International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: xarax on September 13, 2011, 11:07:59 AM
-
The thief knot - when tied on most modern materials - is an insecure, dangerous bend, but a bend that can very easily be greatly improved by re-tucking. What is perhaps the most interesting thing about this retucking of the thief knot, is that the particular way we retuck it does not matter : all derived bends are greatly safer, much more secure bends than their parent, untucked knot. ( See the attached pictures for those once-retucked thief-knot-based bends.)
(A different way to retuck the thief knot was shown in (1).
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2085.0
-
2. Notice that the B3 bend is the "inverted" Zeppelin bend (interchanged standing ends / tails) It should perhaps be expected that the thief knot is somehow related to the Zeppelin bend, because of their symmetry.
-
The thief knot . . . by re-tucking . . . : all derived bends are greatly safer . . .
The Thief Knot is not secure because of "positive cogging" much like the Grief Knot. The Reef Knot is considered more dangerous than either of these two knots because, in part, it gives the appearance of security which it does not have. This is not true to anywhere near the same extent with the Thief and Grief Knots. Obviously, another reason would be that the Thief and Grief Knots are difficult to tie by mistake.
I was able to easily find a retucked Thief Knot (first one I tried) which gave the appearance of additional security but when tied in series with a Grass Bend, it completely pulled apart while the Grass Bend did not. The retucked Thief Knot I chose was one of those which least mitigated the original positive cogging in the Thief Knot, but, was able to support 200 pounds of load. A very dangerous bend indeed and not nearly as safe as the original Thief Knot in my opinion.
It should perhaps be expected that the thief knot is somehow related to the Zeppelin bend, because of their symmetry.
If the retucking produces an overhand knot and is done symmetrically, one has a bend which is interlocked overhand knots with central inversion symmetry just as is found in the Zeppelin bend.
DDK
-
Thank you DDk,
I was able to easily find a retucked Thief Knot (first one I tried) which gave the appearance of additional security
There are not any once-re tucked thief knots other than the ones shown in this thread - except from the "double thief knot" which is formed by retucking through the central opening. Besides this central opening, there are 4 openings from which the working ends can pass for another time, so there are four once-re tucked thief knots. ( A1-A4). If we further allow our working ends to pass through those openings from the other side of the knot, we have 4 more bends, two of which are completely unstable, and, of course, do not give ANY appearance of security whatsoever ! :) I suggest you tie all those knots shown here, and compare them to the parent thief knot, as I have done here, and not to other bends...You will easily find that all are greatly more secure than the original parent knot, although some are better than the others. ( I prefer the A3). Tie the knots as shown, and tell me, please, about your findings, for each one of them.
P.S.1. It is pre-supposed that the re tucking should be done in a way that retains the symmetry of the original knot I have not explored not-symmetrical re tuckings, because symmetric bends are always better, more secure and stronger, than similar non symmetric ones. The uneven distribution of forces into the knot s nub produces, as a consequence, weak spots, where the local curvature of the rope strands is much greater.
P.S 2 . I have also not mentioned the "double thief knot" that is formed by retucking the working ends through the central opening, because I have thought that it would only multiply the existing situation of the original, parent thief knot.
-
Thank you DDk,
I was able to easily find a retucked Thief Knot (first one I tried) which gave the appearance of additional security
. . . There are not any once-re tucked thief knots other than the ones shown in this thread ! . . .
There are others, see below. This knot has the same symmetry as the original Thief Knot and is misleadingly secure upon a careful setting of the knot. I am specifically addressing your claim that "all derived bends are greatly safer, much more secure bends than their parent". First, I point out that additional security does not always equate with safety. In the example I give, the additional security makes the retucked knot considerably more dangerous than the original knot.
As far as the use of the Thief Knot (or its "improvements") as a binding knot, I find it to be a non-starter given the difficulty in tying and the fact that we have the Reef Knot.
DDK
-
OK, I have reread your post. Unless I am missing something here, the bend I show is retucked ONCE and illustrates that your statement of simple fact is incorrect.
DDK
-
. . . the bend I show is retucked ONCE and illustrates that your statement of simple fact is incorrect . . .
