I forgot to add item 4 (5):
Keep a notebook. I have spun four items so far, red wool, natural corriedale, blue colonial, and natural BFL, and already I can't remember what I did with what, exactly.
The natural corriedale was the second wool I spun, and I did it in two or three pieces, then dyed the three pieces at the same time, but not the same way. One was dyed multicolored (orange, yellow-orange, yellow, and green) and one green and gold and the last one was dyed redish and red-orange. Because I remember that I dyed it at the same time (my husband does not like the smell of vinegar, so I try to limit the dying as much as possible) and because I have pictures taken at the same time, I know the green-gold and the multi are the same Corridale.
However, you would never know looking at the wool. Somehow, between the first small batch (green-gold) and the last (multi) I evidently "got it" and began spinning much much more evenly. They even have a slightly different feel.
Wow, what I'm learning is awesome.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
spinning lessons
I have been spinning since mid October. My second or third attempt, (all on a spindle) was very chunky and uneven. I had dyed it green and yellow-gold, using Koolaid. This was about 13 yards of very variable yarn. I also had another skein of the same fiber, more even, also Koolaid dyed. I would like to make a hat out of these two pieces. but the chunky/skinny part wasn't very good. So I took it apart.
That's right. I unplyed it, which wasn't too difficult. Then I took each ply and respun it, twisting it backwards to get out the excess twist where that had happened. I picked apart the chunky parts, which were somewhat felted together. Then I gently redrafted the fiber into skinnier strips which twisted into a much more even yarn. It broke dozens of times, of course. Each time, I carefully separated some of the fibers, and tryed to hold enough together as I twisted to create a thin, but not threadlike, yarn. Still not completely even, but way better.
I then washed the two pieces, the former plys, in order to get out some of the kinkiness. I just soaked them in hot water, with a dash of wool wash, for about 20 minutes, and hung them to dry on a plastic hanger, weighted down with water bottles (so I could control the weight and not put too much weight on each strand). Finally, I replyed them together.
In the original yarn, the colors had been somewhat handpainted to create two rather short lengths of yellow-gold (maybe four or five yards total) and the remainder a fairly dark green, (maybe 8 or 9 yards). However, what with dramatically lengthening the fat parts of the yarn, due to redrafting them into more reasonable thickness, the colors in the two strands (plys) no longer matched up when I replyed the yarn. Also, the colors became more muted, sometimes significantly, because the redrafting and respinning exposed some of the undyed fibers at the center of the yarn. At some sections, of course it matches pretty well, since there was more of the green. However, in some sections, there is now a barberpole effect with green plyed with gold. Other sections are in between in the color process. I don't want to redye it; I think it is nice the way it is.
Here is what I found out about my spinning process:
1) The thick parts felted somewhat. I had to pick and pick at some of them to get them separated enough to redraft. This happened even though as a new spinner, I hadn't heard about whacking your yarn in the finished process, and was VERY VERY careful to handle it gently, using only medium temperature water, not agitating it at all, and patting it gently to get the water out before hanging it to dry.
2) The thin parts were often way overtwisted. Sometimes the fiber had made a little series of corkscrews that I had not been aware of when I previously worked with this yarn. I kept it under enough tension to prevent it curling back on itself, but the corkscrews were abundant, and not always in the thinnest part of the yarn.
3) Although I had thought I had used a lot of Kool-aid, it had only covered the surface of the yarn. Thus the fat places were totally white inside, and even the corkscrews were white where the original plying had covered some surface of the strand. In other words, only the outside of the plyed yarn had dyed, not the inside, or even the side where the plys laid together.
4) I have apparently learned a whole lot about spinning in the less than three months I have been at it.
This was really worth doing. I am glad I took the time to undo and redo. I really like the new skein, which is now about 19 yards, and very pretty. When I finished it, having learned much more about yarn, I washed it in hot water, rinsed in cool, toweled it as dry as I could, whacked it a couple of times (I am still not sure about this, need to take a lesson or have a demonstration), and let it dry. Then I took pictures.
See even an old dog can learn new tricks.
