International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: uphoffapuppyachowski on June 14, 2008, 01:14:57 AM

Title: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: uphoffapuppyachowski on June 14, 2008, 01:14:57 AM
Trying to learn a nice double loop. Perhaps to step into & use as a chair or seat. At animated knots by grog: followed well untill last step. I can finish the knot by deviating from animation. dresses up pretty well but..?? someone please help me find instruction. http:/www.animatedknots.com/index.php catagory; sar [search and rescue.]
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: turks head 54 on June 14, 2008, 10:28:10 PM
Trying to learn a nice double loop.
What do you mean by nice double loop? A strong double loop? On that's easy to tie? One that comes unitied easily?

Here is a list of pages that have information on these knots
http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/KnotPhoto%20DoubleLoop%20Knots.html#Best%20Knot
http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/KnotPhoto%20DoubleLoop%20Knots.html#Spanish%20Bowline
http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/KnotPhoto%20DoubleLoop%20Knots.html#Cross%20Over%20Knot
http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/KnotPhoto%20DoubleLoop%20Knots.html#Bowline%20on%20the%20Bight

Updated Link > www.pssurvival.com/PS/Knots/Knot_Knowledge_Photo_Illustrations_2004.pdf (http://www.pssurvival.com/PS/Knots/Knot_Knowledge_Photo_Illustrations_2004.pdf)

Hope It helps
turks head 54
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: uphoffapuppyachowski on June 15, 2008, 05:35:39 AM
Reply to Turks Head..Well I guess by "nice double loop" an easy fast knot at the end of rope to secure myself when venturing onto first  ice,from shore. I picked the wrong knot. This double loop figure eight is to be tied in the middle of the line. Thinking I will just use a "bowline on bight "like I was taught in fire service. But I will have some fun checking out your suggestions. [ Retired firefighter,knotting for nostalgia.]           Thanks T-Head   
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 15, 2008, 05:22:23 PM
Fascinating user_name, uphoffapuppyachowski !  ;D

I'm quite puzzled at what could possibly puzzle you about Grog's presentation
of the twin-eye Fig.8 loopknot?  --because his presentation of the finishing steps
is to my eye most carefully done.  (OTOH, I much dislike his specious dressing of
the set of Fig.8 knots--such flattly adjacent parts will not endure tension!)  I.p.,
his slow-motion showing of the maneuvre I like to call "the back-flip" is great.

You follow-up by saying that the knot you desire is to be tied in the middle of the line:
what exactly are the circumstances, and i.p. how will this knot be loaded (loading profile)
--by the eyes and both ends simultaneously, or alternately?  (The knots that you and
Turkshead cite are all presented as being "TIB" ("tied in the bight" = sans ends); but none
of them works well if loaded on both ends simultaneously.)  Again, how do you see your
particular use loading this knot?

Now, there are other ways to form two eyes in a knot and meet different loading demands,
but I'm skeptical at my ability to present them verbally (esp. if you have trouble following
Grog's clear images!?).

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: uphoffapuppyachowski on June 23, 2008, 05:57:36 AM
In reply to Dan Lehman SR Member...  The last step in Grog's presentation just doesn't grab my eye correctly.  It looked to me the last move securing knot was a loop being moved into one position and then back to the previous position, which would do nothing but leave one at the next to last move.  I've since tied the knot by using the back flip to pass to the rear or around the whole shebang, leading to a compact, eye-pleasing knot.  Speaking of the middle orTIB of line, that was not my intention.  I desire a harness type arrangement at the end of the line.  (To self-rescue from breaking through the ice, with line secured at shore.)  I would think both ends of loop would be simultaneously loaded.  I've messed around with loading characteristics and it seems one can run into problems if finished knot if severly loaded on one loop.  I think one could find good instruction by following mountaineering, technical  crevass... self rescue.  Incorporating a large jamming device (ascender) that would work in cold icy conditions. 
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: SS369 on June 23, 2008, 11:08:11 PM
Hello uphoffapuppyachowski,

Take a gander at the topic here called "Unnamed double loop knot"

(http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=846.0)

and see if with perhaps some addition this could work for you.
The loops do not slide once set and dressed in relation to each other.
I have used it as a temporary sit harness with the addition of an upper body loop (your choice) and at that point you will have to unify the working and standing parts to the load.
Scott
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 24, 2008, 05:01:38 PM
I desire a harness type arrangement at the end of the line.  (To self-rescue from breaking through the ice, with line secured at shore.)

