Skip to main content

Inale and Exhale; The way of the C-Cam

We have a few things in play: Needle position, Feed length, feed direction, and feed direction modifier. Something that stays consistent no matter what is the needle piercing the fabric. The up/down motion is independent. The needle will go up and down, the thread will lock stitch, tough luck. The cams will advance in time with this up and down.

If we think of the sewing as an inhale (needle in the fabric) and an exhale (needle outside of the fabric), for me at least, it helps see what is going on.

Inhale: lockstitch process
Exhale: adjust

Stitch length is how far the feed dogs move the fabric on an exhale. Stitch width is the magnitude of needle position change while exhaling.  While the needle is in the lock stitch process the most that can be done is the drop of the feed dogs and their lower position slide to the proper length get them into the right position to move the fabric.

It is really quite cool, and the timing is everything.

The stitch cams cams take that all into consideration simply by the mechanical timing. The cam will rotate a set number of degrees during the exhale.

In a C-cam you will notice that it has a couple of different features in comparison to some of the other cams. A more block like approach and a wider diameter.

3D model of a "blank" C-cam and a zig-zag cam for reference

The wider diameter allows for more drastic position changes between stitches. With the stitch width modifier, and the cam diameter we can traverse the entire width of the needle plate. That's a lot of real estate to work with in comparison to older machines. That means, for example, from one position the maximum change in one exhale can be 7mm.

With a little geometry lets take a gander at this. We know the amount of rotation is fixed in each exhale. It is mechanically linked to the last portions of a lock stitch. So in say 20 degrees rotation (I have not measured this yet, it is just a guess to get 18 inhales/exhale cycles in one whole rotation), you'll have another stitch. The smaller the radius of the cam (E or G cams), the smaller the cord across the cam. Which means mechanically you have a more drastic cut to make in the cam to change positions, in the 10 degrees during the exhale part of cycle. But make the radius larger, the total radius change will be the same but the rate of change/angle needed to get there will be smaller, which helps prevent jammed mechanics, and decreases the stress on the mechanic "reading" the cam.

Cool right?

This consistency probably assisted the original designers in making the first cams and improving designs.

I have been modeling these cams to get an understanding of how they actually work in relation to the machines. I hope to 3D print a few "blank" cams to test out my theories on behavior without having to have my hands in the machine, nor worry about me damaging the machine to figure it out.

Modelled blank double layer C-Cam

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kenmore Ensemble: An Introduction

In this adventure there are 9 machines that will be tested. An important thing to note about the models for Kenmores of this era is the context of the naming scheme. "XXX.MM(MM)Y" The XXX being the general design numbers such as 117, 158, or 148. These often correlate with the manufacturer of the machine and the region of sale. MM(MM) mean while is the model. I have seen model numbers that are from two digits to four digits. All the models I'll be writing on in this series are four digits. Model Number and Serial Plate The last number is the Y, and is always the Y no matter how many M's precede it. It is often casually implied as the manufacturing year, 0 being the first year of manufacture. From what I've actually seen, it's more like revision number just like in modern computing when they go from 2.0 to 2.1. A major revision has been made, but it isn't different enough to be a new machine. With this, sometimes multiple revisions can happen in

To Helen Black: An introduction to 1601s

I'm working with the machines now, not in chronological order, but in complexity order. So the first machine I have worked with is Helen. This bird is a 158.16010. She has a slightly green, maybe mint, enamel casing. Quick things you'll note about her and what basically drew me to these generations of machines is the simplicity of the design. Proof Helen is indeed a machine Basic features that are identical across the 1601/1701/1802 line are the side opening door to get to the light bulb, the easy to remove top (it is just held on with a tension clip around), and the order of the knobs. From left to right up to down, Stitch Width, Reverse Stitch Modifier, Stitch length (with reverse button), and Stitch Selector.  Everything is upfront and easy to access. All the machines I will be testing are flat bed, so to get to the bobbin casing there is either lifting up the machine and tilting it back, or popping out the access plate and hoping your hands are small enough to re

Helen and Jane Adventures: Part 1

My previous entries covered the first impressions between the two machines. And with both of them I have a bit of exploration to go through before I can say definitively anything about the design. Helen (16010) & Jane (16011) One thing I can say for both of these machines, they are strong. You can feel the power when working with them. And neither of them are particularly loud for their strength. Working on these vintage machines, you feel like you are unstoppable in comparison to the computerized machines I have worked with (Bernina Bernette 25 is my go to dearest). They have the same feeling as I get with my mechanical near industrial serger (Juki MO-735). They go through the material like there is nothing there. This was even the case when on Helen, I hadn't quite corrected the bobbin issue and I was destroying my needle points. I also know that Jane is more than capable on hemming jeans. She's the machine that got me into this mess in the first place. I that serger