Remember this is all being done on a spindle. I really like the spindle for learning. There seem to be three basic steps, drafting, twisting, and winding on. On the spinning wheel, I couldn't seem to separate the steps in my mind, and felt I had no control. I didn't know what I was doing, and although I did make "yarn", it seemed like magic and not something I was doing. With the spindle, I can see each step as I do it. They are separate somewhat. When I was practicing at home, I was very diligently parking, drafting, twisting, and winding on. Repeat. Then at some point I realized that I had been forgetting to park, and just drafting as the spindle merrily spun and spun, and the yarn got twisted. On the spindle, you can examine each half yard or so before you wind it onto the spindle, and make corrections for over/underspinning, over/underdrafting, and so forth, before you wind on. This is the way I have been managing to make a somewhat consistent yarn.
Naturally as I improve, I imagine that the whole process will become more automatic and easier, and just as I found myself drafting and twisting at the same time without really realizing this happened, I think the whole process will become more automatic and simpler.
I have been watching my grandson, age four, learning to write his name and the letters of the alphabet, and just as he improves gradually as he practices, so I hope to improve my spinning until I become the boss of it, and NOT the other way around.
That's right. I unplyed it, which wasn't too difficult. Then I took each ply and respun it, twisting it backwards to get out the excess twist where that had happened. I picked apart the chunky parts, which were somewhat felted together. Then I gently redrafted the fiber into skinnier strips which twisted into a much more even yarn. It broke dozens of times, of course. Each time, I carefully separated some of the fibers, and tryed to hold enough together as I twisted to create a thin, but not threadlike, yarn. Still not completely even, but way better.
I then washed the two pieces, the former plys, in order to get out some of the kinkiness. I just soaked them in hot water, with a dash of wool wash, for about 20 minutes, and hung them to dry on a plastic hanger, weighted down with water bottles (so I could control the weight and not put too much weight on each strand). Finally, I replyed them together.
In the original yarn, the colors had been somewhat handpainted to create two rather short lengths of yellow-gold (maybe four or five yards total) and the remainder a fairly dark green, (maybe 8 or 9 yards). However, what with dramatically lengthening the fat parts of the yarn, due to redrafting them into more reasonable thickness, the colors in the two strands (plys) no longer matched up when I replyed the yarn. Also, the colors became more muted, sometimes significantly, because the redrafting and respinning exposed some of the undyed fibers at the center of the yarn. At some sections, of course it matches pretty well, since there was more of the green. However, in some sections, there is now a barberpole effect with green plyed with gold. Other sections are in between in the color process. I don't want to redye it; I think it is nice the way it is.
Here is what I found out about my spinning process:
1) The thick parts felted somewhat. I had to pick and pick at some of them to get them separated enough to redraft. This happened even though as a new spinner, I hadn't heard about whacking your yarn in the finished process, and was VERY VERY careful to handle it gently, using only medium temperature water, not agitating it at all, and patting it gently to get the water out before hanging it to dry.
2) The thin parts were often way overtwisted. Sometimes the fiber had made a little series of corkscrews that I had not been aware of when I previously worked with this yarn. I kept it under enough tension to prevent it curling back on itself, but the corkscrews were abundant, and not always in the thinnest part of the yarn.
3) Although I had thought I had used a lot of Kool-aid, it had only covered the surface of the yarn. Thus the fat places were totally white inside, and even the corkscrews were white where the original plying had covered some surface of the strand. In other words, only the outside of the plyed yarn had dyed, not the inside, or even the side where the plys laid together.
4) I have apparently learned a whole lot about spinning in the less than three months I have been at it.
This was really worth doing. I am glad I took the time to undo and redo. I really like the new skein, which is now about 19 yards, and very pretty. When I finished it, having learned much more about yarn, I washed it in hot water, rinsed in cool, toweled it as dry as I could, whacked it a couple of times (I am still not sure about this, need to take a lesson or have a demonstration), and let it dry. Then I took pictures.
See even an old dog can learn new tricks.
Remember this is all being done on a spindle. I really like the spindle for learning. There seem to be three basic steps, drafting, twisting, and winding on. On the spinning wheel, I couldn't seem to separate the steps in my mind, and felt I had no control. I didn't know what I was doing, and although I did make "yarn", it seemed like magic and not something I was doing. With the spindle, I can see each step as I do it. They are separate somewhat. When I was practicing at home, I was very diligently parking, drafting, twisting, and winding on. Repeat. Then at some point I realized that I had been forgetting to park, and just drafting as the spindle merrily spun and spun, and the yarn got twisted. On the spindle, you can examine each half yard or so before you wind it onto the spindle, and make corrections for over/underspinning, over/underdrafting, and so forth, before you wind on. This is the way I have been managing to make a somewhat consistent yarn.