Yes, I am afraid you are missing something rather simple...Counting !
No, you have miscounted. Below I show the original retucked knot and then I show it with each working end untucked ONCE. THE UNTUCKED KNOT IS A THIEF KNOT. I then again show the knot after retucking each working end ONCE. I have demonstrated the concept forwards and backwards. Surely you can now see and understand this simple concept.
DDK
-
I have edited my previous posts, that might have been/ have sounded a little harsh...I would be glad if we discuss the bends shown in this thread, as well as any other bends that might be considered as improvements of the thief knot. I admitt I have never really understood the working of this "positive cogging" effect, so it came as a surpise to me that all those different modification of the parent knot, were able to cancel it out !
-
Hi,
I don't recognize the term positive cogging. I have done a search within the forum and found only this thread. Since I am a junior member and may plead ignorance, may I ask for an explanation of this term.
Thanks,
Mike
edit: it seems that if I click *Search* while looking at this thread, the search engine searches only this thread. I didn't expect that. Also, the cogging demonstration with the grief knot is very informative.
-
Mike, I am a not-so-junior a member, but I, too, feel that I may plead ignorance about this characteristic of knots, since so little is written about it, and much less is explained, or predicted, by the use of this notion.
Have a look at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1597.msg10962#msg10962
(This particular subject belongs to the "Theory of Practical knots" Forum.)
-
I have edited my previous posts, that might have been/ have sounded a little harsh...
Your style of editing leaves many things to be desired. To hold and argue stubbornly a particular (wrong) position and then, upon realizing your mistake, to make additions and subtractions to previous posts to mitigate your obvious foolishness is disappointing. I am speaking specifically of your additions of comments regarding the "double thief knot" and subtractions of your insistence that I was not able to count a number of retucks (which, as it turns out, was your miscounting).
A simple, "I was mistaken" would have been a much better way to go.
DDK
-
...your obvious foolishness...
I do not reply to such things.
-
I'm hoping we'll get back on topic.
If there's more tit for tat to do, please take it to pm.
SS
-
. . . You will easily find that all are greatly more secure than the original parent knot, although some are better than the others. ( I prefer the A3). Tie the knots as shown, and tell me, please, about your findings, for each one of them . . .
My findings on A3:
I encountered some difficulty in reproducing the bend shown. In part, I believe it is because I was using pieces of the same rope (same color, markings, etc) to tie the bend. Likely, it would be simpler with two distinct ropes, but, unlikely to be as simple as producing the Figure 8 Bend (which I would consider the Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots).
The bend became somewhat jamming as I applied moderate load. I find this to be true for many of the retucked single carricks in which interlocked overhand knots are produced1. This may be a general behavior and differs from the non-jamming retucked Reef or Thief Knots which are interlocking figure 8 knots2. I did not increase the load on A3 due to its already perceived jamming and cannot speak to its security at high loads (i.e. capsizing, slippage or the like).
DDK
1 Same holds true for the "Twice-Twisted Zeppelin Bend" http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19303#msg19303 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19303#msg19303)
2 http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3196.msg19099#msg19099 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3196.msg19099#msg19099)
-
Thank you DDK,
Now you are talking ! :) You should not have any difficulties in setting and dressing those knots, if you start from the loose thief knot as shown in the attached picture.( Notice that I have placed the yellow-red marble into the 3 rd opening, for the A3. I have followed this simple notation for all those bends. For the B series, one has to pass the working end(s) from the other side.) May be I should have posted this picture from the beginning, to save us from exchanging meaningless bits and bytes. :)
Regarding the "jamming" issue, I am the least qualified person to speak about it...I do not understand if the "jamming" of a knot is a quality that exists or not, or a quantity that varies continuously, in relation to the loading and/or the slippage characteristics of the knotted material. ( There might also be a relation between the jamming of a knot, and the resistance of the rope material to compression...) I, too, have made the vague observation that pretzel shaped interlocked-overhand-knot bends have a greater jamming tendency than "8" shaped ones. ( So, there is already a difference between the members of the class of the overhand-based bends, before the difference between the overhand-based, and the figure 8 -based bends.) I can only guess that the more effective compression of the encircled central nub, achieved by a pretzel shaped overhand knot, is what makes the difference.
