Spandex (polyurethen fiber) was actually invented by Bayer before WWII. DuPont was the most successful producer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.254.206.4 (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bayer did produce a polyurethane fibre of the same type as Spandex, but lacking a certain property i.e. stretch and recovery. It was known as Perlon U. Chemically similar to Spandex, but not physically similar at all. -Roxy the dog.bark 20:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "define: Exuctional" does not return anything. I have no idea what an Exuctional Procedure is, nor is there a wiki to link to on the topic.
I don't think it's too much, if there is an article on spandex fetishism, that the articles on spandex and fetishism link to it. This is fairly self-evident. - Hephaestos 23:45, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Did DuPont sell or spin-off INVISTA as a unit, or sell spandex to INVISTA, or what? Also, why multiple generic and brand names for the same fibre? –radiojon 03:41, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
Please there is no chemistry about spandex in chemical formulation. Please insert proper chemistry for those people who are learning chemical manufacturing. Thanks.
I protest yesterday's deletion by 86.144.123.132 (some clown in the UK) of the paragraph about spandex in exhibitionism. I don't engage in revert-wars, but I want all readers to know that this was STUPID. Thanks, lads. El Ingles 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is James Taylor-Hoff and why do I care that he wears Spandex in Berkshire? I'm removing that sentance. 71.205.13.162 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rofl @ "example of spandex"
could we may be get an example of spandex that isn't starring up someones rear?IsaactheNPOVfanatic 11:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you rather it be of someone's front? ;-) - Ageekgal (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From article:
Spandex is a common fetish now in Canada. Said to become trendy under the influence of Clayton Weyrauch (way-rock), spandex is not only an obsession but when paired with milk can be a fetish.
"Spandex paired with milk"? Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.151.125 (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spandex - Catastrophic Yarn- First Alarm Bell.
Spandex is product of isocyanides ( used for making of pesticides ) and polymerized with glycol makes spandex. Invented sometime in 1959 and for a very long time DuPont could not successfully market it, because of its textile processing limitations, whether in spinning or dyeing. However, it did manage to get the yarn into the knitting machines to make some fancy apparel. Despite its retraction quality of 500% and rubbery feeling, the product somehow managed to find some application in textile industry, but lately it has become a Fashion Statement. Let us discuss now, how spandex is overtly and covertly the worst yarns ever developed in textile and should have been thrown out of apparel applications. Yes, it could have gone into rubber applications in other industries, but DuPont with its obsession with textiles never looked beyond textiles.
Spandex or Elastene or Lycra, the more popular name and trade mark owned by DuPont is an example of how a large population can be fooled in believing that Rubber like product is clothing fancy and has many other creasing advantages. Go in to buy a nice Italian suit and it will show the composition of atleast 2 to 3% of Lycra and therefore obscenely priced and claimed as Lycra giving quality of drape and crease. Now, if you are a textile engineer, then you have to be a fool to believe that Lycra has any such quality. . As a textile engineer, whenever I see spandex yarns being used in any apparel applications, other then making of stretch elastics, I find it catastrophic.
How can ever a yarn with 500% stretch ability have crease and drape quality? But then that is what is called Marketing. Selling a refrigerator to an Igloo owner.
Pathetic to see, that spandex gets used in swim wear, in gloves, socks, knitwear, diapers etc etc. Spandex made out of Isocyanides is potentially one of the most dangerous polymers next to skin. But textiles do not have a labeling policy of alarming the potential threat related to it, so it flourishes without any resistance.
Secondly, spandex which is practically a rubber elastomer, actually has zero textile properties, which is to say, breath ability of the fabric, dyeing properties, drape, cover, feel, handle , moister regain, or for that matter, even the very look of it is disgusting.
Third, even with its electrometric properties, it still could not replace the conventional rubber yarns, which were covered with spun yarns. Simple reason, that Rubber yarns are far much cheaper then the spandex yarns. And rubber is still a natural fiber and not an Isocyanides substrate.
