Author Topic: Two new Knots?  (Read 5393 times)


  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Two new Knots?
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2012, 08:09:10 PM »
   Yes, your pics show the alternative version I came up earlier which is easier to undo...Question is, is it an existing knot or a new one?

  Actually the alternative versions of the Easy Bend, where the tails are crossed ( X ) before they exit the knot s nub, are two, not one - depending upon the initial relative orientation of the two bights at the start of the tying procedure you show :
   A. the left side and the right side bights are mirror-symmetric.
   B. the left side and the right side bights are point-symmetric

   (See the pictures at the previous post).
   They are different, and because they are so simple knots, this difference is significant. I do not know which is "safer", or which can be untied more easily.

   To my view, the question about a knot being "new" or not, is of a secondary importance - if it is of any importance whatsoever. The important thing is the quality of this knot, and the lessons this particular knot can teach us about other similar knots, and about knots in general. Personally, I do not even call the simple asymmetric bends as "bends", but as "hitches" of a rope around a flexible, rope-made ring or hook. However, in the case of the "Easy Bend" series of knots, where the one link is an overhand knot, the other link is a quite convoluted segment of rope, that can not be considered as part of a flexible ring or hook - so I guess we should call them "bends".
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 08:12:21 PM by X1 »


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Two new Knots?
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2012, 11:52:57 PM »
   With asymmetric bends, like this one, you never know which link is the weak one
--i.e, which will slip or will break before the other-- ( which might not matter ),
or if the weaker link is a lot weaker than the other ( which matters a lot ! ).

Why don't/can't we know?

(The asymmetry in form has, as a consequence, an asymmetry in the distribution
of the forces within the knot s nub, which, by its turn, might result at one link
being a lot weaker than the other).  And that is true even for the simplest,
more used and known asymmetric bend, the Sheet bend.

Which we have yet to learn anything about this presumed
behavior bias, despite the knot being centuries old!  (What
does that tell you?!)

Another reason is that the lack of symmetry makes those knots hard to inspect
--a wrongly tied symmetric knot ( where the one link is tied wrongly around the other)
will manifest the mistake at once, while this will not happen to an wrongly tied asymmetric knot.

This is utter rubbish : it can be much easier to determine
the correctness of an asymmetric knot than many of the
moderately complex symmetric ones --sheet-bend-like ones
e.g. have one part (this is my "-like"ness) as the simple "U",
a bight, and need only recognition of whether the joining
end has been correctly reeved; whereas I believe that I can
tie an incorrect fig.8 eyeknot (with one *half* an overhand
and pass it off as the Real McCoy to those rockclimbers who
praise it for being so easily checkable!

From the two variations of this thread, I prefer the second one
--where the tails leave the last bight and exit the knot pointing to opposite directions.

You are, then, way ahead of me, here,
who cannot make any sense of the OP's "where the bight on the
left is towards you instead of away from you ..."
: huh --the bight
is left-to-right evenly distant from the viewer in the perpendicular plane
of the image!

I can understand your confusion Dan as I took the pics from above with my mobile phone mounted on a Manfrotto Magic Arm...Its actually very simple...The top of the pics is away from you and the bottom is towards you...Now it should make sense.
If you turn the bight of the rope of the left so that the working end is under the left rope, instead of over it as shown in the pics then you get the second implentation of the easy bend (the one that is easier to undo).