Ha!  I can imagine that the knot to be tied if one met with the extremely unfortunate
condition of breaking through ice would be the fastest loopknot one knows, to serve
as a footstep to hoisting oneself out of the death trap--if one could at all function, even!
(I had the opportunity recently to see some bozo on a survivor show pretending to
be encountering the harshness of Siberia actually strip down and tie who-knows-what
(it seemed to involve a series of Overhands, to make some around-belly eye), and
actually jump INTO a frozen lake, eventually (after giving some smarmy oratory) to
swim a short distance and poke up under thinner ice, was it?  And he looked rather
casual about the whole deal, which to my mind smelled a fraud.  Water near freezing
doesn't give one that sort of countenance!  He raised himself out seemingly easily.
(And got warmed by what looked a mighty docile & small fire, conveniently nearby.)

In short, I don't fancy having to try to arrange for a harness and some rope-ascension
method in such icey conditions.

 ;)
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DerekSmith on June 24, 2008, 08:12:22 PM
Hi uphoffapuppyachowski

The move which is fooling your eye is in actual fact one of the nicest techniques a knot tyer can add to their 'bag' of skills / techniques.  It is almost the perfect way of finishing a knot that has been TIB and leaving the bight end free.

If you look (knowing in advance just what is happening), you will see what is in reality there instead of what your eye wants you to think is there.

You will see in step 5 that the bight end is free to be pulled out of the knot.  Any tension on the loops will pull the bight end right out

(http://www.animatedknots.com/photos/fig8loopdouble/fig8loopdoubleR5.jpg)

The jump from 5 to 6 is the bit that throws you.  The bight has been opened up and passed down behind the fig 8 knot, right past it.  Then in steps 7 and 8 the loop end is then passed back up over the face - the front - of the knot (not back up behind the knot)..  When the bight loop is behind the knot it is empty - when it has passed down , up and back over the fi8 knot, it now contains the two SP lines - you might almost describe it as the PERFECT tie-out because it cannot slip into / through the knot under load or untie through flapping.  Now, any tension on the loops and the bight end loop simply tightens around the two SP's.

By the way, you do NOT have to tie this double loop knot mid line - you can tie it as an end line double loop.  Just double over the end of the line to make a long bight, then tie the knot as per Grogs animated example and you will have a two loop (adjustable) fig 8 with one WE and one SP.  ( BTW, if my life depended on it, I might just consider tying off the end to the SP using a Strangle).

Derek
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 15, 2008, 01:22:07 AM
Hello friends. This is my first post in this forum, though I have read a number of posts in other topics and scanned this one. It seems an appropriate topic to enquire into a knot I have discovered but failed to identify.  It is a very simple end loop (and can, with a little more difficulty, be tied as a mid loop).

To tie it begin by tying a figure 8. Take the running end and pass it back through the same way it came. Once passed around the standing part tuck it into the figure 8, as if you were tying a fig 8 follow-through, but don't complete the last two tucks.

I hope that is explained clearly enough. Perhaps someone might understand it and express it more clearly.

In any case, I have found this to be a very simple, strong, stable, reliable, simple to untie, pretty knot and I have not seen it described anywhere (though I must admit to never having seen a copy of ABOK).

If needed I can send some pictures demonstrating the knot and how to tie it.
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 15, 2008, 07:22:19 AM
See "a copy of ABOK."

 ;)
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DerekSmith on August 15, 2008, 01:25:32 PM
Hi Prajna,

Welcome to the IGKT Forum.

Ashley describes something along the lines you have, in ABoK #1043

He says of it --

"1043. A strong, secure loop that is tied with a bight and may be
put either in the end or in the bight of the rope."


I have attached his sketch below.  Is this your knot?  There is however, a tidier version where the end leaves in line with the two loop legs and I think that perhaps this is your variant.

I would strongly support Dan's suggestion to read the ABoK, but be warned, it is hugely addictive and despite the cost, you will find yourself planning to have your own copy.

Photos of your knot would certainly be appreciated.

DerekSmith
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 15, 2008, 05:37:21 PM
Ashley describes something along the lines you have, in ABoK #1043

He says of it --

"1043. A strong, secure loop that is tied with a bight and may be
put either in the end or in the bight of the rope."


I have attached his sketch below.  Is this your knot?  There is however, a tidier version where the end leaves in line with the two loop legs and I think that perhaps this is your variant.

