Does shortening necklace chains make them weaker?
ipink
18" to 16" will make it weaker and more susceptible to break later on?
Thanks much for help.
William Black
"ipink" <ip...@att.net> wrote in message
news:9d43o050kf49t1s8s...@4ax.com...
> Hi. Does anyone know if shortening a white gold necklace chain from
> 18" to 16" will make it weaker and more susceptible to break later on?
> Thanks much for help.
No, well not if you solder your clasp back on properly anyway.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Sarit Wolfus
news:<9d43o050kf49t1s8s...@4ax.com>...
> Hi. Does anyone know if shortening a white gold necklace chain from
> 18" to 16" will make it weaker and more susceptible to break later on?
> Thanks much for help.
I don't see a reason for chain weakening. On the contrary, simple
logic suggests that chain's strength increases with decreasing length.
For any chain type, we have a certain defects/weak links probability
per given length. A short chain would then contain less weak points
than a long chain.
Sarit.
Sarit Wolfus - Silver, Gold and Gemstones, handcrafted jewelry.
http://sarit-jewelry.com
Carl 1 Lucky Texan
(slightly) the force on links higher up and ,perhaps, slightly less
likely to 'catch' on something when leaning over.
Carl
--
to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)
Carl West
> ip...@att.net (ipink) wrote in message
> news:<9d43o050kf49t1s8s...@4ax.com>...
>
>>Hi. Does anyone know if shortening a white gold necklace chain from
>>18" to 16" will make it weaker and more susceptible to break later on?
>> Thanks much for help.
>
>
> I don't see a reason for chain weakening. On the contrary, simple
> logic suggests that chain's strength increases with decreasing length.
> For any chain type, we have a certain defects/weak links probability
> per given length. A short chain would then contain less weak points
> than a long chain.
Almost.
Every chain has a weakest link.
The shortened chain still has a weakest link, there is a chance (the
ratio of length removed to total length) that this weakest link is not
the same one as when the chain was long, in that case the chain is as
much stronger as the new weakest link is stronger than the old.
Likely a very small change.
Carl1LuckyTexan's points are well taken though.
But, if well done, shortening it won't make the chain weaker.
--
Carl West carlD...@comcast.net http://carl.west.home.comcast.net
>>>>>>>> change the 'DOT' to '.' to email me <<<<<<<<<<<<
"Clutter"? This is an object-rich environment.
Sarit Wolfus
> Every chain has a weakest link.
>
> The shortened chain still has a weakest link, there is a chance (the
> ratio of length removed to total length) that this weakest link is not
> the same one as when the chain was long, in that case the chain is as
> much stronger as the new weakest link is stronger than the old.
>
> Likely a very small change.
>
> Carl1LuckyTexan's points are well taken though.
>
>
>
> But, if well done, shortening it won't make the chain weaker.
Lets look at a simple example:
Suppose that the weakest invisible (allowed) defect can hold a load of
0.5 kg. Now, lets assume that the probability of having such a defect
is 0.2/m (i.e. 1 defect per 5m chain). A 16" chain (0.406m) would have
0.081 defect probability (8%) and an 18" (0.457m) would have 0.091
(9%) probability. In other words, 8 out of 100 16" chains and 9 out of
100 18" chains would contain such a defect.
Real numbers depend on many factors like manufacturer, chain type,
material, etc. However, the basic argument remains: short chains are
likely to contain less defects than long chain.
Sarit.
Sarit Wolfus - Silver, Gold and Gemstones, handcrafted jewelry
Carl West
OK. _Assuming_ that all the other links hold 1kg and the few flawed
links hold .5kg and are fairly evenly distributed...
Using your numbers:
An 18" chain has a 9% chance of having a flawed link.
There is an 11% chance that it is in the 2" removed to make it a 16" chain.
That makes a 1% chance that shortening the chain will make it 100% stronger.
I contend that the above assumption is flawed, and that each of the
links in the chain has a different strength and that charted out they
will produce a bell-curve with most of the links very close to 1kg, but
some more or less stronger and some more or less weaker.
If the frequency of .5kg links is 1/5m, the frequency of .6kg links will
be higher, say something like 1/4m, and .7kg links at 1/3m and so on...
So, there's a 1% chance that removing 2" will remove a .5 kg link in the
18" chain.
The shortened chain will have a 10% chance of having a .6kg link in it
which would leave it only 20% stronger, and a 13% chance there's a .7kg
link in it making it only 40% stronger...
There's 13% chance that the weakest link in 18" is a .6kg link and an
11% chance of removing it in the 2" so there's ...
Aw hell, it's late and I'm out of my depth, my degree is in Sculpture.
Is there a statistician in the house?
I suspect this is a calculus problem.
And probably a classic.
Sarit Wolfus
> links hold .5kg and are fairly evenly distributed...
>
> Using your numbers:
>
> An 18" chain has a 9% chance of having a flawed link.
>
> There is an 11% chance that it is in the 2" removed to make it a 16" chain.
>
> That makes a 1% chance that shortening the chain will make it 100% stronger.
>
>
> I contend that the above assumption is flawed, and that each of the
> links in the chain has a different strength and that charted out they
> will produce a bell-curve with most of the links very close to 1kg, but
> some more or less stronger and some more or less weaker.
>
> If the frequency of .5kg links is 1/5m, the frequency of .6kg links will
> be higher, say something like 1/4m, and .7kg links at 1/3m and so on...
>
> So, there's a 1% chance that removing 2" will remove a .5 kg link in the
> 18" chain.
> The shortened chain will have a 10% chance of having a .6kg link in it
> which would leave it only 20% stronger, and a 13% chance there's a .7kg
> link in it making it only 40% stronger...
>
> There's 13% chance that the weakest link in 18" is a .6kg link and an
> 11% chance of removing it in the 2" so there's ...
>
>
>
> Aw hell, it's late and I'm out of my depth, my degree is in Sculpture.
> Is there a statistician in the house?
>
> I suspect this is a calculus problem.
>
> And probably a classic.
Hi Carl,
I perfectly agree with you. The real picture is more complicated and
defects probability curve would have some kind of a bell shape. I used
an over simplified example just to support my point.
Whatever statistics we use we both agree on one point: Shortening the
chain would not weaken it. If any affect is observed, it'd be to
strengthen the chain.
I suggest we stop here....
Best regards,