Spandex when knitted with cotton yarns and used for body hugging fabrics is potentially carcinogenic, but not one spandex maker writes this on the product spec brochure. (Though no such event has ever been reported, more so, as never questioned) Same applies for swimwear and other such fabrics. Isocyanides chains, when degrade, release the polymer into the environment and say a swimwear starts degrading in a pool, it would all the way affect all the children in the pool. Stability of polyurethane and polyurea chains under elevated temperatures is questionable. Therefore, while spinning the Lycra yarns on a ring traveler at speeds of 300 revolutions per second, these chains can very easily break out and the monomer dust will get coated to the yarn surface. Which is isocyanides and any mouth or skin contact can cause cancer or occupational asthma.
Spandex when used for diapers will cause skin rashes on a child or adult. Because a yarn of 500% retraction will severely burn the skin of a child. But diapers still use spandex as the preferred stretch line on diapers.
Spandex on account of very high retract ability is not also suitable for other elastic fabrics like Bra, hosiery, socks, slacks, and disaster for athletic or aerobic wear. Any stretch yarn should stand in relaxed position and elongate to take the stretch and not really make a compelling force to return to its original length. Further, a stretched filament yarn will generate internal heat against the body and cause rashes on the skin. Only a preshrunk yarn fully covered with spun cotton yarns should be used for such applications.
Though spandex is also air covered or fully covered on hollow twisting machines, yet the applications have to be only limited to
Stretch garments for healing in medical applications
Surgical hose
Support hose.
Packaging, where stretching provides safety and cover to the equipment.
One of the major applications of Spandex should have been in Defense Architecture, where Spandex yarn fabrics could have been most successfully used against bullet proofing, blast proofing or any impact resistance applications, where resilience properties are of utmost importance.
The other application should have been Motorcycle Helmets. Where spandex covered layered fabrics would have provided equal or better shield to the head against injury.
Lastly, it could have gone into making of shoe fabrics, where the soul has spandex reinforced yarns, same as tires which have nylon reinforcements.
It is only a matter of time, before the textile industry realizes that this is another Nylon Shirt, which initially was a fashion craze and now no one touches it.
Till then, make sure, never to buy any spandex or elastene or Lycra added garments.
For all those, who do not know about the Bhopal Industrial Disaster, the most accepted cause was the contact of Water with the Isocyanate gases. (Isocyanides are used for making of pesticides) Now, use your common sense and think, if water contact with Isocyanides gases could cause a nuclear like disaster, then Isocyanides, when dyed under high temperature and high pressure, what results would it yield to the yarn. Potentially dangerous Output.
This reminds me of ABC TV in Australia, which kept denying any association of waves to Breast cancer in female employees, till far too many had contracted cancer.
It is time that the industry takes note of this potentially hazardous fiber, yarn and other such applications for human skin use.
Do not ignore spandex as a possible cause for any sudden cancer in a non genetic or any non explicable reason, specially, if you were wearing spandex related garments.
Atul Guglani, mantexag.blogspot.com
"Spandex" is an anagram of "expands". If the name was coined intentionally with such an anagram in mind, that should be included in the article. --NetRolller3D 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody (92.8.250.10) removed large pieces about the production process. No indication of reason. I shall undo that. Misiu mp (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are much more obvious spandex-wearing situations than that funny guy shown here wearing it as a casual wear, I think the page about spandex should contain an example of people wearing it in some of these obvious sits like a bike riding, or a wrestling, or a ballet... or you name it.
Not to mention that black oily butt!
Come on people, who wants those kinds of pics on an encyclopedia, anyways? I now these are some examples of the application, but, please, not everyone wearing spandex are freaks! --91.148.84.75 (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the leggings guy, and I have a butt to suggest.
I'm going to remove the entire In popular culture section. It has been tagged for triviality, irrelevance, and lack of sources for more than a year with no sign of improvement in that time. The information in that section obviously is entertaining to the individuals who added it, but it adds nothing to a general reader's understanding of spandex and its uses.--Jim10701 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:UnJeansLeggings.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]
An image used in this article, File:UnJeansLeggings.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
The image on the left was the lede photograph in the article until a few days ago. I removed it because the black leggings are too dark to see the spandex properly, and because it does not represent very well the most widely used applications of spandex -- very few men were spandex leggings as casual wear, compared to the widespread use of the material for sportswear, woman's clothing etc. I replaced the photo with another from within the article which I think is more representative, but an IP editor has been reverting my changes.
...which I replaced with this.
I'm bringing the question here as to which photo more accurately represents spandex as a subject, and is therefore the best photo to have in the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to go with the Barboza image. a_man_alone (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the image - UnJeansLeggings.jpg - this image has been the lead image for the spandex article for years until very recently being deleted. The black leggings depicted in the photo actually contain Lycra® spandex fiber. I state this with total certainty as I am the creator of the image and the person wearing the leggings. Yes, women AND men do wear these spandex leggings around the globe, as casual wear and for active wear. Regarding the Barboza image - do you know that the shorts being worn contain any spandex fiber? It might be that they are made from 100% polyester and have no spandex at all. Unless you have documentation from the creator of the image verifying the spandex fiber content of the article of clothing worn you are making an assumption that may not be true. I have not deleted the Barboza image and I ask that you not continue to delete the UnJeansLeggings.jpg image. I will return the UnJeansLeggings.jpg image to page yet again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.213.90 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an image is in situ for a period of time does not mean that it belongs, should stay, or is even accurate for the article. The nature of Wikipedia is change - backed up by reasonable discourse.
I accept that you have put forward some arguments, however I can put the same forward: Your commentary that the image contains spandex is not actually proof - you are not a reliable source, "because I said so" is not a reliable source. The main reason for changing the images is put forward by BmK above - the sportswear image is both more appropriate given the common usage of spandex in sports, when compared to the number of men who wear spandex as casual clothing.
I suppose there could be a place for the image elsewhere in the article, but you'd have to convince me (and other editors) that there was such a place. Remember - the onus is on the contributing editor to justify the inclusion, not the removing editor to justify the exclusion. a_man_alone (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the leggings picture to the body of the article, so people can see what they think about it in that place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to resolve this issue, I have introduced a new image as the lead image-- one of people in morphsuitss. I hope this resolves the (8-month-old) dispute. Cheers, 173.170.255.211 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was resolved long ago, and the image you added is extremely unlikely to be a free one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, an editor is edit-warring in an attempt to keep the above left photo in the article - I suspect that the effort is coming from either the photographer or the man in the picture, using an IP. I removed the image because we now have the photo on the right to show spandex leggings. It is superior to the photo above in showing the leggings more clearly (one can barely tell in the photo with the man that the garment he is wearing is spandex), and we don't need both images.
I solicit opinions from other editors. BMK (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In December 2011 this issue of having the photo of me wearing Spandex leggings as the lead photo of the article arose with the deletion of my image and the replacement image of the woman volleyball player, Barboza, allegedly wearing Spandex. What I believed to be a settled issue over two years ago, kept the image of me wearing the Spandex leggings but not as the lead photo but in the body of the post about Spandex. A photo of a woman wearing leggings was posted later. The feelings of BMK that the photo of the woman wearing leggings is somehow a “better” representation or somehow shows Spandex content better is just not true. Since Spandex is not worn on its own, but is a portion of a blended fiber, one does not “see” the Spandex but sees the resulting mixture of fibers. The quote from Wikipedia’s Spandex post states: “For clothing, spandex is usually mixed with cotton or polyester, and accounts for a small percentage of the final fabric, which therefore retains most of the look and feel of the other fibers.”
I will attest to the content of the leggings that I am wearing in the photo as containing 14% LYCRA® Spandex and 86% Supplex® nylon and am willing to mail to an independent arbiter, the fabric content tag from the leggings. I am not sure you could get an equal response from the various other people depicted in the photographs on the page as to the spandex content of their clothing.
