International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: Matt53 on December 20, 2012, 10:57:49 PM

Title: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on December 20, 2012, 10:57:49 PM
Hello Forum Members,  The knot described is similar to a Zeppelin bend or somewhat less so to an Ashley bend (at least in the manner in which it is tied).  The forum's posting system allows 4 attachments (and I have 8) so I will attach the first 4 photos showing the forming of this knot to this post and the remaining 4 to a second post.  I have not seen this bend described in the Ashley Book of Knots or elsewhere but would appreciate the Guild members' expertise to determine if this knot has been previously described.
       It seems to be a very secure bend at least with normal (average) sized cordage and is symmetrical and has a handsome appearence.
       I appreciate the forum members' expertise in determining if this knot has been previously described.  Thank you!
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend (attachments Part II)
Post by: Matt53 on December 20, 2012, 11:01:04 PM
Attached are the remaining 4 photos to the previous post describing a possible new knot/bend.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on December 20, 2012, 11:52:07 PM
Roo,  I am very familiar with the Hunter's bend (Rigger's bend, ABOK 1425a) and this is a different configuration.  The reverse side of the knot IS identical to the Hunter's bend. The obverse side of the knot however is different. On a Hunter's bend the strands on this side (what I have labled 'obverse') lay parallel to each other while on the bend presented they form an overhand knot (ie they wrap around each other). I have checked this many times. If you lay this knot next to the ABOK 1425a (Hunter's/ Rigger's bend) one can appreciate how they are different. I agree, on quick inspection this looks somewhat similar to a Hunter's bend but on close inspection, it is not.  I appreciate your comments and urge you to tie both bends and look at them side by side and I think you will be able to appreciate the difference. Thanks!
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: roo on December 21, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Roo,  I am very familiar with the Hunter's bend (Rigger's bend, ABOK 1425a) and this is a different configuration.  The reverse side of the knot IS identical to the Hunter's bend. The obverse side of the knot however is different. On a Hunter's bend the strands on this side (what I have labled 'obverse') lay parallel to each other while on the bend presented they form an overhand knot (ie they wrap around each other). I have checked this many times. If you lay this knot next to the ABOK 1425a (Hunter's/ Rigger's bend) one can appreciate how they are different. I agree, on quick inspection this looks somewhat similar to a Hunter's bend but on close inspection, it is not.  I appreciate your comments and urge you to tie both bends and look at them side by side and I think you will be able to appreciate the difference. Thanks!
Sorry.  I misinterpreted your directions on your images.  The pictured bend is different than Hunter's Bend.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: SS369 on December 21, 2012, 01:18:15 AM
Hi Matt and welcome.
Thanks for your contribution.

I just tied this using 6mm kernmantle cord, loaded it to approx. 300 lbs. and then bounced on it. I found it held and was easy to untie afterwards. No tools needed. ;-)

I also do not find it in ABoK, but then many knots presented in the Forum are not there either.
Roger Miles book has some that look like it, but the pictures are one side only and that makes a confirmation by half only.

We have a thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3670.msg21289#msg21289 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3670.msg21289#msg21289) in which a similar knot is presented and discussed.
So far I have not found it.

SS
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on December 21, 2012, 02:01:56 AM
   Hi Matt,

   I believe that all the simple bends are already known - but I also believed the same thing just a few weeks ago, when I met another new bend nobody knew - and ( which is the bitter end of the story ) nobody was interested to learn !  :)  So, there is still the possibility that a simple bend is "new", and it is hiding just under our noses - because we are still very far from a complete ( systematic and exhaustive) enumeration of all the possible configurarions. The simple bends are many more than we need, and certainly many more than the average human brain can remember. As a species, we have been evolved to remember many things, but not complex paths of convoluted 1D lines in 3D space. So, it should be expected that even competent knot tyers do not remember all the bends they had seen, or even all the bend they have tied.
   There is a way out of this limitation of our brain : We remember many more things, if we understand them : if we understand their structure, their patterns, their inner logic. If we do, our brain builds proper categories, and arranges/sorts all those things in little "tool-boxes", readily available to any future need.
   Which is the bend you show ? First, both links of the bend are topologically equivalent to the overhand knot - so it is an interlocked overhand knot bend. Then, its symmetry reminds the Hunter s bend, because the two standing ends are entering into the knot s nub from the same side of the collar bights, and the tails are exiting towards the opposite directions. Lastly, we see that there are two strands that are twisted around each other at the one side, but parallel to each other at the other side.
   That s all, folks !  :)   
    Have a look at this bend, and at its relatives, at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.0
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: kd8eeh on December 21, 2012, 03:01:22 AM
I have not seen this knot.  However, I have tied a knot which binds similarly and has similar properties, and i believe to be somewhat related.  I think i described it somewhere else, but i'll put pictures here anyway.

