bottom of the page
| demondemidi wrote:
| Ah very cool thanks!
| jijijijij wrote:
| How disappointing. Today it's all polyester, polyester and more
| stinky polyester. Tomorrow the washing machine has it ground to
| dust already, forever. Lucky us, this single-use dress is of
| bespoke fit!
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| Subtly paying homage to the classic Silicon Valley dress psyop
| [1] with the different lit photos. Cute.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress
| noman-land wrote:
| How was this a psyop?
| brvsft wrote:
| No one sees anything other than blue/black. So there are paid
| crisis actors out there lying about seeing other colors.
| peterpost2 wrote:
| why would someone be paid to lie about the colors?
| brvsft wrote:
| I'm being facetious in speculating how it would be a
| "psyop."
| shermantanktop wrote:
| fwiw, i got it.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Did they talk about cost anywhere? Depending on it, it could
| transform the industry or it could be totally irrelevant.
| shrx wrote:
| Spoiler: it will be the latter
| empiricus wrote:
| We are still making clothes like savages, with the only
| improvement being the economy of scale. We should enter a store,
| take a instant 3d scan, then get clothes that are custom made to
| size, seamless knitted, of our choice materials, properties,
| colors.
| monkeydust wrote:
| 3D scanning is getting there, e.g. https://www.aistetic.com/ in
| UK which is being by a few online retailers. At least helps
| with fit and reduces returns burden. Getting from that to
| custom printed clothing is certainly and interesting idea if
| the economics ever work out.
| yeutterg wrote:
| Bonobos has physical "Guideshops" [0] that do not carry all
| inventory, but should carry a majority of the fits and sizes
| offered by the brand. The idea is that you go in to find the
| right fit, then you order your preferred color online. This
| reduces physical inventory in stores.
|
| Made-to-Measure is also becoming increasingly popular. While
| costly compared to brands like Gap and Uniqlo, often you can
| get well-fitted made-to-measure garments for similar prices to
| mid-tier brands. For example, SuitSupply [1] offers made-to-
| measure dress shirts, trousers, and suits for only slightly
| more than their off-the-rack offerings, and FITTED Underground
| [2] offers made-to-measure jeans that are still in the price
| ballpark of premium selvedge jeans. Usually, these brands also
| let you customize things like button colors, cuffs, collars,
| monograms, etc. at little-to-no extra charge.
|
| Even some shoe brands like Beckett Simonon [3] and BLKBRD [4]
| operate on made-to-order models, reducing inventory, and
| sometimes allowing customization.
|
| All these options still rely on traditional manufacturing, but
| just the fact that you can get the fit right allows people to
| consume less.
|
| [0] https://bonobos.com/guideshop
|
| [1] https://suitsupply.com/en-us/
|
| [2] https://fittedunderground.com/
|
| [3] https://www.beckettsimonon.com/
|
| [4] https://www.blkbrdshoemaker.com/
| namibj wrote:
| I am still searching for reasonably priced T-Shirts that only
| have seams from the armpits to the hips (one such seam per
| side), and optionally at the 4 holes for edge reinforcement.
| Critically, this means no seams on top of shoulders by any
| reasonable definition of what "on top of shoulder" means.
|
| You could knit it on a tube knitting machine capable of
| adjusting loop count/circumference freely.
|
| But for a T-Shirt you have very fine knitting, so regular
| knitting machines can at best do newborn-sized T-Shirts.
|
| If anyone happens to know where I could order a dozen shirts
| knitted to spec based on knit design rules and published-by-
| them loop-pitch-after-first-wash from cotton, I'd love to hear.
| yeutterg wrote:
| What is the reason for not wanting the seams on the top of
| the shoulders? Aesthetics? Weightlifting?
|
| Not seamless, but:
|
| There are a lot of brands that offer t-shirts with "raglan"
| sleeves where the seam runs from the collar to the bottom of
| the armpit, instead of along the top of the shoulder.
|
| Or: I personally have a number of the Durable Shirt from Ten
| Thousand [0], which has 2 seams on the front and back of the
| shoulder instead of 1 directly on top. This is so you can put
| a barbell on your shoulders comfortably, but I also like the
| aesthetic. It also looks like they are currently out of stock
| on these, but maybe they'll have more in the future.
|
| [0] https://www.tenthousand.cc/products/durable-
| shirt?variant=39...
| fsckboy wrote:
| I had to look up raglan sleeve (it refers to the pieces of
| fabric and where they are stitched together, not the 2-tone
| colors which do make it easier to see)
|
| https://gothaesthetics.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/12/RAGLAN...
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| The ultimate in fast fashion. The result might be a massive
| pile of discarded clothes that fit no one unlike now when
| discarded clothing is bought and sold sometimes several times
| over.
|
| Plus you have to bear in mind that for many people having to
| make decisions about style, fit, material, colour, pattern is a
| burden not a pleasure. People just want a new pair of jeans to
| replace the ones that got damaged so next time they are in
| Tesco's or Sainsbury's they just grab one off the rail and
| throw it in the trolley.
| inexcf wrote:
| Wouldn't a fitted shirt just turn into an unfitted shirt? Why
| would clothing made to fit someone somehow fit someone else
| much worse than the standardized unfitted clothing?