Go on, try the rest of those bends. You could also compare them to the differently re tucked thief knots presented at (1), that are not so prove to jamming, I believe.
The main problem that made me post those bends of this thread remains : How, on earth, the "clogging" effect is cancelled so effectively, however we retuck the thief knot ? We pass the working end(s) from whatever opening, very different bends are produced, but anything we do makes this "clogging effect" disappear ! When I will understand why is this so, I would have understood something about this effect.
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2085.0
-
the Figure 8 Bend (which I would consider the Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots).
Unfortunately perhaps, there is not ONE "Figure 8 Bend", but plenty of them ! That is an "inflationary" defect of the "Gold Standard"... :) See the most simple ones, with some "8" ( or Pretzel) shaped interlocked overhand-knot bends, at (1). It would be nice if somebody will test and compare all those bends someday...
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0
-
the Figure 8 Bend (which I would consider the Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots).
Unfortunately perhaps, there is not ONE "Figure 8 Bend", but plenty of them ! . . . 1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0
By Figure 8 Bend, I was referring to ABOK 1411. Many of the bends you point to, although they may be interlocking figure 8 bends, are not ABOK 1411. Although any of the few ABOK 1411 bends would serve admirably as a Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots, the two easiest to tie and identify in my estimation are the "perfect" forms1 of ABOK 1411.
DDK
1 http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3618.msg20678#msg20678 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3618.msg20678#msg20678)
-
By Figure 8 Bend, I was referring to ABOK 1411.
Although any of the few ABOK 1411 bends would ...
ABoK 1411 is a fine, symmetric figure 8 bend, like so many others...I believe we should not restrict our knowledge to the study of the knots that happened to be published in the ABoK, should we ? This is not the IGABoKKT forum ! :) There is a tradition in the knot tying world, to refer to even the most simple knots, by their ABoK number, ( like the ABoK X overhand knot, for example... :)), and then believe that those are the only knots possible, or worth knowing, or worth studying, or practical - or whatever false belief gets into our minds by the tendency we all have, as members of the human species and communities. to follow, repeat, parrot, etc.. I hope we will not continue to do the same mistake here.
Now, which are those "few" (plural) ABoK 1411 bends you are referring to ?
-
There is a tradition in the knot tying world, to refer to even the most simple knots, by their ABoK number
This is at least the most comprehensive catalog for internationally identifying that we have to my knowledge. Great tool for communicating amongst those with access/ownership. So until we have better it is the best tool for the job. (Though member specific pictures/graphics can eliminate questions at times.)
But I disagree with the notion that this in any way limits the seeking of more and improved tangles. More so a fairly stable base.
SS
-
xarax: There is a tradition in the knot tying world, to refer to even the most simple knots, by their ABoK number, ( like the ABoK X overhand knot, for example... :)),
SS369: This is at least the most comprehensive catalog for internationally identifying
I believe you have misunderstood what I have said. I was talking about the tendancy to refer to the most simple knots by their ABoK numbers. I am sure you do not mention the ABoK number of the overhand knot, each time are refering to the overhand knot !
There can be no question that ABoK will serve the purpose of identifying knots for a long time...UNLESS the IGKT members do something about it, and produce a better, up to date contemporary catalogue, with virtual reality pictures, computerized drawings, and all that ! :)
I believe that many people tend to believe that every non-decorative knot that is in the ABoK, is a "practical knot", and vice versa : that "practical knots" are easy to identify, because they are in the ABoK. Nooope. Many not-decorative knots in the ABoK have only a theoretical or historical value, and many practical knots are not in the ABoK. So, ABoK des not solve the "What is a "Practical knot" that should be posted in the "Practical knots" Forum " question/problem, I am afraid.
-
Ahh, the challenges of communications. (Another topic for sure ;-) )
I believe you understood the intent of my statement and of course there is no need to numerically call the most simple knot by a number, ABOK, or not, for the general purpose of our discussions. And yes I am assuming things here.
Till such time as we all talk in common code I suspect that the ABOK numbers will do nicely for those who have access to the tome.
