Koolshade, I know it's all been said before....

[mjhenks]

How reliable is the intel that the 17 was squeezed down for the 23?
Has anyone compared the raw materials between the two to confirm the spacing is the only difference.
Side by side does one look like a squeezed version of the other?

Sure seems feasible to create a precision "scrunching" machine over sourcing material to weave 23 from scratch. Not trivial but logistically way ahead. Some sort of top/bottom supported walking beam. Hold the first louver stable with a split (top/bottom) clamp. Walk the second louver closer by just a little with the same clamp system but on a stage of some sort. Index and repeat one row at a time. As already stated, it only has to be as wide as the hobby requires but of course work with the 17 material that is already produced.

Hmmm.

So, anyone know if the 17 material is the same as 23 other than the pitch? My mind is already thinking up ideas how to do this.

 

[OldNutsy]

How reliable is the intel that the 17 was squeezed down for the 23?
Has anyone compared the raw materials between the two to confirm the spacing is the only difference.
Side by side does one look like a squeezed version of the other?

Sure seems feasible to create a precision "scrunching" machine over sourcing material to weave 23 from scratch. Not trivial but logistically way ahead. Some sort of top/bottom supported walking beam. Hold the first louver stable with a split (top/bottom) clamp. Walk the second louver closer by just a little with the same clamp system but on a stage of some sort. Index and repeat one row at a time. As already stated, it only has to be as wide as the hobby requires but of course work with the 17 material that is already produced.

Hmmm.

So, anyone know if the 17 material is the same as 23 other than the pitch? My mind is already thinking up ideas how to do this.

I've given some thought to the scrunching. I had much the same idea of some sort of a clamp that compacts just enough. Mechanically i think it would be somewhat simple but I think the challenge is in controlling the crunch - doing it means that something is going to deform, and how reliable is it that it will deform in the same way at every section is where the variability would come in. Fabricating new is more difficult but it is much more controllable. After all, in the crunching, even if you got it to work exactly as planned 99% of the time it means there would still be a deformation every 4.5 or so inches.

 

[mjhenks]

I've given some thought to the scrunching. I had much the same idea of some sort of a clamp that compacts just enough. Mechanically i think it would be somewhat simple but I think the challenge is in controlling the crunch - doing it means that something is going to deform, and how reliable is it that it will deform in the same way at every section is where the variability would come in. Fabricating new is more difficult but it is much more controllable. After all, in the crunching, even if you got it to work exactly as planned 99% of the time it means there would still be a deformation every 4.5 or so inches.

If you tackle it one row at a time instead of many rows then all you need is to isolate row 1 and scrunch row 2 by .015". That is not alot to scrunch on soft material like this. Given that spring back will occur some experimentation will be needed on the scrunch stroke. If you limit the design to the max width the community needs that could be easily controlled with precision linear bearings and a stepper drive /w encoder feedback. (Or hard stops since it would be limited production. Heck start out with hard stops and lever action. Automate later or never depending on demand.) Use some sort of cam actuated "jaws" to open/close on the louver to grab and isolate them would be suggested.

I still go back to my original question. Is this intel on the scrunch good intel or wishful thinking? Generally manufactures reduce cost over time. The most bang for the buck is material reduction or material change. Going from 23 to 17 louvers reduces material but if they were scrunching to get 23 then all they reduced is machine time. If the scrunch machine broke and was too expensive to repair then you save money but not as significant as material reduction.

Anyways. This is a very interesting line of thought but may be a waste of time if the intel is bad. It may be possible to evaluate some super clean and clear side and top images of both styles that are in perfect shape to gain hints to this theory. It should be very clear to see the woven wire deflected consistently OR the angle of the louver change. Both of these would reduce the pitch.

 

[MrRobot]

If you tackle it one row at a time instead of many rows then all you need is to isolate row 1 and scrunch row 2 by .015". That is not alot to scrunch on soft material like this. Given that spring back will occur some experimentation will be needed on the scrunch stroke. If you limit the design to the max width the community needs that could be easily controlled with precision linear bearings and a stepper drive /w encoder feedback. (Or hard stops since it would be limited production. Heck start out with hard stops and lever action. Automate later or never depending on demand.) Use some sort of cam actuated "jaws" to open/close on the louver to grab and isolate them would be suggested.

I still go back to my original question. Is this intel on the scrunch good intel or wishful thinking? Generally manufactures reduce cost over time. The most bang for the buck is material reduction or material change. Going from 23 to 17 louvers reduces material but if they were scrunching to get 23 then all they reduced is machine time. If the scrunch machine broke and was too expensive to repair then you save money but not as significant as material reduction.