The two photographs, me in leggings, and a woman in leggings, have appeared together on the Wikipedia page for quite some time, and are equally appropriate and distinct in their own right and deserve to continue to be displayed on the page, neither being “superior” to the other. Please stop deleting the photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.215.37 (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is just no doubt that the other picture is a better representaton. You do not have a right to have your picture in WIkipedia, no matter how much you want your ego to be stroked. Decisions on this matters are made by consensus of the independent editors involved, who are concerned about the make up and layout of the article, and not interested in your self-regard. That's number one. Number two is that you are edit-warring to include the photograph, which is not allowed. The next time you delete it, I will report you to the edit-warring noticeboard. Please read WP:BRD - the proper cycle is not to continue to revert, but to discuss. You made a good step in stating your (not very convincing) argument here, now we wait to see what other editors have to say, and meanwhile, per BPD, the article stays in the status quo ante.
YOu're just going to have to get your jollies about seeing yourself in leggings somewhere else, because we now have a much better image than yours. BMK (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
both pictures are equally bad at showing off leggings, since both have terrible resolution and black colored leggings. a close-up of just the leggings would be better (and less egostroke-y)217.112.242.159 (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Invented? Shouldn't it say discovered? or developed?
We don't invent electricity, or chemicals... We discover them. Or, in some cases, we "conceive" them... but we don't just "invent" them. I believe the term is incorrect and deserve some thoughts. "discovered", "conceived", "developed", or even "created" sounds much more correct to me, but certainly not "invented"...
I believe in this case "developed" is the best term to use. An experienced chemist would be welcome to put some thoughts in this.
developed is usually the word we used in academia to signify novel materials or compounds synthesised to meet a predetermined structure or functionEggilicious (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Invented" is fine, but "developed" works as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly do invent chemicals. Many of the millions of chemicals in existence today were never produced in nature. They weren't there to be discovered...they are man-made. "Developed" refers to the process of improving, expanding the uses and knowledge of the material and so on. Invention comes first then development, and development can be a long process involving many people over a long period. "Conceived" is not correct. I can conceive of many new chemicals, but I may never be able to actually make them. Also "create" does not work in this case, unless you say "created for the first time".Silverchemist (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I heard somewhere the spandex would cause damage the skin if exposed to enough heat, burning quickly or melting. Can anyone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.49.161 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain that any material melting or burning on the skin will cause damage to it... Spandex isn't alone in that respect! Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Spandex is a registered trade mark and that elastane is the generic name for all elastic polyurethane fibres produced by different companies. 217.36.18.129 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? BMK (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP's point is that it doesn't say that in our article, and it should. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept out of the discussion regarding intepretation of the MOS over at Hit the Deck (1955 film) regarding the insertion (or removal) of the term "Notes" within a References field - and while you're quite correct to point out that there is no preferred style of usage, that works both ways - while there's no reason not to include the term - the MOS makes no statement that it can or should be included either.
It seems highly inappropriate to try and insert the term into other articles when you have already generated controversy by trying to force it on an article already.
MOS does not specific a single preferred format for this section, so there are no grounds for removing. Please do not edit war, and leave the article in the state it was in before this was removed. It's been in there for years. BMK (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chemist C. L. Sandquist has been removed as inventor, because he was added in June 2011 by a Sandquist family member, with no source cited at that time. An internet search turns up no sign of his name in connection with spandex prior to 2011. All listings of Sandquist as inventor appear to have come from this Wikipedia entry. Existing book and industry sources all cite only DuPont chemist Joseph Shivers. Sandquist may be a PhD chemist who worked at DuPont, but Wikipedia needs a legitimate reference to him as a co-inventor. U.S.Patent 3,023,192, "Segmented copolyetherester elastomers" filed May 29, 1958, issued Feb 27, 1962 lists Shivers as the sole inventor. --Blainster (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beyond My Ken. I wonder if you could provide a rationale for your edit returning the registered trade name "Lycra" to the lead alongside the generic names Elastane and Spandex. It doesn't belong there. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misconstrue the list of name - it's not generics, it's the most common names that people would know the material by. BMK (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By your reasoning, shouldn't we have the others in there as well then, you know, Elaspan Invista, Acepora, Creora, INVIYA, ROICA, Dorlastan, etc etc etc? (signature is not date accurate. ) -Roxy the dog.bark 16:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the most common names. BMK (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do when the names are all wrong, as in this case? The fabrics we are naming "Spandex" aren't actually made from Spandex? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. BMK (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take for example, the volleyball player with the shorts. They aren't made of Spandex, they are rather fetching, but not spandex. What should we do? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the silly twit in the leggings that used to have a photo on this page for a while, they aren't made of spandex either. - Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that these garments aren't made of Spandex? What are they made of? BMK (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know because I am an expert !!!! No, really, I am, but I have to go out now. I shall return. There is no time limit on this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In all likelihood, those shorts are something like 90% cotton, 10% elastane, as will be the top she is wearing. All the other examples on the page will be similar in terms of elastane content, with another fibre - most likely cotton in the examples we see on the page, but all with a relatively low elastane content. The magic of elastane is of course its astonishing rubber like properties of recovery from stretch, so useful in the sportswear garments, and what makes so many of these elastane containing garments so comfortable.