Thank you for your many pictures that enhance our understanding. They help me quite a bit.
SS
-
Till such time as we all talk in common code
The issue, my dear SS369, is if we, at the IGKT forum, will try do something about a common code, or catalogue, or something, or not ! Are we going to leave people that know much less than required, to fill the Wikipedia articles, for example, or not ? Let us try to make a modest start, by experimentally presenting a bakers dozen knots, with the contribution of the so able knot tiers present and available here.
-
Hmmm, seems like I've seen this topic before here. ;)
Maybe a re-thread is in order.
SS
-
By Figure 8 Bend, I was referring to ABOK 1411.
Although any of the few ABOK 1411 bends would ...
ABoK 1411 is a fine, symmetric figure 8 bend, like so many others...I believe we should not restrict our knowledge to the study of the knots that happened to be published in the ABoK, should we ? This is not the IGABoKKT forum ! :) There is a tradition in the knot tying world, to refer to even the most simple knots, by their ABoK number, ( like the ABoK X overhand knot, for example... :)), and then believe that those are the only knots possible, or worth knowing, or worth studying, or practical - or whatever false belief gets into our minds by the tendency we all have, as members of the human species and communities. to follow, repeat, parrot, etc.. I hope we will not continue to do the same mistake here.
Now, which are those "few" (plural) ABoK 1411 bends you are referring to ?
First, my apologies for interjecting something on-topic, just kidding. :D
To the question of which bends am I referring to, I think either of the so-called "weak" or "strong" forms1 of ABOK 1411 would serve equally well as a Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots as I mentioned earlier. The use of a Gold Standard helps our study of knots by giving us something to compare with new knots. We then can ask questions like, "Why are the new knots better or worse in regard to some property?" I think this process was nicely illustrated in my findings on your A3 knot (see reply#15 in this thread). Of course, the choice of the Standard depends on whether one is interested in the practical nature or theoretical nature of the knot. For example, the Grief Knot is one of the Gold Standards for positive cogging.
DDK
1 http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3618.msg20678#msg20678 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3618.msg20678#msg20678) edit: repaired link
-
I am in favour of the Gold or the Platinum standard, instead of the worthless US dollar standard, but I think I know why ! :) With the figure 8 bends, I do not.
There are 5 more knots at (1) , (besides the A3), 16 knots at (2),( besides the so-called "perfect" A form), 4 knots at (3), the 2 88 bends, and who knows how many more I have missed....DDK, you have much work to do , before you persuade us for your Gold or Platinum Standards ! :)
Believe me, I am a knot tier most eager to accept a test-proven, true Gold Standard of the fig 8 bends, because I know the substantial savings in our knot toolbox space it will halp us to achieve ! I suffer from this proliferation/inflation of the possibly usefull practical knots as much as anybody - and probably even more, because of my age and poor memory.
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3611.0
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2198.0
3) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0
-
I am in favour of the Gold or the Platinum standard, instead of the worthless US dollar standard, but I think I know why ! :) With the figure 8 bends, I do not.
There are 5 more knots at (1) , (besides the A3), 16 knots at (2),( besides the so-called "perfect" A form), 4 knots at (3), the 2 88 bends, and who knows how many more I have missed....DDK, you have much work to do , before you persuade us for your Gold or Platinum Standards ! :)
Believe me, I am a knot tier most eager to accept a test-proven, true Gold Standard of the fig 8 bends, because I know the substantial savings in our knot toolbox space it will halp us to achieve ! I suffer from this proliferation/inflation of the possibly usefull practical knots as much as anybody - and probably even more, because of my age and poor memory.
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3611.0
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2198.0
3) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0
It is clear to me that the two of us have completely different understandings of the concept of Gold Standard; so, I have gone to wikipedia for help in finding some common ground or terms to bridge the communication gap.