I would strongly support Dan's suggestion to read the ABoK, but be warned, it is hugely addictive and despite the cost, you will find yourself planning to have your own copy.

Well put--re the variants (which can naturally arise from various ways of "re-weaving"
the Fig.8.  One concern about these knots is ring-loading insecurity--i.e., were the
eye to be pulled open as though the knot was a bend joining its ends.  Another concern
might be with imbalanced loading, if the end-side eye leg can somehow be loaded
in isolation or strong bias, it might pull out (it's like the Thief knot, then).

As for the cost of ABOK, Amazon now says "38 Used & new from $29.99",
and lists their own at $50.  (I've bought a book from the A. Marketplace for 1 cent
(plust $3.99 shipping)--in fine condition.)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 16, 2008, 01:54:18 PM
Thank you very much Dan and Derek. Derek, correct on all counts. That is precisely the knot and the variation is the one I use.  There is no name for it, only an ABOK number? Does Ashley have more to say about it? Delightful as it would be to have ABOK, I travel light and do not acquire things, even something as seemingly indispensable as ABOK.  :)

And Dan, this knot is very rewarding to explore. Logically what you say of its possible weaknesses is correct but I have been unable to demonstrate such flaws with the rope I am using (sadly I am unable to identify it for you except to say it is soft, flexible, woven and made from nylon). If you load the end-side eye leg, even when the knot is not set, it simply seems to set itself.
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DerekSmith on August 16, 2008, 04:20:42 PM
Hi Prajna,

What do you do that requires you to travel so light?  The opposite to most knotters who now could not travel for the clutter they have amassed around themselves.

Have you heard of the pdf version of ABoK, It is quite inexpensive and you can carry it with you on a memory stick.  Of course, you would need a PC to read it with, but you seem to have access to this in order to access this Forum.

Re your knot.  There are two further variants of the knot you describe.  One where the WEnd is passed around the SPart above the knot and one where it is passed so as to be 'within' the knot as shown here.

(http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/f/Prajna%201.jpg)

Which is the form you are proposing and do you have any preference?

I have included the .cyp files for the two variants, you can view these using the FCB utility which can be downloaded from here http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/The+FCB+Cypher (http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/The+FCB+Cypher)

Derek
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 16, 2008, 04:59:58 PM
This is the knot I tie Derek:

fbn fcf gci hce icj ddi ede fdg gdg hde idh jdm kde ldj def eei feg geg hee ieh jep kee lel cfc dfg efg ffh gfh hfe ifl dgk egg fgl ggf ehk fhe ghl

I must say, it was easier to trace the knot in FCB than I expected. :)

I didn't know that ABOK was available as a pdf.  I have always been interested in knots since I learned to tie my shoes :)  I have been sailing since childhood, have worked in theatres on scenery, have been an adventure training instructor and a Royal Engineer. I am sure I could wile away years with a copy of ABOK but I have given up all my possessions to follow a spiritual life - even this computer is borrowed. :)

Actually, I just checked how I dress it and it is a little different to that picture. I will modify the FCB model and post the proper version.

Is the arrow the standing end or running end?
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 16, 2008, 05:33:25 PM
There, I think this is correct:

 fbn fcf gci hce icj edi fdg gdg hde idh jdp kde ldj dei eeg feg geg hee ieh jem kee lel bfc cfe dfg efg ffh gfh hfe ifl dgk egg fgl ggf ehk fhe ghl

The standing end is to the left (with the circle) the free end has an arrow.

I'll attach a picture. Sorry for the poor quality
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DerekSmith on August 16, 2008, 09:48:01 PM
Hi Prajna,

I have modified your diagram slightly to show the alignment of the loop cords as they flow into the knot.  In your picture, the lower loop leg flows right to the back of the knot like this

(http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/f/Buddle%20Knot.jpg)

I have a question though not relating to the knot, but to your use of the end and line symbols.  Why did you use the small loop to denote the SPart and the arrow to denote the WEnd?

Derek
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 16, 2008, 10:15:09 PM
Oh, now I see how the symbols are used.  I selected to circle for the standing part because, intuitively, it feels like the standing part is fixed or pinned. Then I used the line arrows to indicate the way the rope flowed from there to the running end, or free end or working end, whichever terminology you like. :)

Probably I should have read the help file but you know what it is like :)

Just to check: this knot as illustrated is ABOK 1043?

I have enjoyed my foray back into knots and knotting. Thank you for your help and interest. In passing I also picked up a few very nice, new (to me) and useful knots. Thank you.