If I may suggest a Wiki Experiment™, you could ask User:Beyond Mrs Ken? to come and stand by your computer for a moment, and remove her outer garments, while remaining standing there. (Offer to help if you want). Examine the content labels on the garments that are on the floor and you will find that none of them are 100% elastane, but it is possible that there is a small elastane content in any of them. Would you call them "Spandex" garments? No. Now examine (closely) the remaining garments she is still wearing (Remember, this is important™ - tell her so when doing this) and they will most likely have an elastane content similar to that mentioned above, ie, less than 10%.
The point™? Is Mrs Ken's underwear correctly labelled "Spandex" or not? My bottom line point here is than Mrs Ken isn't wearing "spandex" underwear at all, it wouldn't function as required, and none of the other garments we label as "spandex" in our article are actually "spandex" either. They do contain a proportion of "spandex" though. It rankles with me. Oh, WP:OR, don't really know. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, absolutely and completely WP:OR. Since you're an expert, it should be easy enough for you to dig up some sources to make your point. BMK (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Nothing is "beyond" Mrs. Ken. :} BMK (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR - I had that feeling. I suppose I'd better get up in the attic and blow the dust off some old books. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article incorrectly states that Spandex was "invented in 1958 by chemist Joseph Shivers at DuPont's Benger Laboratory in Waynesboro, Virginia". Next the line "The name "spandex" is an anagram of the word "expands"" Yeah, but that is one of the two reasons, the other of which is the prefix SPAN - which comes from the name Spanjian. The Spanjians were an Armenian family of expert knitters, which is why Dupont asked for their help in inventing Spandex using their stretchy fabric called "Fiber K". Thus, just because someone got a patent on something, it does not mean they 'invented' it. This information will need to be incorporated here. Read about this in this article under the section "expanding a legacy of excellence":
http://dondiegoscholarship.org/don-diego-honors-founder-by-establishing-spanjian-family-scholarship/
For future reference the text of the relevant passage is:
"It is no stretch to say that Spanjian’s penchant for visionary innovation began as a young adult when he and his brother, Richard, entered their parents’ fabric design business after their father suffered a heart attack in 1946.
Knowing the Spanjians excelled in knitting, DuPont approached the family-owned Chicago business in 1955 with a stretchy piece of fabric dubbed Fiber K, seeking help in development. The Spanjians developed what became an iconic material now worn ubiquitously throughout the sports world, inventing machinery to process the revolutionary apparel. In appreciation, DuPont named the fabric in their honor. Thus, Spandex – which also is an anagram of the word “expands” – was born. It continues to reign supreme under many labels.
