Should Research Be Limited to Manufacturers and Institutions?

Regardless of the outcome of trials, I feel immensely proud to witness such cutting-edge experimentation happening at the industry level, says Murugan Santhanam

Meeting innovative people always feels like stepping into a classroom—there’s so much to learn and take away. Mr. X is one such remarkable individual whom I deeply admire and look forward to meeting every time. (And no, his moniker has nothing to do with Elon Musk’s son—I swear!)

Each interaction with Mr. X brings new insights, and this time was no different. When I walked into his office, I found him engaged in what looked like an intense tug-of-war with a roving bobbin. Beside him stood a man, perhaps a supervisor, waiting for Mr. X’s verdict. Despite being engrossed in his peculiar experiment, Mr. X motioned for me to take a seat without lifting his eyes or taking his hands off the bobbin.

The bobbin stood vertically on the table. With careful precision, he unwound about half a metre of roving and tugged at it until the bobbin showed the slightest sign of rotating. He repeated the process two or three times, finally declaring, “OK! Increase the twist by one tooth!”

The supervisor promptly left, and Mr. X turned to me with a grin. “Deciding the right twist for the roving is tricky business, isn’t it?” he remarked.

I nodded, sharing his sentiment. He elaborated, “A little extra twist, and we end up with undrafted ends during spinning. On the flip side, too little twist causes excessive creel breaks. We have to constantly monitor it. Any change in the mixing or even a shift in ambient humidity demands swift action to prevent disasters.”

I added, “And of course, the ideal roving twist is key to achieving superior yarn quality.”

He nodded enthusiastically. “Exactly! This is like solving a mathematical permutation and combination puzzle. Every factor—bottom roller setting, break draft, apron spacer, roving hank, twist, and even the ambient climate—must align perfectly to produce the best results.”

Curious, I asked whether he had any ideas to tackle this problem.

“Experiment, experiment, and experiment!” he said with a chuckle. “I have done a tonne of experiments but haven’t completely solved this problem, but I’m seeing improvements.”

He leaned forward, ready to share his ideas. “Here’s one concept I tried: I designed a spiral guide for the roving in the break draft zone. The idea was to untwist the roving by one turn per inch during drafting so that the fibres would be perfectly oriented before entering the front drafting zone. Unfortunately, it didn’t work as I had hoped,” he admitted, pursing his lips, showing his disappointment.

I couldn’t help but admire his ingenuity. “That’s a brilliant idea!” I exclaimed.

Encouraged, he shared another experiment, one inspired by an article in the Textile Research journal some years back, authored by a team from China and Hong Kong Textile University personnel.

“Could you succeed?” I asked him, curious about the outcome of his experiment.

“Not entirely,” he admitted. “While I’ve seen improvements, I couldn’t perfect the design due to limitations, such as the unavailability of longer aprons and the challenge of maintaining precise tension. So, I moved on to another idea.”

He then showed me a picture of his latest innovation: an attachment featuring a small top roller positioned behind the top apron holder. The roller, which he called a deflector roller, had ‘V’-shaped grooves carved into the cots.

Explaining the concept, he said, “The deflector roller pushes down the roving emerging from the nip of the third drafting roller pair, ensuring better fibre control and guidance. The untwisting effect of the break draft often disorients fibres in the roving, but the grooves on the deflector roller help keep them in place. I’m still fine-tuning the optimum angle of the grooves. I am even thinking of experimenting with straight grooves. Anyhow, once guided by the deflector, the fibres are presented to the main draft zone in a well-oriented condition. This ensures uniform acceleration as the fibres pass through the middle pair of aprons and finally emerge at the front rollers. As a result, I’ve observed significant improvements—reduction in thin and thick places and even less slippage of the top apron.”

He showed me a trial report. I noticed the following tangible improvements.

• Top apron slippage dropped dramatically, from 8% to 1.5%.
• Thin and thick places showed a 15% reduction across both normal and higher sensitivity levels.
• The Hairiness Index decreased by 5%.
• The H3 value improved, with a 20% drop.
• While there was no change in average RKM, the minimum RKM saw an absolute increase of one unit.

I congratulated him and said, “While many technicians stick to the status quo by simply adapting what machinery manufacturers supply, you exemplify the essence of innovation and curiosity. You dare to question, experiment, and push beyond conventional practices to solve complex challenges. Regardless of the outcome of your trials, I feel immensely proud to witness such cutting-edge experimentation happening at the industry level, not limited to machinery manufacturers or research institutes.”

Saying this, I bid him goodbye and came out of his office with a happy feeling.

I am sure individuals like Mr. X represent the driving force behind continuous improvement in the textile industry, pushing boundaries and paving the way for higher quality standards.

(Murugan Santhanam is the Managing Director of Texdoc Online Solution Pvt. Ltd.)