Naturally as I improve, I imagine that the whole process will become more automatic and easier, and just as I found myself drafting and twisting at the same time without really realizing this happened, I think the whole process will become more automatic and simpler.
I have been watching my grandson, age four, learning to write his name and the letters of the alphabet, and just as he improves gradually as he practices, so I hope to improve my spinning until I become the boss of it, and NOT the other way around.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
This year ends, along with many other things.
This year ends, along with many other things.
Hunter becomes a teenager today. Nick works his last day at the hospital. I'm uncertain about many things, like how we will cope. But we will (probably). Nick doesn't do evenings, so we start tonight (since he worked day shift today).
A year ends, a new one begins.
Hunter becomes a teenager today. Nick works his last day at the hospital. I'm uncertain about many things, like how we will cope. But we will (probably). Nick doesn't do evenings, so we start tonight (since he worked day shift today).
A year ends, a new one begins.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Charity knitting
I knit for myself.
I have no problem knitting acrylic sweaters, scarfs, and mittens for my grandsons, and occasionnaly my children and DIL.
But I have never given anything away to charity. What if they don't like it! I like it, and want to keep it (giving to close family is almost keeping it). I rarely give away anything I have made, for this reason. What if it isn't good enough. What if it is too good. What if it isn't like everybody's else's contribution. What if it is just like everybody else's contribution. What if I never hear back. (I probably wouldn't).
Ah, me.
So I made a fairly lightweight cap from sock yarn. It is really cute. I think I should give it away. It is so cute. I won't wear it. It has to be really cold for me to wear a cap, and then I would want something warmer. No one in the family will wear it (see reason above). Julie is the only one who would wear a hat and this one is too light. Plus I have already knitted her two caps, and a third is on the needles (almost).
So give it to a local yarn shop drive. They are collecting hats for St. Judes Children's Hospital, a great charity. Someone there might like this cap. It is warm. I would cover a bald head. It is pretty. i should give it, shouldn't I?
Stay tuned. I guess I said that before.
I have no problem knitting acrylic sweaters, scarfs, and mittens for my grandsons, and occasionnaly my children and DIL.
But I have never given anything away to charity. What if they don't like it! I like it, and want to keep it (giving to close family is almost keeping it). I rarely give away anything I have made, for this reason. What if it isn't good enough. What if it is too good. What if it isn't like everybody's else's contribution. What if it is just like everybody else's contribution. What if I never hear back. (I probably wouldn't).
Ah, me.
So I made a fairly lightweight cap from sock yarn. It is really cute. I think I should give it away. It is so cute. I won't wear it. It has to be really cold for me to wear a cap, and then I would want something warmer. No one in the family will wear it (see reason above). Julie is the only one who would wear a hat and this one is too light. Plus I have already knitted her two caps, and a third is on the needles (almost).
So give it to a local yarn shop drive. They are collecting hats for St. Judes Children's Hospital, a great charity. Someone there might like this cap. It is warm. I would cover a bald head. It is pretty. i should give it, shouldn't I?
Stay tuned. I guess I said that before.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Social Security
They tell us that social security will run out in 2020 or maybe 2030. I'm planning on needing it after that for a number of years.
Here's the thing with Social Security. It was designed as "Insurance". At the time it started, the average worker lived to be 65. This meant that only half of the original PAYERS were expected to collect. And it was meant to SUPPLEMENT other sources of income/equity that the workers managed to accumulate. Instead, many people promptly started depending on social security as their only income in retirement. Also, people started living longer, and wanting to be independent longer. From the first, many people collected more from social security (often much more) than they had contributed (including interest attributable to their contributions). This was no problem as long as more and more workers were available to contribute to the social security fund. When there are three or five or more workers for every retiree, it is not difficult to fund payments for all retirees.
The situation has and is expected to change dramatically. Baby boomers will retire in great numbers and live longer than their parents and grandparents dreamed of. This will create a situation where only one worker (or fewer) may be available to support each retiree. Yet retirees, even if they have ample other sources of income and equity, are and will be demanding that their benefits are paid as promised. Plans to base social security payments on income, or to tax the benefits, are resisted with great angst. "Don't touch our social security."