They look rather dissimilar at first, but look moreso at the structure than the appearance.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on December 21, 2012, 04:25:30 AM
  I think i described it somewhere else, but i'll put pictures here anyway.

    You did, with the same pictures :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4016.msg24885#msg24885

   ( I suggest you better keep a record of your posts, knots and pictures, according to subjects, possibly labeled by some key words, so it will be easy for you to refer to them in the future.
   If the pictures of the knot(s) were taken against a solid colour background, it would be much easier for the reader to follow the paths of the individual lines. The details of the backgound are getting mixed with the outlines of the ropes, and this makes your pictures less easy to read...) 

   P.S. However, I have to thank you for this repetition of this series of pictures... :) It offered to me the opportunity to tie your knot again - and to remember why I did not like it the first time I saw it... The sharp curves that are formed when the standing ends pass through the collars, the way they pass through them, can not be retained for long. When the standing ends are tensioned, they are aligned, and so they drag the tails, and they force them to slip out of the central nipping structure - so, in the final tight form of the bend, the collars can not but remain elongated, and the knot settles in a non-compact, "loose" form. I always prefer the compact knots, which convey an impression of "rigidity" - although this has nothing to do with the security or not of the knot. So, I untucked the standing ends from the collars ( keeping the rest of the knot as it was), and then I tried to figure out a more direct, "straight"  way to drive them igain into the knot. The first thing that had crossed my mind happened to work : The standing ends now follow the same paths as before, pass through the same collars, but penetrate them and enter into the knot s nub coming from the opposite sides. Is the result a more compact knot as I though it would be ? Knot at all !  :) The bend that was tied this way is a very flat, loose, and most "springy"  knot - that deserves the name "Springy bend", indeed. In fact, it is almost a rope-made spring, a very interesting knot, that I have never seen before - or that I do not remember seeing it before... What did I say ? That "all the simple bends are already known" ? Well, I was wrong - again !  :)
See : Springy bend :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4188
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: roo on December 21, 2012, 08:30:37 AM
Hello Forum Members,  The knot described is similar to a Zeppelin bend or somewhat less so to an Ashley bend (at least in the manner in which it is tied).  The forum's posting system allows 4 attachments (and I have 8) so I will attach the first 4 photos showing the forming of this knot to this post and the remaining 4 to a second post.  I have not seen this bend described in the Ashley Book of Knots or elsewhere but would appreciate the Guild members' expertise to determine if this knot has been previously described.
       It seems to be a very secure bend at least with normal (average) sized cordage and is symmetrical and has a handsome appearence.
       I appreciate the forum members' expertise in determining if this knot has been previously described.  Thank you!
Attempting to steer this thread back to the original bend:

This bend does a very nice job of remaining easy to untie after heavy load.  This may be related to how difficult it is to work the bend into a compact form that doesn't let the two collars spring back open.  I feel like I don't have enough hands to work it snug, but pushing the outer bights toward each other helps.  The security of the bend isn't bad (it's better than a sheet bend), but for the class of bend and complexity, I would expect more.  The bend also tends to make a large protrusion from the line.

I do very much appreciate that you've put some thought into simplifying the method of tying.  It was only my misinterpretation of your "clockwise rotation" descriptor that let me astray at first.  I think I now have it, but the overall complexity may still be a bit of a stretch for the masses.

This may not make mainstream practical usage, but the jam-resistant geometry is worthy of study.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on December 21, 2012, 04:14:21 PM
Thanks to all!  I  have reproduced the bend described by kd8eeh and although similar, it is distinct from the current bend.  Same for the 'springy bend' described by X1.  My apologies to Roo for not making the instructions less ambiguous- the 180 degree 'rotation' was in the axial plane not in the horizontal plane.  This might have been better described as a 'twist' (ie a 180 degree rotation along the axis of the loop).  Sorry for the confusion.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on December 21, 2012, 05:16:47 PM
it is distinct from the current bend.  Same for the 'springy bend' described by X1.