Anyways. This is a very interesting line of thought but may be a waste of time if the intel is bad. It may be possible to evaluate some super clean and clear side and top images of both styles that are in perfect shape to gain hints to this theory. It should be very clear to see the woven wire deflected consistently OR the angle of the louver change. Both of these would reduce the pitch.

I posted the original claim, so I'll reply here to the reliability issue. Sadly, I can't add that much. As someone very new to this hobby, I accept I'm not the most reliable source. The information came from an eBay seller that, as far as I can tell, is a distributor of KoolShade for the hobby market but is connected to the company that produces it and owns the KoolShade trademark. From my conversation with them, they implied it was them:

The best approach might be to reach out directly to SmartLouvre (https://www.smartlouvre.com/) and verify the information. They might be able to verify the information and they might have more details on how the 23-count stuff was produced, if it was scrunched.

 

[RealDaveWinter]

My experience in dealing with smartlouvre is that their GAF factor for modellers is less than zero.

Having purchased 2m^2 of the new stuff directly from them , I can say they're really not the easiest to work with. They're slow at replying, they ask more questions than they answer, and if you're not purchasing large amounts (I ordered the absolute minimum they'd allow), they just have no interest in speaking with you. The 'salesman' I spoke to was adamant that the only pitch count the company ever produced as 17.

A couple of years ago, they mentioned on their website that their product was used in 'Hollywood' but that was the extent of it. That's no longer on their site as far as I can find. Now the only thing I can find that connects the two is a 2 year old LinkedIn post

 

[mjhenks]

My experience in dealing with smartlouvre is that their GAF factor for modellers is less than zero.

I'll second that. A few years ago i had a buddy who lived near them in the UK try to get info. In the end he did help me get some 17 material but no info on 23. I am sure we are a bothersome fly to them.

Whether or not the scrunch info is real i think it is very compelling.

Do we have clear pictures available of the SAME samples of both version from the top and side that can be compared? Some high rez image sleuthing is bound to show evidence of a scrunch if that is how it was done. I have 17 but not 23. I have seen 23 images of course but i cannot recall top & side of the same piece that is super clear showing the wires.

Thinking about it some more...

• From a mfg point of view there is a spacing that no longer blocks the sun as the material was intended.
• There is a spacing that 1960's technology simply can't economically produce.
• Being the 60's your talking about cam actuated machinery.

If the machinery can make 17 but 23 is the sweet spot then you need the scrunch. If the scrunch machine breaks down and is not economical to repair OR if you are trying to cut cost some how and the scrunch operation is your target why is 17 OK in the market now? The Sun certainly has not changed it's angle of attack so what did changed?

This feels like we are missing something but i am also not able to shut off the the Engineer mind. At some point there was a business case made comparing 17 and 23. Was a piece of equipment the linchpin to that argument?

 

[RealDaveWinter]

I have both types. I can post a side-by-side later today.

 

[RealDaveWinter]

Hopefully this is useful...

On the left is the vintage stuff, on the right the new production material.


As an aside, if anyone wants any of the new materials, I have two monster rolls of it.

 

[mjhenks]

Hopefully this is useful...

On the left is the vintage stuff, on the right the new production material.
View attachment 1889389

As an aside, if anyone wants any of the new materials, I have two monster rolls of it.

Thank you RealDaveWinter

Can you post from the side trying to focus on both the end and the wire? Want to see the angle of the louver and if the wire routing/sewing looks scrunched from the side. This may be hard to get but will be the most helpful for this line of thought.

 

[RealDaveWinter]

The best I can do with an iPhone. Mine doesn't have a macro lens on it.

The smaller sample on the left is the new material. The other is the vintage.

 

[mjhenks]

Thank you RealDaveWinter. To me the images above clearly show a tighter weave of the interconnecting wire. Not proof but evidence. The images posted by swgeek also seem to show a change in the weave but his images are not clearly identified as 17 or 23 and if i read it right he "pulled them apart" to get a view at the weave. His images clearly show a main wire and a wrapped wire though which seems to also be the case in the images from Dave.

To anyone reading the thread to not burden Dave so much.

• Is it possible to get a close up of the weave at as low of an angle as possible? Side by side.
• Can you confirm the weave looks the same top vs bottom?
• Is it possible with calipers to measure the diameter of the wire (I know it was already reported as .012"/.015") on both, height of the slat and most important the height of the weave.