Too many payees, getting more benefits than the social security fund can provide in perpetuity, means that at some point THE MONEY WILL RUN OUT. OOPS.
You purchase fire insurance for your home, but if your house never burns down, you don't demand your money back. You get automobile insurance, but you know that if you are never in an auto accident, you will not collect. You are generally glad of this. If your automobile is wrecked, or your house burns down, you will receive in benefits far more than you have contributed, but you would still prefer that your house NOT burn down, your automobile NOT be in an accident. The benefit you might receive comes from the premium payments from those who DO NOT receive benefits. This is how insurance works, a lot of people put some money into a pot, and (unlike gambling) the loser, the one whose house burns down or whose car is wrecked, gets the money. (It is a lot like gambling.)
Remember that social security was designed to be insurance. Lots of people would put money into a pot, and the losers (those whose businesses failed, or who became too sick to work, etc.) would have a little bit to fall back on, and not end up destitute. (There are no poor houses anymore.)
But now people are demanding "MY SHARE" even if they don't need it. They expect to have income from social security to fund not just the bare necessities, but the little luxuries of life also, without having to continue to work after retirement.
Some people point out that if they had invested their social security payments in some certain stocks, they would have enough for a luxurious retirement. However, NOT every investment will return enough to live on, much less enough to live in luxury. PLUS, this is NOT the point of social security.
We MUST decide as a country whether we want a social security INSURANCE program, which will provide a fall back position for those who inadvertently end up broke or unable to work, or whether we want a social security RETIREMENT program, which will return benefits based on what we put into the system, and what choices we make in our investments, and of course, the big unknown, what the economy does in the future. If we want the latter, then we need to change dramatically how we collect and invest social security. If the former, then we need to change (probably also dramatically) how we pay out benefits.
For myself, I would MUCH MUCH rather have a ten percent (Or even, gasp, 20%) decrease in my present benefits, to assure that I will continue receiving a least something throughout my lifetime. If I don't get enough now, I can go back to work. But I don't want to come to depend on social security, only to have it go belly up just as I am getting too old to work.
And NO, I'm not giving it up right now. I worked for it, I'm entitled to it. I just want the country to decide how to manage this elephant we have created so that we can continue to pay out benefits based on rational current actuarial and statistical information, and not depend on future workers to fund this program for current retirees.
Here's the thing with Social Security. It was designed as "Insurance". At the time it started, the average worker lived to be 65. This meant that only half of the original PAYERS were expected to collect. And it was meant to SUPPLEMENT other sources of income/equity that the workers managed to accumulate. Instead, many people promptly started depending on social security as their only income in retirement. Also, people started living longer, and wanting to be independent longer. From the first, many people collected more from social security (often much more) than they had contributed (including interest attributable to their contributions). This was no problem as long as more and more workers were available to contribute to the social security fund. When there are three or five or more workers for every retiree, it is not difficult to fund payments for all retirees.
The situation has and is expected to change dramatically. Baby boomers will retire in great numbers and live longer than their parents and grandparents dreamed of. This will create a situation where only one worker (or fewer) may be available to support each retiree. Yet retirees, even if they have ample other sources of income and equity, are and will be demanding that their benefits are paid as promised. Plans to base social security payments on income, or to tax the benefits, are resisted with great angst. "Don't touch our social security."
Too many payees, getting more benefits than the social security fund can provide in perpetuity, means that at some point THE MONEY WILL RUN OUT. OOPS.
You purchase fire insurance for your home, but if your house never burns down, you don't demand your money back. You get automobile insurance, but you know that if you are never in an auto accident, you will not collect. You are generally glad of this. If your automobile is wrecked, or your house burns down, you will receive in benefits far more than you have contributed, but you would still prefer that your house NOT burn down, your automobile NOT be in an accident. The benefit you might receive comes from the premium payments from those who DO NOT receive benefits. This is how insurance works, a lot of people put some money into a pot, and (unlike gambling) the loser, the one whose house burns down or whose car is wrecked, gets the money. (It is a lot like gambling.)
Remember that social security was designed to be insurance. Lots of people would put money into a pot, and the losers (those whose businesses failed, or who became too sick to work, etc.) would have a little bit to fall back on, and not end up destitute. (There are no poor houses anymore.)
But now people are demanding "MY SHARE" even if they don't need it. They expect to have income from social security to fund not just the bare necessities, but the little luxuries of life also, without having to continue to work after retirement.