  I had NOT said that the bend you had shown is the same as the "Springhy" bend !
  I said that is the same bend that ihad been described at the reference I had mentioned at Reply#5, which I hope you will visit...
 
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19163#msg19163

   The falsely tied Hunter s bend has two distinct "sides"  - just as the Hunter s bend. ( The Zeppelin bend is symmetric regarding this aspect ). I had characterized the one as the "top side" and the other as "bottom side". The bend you have  shown is the one where the two strands of the "top" side are twisted around each other - so I had called it "top side twist". See the attached pictures.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on December 21, 2012, 09:53:55 PM
X1,  I agree- the knot you have shown is the same (identical to) the knot I described.  Does this bend have a name besides 'top side twist variation of the falsely tied Hunter's bend'?  Thanks
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on December 21, 2012, 10:51:01 PM
  Imagine a planet some billions light years away from us, where an intelligent being has tied this same knot - would it be of any interest to "it" how "we" had named "its" knot, here on Earth ? I guess not. So, why on Earth should it be of any interest to us ?
  Knots are like mathematical theorems : they exist, they are not depending on the particular point in space and time they happen to be discovered. They are the same all over the World ( with capital W), and all we can do is to try to discover them. Why ? Because they are there.
   If our brain had evolved differently, perhaps we would have been labeling knots by other means, through haptic or olfactive memories. If we were living in a culture that uses pictograms, we would  simply carve the diagram of the knot on the wet clay, and so we would not had aby need for an intermediate agent. I do not believe that names offer much to knots, and probably do as much harm to them as they can...People are parroting names very easily, and they are parroting the names of knots, too - so they do not try to study the topological and geometrical properties of them, and they remain knot users, at best, or even knot consumers. I believe that we knot tyers should declare a war on this useless tradition, this relic of the past, the labelling of knots by silly "names" that do not reveal anything of their true character. So, I am happy this bend does not have a name - and I hope that the existing names of the already named knots would be forgotten some day !  :) We will then be forced to inagine the knots without the need of any intermediate agent, and I believe that, this way, we would be able to understand and remember them much more easily and deeply than now.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: SS369 on December 21, 2012, 11:28:14 PM
I have the view that knots should have name's. Not such as Doohickey's knot, etc.,  but something meaningful.
The name could be a succinct descriptor with possibly a number and/or alphabet letter.
If we could come up with this it would go a long way to organizing the Library of Knots.
Not an easy answer I am thinking..

SS
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on December 22, 2012, 01:39:16 AM
something meaningful.
The name could be a succinct descriptor
 

   If "Dances with wolves" counts as a "name", I agree !  :)
   In modern civilizations/western societies, "names" have ceased to bear any descriptive power long ago...
   Most knots have silly names, that reveal absolutely nothing of their form or structure.
   What you have in mind is not a "name", but a legend.
   See the periodical table of elements. There, each and every individual configuration of protons and neutrons, each and every chemical element, occupies a certain place in a well organized, meaningful grid. If one knows the place of one element in this grid, he can deduce a great number of its physical and chemical properties. If he only knows the traditional name/symbol, he knows next to nothing.
   The Clove hitch, the Strangle and the Constrictor, for example, are hitches based on a riding turn that secures the ends of the round turns underneath it. If we had a way to denote the existence and the number of riding and round turns, and their relative entangling, we could have had a meaningful "name", a tool that will reveal the similarities and the differences between those hitches. Now we have nothing more than three more meaningless names. Knots are tools, and they could be labeled by words/numbers that also serve as tools. Most present names belong to kind of knot-tyers slang, so the proud speakers of this strange language would remain few, and satisfied in their loneliness...
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: SS369 on December 22, 2012, 04:30:43 AM
I agree that knots are tools/mechanisms and could/should have "names" (identifiers) like tools out there in the world. Those names are usually fairly good. Not necessarily for the common person always, but for interested people.

I say to someone: Let me have that 3/8 inch drive, half inch socket. A descriptive name that would mean absolutely zilch to my wife, but to gear heads I'd need say no more.

We're knot heads so how can we do this? At least for this subculture/group of similarly interested people.

We're digressing and veering from the thread's path just a little, but since Matt did ask we could go a little further.
We have been down this road before and no closer have we come. Yet.