"In medicine and statistics, gold standard test refers to a diagnostic test or benchmark that is the best available under reasonable conditions. It does not have to be necessarily the best possible test for the condition in absolute terms. For example, in medicine, dealing with conditions that require an autopsy to have a perfect diagnosis, the gold standard test is normally less accurate than the autopsy. Other times, gold standard is used to refer to the most accurate test possible without restrictions. The word is therefore ambiguous and its meaning should be deduced from the context in which it appears."1
My usage of the term Gold Standard was along the lines of a diagnostic test or benchmark that is the best currently known and available under reasonable conditions. Of course, a benchmark can be replaced at any point in which a new benchmark is found to be superior. This happens all the time in research and development. In addition, when one enters a completely new area of research, the first item one picks up is the Gold Standard (usually its reign as the Gold Standard is short-lived, but, not always). In my experience, the existence of a Gold Standard never implies that all research and development should cease and, in fact, most R&D depends quite heavily on the existence of Gold Standards.
It is my understanding that the ABOK 1411 "perfect" forms have been extensively used (each use a test of sorts) and certainly qualify as Gold Standards for retucked Thief Knots used in practical applications. I have examined a few other retucked Thief Knots and found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends mentioned (in my estimation, your mileage may vary).
DDK
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard_(test) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard_(test))
-
The word is therefore ambiguous and its meaning should be deduced from the context in which it appears."
Your mistake is just that ! You do not accept either the one or the other meaning, but wish to step on both ! :) If you have just said : "The so-called "perfect" form is not but a benchmark, with the use of which we are accustomed to compare the other fig. 8 bends, but we do not know if this form is indeed the most perfect one, or the most secure one, because, for the time being, we do not have any theory that can indicates this, and we have not done any detailed experiments that can validate this theory." , if you have said that, I would not have said a f... word more, believe me ! However, you did not, because you shift positions all the time. You confuse the method, the tool, with a certain desirable final result. I, too, wish to prove that this form, or any other form, is "the" perfect, and "the" more secure, and the best of all, but I do not confuse my desires with reality. I do not want to cite your phrases, where this ambiguous stance is portraited, but just listen to yourself at your previous post :
"I have ... found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends. "
You speak of superior and inferior bends, not of superior and inferior benchmarks ! And you do not examine ALL the different fig.8 bends I have repeatedly shown and asked to from you...Make up your mind, please ! :)
I can not but accept the A form as the benchmark, of course, because that is the most/only(?) known form of the many fig.8 bends, and because it is used in climbing more often than any other bend. However, this does not mean that I will make the mistake you do, and persuade myself that this form is the most "perfect", or that is the most "safe", the one that has "the largest area of rope-to-rope contact", the one "less distorted", and all those erroneous things you were driven to suppose, by the force of will, not the force of reason. I wish the same you do, and perhaps MORE than you do, but I a not going to tinker some half-baked "proofs", or make some easy experiments with some of the many different fig. 8 bends. We want extensive and exhaustive laboratory tests, that can be published and can be replicated, before we can claim something so important, that has to do with the security of the most used climbing bend !
I also have to admit that, concluding from your stance till now, I believe you can not be objective on this subject, even if you try...You have jumped into conclusions far too easy and too early, you have defended your position from many sides - which is a proof that one side would not be enough...I admire your persistence, but not your scientific objectivity :)
Let us acept the methodology and the accurancy of the knot tests presented in this article as our Gold Standard, regarding the climbing knots, in general, and the various friction hitches, in particular.
http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/14_Report_hitches_PBavaresco.pdf
Are you telling me that you
... have examined a few other re tucked Thief Knots and found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends
in accordance to this Gold Standard ? :)
My dear DDK, we know very few things about physical knots, ( if any), that can be said that is really "known", with the meaning natural sciences endow to this word. The ignorance and confusion that surrounds the figure 8 bends, is perhaps the best example of this sad fact. We can only make things worse, if we insist/pretend that we know something more than we really do.
-
The word is therefore ambiguous and its meaning should be deduced from the context in which it appears."
. . . If you have just said : "The so-called "perfect" form is not but a benchmark, with the use of which we are accustomed to compare the other fig. 8 bends, . . .
Well, I have just said that, didn't I by pointing out that I have been using that definition of Gold Standard which is: a benchmark?
but we do not know if this form is indeed the most perfect one, or the most secure one, because, for the time being, we do not have any theory that can indicates this, and we have not done any detailed experiments that can validate this theory."[/i] , if you have said that, I would not have said a f... word more, believe me ! . . .