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| The amazing part is that you're so close, but you're still
| thinking like a savage: why would you go into "a clothing
| store" for this? You take a 3d scan at home, and send that over
| to the print-on-demand store that does spin-on-demand, for
| pickup whenever you're out next, or delivery at a surcharge.
| empiricus wrote:
| A civilized person sometimes leaves the home.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Which was already baked into the last sentence, yes. The
| point is that "going to a clothing store" makes no sense if
| we're scanning for print-on-demand anyway. The scanning and
| fabrication don't need to happen in the same place, and
| once we're in a future where products are made on demand,
| it _definitely_ doesn 't make sense to still have "a
| clothing store". That's just something that any print-on-
| demand store that also does fabrics can handle.
| balls187 wrote:
| Who is going to pay $500 for a t-shirt?
| stubish wrote:
| You are describing many low end tailor shops. You walk in, get
| 3d scanned (by the 'tailor'), choose your fabrics, and the
| order gets sent to the printer (the nearby sweatshop). It could
| be same day turn around if they didn't know you would pay more
| to wait a week.
| spaceguillotine wrote:
| There are places that do that in Hoi An, Vietnam and can
| allegedly retain your 3d scan for custom made clothing later
| without needing to visit. The fashion space is full of tech
| innovations like that we never see or know about unless you
| follow the clothing industry which is not hacker new's forte by
| any means, gonna bet the majority is looking for hoodies and
| jeans here.
| lavela wrote:
| We should make clothing that can be reversibly fitted to many
| body types, can be repaired and can endure many use cycles.
|
| Your model might be viable too though, if we use high quality
| yarn and knit the clothing in a way that the yarn can be respun
| and reused for the next piece of clothing.
| James_K wrote:
| The text contrast on this website is awful.
| graiz wrote:
| Ministry of Supply has always had great products, more people
| need to know about them.
| Terretta wrote:
| Trying to decide whether in Newspeak* the brand would be
| "Ministry of Demand" or "Ministry of Scarcity".
|
| Given that their work travel guide and versatile "capsule"
| complete with backpack is great:
|
| https://www.ministryofsupply.com/about/travel-light-guide
|
| Let's go with "Ministry of Demand".
|
| * _Actually, it was named after another Ministry of Supply of
| the same era as the inspirations for 1984 's ministries. But,
| not really doublethink, more about material technologies:_
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Supply_(clothing)
| Yusefmosiah wrote:
| synthetic fabrics in clothing are a major source of microplastics
| exposure. In the future we will look back in horror at this whole
| industry.
| smegger001 wrote:
| I wonder if the plastic we deposit into the environment will
| form oil/coal deposit layers in a few million years? Or will
| microbes develop means to digest all those energy rich hydrogen
| carbon bonds those polymers are composed of. Much like our
| coal/oil deposits date back to before evolution a means to
| metabolize cellulose.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| I guess it's my turn to point out the lignin indigestibility
| hypothesis is no longer current and indeed has been disputed
| since the 1990's.
|
| This article from 2016 goes into the details:
|
| https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/lack-fungi-did-not-
| lea...
|
| >To form coal you need two basic conditions: wet tropics and
| a hole to bury organic matter in for a long period of time,"
| Boyce says. During the formation of Pangea, collisions
| between continents raised mountain ranges while downwarping
| adjacent crust, which created massive basins. These basins
| became ideal depositories for wet organic plant matter, which
| was buried, compressed and cooked over geologic time to form
| coal. Similar conditions likely also produced coal deposits
| during the Mesozoic Era, and the Paleocene and Eocene epochs,
| often in conjunction with mountain-building episodes such as
| the formation of the Rocky Mountains.
| QuesnayJr wrote:
| This is the first time I've heard this, so I'm glad you're
| taking turns.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Also a major source of clothes falling apart. My ever since
| Levi's made their pants stretchy, they're absolute shit.
| Animats wrote:
| "heat-activated yarns"
|
| That's how much tight-fitting clothing is made. Raw spandex has
| about a 10x stretch. But hot air will re-set the neutral point of
| the stretch. So stocking, etc. are made by weaving a partially-
| shaped garment. That's then slipped over a metal form that's the
| size of the garment when un-worn. The form and garment are hit
| with hot air for about a minute, and that re-sets the zero point
| of the spandex.
|
| Here's a pantyhose production line.[1] Forms and heat transform
| it from a crumpled mess to a formed garment.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlzj9dy5PhA
| jasonm23 wrote:
| hmm 4D clickbait
| ArekDymalski wrote:
| While impressive as a concept and technology I have doubts about
| reducing "excess waste, additional cost/labor" part. Sure might
| be using less material & time for the dress itself, but if it is
| really meant for customization they will need to create the
| model/mannequin of each individual customer.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-10 23:02 UTC)