Ring spinning is a spindle-based method of spinning fibers such as cotton, flax or wool into yarn, credited to John Thorp of Rhode Island in 1828 or 1829 and further developed by a Mr. Jencks of Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Unlike the intermittent action of the earlier spinning mule, ring spinning runs as a continuous process: roving is drawn out by drawing rollers, then spun and wound onto a rotating spindle contained within an independently rotating ring flyer, a design that let semi-skilled workers operate an automated, continuous yarn-production machine.
Facts
Partially Attested
YearSource gives 1828 or 1829 SignificanceA continuous spinning process, unlike the intermittent action of mule spinning 1 FAQs
Why did ring spinning take hold in the United States before Lancashire?
Because American mills lacked skilled spinners and Lancashire had plenty.
The ring frame suited the American cotton industry because New England had difficulty finding skilled spinners, while skilled spinners were plentiful in Lancashire. Ring frames were reliable for coarser yarn counts and could be run by semi-skilled workers. Lancashire spun fine counts as well, and its mules were more versatile and easier to change over for the wide range of cottons spun there. The ring frame was also heavier than a mule, needed more power and required structural alteration of mills. Ring frames began to be adopted in Lancashire when skilled labour became scarce there.
Connections
Associated With
Field end of a technology member entity grouped under this field
In Field
Source Ring spinning, Wikipedia
Sources
1. Ring spinning, Wikipedia
Article body, ring frame origin
The ring frame is credited to John Thorp in Rhode Island in 1828/9 and developed by Mr. Jencks of Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
Article body, comparison with mule
Ring spinning is a continuous process, unlike mule spinning which uses an intermittent action
- In Group: Spinning and Fibre-Preparation Machinery, lead
In Field: Textile Engineering, Categories
Spinning
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.