Monday, January 21, 2013


Another miscalculation, this one rather more serious.

A few days ago, you will remember, I realised that I had reckoned the depth of the shirt-type yoke using the row tension. And had then grasped that, since it will be knit sideways, it’s the stitch tension that counts. That time, I ripped back to the point where sleeves joined body, and started again.

Last night I counted stitches and felt I was getting too close to the final number too soon. Sure enough: I started with 75 stitches in each sleeve (after leaving however-many behind for the underarm). I needed to decrease to 47, near-enough half of the 96 I had had in all at the top of the sleeve. 75-47= 28 stitches to be decreased.

I had then proceeded to do the arithmetic as if that meant 28 decrease rounds. It doesn’t, of course. It means 14.

This time, I haven’t ripped.  I have sharply reduced the rate of decrease and gone on, fully aware that an even more radical ripping-out may become necessary later on.

EZ wants only 5%-of-K stitches to be left behind at the underarm for this design, and I left more. That may be part of the trouble, but the basic arithmetical mistake is the larger part.

Here’s a picture of progress-to-date. Not a very good one, but you can still get the idea of how wonderful the yarn is.


If I can’t calculate knitting, what sort of mistakes am I making with the Income Tax? I hope to finish that job today, let it ripen for 48 hours because I’ve got something else to do tomorrow, and then file on Wednesday.

Non-knit

Edinburgh is still largely snow-free but some is forecast for today.

The washing machine is leaking. Life doesn’t let up.

4 comments:

  1. Good luck with it all, knitting, tax, appliances. I have just started grappling with the tax - by which I mean I have gathered a pile of relevant papers in one place. A not-insignificant achievement. So, you are streets ahead of me in that respect, although I hope the calculations will be fairly straightforward (just copy last year's and update the numbers...)

    Snow in Edinburgh is rather mercurial: we noticed that on Saturday when we were 'sledging' with friends in north Edinburgh. By the late afternoon the snow was almost completely gone in their neighbourhood, and there was just a touch of sleety rain/snow in the air. When we left to drive home, the further south we got, the heavier the snow and by the time we got home (to Blackford Hill - just about 3 miles away) it was snowing thickly, and the roads white and slithery. A fresh topping to the snow that fell on Friday evening, and was still much in evidence in our garden...

    I am currently on the western edge of Edinburgh, where it is snowing beautifully - soft gentle feathers of flakes falling from a white sky, and settling on the grass and trees (already white from previous snow falls) in front of my office.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you've made a mistake with your income tax return, HMRC will soon let you know! In the last return my husband did before I insisted on taking over financial stuff, he forgot to include his main pension! He was very surprised to receive a letter telling him that he was due an enormous rebate. When they checked it in detail they obviously found the error.

    Can you put aside the gardening sweater until some of the other issues are sorted? I'm sure cumulative stress isn't conducive to correct calculations.

    We are covered in snow. More than six inches making life more difficult than usual.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:32 PM

    I love mathematics and puzzles, but often make errors when calculating sweater decreases. I had to get my head around 2 decreases per sleeve but on every other row. 14 decreases will take 14 rows.
    Appliances, like cars, have experts to repair them and when I have a probelm with either I call someone and immediately it ceases to be my problem.
    I love the colour of your new sweater. It must be a delight to knit.
    Ron in Mexico

    ReplyDelete
  4. I make those kinds of errors constanly - thank goodness yarn can be ripped and redone.

    ReplyDelete