This is implicitly understood as is the use of the label "perfect", thus the reason it is mostly used with quotation marks. None are making the claim that I am aware of that this bend is truly perfect. Your insistence that none other than yourself realize the obvious that there is more to learn and things that are not known appears unfounded to me.
However, you did not, because you shift positions all the time. You confuse the method, the tool, with a certain desirable final result. I, too, wish to prove that this form, or any other form, is "the" perfect, and "the" more secure, and the best of all, but I do not confuse my desires with reality. I do not want to cite your phrases, where this ambiguous stance is portraited, but just listen to yourself at your previous post :
"I have ... found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends. "
You speak of superior and inferior bends, not of superior and inferior benchmarks ! And you do not examine ALL the different fig.8 bends I have repeatedly shown and asked to from you...Make up your mind, please ! :)
I'm not sure of your point, but, to be clear, the bends I have examined are both inferior in practical applications as bends and as benchmarks/Gold Standards when compared to the "perfect" forms of ABOK 1411.
I can not but accept the A form as the benchmark, of course, because that is the most/only(?) known form of the many fig.8 bends, and because it is used in climbing more often than any other bend.
Great, I think we have found some common ground.
However, this does not mean that I will make the mistake you do, and persuade myself that this form is the most "perfect",
Again, none are making the claim that I am aware of that this bend is truly perfect. The concept that there might be better bends yet to be found or things yet to learn is not nearly as difficult to understand as you believe it to be. I think this is obvious to most people and that they implicitly understand this to be the case.
DDK
-
Your insistence that none other than yourself realize the obvious that there is more to learn and things that are not known appears unfounded to me.
You have not realized the obvious, that there were all those different knots and dressings of knots that are fig..8 bends, have you ?
You have not tied and taken pictures of and published all those obviously different knots and dressings of the many different fig.8 bends, have you ?
It appears to me that your insistence that "I" pretend I know, as well as your insistence that "you" pretend you know, is unfounded. :)
I'm not sure of your point, but, to be clear, the bends I have examined are both inferior in practical applications as bends and as benchmarks/Gold Standards
That was my point. You change the way you mean this term, "Gold Standard", according to your latest position, which you shift all the time. Is the A form the Golden Standard according to the first meaning you state, or according to the second ? Is the A bend the perfect, best, least distorted, having the greatest contact area, etc., knot, of all the other fig.8 bends, or not ? ( No "clear" answer, till now...) Is it only a benchmark, that helps us compare the different knots, and we can not say that this knot is also the perfect, best, least distorted, having the greatest contact area, etc., of all the other fig.8 bends ? ( No "clear" answer, till now...) "As benchmarks and as bends..." (sic) Why you would have needed the one, if you could prove the other ? Do you believe that being half-right in both, makes you be absolutely-right in any one of them ? Wrong belief ! It seems to me that you have not made your mind, and you try to defend both fronts, because you fear/know you are losing at both ! Not a wise strategy, to my view. :)
The concept that there might be better bends yet to be found... is not nearly as difficult to understand ... I think this is obvious to most people and that they implicitly understand this to be the case.
I, too, have though this should be the case... However, you seem to be an exception. You do not want to learn the bends that have already be found, and shown to you, repeatedly. What is so difficult for you, and why it is so difficult, it is difficult for me to understand, indeed. :) I think that it is obvious to most people that I have shown 27 or so fig.8 bends, that you have examined - after much delay- only one of them - the A3- and yet you claim a number of things about all theose fig.8 bends, that you can not prove.
-
Oddly enough, all of my posts make "perfect" sense if one exchanges the term "benchmark" for "Gold Standard" at every occurrence. Lucky for me, I guess. :o
-
Lucky for me, I guess. :o
No, you have not used luck...you have used 1500 words in12 days, to say something you could very well have said with one word in one minute - while you have used 150 words to report your findings for the one of the 6 retucked thief knot bends presented in the original post of this thread. If we keep going with that pace and effectiveness, we will reach a conclusion after ...you count how many words, pages and years. :)
-
A recent exchange of views about another issue, reminded me those ( forgotten ) bends... They are generated by symmetrically re-tucking the thief knot "base", i.e., by driving the working ends once more through this knot s nub, via one of the 5 "openings" between the segments of the loose knot " base" - just as it was done with the reef family of knots "base", at (1).