Some people point out that if they had invested their social security payments in some certain stocks, they would have enough for a luxurious retirement. However, NOT every investment will return enough to live on, much less enough to live in luxury. PLUS, this is NOT the point of social security.
We MUST decide as a country whether we want a social security INSURANCE program, which will provide a fall back position for those who inadvertently end up broke or unable to work, or whether we want a social security RETIREMENT program, which will return benefits based on what we put into the system, and what choices we make in our investments, and of course, the big unknown, what the economy does in the future. If we want the latter, then we need to change dramatically how we collect and invest social security. If the former, then we need to change (probably also dramatically) how we pay out benefits.
For myself, I would MUCH MUCH rather have a ten percent (Or even, gasp, 20%) decrease in my present benefits, to assure that I will continue receiving a least something throughout my lifetime. If I don't get enough now, I can go back to work. But I don't want to come to depend on social security, only to have it go belly up just as I am getting too old to work.
And NO, I'm not giving it up right now. I worked for it, I'm entitled to it. I just want the country to decide how to manage this elephant we have created so that we can continue to pay out benefits based on rational current actuarial and statistical information, and not depend on future workers to fund this program for current retirees.
Friday, November 7, 2008
a new federal administration
Okay, I'll just come right out and say it. I am so worried about this country of ours, which I love so much.
I read somewhere, some time ago, that the downfall of a democracy is when legislators (or maybe it was people) start voting themselves benefits in excess of the ability of the government to pay. This is what I see happening.
Our national debt is huge and growing. We spend billions of dollars on items such as agriculture support, social security and medicare, and then get all convoluted when we can't afford it. Support for agriculture is selective support for certain crops (I've heard that they even pay farmers to grow tobacco, how weird is that). The idea is the help family farmers and keep agriculture a thriving business. However, the vast (vast) majority of the payments go to megacorporations and wealthy citizens who happen to own "farms", although they aren't out there tilling the soil personnally, you understand.
However, these payments do not, on the whole, really contribute to making agriculture a thriving business. Just look at the USSR (have we forgotten our history already) and how well the cooperative farms and factories worked. Let agriculture thrive because farmers grow what people need and want to eat. Perhaps some insurance is needed in case there is a total disaster (the entire state of California is underwater due to an earthquake and the rest of the country still needs food)(It could happen.), but let's stop rewarding people for poor decisions and sheltering them from the consequences of their own actions.
Social security is another can of worms. But I'll have to tell you later.
I read somewhere, some time ago, that the downfall of a democracy is when legislators (or maybe it was people) start voting themselves benefits in excess of the ability of the government to pay. This is what I see happening.
Our national debt is huge and growing. We spend billions of dollars on items such as agriculture support, social security and medicare, and then get all convoluted when we can't afford it. Support for agriculture is selective support for certain crops (I've heard that they even pay farmers to grow tobacco, how weird is that). The idea is the help family farmers and keep agriculture a thriving business. However, the vast (vast) majority of the payments go to megacorporations and wealthy citizens who happen to own "farms", although they aren't out there tilling the soil personnally, you understand.
However, these payments do not, on the whole, really contribute to making agriculture a thriving business. Just look at the USSR (have we forgotten our history already) and how well the cooperative farms and factories worked. Let agriculture thrive because farmers grow what people need and want to eat. Perhaps some insurance is needed in case there is a total disaster (the entire state of California is underwater due to an earthquake and the rest of the country still needs food)(It could happen.), but let's stop rewarding people for poor decisions and sheltering them from the consequences of their own actions.
Social security is another can of worms. But I'll have to tell you later.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Patriotism
I am glad that this election is over. I am worried about this country. I would be thrilled if we could find a way to cover preventitive medical/dental care for everyone, but I have so many reservations about how to do this, and how to cover everybody, without making medical costs unreasonably expensive, and/or restricting the availability of good medical care, and the innovation and invention which depends a lot on capitalism. I would also like to make sure that medical decisions, including the abortion issue, remain entirely the province of the "patient" and the medical practicioners, and not become a subject of legislation.
I am also so entirely sick of the negative ad campaigns that I am thrilled that we can go back to regular advertising on tv.
I am also so entirely sick of the negative ad campaigns that I am thrilled that we can go back to regular advertising on tv.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)