Secret of Ribbon Curling Revealed

For tightly coiled ribbons, pull the scissors slowly

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A little Valentine's Day tip: if you want to curl ribbons using a pair of scissors, researchers say the secret is to be firm but slow. Conventional wisdom supposes that a quick scrape of the blade makes for tight curls, but slowing things down seems to give the ribbon more time to adjust to its new, curly state, says physicist Buddhapriya Chakrabarti of Harvard University, part of a team that tested different curling methods.

"I wanted to test whether the common belief is actually correct," says Chakrabarti, who started by putting scissors to ribbon but quickly found he needed a more systematic approach. So he gathered together some colleagues and enlisted an undergraduate student, Anna Klales of Haverford College in Pennsylvania, to assemble a motorized curling device. They attached thick plastic ribbons (similar to the plastic used for transparencies) to the motor and draped them over a metal rod. They stretched the ribbons taut by hanging a weight from the free end and used the motor to pull them across the rod.

The popular belief is that pulling faster and with more pressure yields tighter loops, Chakrabarti says, but their experiments proved that "if you hold the tension constant and if you make it go slower, it curls even more." More pressure, in the form of heavier weights, did not tighten the curls, he adds. The researchers found that the pressure only had to exceed a certain threshold, which they are set to report in March at the annual conference of the American Physical Society in Denver.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Chakrabarti says the ribbon curls because its outer layer stretches and, therefore, expands, more than the inner layer that is pressed against the rod or scissors. "Even when you're doing it with a pair of scissors, it's not absolutely flat—you're not pulling it flat," he says. Putting the ribbon on a table, for example, and rubbing the scissors across it does not work very well, he says. (Not to mention the possibility of damaging the table.)

The ribbon must also be taut, Chakrabarti points out, possibly so the molecules in the plastic get pulled apart. He notes that whatever the microscopic details are, pulling slower allows the plastic to relax into a curly state, because it cannot easily snap back into its old, flat one. Do not try the scissors method on satin strands, he says, because it will not work. The reason: stretching does not break the material down in the same way, because satin is woven and not a continuous sheet.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe