International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: xarax on August 23, 2011, 12:48:11 PM

Title: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 23, 2011, 12:48:11 PM
  As some pictures of knots, posted initially in the "Theoretical "  :) bowline discussion thread, were deleted by a forced-mistaken-desperate action by me, I re-post the ones that were fortunately saved here, just in case somebody would be interested in them. ( Not much interest was stirred last time, I am afraid...)
   I was not driven to those knots by randomly tying bowlines ! I had thought that if, somehow, we manage to discover a complex TIB nipping loop, tied on the standing part of an end-of-line loop, that happens to be more stable than the common bowline nipping loop, we could use IT as our nipping loop, so that the "proper" collar will now serve almost exclusively the purpose to secure the tail - and not to stabilize this nipping loop. A collar that has only one main purpose, and is loaded accordingly, is probably better / more effectively used in this purpose. Its strength is not "wasted" in the purpose of stabilizing the nipping loop, a task that this new, more stable nipping loop might achieve by its own.
   Does this strategy has a point ? I am not sure, of course, about it, not at all! It might be better to have all the separate parts of a knot tangled/interlocked together, so that each one of them can be loaded and bear that load more or less, depending of each other loading.
    I hope that this thread will not have the sad fate of the other one, and be removed by the Web-administrators after X replies, or Y "length", or Z days/weeks/months/years...Of course, I can not trust them that something like this will not happen AGAIN, can I ?  :) I only wish/hope that the next time a "vote" is cast. the number of votes would be larger than 6...
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 23, 2011, 12:50:04 PM
 2
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 23, 2011, 12:53:37 PM
 3
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 23, 2011, 12:55:17 PM
 4
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 23, 2011, 12:56:55 PM
  5
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 23, 2011, 01:00:51 PM
  6 Also, a picturte of Janus (to whoever it might concern...)  :)
  That is all, folks   :)
  ( I hope it was not too much of a heavy "Theory" here, was it ? )
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: Wed on August 23, 2011, 01:30:12 PM
   
Quote
Are those practical knots, or not ?

Don't know. But let's say that 75% of them are practical, and the others are of theoretical interest. Then what?
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 23, 2011, 01:56:33 PM
Quote
Are those practical knots, or not ?
Don't know. But let's say that 75% of them are practical, and the others are of theoretical interest. Then what?

   Then I was obliged/right to post them in this section, and not on the so-called (erronously) "Knot Theory"(?) section...And,because I have not seen them anywhere, ( and neither did you, I suppose...), I was obliged/right to post them, and not keep them, selfishly, in my computer for myself..
   I had not done anything else/different, had I ?  :).
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: knot4u on August 24, 2011, 12:04:27 AM
Xarax, that other long thread about the Bowline definitely belongs in the Knot Theory forum.  For whatever reason, you place a stigma on the Knot Theory forum.  I'm not sure why.  Almost everything you post fits squarely within the purpose of the Knot Theory forum, which is "For those who want to get the knot between their teeth and shake it apart, either figuratively, or binarily."  Are you ashamed or something?  Or do you just want to be in the forum with more activity?  (I'm assuming Practical Knots has more activity.)

I personally would prefer to see the Practical Knots described explicitly as "Knots Discussed within the Context of Applications."  I would think such a label is obviously implied within the word "Practical", but maybe it's not so obvious (?).
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 24, 2011, 02:07:52 AM
   Thank you, knot4u,

   First, there is not a Theoretical knots forum, because there is not, and can be not such thing as a "Theoretical Knot" !  :)  Even the knots studied by mathematics, within Knot Theory, are not "theoretical knots", they are abstract mathematical structures, like the sets, the numbers, the shapes, the groups, the tranformations, etc, of mathematics. Is there a Theoretical Set ? A Theoretical Number ? Do not confuse theory, which is one thing, with its constructs, which is another.
   What you erroneously describe as a "Theoretical knot", should be better described as a "practical knot, discussed within the context of its structure, its form, its funcion" - or something like this- and not witin the context of a specific aplication or use.( We are assuming we speak about practical knots here, and not decorative knots. For decorative knots, use and application should better be defined in other terms.)

For whatever reason, you place a stigma on the Theoretical Knots forum.  I'm not sure why.

  I do not place any stigma on the "Knot Theory and Computing" Forum !  I say that it should be named correctly, as "Theory of Practical Knots", or something like that, because "Knot Theory" is something else, as you know. I believe that, unfortunately,  there is not any viable theory of Practical knots at the moment, but I would be glad if there will be one, and I would be happy to follow its development as close as I can. I am more interested in such a theory, than in any application or use of Practical knots, because I  believe that the tools themselves are more important than the things they help us to do. That is the meaning of OUR title, as "Homo Faber", isnt it ? ( Even if it is now known that other animmals use tools too, and some make those tools, using materials occuring in their natural environment.)

 Almost everything you post fits squarely within the purpose of the Theoretical Knots forum.
 
Assuming that you mean the "Theory of Practical Knots" forum, do you believe that the end-of-line loops shown in this thread should be posted there ? If yes, why ? Please elaborate a little more on this, because I believe that a "new" knot that is simple enough - and not a decorative one- AND it is meant to be / could eventually be, a practical knot, should be posted in the Practical Knots forum. Ar you telling me that those end-of-line loops are decorative knts, or that they willnever be of any practical interest ? Ar you sure about it ?  If yes, how do you know in advance which knots would eventually be proven to be of practical use, and which not ?    

Are you ashamed or something?

  
   Do you thnk I am, or I should be ? If yes, it would be an interesting phenmenon, a man being a selfish mazochist, who is shamed for himself but wants things done HIS way !  :) Are you as good as a psychologist as a knot tyer ?
 
  Or do you just want to be in the forum with more activity?

   When I feel lonely, I try to find a girl friend. I suggest you do the same...It works !  :)
    
I personally would prefer to see the Practical Knots described explicitly as "Knots Discussed within the Context of Applications."  I would think such a label is obviously implied within the word "Practical", but maybe it's not so obvious (?).

  That distinction would be fine for me. From the one hand, a section about "Practical Knots, discussed within the Context of Aplications", and from the other a section about "Practical knots discussed within the Context of their Structure, Form, Function". Do you agree on this ?

P.S.  knot4u, let us, please, not be drawn into a new quarel here !  :) Please do try to ignore any comments of mine that you think they are only rhetoric, and reply to the questions on subjects you think are worth of further examination. I will try to do the same next time, and I beg you to forgive any ill-chosen humourous comments by me. I have already one knot tyer to deal with, It is not wise tactically for me to open a new, second front !  :)
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: Hrungnir on August 24, 2011, 10:01:12 AM
Hei xarax!

I just miss some description of what practical problems your knots are going to solve. What's the advantage with the specific knot. Why should I use your specific end loop instead of the bowline, double dragon, overhand loop etc.?



Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: DerekSmith on August 24, 2011, 11:02:01 AM
Hei xarax!

 Why should I use your specific end loop instead of the bowline, double dragon, overhand loop etc.?


Perhaps another question might be why not use some alternative knot? - you never know how well it will perform until you put it to work..

This little creation makes me smile

(http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3550.0;attach=5750;image)

Somewhere I will use it and it will create some eyebrow raising.

Derek
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 24, 2011, 02:56:23 PM
I just miss some description of what practical problems your knots are going to solve. What's the advantage with the specific knot. Why should I use your specific end loop instead of the bowline, double dragon, overhand loop etc.?

   Hi  Hungrir,

   Any practical knotting problem has more than one solutions, cab be solved using with more than one knots. It is very difficult to prove that one solution/knot is the optimum for a specific aplixcation. Do not forget that, even if the problem is well defined, and the rope material to be used is decided in advance, the knot tyer is always different ! So, knots that can be easily and securely tied by one knot tyer, because of the dexterity, knowledge and experience he has, might seem defficult to tie, or even be tied wrongly and dangerously, by another knot tyer.
   Let me say that the secific knot is more secure, and/or is more strong than the bowline. Would you use it becuse I am saying so ? No, of course not. You use what you already know, what you use more often, and is proven to satisfy your needs. Does this mean that you do not want to learnany new knots, you do not want to try different solutions ? If that is the case- what is the case with the mjority of knot users indeed- then you are right, you should not bother to learn but a handful of knots in your life. You are a knot user, an average person that just wants his job done.
    My posts are not adressed to the average person, but to the knot tyer. A knot tyer knows that there are more ways to skin a cat, and enjoys the different possibilities, In short, he is curious about knots, any knots, and he wishes to learn as many interesting knots as he can. That need of the knots tyers makes me explore the Knotland, and I feel obliged to report my findings in this forum, as soon as I happen to aquire them, so other knot tyers will satisfy the same need.
   I have recently bought, in a Sotheby s book auction, from the grand children of Ashley, his handwritten personal diary, where he descibes some knots he would publish in the next, second edition of ABoK, had he be gven the chance. ( Unfortunately, he died just a few years after the first edition.) The knots presented in this tread are just copies of this diary ! Are you interested in those knots a little more now ? I think that you do.  :) Would you ask the same question to Ashley, if he was alive, as the questions you asked me about the knots in this thread, that I have copied from his lost-and-found diary ? I doubt it. Because we all are taught to follow rules, to repeat things created by others, to parrot things written in sacred books, by prophets, to search for already known recipes . That is not a bad thing, provided that it is not the only thing it is !  :) Fortunately, Ashley was a knot tyer, not an average knot user.
   Assuming that you are a man, and you have the most beutiful wife, who adores you, who is the last year Miss-World, a Nobel prize winner, and a billioner. Would any man in your position stop to look, just look, any other woman that happens to pass by ? If you are a man, you might answer yes...because we are f... liars. If you are a woman - and women know men better than men know themselves - you will answer no. Well, I look at other knots, even if I have the bowline !  :)  And I suggest you do the same, too. It does not make life longer, unfortunately, but much more interesting, and it is a pity if one misses that opportunity.
 

Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 24, 2011, 03:16:29 PM
This little creation ...

...is a creation by Korgan, in a now deleted post ( I am not the only one in this forum that is doing desparate things... :)) He calls it "the Niptruck". See the last saved picture of the Niptruck, at (1)
   I have though of the same thing when, I have tried to figure out a bowline-like loop, where the two legs of the collar are absolutely parallel to each other and to a segment of the standing part. This loop/binder makes the sentence "The bowline is a Gleipnir with a ("proper") collar" much more transparent.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg17914#msg17914


Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: knot4u on August 24, 2011, 04:32:58 PM
See here:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3556.msg20288#msg20288
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: Hrungnir on August 24, 2011, 06:40:22 PM
  Let me say that the secific knot is more secure, and/or is more strong than the bowline. Would you use it becuse I am saying so ? No, of course not.
If you claim that your knot has some advantages compared to the knots I'm using, then it will catch my interest. I might not use it just because you said so, but I will try the knot to see if it is as good as you claim it to be ;) Secure, quick, simple to tie and untie, then you do have a replacement for the Bowline - and that will motivate me indeed to try your knot.

Quote
Would you ask the same question to Ashley, if he was alive, as the questions you asked me about the knots in this thread, that I have copied from his lost-and-found diary ? I doubt it.
It doesn't matter who is presenting the knot. When learning a new knot, I always ask myself what benefits does this knot have, where and how I am going to use it. Can I think of any practical problems where this knot will make a good solution? If it isn't clear, I would ask Ashley the same question as I asked you.

If you take a look at the Overhand loop, Figure Eight Loop, Bowline, Eskimo Bowline and Zeppelin loop, they are all end loops. But each knot has different strengths and weaknesses, which will make each knot more suitable for certain tasks than others. Examples: A bowline is a good working knot, because it's fast and easy to tie and untie. Figure eight is a good knot where security is important, because the knot is both secure and easy to control. The eskimo bowline is a good option if the loop is going to be stretched wide.
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 25, 2011, 02:18:33 AM
If you claim that your knot has some advantages compared to the knots I'm using, then it will catch my interest.


   All knots have advantages and disadvantages compared to others. Also, the specific material, and the specific knot tyer, can make a difference. I can not caim that a specific knot has only advantages compared to any other knot. If you do not tie the knot by yourself, with your hands and your material, and if you do not repeat this tying a sufficient number of times, you can not know if it would have been interesting for you. or not.
   Traveler, there are no paths. Paths are made by walking.
   Knot tyer, there are no interesting or not-interesting knots that you have not tied. Knots are made and evaluated by tying.

 

 a replacement for the Bowline ...


   There will never be a replacement  the bowline - or the overhand knot !  :) That does not mean that we should not be interested in any other end-of-line loop !
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: Hrungnir on August 25, 2011, 04:58:39 PM
All knots have advantages and disadvantages compared to others.
Every good knot has advantages compared to others ;) I just want you to point some of them out when presenting a new knot. :)
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 25, 2011, 06:30:26 PM
I just want you to point some of them out when presenting a new knot. :)

   My dear Hrungrir, you show me the Himalayas, the Everest and the K2, and you tell me to climb on higher peaks, or not climb at all...  :)
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 25, 2011, 09:41:31 PM
Assuming that you mean the "Theory of Practical Knots" forum,
do you believe that the end-of-line loops shown in this thread should be posted there ?
If yes, why ? Please elaborate a little more on this,
because I believe that a "new" knot that is simple enough - and not a decorative one-
AND it is meant to be / could eventually be, a practical knot, should be posted
in the Practical Knots forum.

The difference / divide here is that you are focusing on the
*knot* as something maybe to be used (and hence "practical"),
but in the contentious issue re defining "bowlines" the point
is to deliberate over definitions , and not practicality per se.
And definitions/conceptions do have some sense, theory-like, of
able-to-be-tested=ness, in that one can try applying & working with
such conceptions --human-imposed divisions/groupings-- and see
how well they do.  E.g., does omitting a specification for some
"proper collar" --like omitting Euclid's axiom re parallel lines intersecting--
result in a grouping that is unhelpful (too inclusive, not selective?).

Of the images above, of particular *theoretical* interest IMO is the
120deg-angled <what_knot_is_this?!!> orientaiton of the (Eskimo/no?) bowline :
to me, that is a paradigm case to consider in how one conceives of
"loop (eye) knot".  For one might (maybe should) think of it as
a knot of a single PoFM (piece of flexible material) with two *limbs*
opposing 1 *limb* and the 4th free (= untensioned) --in distinction
from a "net-knot", where all *limbs* are tensioned (but, angles...?).
Actually, the "single PoFM" is perhaps a bad conception --it implies
knowledge outside of the image frame presented !  (where one sees
only one termination (the untensioned tail), and is left to presume/guess
(or, by some other definitional plan, maybe specify *knot* per loading)
what limbs connect to what.  Which leads to the interesting question
undermining one commonplace/natural sense of "loop knots" --that
they in fact contain a "loop" (eye) : perhaps that is only some
possible condition of a knot structure which should be said to be
of TWO PoFM --we can trace TWO connections of *limb* to *limb*
in our *knot*-image frame; we can discuss what possibilities exist
for outer connections, or maybe that is beyond the immediate
conceptional needs?

So we can / should question whether a knot so loaded at 120deg
angles IS a (proper?) "eye knot"; our canonical eyeknot form might
require effectively aligned axes of tension for two legs opposing
(in tension) a "SPart".

And all such interesting, challenging deliberations are to my mind
welcome under a title "theory", but that can be amended in some
way ("philosophy" I think might be more apt) and maybe it is best
that "Computing" be separated, to be a forum rich in coded ways
to knotting practical or decorative.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Certainly the knot shown (or, one of the possibilities of the shown
structure, AND at such angles!) is practical; it can be seen in the
lobster-pot bridles of some commercial fisherman --who prefer to
tie what we might tend to call an "Eskimo bowline" between two
short circular slings.  (I just came across one photographer's photo
of such pots in Maine, USA !)  The slings --with end-2-end joints of
fisherman knots,  so far as I can tell (the usual)-- are girth-hitched
to the pot corners, and one (likely a bit longer) ties a sheet bend
with the "tail" used to attach the "snood"/"gangion" line to,
hence loading all (twin?) *limbs* --which is six strands of rope
(2 qua bight making "proper collar", 2 qua a single unit to tie
through this collar and be loaded on their (2) bight end).


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 25, 2011, 10:35:23 PM
   Thank you Dan Lehman,

the point is to deliberate over definitions , and not practicality per se.

   Yes, but to provide an indication/"proof" that a certain definition of the bowline is correct, I have tied many other loops, where there were only some essential elements of THE bowline present, or where some essential elements were missing. Those loops were practical knots, and the indication/"proof" that an ellement is essential or not, or that an essential element is needed/indispesible or not, was provided on grounds of practicality. Only a practical loop could prove or dispove somethingabout the parent knot, THE bowline, so practicality was sought, and examined, and used, and explored. This involvment of practicality in the course of the definition discussion is another reason this thread should remain in the "practical Knots" section.
 
-it implies knowledge outside of the image frame presented ! 

   I think that the local symmetry of this special - but "middle", not "limit"- case of the 120-degrees-loaded-3-limbs knot - where we can not see the global configuration, i.e. we are not allowed to look ouside the image frame - is the most importand thing, that should decide if the common bowline and the eskimo bowline should be placed within the same category, or not. But not as eye loops ! As midline bends, because that is the only thing we are allowed to use, the local characteristics. We do not see the eye! So, we first decide about the midline bend, and then we extend our knowledge aquired there to the loop that uses this bend as a base.
  That is a general method : Local symmetries ought to decide what is the essential element, so local symmetries are more basic. Global symmetries can not exist without the local ones , so they are only secondary. One can debate this, of course... :)

   Certainly the knot shown (or, one of the possibilities of the shown structure, AND at such angles!) is practical; it can be seen in the lobster-pot bridles of some commercial fisherman --who prefer to tie what we might tend to call an "Eskimo bowline" between two
short circular slings.  (I just came across one photographer's photo of such pots in Maine, USA !) 

   Thank you ! Yet another reason, and a hard one !, the thread containing this knot should stay in the "Practical Knots" section! You didnt tell this to the "voters" before they cast their "vote"/opinion !
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 26, 2011, 05:25:30 AM
   Thank you Dan Lehman,

the point is to deliberate over definitions , and not practicality per se.

   Yes, but to provide an indication/"proof" that a certain definition of the bowline is correct,
...This involvment of practicality in the course of the definition discussion is another reason
 this thread should remain in the "practical Knots" section.

Not at all : the thrust, the point, is definitional (and your way
of including/excluding was, after all, but one of the ideas for
classification that were advanced (and more might await our
finding)).

Quote
-it implies knowledge outside of the image frame presented ! 

   I think that the local symmetry of this special - but "middle", not "limit"- case of the 120-degrees-loaded-3-limbs knot - where we can not see the global configuration, i.e. we are not allowed to look ouside the image frame - is the most importand thing, that should decide if the common bowline and the eskimo bowline should be placed within the same category, or not. But not as eye loops ! As midline bends, because that is the only thing we are allowed to use, the local characteristics. We do not see the eye! So, we first decide about the midline bend, and then we extend our knowledge aquired there to the loop that uses this bend as a base.
  That is a general method : Local symmetries ought to decide what is the essential element, so local symmetries are more basic. Global symmetries can not exist without the local ones , so they are only secondary. One can debate this, of course... :)

I disagree with this (at my current point of inchoate thinking).
At issue is What is a *knot*? --and I submit that when one
makes such changes in loading one changes the *knot*.  But this,
again, goes right back to this fundamental question.  How many
pages did Russell & Whitehead expend on *simple* arithmetic?

The very physical aspects of the knotted structure change
with the angles, with the loading, and so on; so I don't
accept at this time that such manipulations of knots will
show essential properties.

Quote
   Certainly the knot shown (or, one of the possibilities of the shown structure, AND at such angles!) is practical; it can be seen in the lobster-pot bridles of some commercial fisherman --who prefer to tie what we might tend to call an "Eskimo bowline" between two
short circular slings.  (I just came across one photographer's photo of such pots in Maine, USA !) 

   Thank you ! Yet another reason, and a hard one !, the thread containing this knot should stay in the "Practical Knots" section! You didnt tell this to the "voters" before they cast their "vote"/opinion !

 >:(

I think that you're serious here?!
*I* told no one ANYthing; nor did I have anything
to do with there BEING a vote; I merely voted --once,
(not being from Chicago), unweighted by anything.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 26, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
: the thrust, the point, is definitional (and your way of including/excluding was, after all, but one of the ideas for classification

   OK ! I will put it differently, to make it less easy for you ! Let us say we just want to talk about a knot, that some believe it is a Practical knot, and some not. Talking about this knot, and trying to prove their point,  some use ideas that they think they reveals its practicality, some use ideas that explore its structure, and some use ideas that have to do with its function. Nobody is talking about a specific application, or use of this knot, may be because they do not care about it, or may be because they have not yet discovered the already published article in another site, where an application or use for this knot is explicitly stated.
    Where are we going to put this thread ? Are we going to solve this problem by counting our opinions ? What is an outcome that we should respect ? A 1-0 outcome would be decisive ? A 563-562 one ?