Namaste
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DerekSmith on August 17, 2008, 08:18:38 AM
Hi Prajna,

Technically, no, it is not ABoK #1043, this is --

(http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/f/ABoK%201043%20FCB.jpg)

Notice the slight difference in alignment of the WEnd.

Your intuitive use of the symbols is interesting.  In an of board discussion, another knotter held the same view as you and we are pondering at the moment as to what symbols to use that are both intuitive and 'conventional'.

You speak as if you are travelling light and moving on again, I hope not, you have brought an interesting knot to the table and as you can see, we are not particularly thick on the ground in here and can do with new perspectives.

Derek
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DerekSmith on August 17, 2008, 12:04:42 PM
By the way,

Take serious heed of Dan's warning about splay leg loading.  If the knot is not dressed and set or particularly if the SPart is not loaded, then forces pulling the legs apart will make the knot fold over itself and effectively end up like this.

(http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/f/ABoK%201043%20FCB%20failure.jpg)

The loop then just slips out leaving an inline '8'.  In slippery 3mm polyester braid, this happens really easily.

Derek
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 17, 2008, 02:44:07 PM
Ahh yes, thank you Derek, I see the difference now. It is rather subtle and is dependant on how the knot is dressed rather than how it is tied particularly. Both seem excellent knots to me.  Is it possible to claim my variation as a new knot or did Ashley already anticipate it? :)

As to the collapse and loop loading issues: it requires that the knot is very loosely tied for the splay leg loading to collapse it. Who would use such a knot without dressing and setting it?  Nor would I use this knot for a purpose where there was a wide splay leg load, rather I would prefer a knot where the legs exited in line with the directions of load.  My use of this knot is as an end loop where the working end needs to be short and tidy - attaching a bow string, for instance, or as interlocked loops or in a packaging application with slipped half-hitches.

A suggestion with regard to the symbols: the SPart is what I am used to thinking of as the 'long end' of the rope and there is, in technical drawing, a convention of using a cut to indicate something long which has been shortened for the purpose of illustration. Perhaps a symbol like -//- would serve well and be intuitive for indicating that.  Then the arrow, or even an unadorned end would be fine for the WEnd. The software could recognise the WEnd by the fact that its tile is only connected on one side. I am not sure what the conventions are in the knotting world but you would know, I'm sure, if such an approach would conflict with them.

I could easily become deeply involved in this fascinating subject and I would be very pleased to help with the valuable work you are doing here but I am wary of diluting my energy with too many interests. I realise from previous experience how easy it is to become engrossed in such an interesting field. My particular emphasis is in teaching meditation and self-realisation and I am careful not to stray too far from that. I will, however, stop in here from time to time and offer what I can.
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DerekSmith on August 17, 2008, 04:55:47 PM
Hi Prajna,

Many years ago I was lucky enough to learn TM and know full well how meditation can change your life.

I often utilise the meditative state to contemplate issues which I cannot 'see' when my mind is cluttered.  I find it particularly valuable to 'float' through the knot as a matrix of forces, twists and levers to attempt to 'get to know' the knot.  It is a slow process and I can still only achieve understanding for the simplest of knots or portions of more complex knots.

If you have the opportunity, consider taking a simple structure 'in' with you and feel?  it.

Good points about the symbols.  There is a consensus starting to condense that the WEnd should be depicted as a simple whipped end, finishing in the  middle of the cell, indicating that it goes no further.  It is interesting that you note the software could distinguish the WEnd because it is connected only on one side - that is exactly how I programmed it, the WEnd is the only cell which has an exit face but no entry face.

Perhaps knots might come to augment your primary goal??

Derek

Derek
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: SS369 on August 17, 2008, 06:56:06 PM
Hi Prajna, Derek,

I think we should start a new forum section called "Transcendental Knotting".
I believe that we all go there at times as we contemplate the the structures and for me while tying some of the more decorative knots.
It's good stuff.
Scott
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 20, 2008, 03:27:28 PM
Oh dear, it seems I have diverted this thread considerably, from the Canadian 8, through ABOK 1043, somehow to meditation.

The aspect of flying through a knot is called contemplation rather than meditation. Contemplation always has an object, meditation has only a subject. That is not to say there is anything wrong with contemplation, as you have noted, it is quite a different state than 'thinking about' a knot. It requires concentration (a very important skill in developing meditation) and observation rather than thinking (also a critical aspect of meditation) but meditation involves no mind activity at all, just still and silent awareness.

