| |
The General Equation leads us to one important conclusion of practical significance. Fibre test data can help us predict, quite accurately, the CSP of yarn spun at any count and twist from any one of the widely disparate commercially available cottons: in most cases the error is less than 5%. The equation can also be used to estimate CSP of yarns from mixings of disparate cottons. The equation can be modified to estimate CSP of combed yarns at near optimum T.M. from fibre test data on bale cotton. For such accurate estimates, we need fibre test data most of which can be tested by available automatically operated testers; the exceptions are Stelo fibre-bundle tenacity at zero and 1/8-inch gauges. |
| |
|
 |
A Note of Caution |
| |
There is, however, need for one note of caution. This is about the accuracy of fibre-tests in general, of tenacity tests in particular. Inter-laboratory comparisons identify that manually determined fibre-bundle strength is the one test that is most susceptible to discrepancy between laboratories. In this context we must recall the unique feature of The General Equation for CSP. In this equation fibre-bundle tenacity gets its rightful place as the fundamental independent variable, which just gets multiplied by four numerical fractions. This unique feature renders the equation capable of succinctly accounting for the role of fibre-length and fibre-fineness in the translation of fibre-bundle tenacity into yarn tenacity. This unique structure of the General Equation is, however, also its vulnerable aspect: any error in the determination of fibre-tenacity has very little chance to get reduced fortuitously by compensatory errors in other tests, as can possibly happen in the case of equations that comprise expressions that are a jumble of all fibre characteristics.
|
| |
This apparent disadvantage can, however, be turned into an advantage: repeated under- or over-estimates in regular use warn us of some systematic error, bias, creeping into fibre-tenacity test. |
|