The very physical aspects of the knotted structure change with the angles, with the loading, and so on; so I don't accept at this time that such manipulations of knots will show essential properties.

   My first point is that symmetry, if it exist, reveals something that is most fundamental : there is some physical truth behind each symmetry ( May be you already know that there is a general theorem in physics about this fact )
   My second point is that local symmetries are more fundamental than global ones. If you see a symmetry in one small area of a knot, this is a more important fact than a symmetry in a larger area. Local properties help us explore the real essence of a physical object more than global properties. This is what people have done to this day to the physical objects they want to understand, with great success. They brake the object into pieces, and they examine those pieces !

   You didn't tell this to the "voters" before they cast their "vote"/opinion !
I think that you're serious here?!
*I* told no one ANYthing;  I merely voted

   I mean that something that a participant knows, might not be yet known to the others. They will learn it later, in the course of the discussion. What are we going to do then ? Are we going to move a thread back and forth, as the informed and knowledgeable participant reveals its information and knowledge one by one ?  :)

Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 26, 2011, 04:40:14 PM
: the thrust, the point, is definitional (and your way of including/excluding was, after all, but one of the ideas for classification

   OK ! I will put it differently, ... .
Let us say we just want to talk about a knot, that some believe it is a Practical knot, and some not.
Talking about this knot, and trying to prove their point,  some use ideas ...

This is not the case it issue : we were tasked to make a classification
of knots, given the *seed* of the bowline --which is a conceptual task.
It was not a task to determine whether such knot was "practical" (we accept that it is).


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on August 26, 2011, 06:47:21 PM
a conceptual task.

   A work on a conceptual task about a practical knot, should belong to a thread that states, explicitly, that is about Practical knots ! Do you want a division of the Practical knots section into one "Applications/Uses of the Practical Knots" sub-section, and into one "Concepts of the Practical Knots" sub-section ? I will agree with this division. In the second sub-section, we could agree to move most, if not al,l of the threads that now are in the so-erroneously-called "Knot Theory" section, and some of the threads that are now in the "Practical Knots" section, and would be misplaced if they are in the "Applications/Uses of the Practical Knots" sub-section.
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: DDK on August 28, 2011, 08:45:01 AM
. . .      I was not driven to those knots by randomly tying bowlines ! I had thought that if, somehow, we manage to discover a complex TIB nipping loop, tied on the standing part of an end-of-line loop, that happens to be more stable than the common bowline nipping loop, we could use IT as our nipping loop, so that the "proper" collar will now serve almost exclusively the purpose to secure the tail - and not to stabilize this nipping loop. A collar that has only one main purpose, and is loaded accordingly, is probably better / more effectively used in this purpose. Its strength is not "wasted" in the purpose of stabilizing the nipping loop, a task that this new, more stable nipping loop might achieve by its own.
   Does this strategy has a point ? . . .

In the original post I see comments about trying to discover, about trying to improve or change knot structures, about knot mechanics and the relation of structure to performance, and questioning about the effectiveness of a particular knot mechanics strategy.  To my way of thinking, there is little doubt that this thread belongs in the Knot Theory board.  This topic might generate additional discussion and information appropriate to spin off as a new thread in the Practical Knot board, but, the original post is poorly placed in my opinion.
     
DDK
Title: Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
Post by: xarax on September 13, 2011, 11:45:10 AM
   I have repeated some testing of the double crossed-coils bowline presented earlier, in the "theoretical" :) discussion about the bowline (1). It seems to me that this bowline is much safer than the common bowline, as regards any tendancy of the later to collapse when tied on certain materials, and under heavy loading.
  I have now tested this double, crossed coils nipping loop in the case of the midspan bend (2) Its greater stability proved to be beneficial in that case, too.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg19951#msg19951
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3020.msg20613#msg20613