Based on Spandex, Spanjian Sportswear became a leader in its field, producing uniforms for hundreds of college and professional teams, including the Chicago Bears and San Diego Chargers. The brothers eventually moved Spanjian Sportswear to San Marcos, and Robert Spanjian and his wife, Betty, raised a family in Rancho Santa Fe. They sold the company in 1985." 2602:306:3077:A580:C1EB:C1A:A24D:E559 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear what you are trying to say above, but the source doesn't support the idea that this family had anything to do with the invention and manufacture of Spandex. -Roxy the dog.bark 23:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are incapable of making sense of what you read, then what are you doing on wikipedia? Exactly what part of what you read, assuming you can read, didn't you understand? The part where it says "The Spanjians developed what became an iconic material now worn ubiquitously throughout the sports world, inventing machinery to process the revolutionary apparel" - perhaps? Or maybe the part where it says "In appreciation, DuPont named the fabric in their honor" - perhaps? Can you clarify your POV? 2602:306:3077:A580:C1EB:C1A:A24D:E559 (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My POV is that of somebody wanting to improve the encyclopedia by presenting information from reliable sources from a mainstream scientific viewpoint, ensuring that the sort of nonsense you present as fact is never able to appear on the project. -Roxy the dog.bark 06:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you provided is not a reliable source, you need to provide a high quality source, then people will pay attention to your claim. Also, don't expect to get a lot of help as long as you maintain the kind of combative attitude your last comment showed. Flies, honey, vinegar, and all that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you seem to believe that the properties of spandex have to do with knitting, but that is not the case. Its properties come from the qualities of the long-chain polymers it is made of. That is why the inventor is a chemist, and it is extremely unlikely that its inventor was a family of knitters -- although they may well have contributed to the way the spandex fibers are used to created cloth that is turned into clothing. In any case, you need a much better source for the claim that spandex was invented by someone aside from Shivers and his team, given the references that I have added to the article from authoritative sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Contrary to what you may believe, in fact spandex has everything to do with knitting. Spandex is not a chemical, nor a synthetic material, it is a knit fabric, which comes about using that synthetic material through a specific knitting process. And if you read what I posted earlier, it makes that very clear. Yes, Shivers (or his team under his guidance at DuPont) invented the synthetic material which the article states is "Fiber K". But that does not mean that is what 'Spandex' aka Lycra, aka a few other names, is. Also, this means that the sources given in this article, especially the one with the patent info on Shivers, is incorrect as well. No where in the patent is "spandex" mentioned, nor "elastane" or "lycra" or others that I can see. Maybe the material which is being referred to as "Fiber K".
Regarding your charge of the article in question not being a 'reliable source' - I also disagree, although I contend it is not a very strong one perhaps. Then again, I wouldn't consider the sources given in the article as particularly "strong sources" either. When a person dies and leaves a legacy, it is quite unlikely the family goes on a misinformation campaign to the tune of making outlandish claims such as "DuPont named the fabric after our family" - and then gets it published somewhere. As this is still a work in progress, I do plan on obtaining a few other sources as well so that contributions by the Spanjian family wouldn't be from a single source. That is the reason I haven't edited yet, but at some point the information on spandex will need to be adjusted. If everybody else will insist "Shivers invented Spandex" then at the very least there needs to be a section about a disputed discovery. As I suggested earlier, even if Shivers had patented Spandex the fabric, it does not mean he "invented" it. You could patent someone else's invention.
Regarding your charge of a "combative attitude". First I presented some information to see if any feedback or suggestions would be forthcoming THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTIVE. That information was quite clear and far from being a "far fetched idea". In fact I quoted the relevant passage directly from the article. Along comes a dog claiming "It isn't clear what you are trying to say above...blah blah". Is that in your opinion a friendly, welcoming attitude? Or is it perhaps a combative, unproductive waste of time?
Regarding sources that would be deemed "credible". A patent source in this article (citation 2) is being used: https://www.google.com/patents/US3023192 - As mentioned, this is about a synthetic material, as it does not mention "spandex". By this same token a similar source can be used: https://www.google.com/patents/US20110126341 - In this file spandex is discussed as well as the Spanjian family and the relevant passage in this one is:
"Elastane... is a polyurethane-polyurea copolymer that was invented in 1959 by chemist Joseph Shivers at DuPont's Benger Laboratory in Waynesboro, Va. The material was patented by the Spanjian brothers—Robert and Richard—and was further used in their company, Spanjian Sportwear. When first introduced, it revolutionized many areas of the clothing industry. The product name “Spandex” was given to the Spanjian family after DuPont recognized their contributions. “Spandex” is the preferred name in North America; in many European countries it is referred to as “elastane”."