Nor does TM involve meditation - the practices taught in TM also involve the mind and it is not possible to achieve 'no mind' (meditation) when mind is being used in the practice. Having said that there are benefits from the practice of TM to. Just be aware that there are many things that are marketed as meditation that are not.

It seems that whatever fields I have worked in a knowledge of knots has always played a part. Soon I will be meeting up with some meditation students whom I have been teaching on the internet.  We will have a weekend meditation retreat out in nature... camping :) What better place to find applications for knots :) An opportunity to put some of my favourite newly acquired knots to work.

My intuition regarding the WEnd in FCB is exactly in accord with you - finishing in the middle of the cell. What do you think of the idea of depicting a cut on the SPart? Then there is not the confusion with the arrows used to indicate a bight and the test for the SPart need only look at the type of tile rather than having to distinguish it by its useage.
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DaveRoot on August 20, 2008, 05:48:08 PM
Derek,

I also "intuitively" felt that the arrow icon was the Working End, and the circle end was the Standing Part.  It would be interesting to see how it looks to depict a cut in the Working End, in addition to the suggestions in the "Another Step Forward" thread.

By the way, just curious why you use multiple arrows in a drawing?  Does that represent something that I'm not "getting"?

Dave
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 20, 2008, 05:52:21 PM
The cut (-//-) was proposed for the SPart, Dave. The suggestion is that the WEnd is represented by a short length of rope finishing before the end of the tile.  The arrows indicate a bight that forms a loop.
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DaveRoot on August 20, 2008, 06:06:00 PM
LOL!  Thanks for pointing that out, I did indeed mean to say that I'd like to see how a "cut" looks in the Standing Part in FCB!   ;D

Concerning a bight that forms a loop, I prefer using a different color.  This makes the loop stand out visually, and for me it's more intuitive than using two arrows.  I realize that FCB currently makes assumptions and calculations based on the colors, but I find it helpful to represent different sections of the knot in different colors.

Now that I think about it, since the diagrams are very "open" by nature (sometimes with lots of apparent bights), there is an advantage to having a standard representation for the loop(s).  Possibly for other common parts of a knot as well.  Hmmm....  Not sure that I would prefer two arrows to represent a loop, since it's not intuitive and the arrow icon already has a meaning, but I could live with it.

Dave
Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: DerekSmith on August 21, 2008, 07:17:59 PM
To All, with apologies to the post author for the hijack.

I hope that everyone is taking FCB as the development of a tool which is 'Work in Progress' as it would potentially deny the future of FCB if we were to think of anything about it as cast in stone. 

So far, through use, thought and discussion the utility had gone through a number of significant jumps in functionality but I am certain there is still so much further for it to go.  Organic, or evolutionary growth like this is often inefficient and frequently restricted by that which has been laid down before, but most folk need something to work with in order to stimulate their imaginations to better things.  And so it has been with FCB.

It started, even before the Windows utility, as a simple pencil and paper system to create a cypher string which could be reliably and easily communicated so that the recipient could faithfully recreate the diagram made by the 'sender'.

The first Windows program attempt was literally a simple 'Paintbox'.  It allowed the user to select a small gif tile and then paint it anywhere in a grid of squares.  The grid squares were 'lettered' and the gif tiles each had a unique letter, so it was a simple process to build the cypher with each placing of a new gif tile. The utility could also work the other way around, in that if you pasted in a cypher string into the cypher box, the utility could paint the right gif tiles into the right squares to recreate the drawing.  It was a cypher creator and decoder first and a drawing utility second.

At that time Frank Brown was using an expensive CAD program to create his knot diagrams.  Very powerful, quite a steep learning curve and priced well out of most peoples range.  However, a couple of additions, like different coloured cords and the ability to move the diagrams around and Frank found that the little utility was in fact far easier and quicker to use than the professional CAD software.  The cypher tool was starting to become a drawing tool and with the addition of Save and Load facilities, the cypher side was almost irrelevant, because it really did not matter how the utility remembered the diagram, all you had to do was 'Load the File'.

The addition of cord colours created a problem with using gif tiles because it meant that for just two colours we would need four gif tiles representing the possible variations of over red, under blue etc and for three cord we were going to have to increase the pallet from just two crossing tiles to eight.  That led to the first big change in the utility, instead of painting a gif into a square, the utility actually drew the cord in the square.  The tile pallet on the left became just an indicator of what would be drawn in the square.