SS
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on December 22, 2012, 02:58:53 PM
We're knot heads so how can we do this?

   At first, we can stop walking on the same slippery road of giving silly names to new knots ( including the most silly of them all, ours... :)).
   We can try descriptive names, that tell something about the knot s form, structure or properties. I myself had attempted something like this, with some knots I had tied.( Oval bend, Helical bend, Trefoil bend, Springy bend, Pretzel bowline, Double crossing nipping loops bowline...).
   We can use the names of the already well known named bends to describe new ones that are readily related to them ( Zeppelin X bend, Carrick X bend, Shakehands X bend, simple hitch a-la-Gleipnir, Double Granny bend, locked Cow hitch, Double Cow hitch, Multi-coil Clove hitch, Retucked Whatknot bend, Symmetric Sheet bend ).
   We can use names that describe the knot s mechanism and/or properties ( TackleClamp hitch ).
   Or, we can try to describe the tying procedure of the knot, by denoting the sequence of moves we have to follow to tie certain knot . Starting from a certain Carrick mat, we can retuck the working ends through some of its openings. Which ones ? The first working end through the left right (lR) opening, and the second working end through the upper left (uL) opening - and so we tie the lR-uL bend.(1)
    In short, we can do our best not to prolong the knotname confusion yet another century ! So, I think that the "top side twist falsely tied Hunter's bend", as well as the "Dances with Wolves", are OK... :)

   P.S. From time to time, every quarter of a century or so (?), here comes a marvelous knot, a Great knot, that can be named in any way its inventor wishes - in fact, any name at all, and still be remembered by this name for centuries. I know one recent such knot, the Gleipnir ( of which I consider myself a humble student).
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: TMCD on December 22, 2012, 08:14:42 PM
Why would I tie this knot when the Zeppelin Bend is clearly superior and has proven itself time after time in real world applications?

There's only about two bends that can even rival the Zeppelin Bend IMO, that being the Ashley Bend and Butterfly Bend...everything else just doesn't have the symmetry, security, strength and ease of untying after being loaded. I'm a big fan of the Double Harness Bend but it's major issue is that it can be tough to untie if you can't get those collars to push up...but it's a beautiful bend.

Ashley said the perfect bend was the Carrick Bend, but I've always questioned it's security for some reason...I have zero evidence to back that up, just my opinion from eyeballing it. If my life's on the line or anyone else's, I'm using the Zeppelin Bend.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on December 23, 2012, 12:12:50 AM
A name can be useful as a shorthand way of referencing a knot.  A name can also indicate the geometry of a knot and perhaps the 'family' to which it is related.  Perhaps like names within the plant and animal kingdom, a knot could have both a common name and a scientific name.  The scientific name (could even be numbers and letters) would indicate the 'family' the knot belongs to and it's unique permutation within that family (much in the way the genus and species denotes a unique organism).  I do like the idea of a'periodic table' which defines configurations scientifically (mathematically). In essence the 'scientific name' (or code) would describe the knot's geometry.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on December 23, 2012, 12:31:43 AM
To respond to TMCD, I agree that the Zeppelin bend is (probably) superior but I'm not sure I 'know' this.  Just from an armchair perspective, the line making up each side of the Zeppelin bend undergoes 450 degrees of direction change.  For the current bend, it appears to be 540 degrees. It may be that both knots would exceed the breaking strength  of the line used before slipping. Arguably, in that case the Zeppelin bend would be superior in that it accomplished the same goal in a simpler, more elegant fashion.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 24, 2012, 08:02:03 AM
Roo,  I am very familiar with the Hunter's bend (Rigger's bend, ABOK 1425a) and this is a different configuration.  The reverse side of the knot IS identical to the Hunter's bend.

Apparently you're replying to a vaporized post showing
simple knot misidentification, tsk tsk.

But, no, the "reverse" side is NOT the same --tie
SmitHunter's bend and see how it differs
(using differently colored ropes, that is!).

Quote
If you lay this knot next to the ABOK 1425a (Hunter's/ Rigger's bend)
one can appreciate how they are different.