Just because some of the many combinations of this re-tucking procedure do not lead to a stable knot, it turns out that the total number of the distinct generated bends is only 6. At 4 of them ( the "A" bends), during the re-tucking, the working end enters into an opening by the one side of the loose thief knot "base", and at the other 2 ( the "B" bends ) by the other side. They are shown at the first two posts ( which, fortunately or unfortunately, are the only posts worth reading... because all the next posts were dedicated to the usual nonsense. :) ) However, some of those bends need a quite careful dressing, a detailed attention to the relative locations of the knot s strands prior to the final tightening phase - otherwise the subsequent tightening will lead to another knot, or it will not lead to any stable knot at all.
So, here comes the question : Which of those bends can be considered as "practical" knots ? Although they are equally simple, the fact that some of them need such an attention during the dressing phase, makes me think twice about their "practical" character...
" I had come to believe that if the dressing of a knot is unstable, i.e. if the knot should be dressed to one stable form that very easily ( by a " tiny tug" ) degenerates into another, less stable or completely unstable form... then it should not be considered as a "practical" knot. "
That means that even if a knot is simple, easy to remember and to tie, and secure, it should probably also be such that it can be easily dressed in a stable form - otherwise the ambiguity of the dressing could lead to unstable forms, or to different final knots, that are not secure.
I will not point out which of those 6 bends are stable, in the sense described above, and which are not - in an effort to persuade the interested reader to tie them all, judge by himself, and enjoy the outcome. :)
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18494#msg18494
-
a snip...
" I had come to believe that if the dressing of a knot is unstable, i.e. if the knot should be dressed to one stable form that very easily ( by a " tiny tug" ) degenerates into another, less stable or completely unstable form... then it should not be considered as a "practical" knot. "
I would think that this needs qualifying somewhat.
Is the stable-then-unstable - practical(?) knot under tension when this occurs? If that is the case then it is not necessarily a bad thing if that is the intent. As in a hitch that easy to untie by tugging a part of it.
Does a slipped knot fall into this category as well?
May not be best of breed, but I do find uses for the symmetric Sheet bend. Stable and secure whilst under tension. And I like how easy it will spill when done.
SS
-
I would think that this needs qualifying somewhat.
Indeed ! :)
I can not explain it with words... I was not referring to the Symmetric Sheet bend - although this was what made me think on this issue in the first place. If you tie those 6 bends, you will see what I mean.
There are knots where dressing is not needed at all - you just leave an adequate amount of length for the tails to remain inside the knot s nub, and you pull the standing ends . ( I have in mind the Zeppelin bend and the Ashley s bend, because they do not "eat" their tails during tightening - or they eat a very small amount of them). There are knots that should be dressed properly, otherwise they do not lead to a secure form - like the Symmetric Sheet bend, which, if dressed wrongly, leads to its dangerous evil impostor...There are also knots where, during the dressing phase, when the knot is under the minimum tension of our fingers, the strands can be manipulated in a number of ways, so, when the knot is finally tightened, they can be found in a number of places - like some of the bends presented at this thread. The average knot tyer expects a self-dressing knot, where, the moment he sets up the knot, the 99% of the tying has been done. However, only few knots provide this luxury.
In other words, we can have a simple knot ( a knot that can be set up easily ) and a secure knot ( a knot that will not slip ), but I suspect that, if the dressing of this knot is not quite easy, unambiguous, almost automatic, but demands a certain degree of attention to details, we can not consider it as a "practical" knot.
Regarding "practicality", it seems that dressing matters...
-
Two recent pictures of the A1 bend - just for the record. I hope that, someday, somebody would collect, draw tying diagrams and take new pictures of all the bends we know, so that the knot tyer of the future would not have to search for topics that "have not been posted in for at least 120 days.".