A number of drawing enhancements followed such as the ability to move the drawing around the grid, flip hand, auto load etc. and the utility was progressing to becoming a more usable drawing tool.  It was however, no more than that - it just drew lines and curves in squares.  Apart from a little logic to make sure a crossing used the right under cord colour, it was nothing more than a tool for drawing lines in squares - it knew nothing of the meanings of the tiles or of the knot which was diagrammed.  The fields to enter the knot name, additional information and the Overs Index, were just text fields and held whatever the user typed in them.

When the Overs Index was first created, the biggest criticism of it was that it was simply too complicated for the 'man in the street' to be able to work it out and sure enough, no one was filling in the OI for knots diagrams they were creating.  To give the utility the power to calculate the OI itself, it needed two things - first was a 'map' for every tile which declared which face was connected to which and the second was to know where to 'Start'.  This was easy because the WEnd tiles were the only ones to have only one connected face. 

So I put together a function which waited until a WEnd tile had been painted, then it started to trace out the cord, moving out the 'out' face into the neighbouring 'in' face, through the neighbour and out its 'out' face using the tile map to guide the progress.  The colour of the tile was completely ignored in favour of following legitimate face connections.  This continued until the function met a cell with no content when it stopped.  I then had the complete path of the cord and could use it to identify all the crossings in sequence (later to be called the Binary Index).  I could then apply the rules to count the overs index and post the result automatically into the Overs Index field.

Version 4.2 was a big step forward because it built in the facility to take the Binary Signature and use it to look up that signature in the Knot Library Wiki.  However, these tools seem to be a bit ahead of their time, because today all the comments seem to be focused on the utility purely as a drawing tool with requests for drag, drop, copy, paste, undo, zoom, etc. and the shape and use of the various tile images.  This is clearly where the next development work should be concentrated.

There is a growing consensus that the WEnd would be more understandably depicted as an end which has only one face connection and should probably be depicted as a stump end inside the cell.

The use of arrows is much less clearly resolved.

It was used in early versions to indicate the rope continuing to the SPart, it might also be taken to indicate the direction of the load.  Later, it was also used to indicate the long arms of a large loop ( as distinct from a small bight equivalent to a TIB WEnd).  The loop arrows were shown pointing into the knot to distinguish loop ends from the SPart, but perhaps they should be used pointing out of the knot to follow the implication that they indicate the load direction and then close the two lines to show this to be a connected loop rather than two unconnected lines.  As far as analysing the knot is concerned, the arrows are no different to simple straight lines, they just connect one face with another and can be used anywhere to indicate flow, force, continuation etc. whatever the user wants.

Apart from indicating loop legs, do we need an arrow at all?  The SPart can simply be indicated as a full line and if the knot does not have an SPart, then it can be indicated using a WEnd on both ends??  I feel that we need some symbol to indicate 'and the rest of the rope' be it an arrow, a cut line or a line with ellipsis, but then this could be used anywhere to indicate that this section is extended.

Working on the premise that we should concentrate on making the utility a more competent drawing tool first and an analysis tool second, then perhaps it is time to consider a rethink to the way the cord line is drawn and to consider the idea of dropping the 'tile painting' approach in favour of simply 'connecting the dots'.  For example, it is possible to consider a method where the user picks a colour then simply clicks on the wall faces that the line is required to pass through, then the utility draws the line shape necessary to connect the two clicked points (in the same cell).  This then immediately begs the question of why restrict drawing to just the four square faces, why not allow the corners to be clicked as well, giving us access to diagonal lines and wall to corner bends as well as corner to corner curves?

This would take us from the possible six connection options we have with face to face connection right up to 20 possible connections.

(http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/f/FCB5.jpg)

The FCB42 connections are in red and the FCB5 additional connections are in black.

We would have to develop a totally new way of showing a crossing and would probably have to have the facility of moving the cord up and down in layers in order to facilitate the crossing function - a lot of work - is it worth while?

Derek

Title: Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
Post by: Prajna on August 21, 2008, 11:15:22 PM
If you are thinking of changing the interface perhaps it might work to choose to begin with the SPart or WEnd, then click the tiles to trace the knot from that point.  If you click on the previous tile you put down then it 'backspaces' to that tile. If you get to a crossing point you click the nearest tile edge if the rope is going under the existing rope or the furthest edge if it is going over. With such a system the program could calculate the cypher, OI and signature progressively as the knot was drawn.

Thank you for such a splendid utility.