Neither of the two sources that have been found thus far dispute or contradict any contribution by Shivers, in fact they help to explain the development of Spandex a lot more accurately. 2602:306:3077:A580:B51F:8C98:C5F5:6643 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they don't, and your sources are neither reliable nor authoritative. Your story sounds apocryphal, an urban legend explanation for what already has a well-documented conventional explanation, backed up by a US Patent and numerous authoritative sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BMK 100%. The Spanjians are a tiny footnote in a side story of knitting that would be undue in this article. They had nothing to do with the invention of Spandex. Please stop this nonsense.-Roxy the dog.bark 07:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they DO, and your sources are neither reliable nor authoritative either. Apart from the one source which is a patent, and which consequently does not even MENTION Spandex, the cited sources are journalistic and based on claims, not necessarily reliable information based on real research. And if you used a published source from the patent office that means the same source on other publication dates can be used also to verify the point I made initially (see above). In fact, I'm now convinced that Spandex being an anagram is besides the point. Zero proof that someone at Dupont sat down and strategically named Spandex out of Expands. And to claim that this is where the name comes from is untenable given the sources that exist. It still stands that the Spanjian family obituary is a real source and in fact a lot more reliable. No one would make up such "lies" (essentially your claim) which would be outrageous if not true, especially a family who owned a prominent business based on the name and were (according to my research thus far) the first to use Spandex in sportswear. If this point is also confirmed, it would also be significant. Your counter-arguments are not convincing therefore, and I will make the appropriate changes at some point, as time permits. Since your responses are insincere, further dialogue with you and your chihuahua is fruitless, I will consider input from other users if they are interested in input. For now, this information that I presented will stand, and at some point will need to be addressed appropriately.2602:306:3077:A580:CCA6:F431:B542:B0C (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not this crap again. Look, Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, and the consensus here is that your theory is fringe and your references are not WP:reliable sources. That ends the matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only crap here is your logic. An unreasonable hard-head and a non-native English speaker who would be better off editing his own country's wikipedia, do not constitute a "consensus". As I stated, it still stands that one reliable source being used from the patent office, and the same patent office source I pointed out on a different date, corroborates that Spandex is named for the Spanjians, and this can be used as a SOURCE whether you like it or not, or whether you presonally believe it to be true or not. And if you get a dozen people to agree with you, your personal "consensus" would still be wrong for violating wikipedia standards. The same source cannot be selective, deal with it.2602:306:3077:A580:2DA9:8738:C3D1:AF3A (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know who the hard head is and who the non-native english speaker is. Other than that, I think you should read WP:NPA and stop trying to insert total nonsense into this article, cos its total bollocks. PS, I just read the chihuahua comment. -Roxy the dog.bark 19:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd like to know who is who as well!I'm going to suggest that if this person posts here again with this claim, it just be deleted as disruptive. He's got no sources, and it's clearly a FRINGE claim, so there's no reason we need to give him the time of day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm hoping to get into the attic tonight. (see last entry in section above;) -Roxy the dog.bark 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 6 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carlieng97.