IMO so far this is still a feasible theory.

Thank you.

 

[Droidr4i9]

Going to chime in here... about 6-7 months ago I posted in a koolshade thread here about a source for the vintage 23 style located in the U.S.
Located in Kansas City I believe. I talked to them on the phone and the machine that makes the 17 is the same machine that wove the 23, it isn't broken it's still in use today. The reason smartlouver doesn't produce the 23 is due to the fact too many complaints of water drops from rain and/or ground sprinklers getting trapped between the slats thus employees complaining they couldn't see outside the windows and this was with several building owners that complained so the solution was spread them apart yet provide the same sunscreen protection and the answer was 23 to 17 spacing. The person that has NOS as well as reclaimed material of the 23 used to install this material and had to rip the 23 off a bunch of Boeing owned buildings and install the 17 this comes from a source that was a contractor since the 1970's for this material and still has a bunch of it.

 

[OldNutsy]

Going to chime in here... about 6-7 months ago I posted in a koolshade thread here about a source for the vintage 23 style located in the U.S.
Located in Kansas City I believe. I talked to them on the phone and the machine that makes the 17 is the same machine that wove the 23, it isn't broken it's still in use today. The reason smartlouver doesn't produce the 23 is due to the fact too many complaints of water drops from rain and/or ground sprinklers getting trapped between the slats thus employees complaining they couldn't see outside the windows and this was with several building owners that complained so the solution was spread them apart yet provide the same sunscreen protection and the answer was 23 to 17 spacing. The person that has NOS as well as reclaimed material of the 23 used to install this material and had to rip the 23 off a bunch of Boeing owned buildings and install the 17 this comes from a source that was a contractor since the 1970's for this material and still has a bunch of it.

I believe I read that post some time ago and reached out to that contractor to try to obtain some, so you know if they are still willing to sell?

 

[Droidr4i9]

Randy should still have some, just send him an email he will reply. He's retired and does reply but it could be a day or two before he does.

 

[OldNutsy]

Randy should still have some, just send him an email he will reply. He's retired and does reply but it could be a day or two before he does.

Thanks, I’ll give it another shot

 

[Droidr4i9]

how much do you need?

 

[Vinyl Guy]

My understanding of Koolshade, at least what was manufactured in the 1970's, was that it was produced in the Caribbean. Following a hurricane that damaged/destroyed the tooling, the machines were rebuilt, but could only reliably produce the 17 louvre product. This is the explanation that was on the RPF and other sources years ago. From a manufacturing standpoint, compressing the product from 17 to 23 doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, I remember that someone claimed that the manufacture at the time would produce the 23 louvre product but would require a very large production run.

 

[Droidr4i9]

as stated above...

I talked to them on the phone and the machine that makes the 17 is the same machine that wove the 23, it isn't broken it's still in use today. The reason smartlouver doesn't produce the 23 is due to the fact too many complaints of water drops from rain and/or ground sprinklers getting trapped between the slats thus employees complaining they couldn't see outside the windows and this was with several building owners that complained so the solution was spread them apart yet provide the same sunscreen protection and the answer was 23 to 17 spacing.

The "old" explanation was incorrect without actual facts. Please call or email Terry and he will tell you the same thing I just did, this isn't a mystery that needs solved. The same machine that currently makes the 17 is the same that made the 23. The slats are just wound with more spacing between them than they were originally set.

 

[Vinyl Guy]

as stated above...

I talked to them on the phone and the machine that makes the 17 is the same machine that wove the 23, it isn't broken it's still in use today. The reason smartlouver doesn't produce the 23 is due to the fact too many complaints of water drops from rain and/or ground sprinklers getting trapped between the slats thus employees complaining they couldn't see outside the windows and this was with several building owners that complained so the solution was spread them apart yet provide the same sunscreen protection and the answer was 23 to 17 spacing.

The "old" explanation was incorrect without actual facts. Please call or email Terry and he will tell you the same thing I just did, this isn't a mystery that needs solved. The same machine that currently makes the 17 is the same that made the 23. The slats are just wound with more spacing between them than they were originally set.

No reason to get "worked up," it's not that big of deal. If you have a relationship with this Terry then it might be helpful to know how big of run they would need to produce the 23 louvre material and if they would be interested. Also, if they could substitute a different material that is less expensive. I was told some years ago by distributers of Koolshade in the US, who are the source of many of my "facts," is that the product material is made of brass. Aluminum and some grades of steel may be cheaper.

 

[Leinads]

There’s a movie waiting to be made with all this lore being discussed