h a l f b a k e r yClearly this is a metaphor for something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
When doing up the poppers at the bottom of a duvet or when doing up a small child's clothing, it's so easy to encounter the "out by one" error, where you have fastened popper 1 to popper 2, popper 2 to popper 3 and so on. You then have to undo all the poppers and start again.
This could easily be
solved by adopting non-uniform spacing. So for example, the distance between popper 1 and popper 2 could be 6 inches; Between 2 and 3, 7 inches; Between 3 and 4, 5 inches, etc. It would then be obvious as soon as you had gone wrong, resulting in a saving in time of months probably, factored over the average lifetime of making fastener errors on duvets, shirts, coats, baby's clothes, etc.
[link]
|
| |
Sounds workable. The aesthetics of the uneven spacing might drive some people nuts. In the case of "poppers" (snaps), it seems like it would be helpful if adjacent fasteners were mechanically incompatible e.g. two different sizes. |
|
| |
Might work - a sequence like ... popper - button - velcro - popper - button - velcro... would reduce errors. |
|
| |
shame there is no way to move them up and down on a track kind of arrangement. |
|
| |
thinking how you could insert magnets so that they repel the popper above or below. |
|
| |
Dash! Daydreaming and got the *#@! zipper caught! |
|
| |
Nice ones po! On a track and magnets - both rockin' ideas. Especially the magnets. |
|
| |
Some cunning use of magnets would be good, as would making alternate pairs of poppers out of matter and antimatter. |
|
| |
[Rods] - see my Jan 9 anno |
|
| |
...or just have the first few at the end in a little group -- just where you need them to be stronger. |
|
| |
Lets face it, we've all got a different idea of how to do the fine detail. That doesn't take away from the fact that this is a very fine idea. King size croissant with popstuds (irregularly spaced). |
|
| |
Why not just alternate the "mates" for each side of the item to be fastened? For example, the left side, instead of being all buttons, would alternate buttons and buttonholes. The right side would alternate buttons and buttonholes, but off-set by one so that each pair would match. |
|
| |
The same could be done with poppers, hooks and loops, velcro, etc. This way, you get to keep the regular spacing between fasteners and the consistent look of the same fastening system. |
|
| |
But if the right side is on top, then every other fastener would be a button on its back side - difficult to button/unbutton inwards. |
|
| |
I am thinking of the poor chaps who are sewing this stuff, but I like the alternate idea, would be best if used snaps or velcro thogh, buttons would be difficult. |
|
| |
[FJ]: whoops, I guess I didn't think that button scheme all the way through. It *would* work with poppers/snaps and hooks & loops, though. |
|
| |
i like [kirby]'s idea best. if the snaps were magnitized, the article of clothing would effect anything metalic nearby (imagine being near a box of paper clips... not a pretty picture). pair numbers would ruin the clothes, as would a sequence (velcro, buttons, snaps, popper.. ect). you have to keep your sense of style here. if the snaps (or whatever) kept switching sides the problem would be eliminated. i doubt anyone would mismatch by 2 spaces... |
|
| |