It would be interesting to know more about the chemistry, what are the typical monomer sizes, what are the reaction conditions, reactions formulas, polymer molecular structure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is pointed out that it is usually (always?) mixed with other fibres. Typically it is as little as 5%, which suggests that it needs to be blended with the other fibres in some special way in order to have such a large impact on the mechanical properties. How is this done? Are the other fibres spun in a helix around a spandex core fibre?150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always is correct. Spandex or elastane of all makes is never used on its own in garments, but is always blended or mixed with other fibres. I doubt that you will ever find elastanes used in garments at a higher level than (picking a number at random, based solely on OR) fifteen to twenty per cent. See Spinning (textiles) and perhaps Blending (textiles). Oh dear. -Roxy the dog.barcus 09:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)-Roxy the dog.barcus 09:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student at West Chester University and I was assigned to edit the Spandex article. I will be adding a "History" and "Fashion" section. I will also be editing the "Major Spandex Uses" section. I just wanted to give fellow editors a heads ups if you see any significant changes.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlieng97 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the unnecessary sections which presented a biography & awards of the inventor -- that's not relevant to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not discuss laundry requirements. I see a reference to the fiber being suitable for high temperatures, but on laundry care labels I see that garments should be washed at low temperatures as delicates. Can someone in the know add a small section that explains this conundrum? Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A section on the physical properties of the material would be beneficial, and could include the maximum temperature it can be laundered at without causing harm. FreeFlow99 (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brunton, I appreciate your observations and suggestions in different instances. I have added more references on Spandex to make it verifiable. For your kind information, Pressure comfort is related to stretch and recovery. Stretch is a property of Spandex. Henceforth look for stretch or elasticity (which is a fundamental property of spandex yarn). Spandex is highly extensible by the application of an external force. And Lycra is merely a trademark of the Spandex. Still having doubts, i am open to discussion. Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As stretch is not solely governed by elastane content, I have reverted you too. (Please also note that Lycra is not a trademark of (the) Spandex, it is a TM of an elastane, just like Spandex.) -Roxy the inedible dog .wooF 09:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To include this section in this article you need a source that specifically says that Spandex (or one of the other terms used for it) is linked to pressure comfort. See WP:OR, and specifically WP:SYN. At the moment you have sources for the middle part of the section you added, but not for the opening and closing sentences that actually mention Spandex. The middle bit is not appropriate to this article without the unsupported sections. Brunton (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respected Admins, One is trying to defend/justify another's action WP: QUACK. Their only intention is to revert my edits only. Kindly see the history of how efficiently they are policing me. Please intervene and resolve. Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brunton You can find every answer here[1].Roxy the dog Without spandex the stretch in clothes is minimal for clothes with good stretch and recovery spandex is the solely required component.WP:SKYISBLUE. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy, your only goal is to revert my edits. This is your edit summary with your first revert. Stretch is not a property governed solely by elastane in fabric. You change your ed summary now . why? RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are provoking me with abusive language. It would help if you had some lesson on stretch and recovery. Stay calmWP:Bullying. Tell me what made you change your ed summary now. Were not you awake when editing first? Or you were just helping your friend WP:QUACK...RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? You are not making any sense. I have not changed any edsum. I don't know how, in fact I dont think it possible. Is it that you are having difficulty understanding English? WP:CIR also applies to competence in English too. -Roxy the inedible dog .wooF 13:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until now your friend was looking Lycra in the reference pages and you were doubting the property of spandex. And unable to understand Pressure comfort of four lines. TELL ME WHO HAS POOR COMPETENCE ME OR YOU? STOP HARPING THIS.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me? (Rajiv, What I am asking here is not to you, it is to anybody else reading this) -Roxy the inedible dog .wooF 13:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly you are not alone; it is visible in the edit history. Secondly, you are making things personal again. Lastly, you are trying to justify everything you do. You can not keep the readers away from well-sourced, verifiable content. I am ready to face another block; you are planting.WP:OWNRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rajiv, assuming that by “your friend” you mean me, what gives you the idea that I was just looking for “Lycra”? My edit summary clearly said that “as far as I can see none of the three pages cited mentions Spandex, Lycra or elastane.” Brunton (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RAJIVVASUDEV, page 155 of Biomechanical Engineering of Textiles and Clothing, which you cite above, is about the use of Spandex in pressure garments for the treatment of burn scars, not about pressure comfort, so while it is information that might be useful elsewhere in the article it is not relevant here. You need to take more care when reading the sources you cite, and to make sure they actually support the text. Brunton (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brunton You are a sensible person. I wonder you still have doubts!! best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rajiv, the source you cited does not say what you imply it says, and this sort of thing has happened repeatedly. That is why I have doubts. Brunton (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^D X-Q Dai, Yan Li (2006). Biomechanical Engineering of Textiles and Clothing. Elsevier Science. p. 155. ISBN9781845691486.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 6 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carlieng97.