But if you nix the "a" and compare this to Ashley's #1425
--a much too ignored gem--, you should see their likeness
(and, overall, I think I favor Ashley's).  Mr. Gray (?) submitted
this end-2-end knot to the IGKT's New-Knot Claims Assessment
Committee some decade or so ago; so, you have company.
It's a natural result taking #1425 as a stimulus; and you
might play around with alternative exits of the tails vis-a-vis
themselves (something rewarding for SmitHunter's, too!).

Quote
... on quick inspection this looks somewhat similar ...
[but] look at them side by side and I think you will be able to appreciate the difference.

I guess he did.  (Before he got a citation like SS369 did!)   ;)

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 24, 2012, 08:19:16 AM
Why would I tie this knot when the Zeppelin Bend is clearly superior and has proven itself time after time in real world applications?

There's only about two bends that can even rival the Zeppelin Bend IMO, that being the Ashley Bend and Butterfly Bend...everything else just doesn't have the symmetry, security, strength and ease of untying after being loaded. I'm a big fan of the Double Harness Bend but it's major issue is that it can be tough to untie if you can't get those collars to push up...but it's a beautiful bend.

Ashley said the perfect bend was the Carrick Bend, but I've always questioned it's security for some reason...I have zero evidence to back that up, just my opinion from eyeballing it. If my life's on the line or anyone else's, I'm using the Zeppelin Bend.

I'm still looking for all these proven uses of the zeppelin
--esp. after the one supposed to have spawned it was said
to be a myth!  One might be chary of the looseness of the
z. and favor Ashley's #1425 for its tightness when set.
Or because one found it stronger, albeit slightly (as though
this could matter!).  And I continue to be amused at the
worship the butterfly gets as an end-2-end knot when
Ashley's #1408 is "clearly superior" --i.e., at least symmetric
and otherwise a match!?  (Though we might find that some
orientations of the former make its asymmetry into a charm.)

The carrick bend is apparently favored by the rugged Alaskan
crab fishermen to join pot warps (when one line's not enough);
I think that they might fancy the zeppelin (or #1452 [nb:
fifty-two, not twenty-five, here]); but maybe they take the
precaution of taping the carrick's tails together --the sort of
securing I find in much east-coast commercial-fishing knotting--,
and then the adjacency of the tails is a plus.

Not every ends-joint is wanted to be (easily, or at all) untied.
The fisherman's knot is de rigueur for much com.fish. work,
for it stays tied, is strong, presents ends along SParts for
easy securing, and is compact.  Nobody in this business would
want any of these other end-2-end knots over the fisherman's;
the dbl.harness might get some attention, though.


And, really, we should all ask : where do you get ANY indication
of the zeppelin bend's strength?
  For the lack of evidence,
there is a LOT of noise out there, it seems to me!


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on December 24, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
The carrick bend is apparently favoured by the rugged Alaskan crab fishermen

   Alaska crab fishing is even more dangerous than logging !  :) ( they are the two most dangerous occupations in the World - knot tying should be the least dangerous - but I do not know the dangers of "writing to a knot-tying site"=" trying to speak to knot-tyers"... Judging from my blood pressure when I read some "comments" coming from the bottom of this day s or last night s alcohol bottle, I reckon they are NOT negligible...   
  Tell us, great Alaskan crab fisherman, do you use the common Carrick bend, or the Carrick X bend shown at (1). Because I cannot imagine you pay any attention to the exact way the tails will be crossed, if you tie it by capsizing the Carrick s mat.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4128.msg24826#msg24826
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Dan_Lehman on December 27, 2012, 04:10:09 AM

  Tell us, great Alaskan crab fisherman, do you use the common Carrick bend,
or the Carrick X bend shown at (1). Because I cannot imagine you pay any attention
to the exact way the tails will be crossed, if you tie it by capsizing the Carrick s mat.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4128.msg24826#msg24826

In the one passing glimpse of the tying (or so I think it was),
they had two men doing it, one holding one end folded into
the crossing-knot ("Munter") form and the other reeving into
that the 2nd end --a tying method that allows further variations!
But I surmise that they went for the usually recommended version.
(The line is hard-laid, so capsizing the lattice form could be tough.)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on December 27, 2012, 04:38:19 AM
   Thanks. Is nt it strange, two people tying one knot ? ? It would need some precise (4 ! ) hands manipulation, and a good synchronization ( but that is not something those men are not accustomed to ! ). With some springy ropes, I find it difficult to tie the Carrick bend by myself - and there is no heave+sway+surge+roll+pitch+yaw of the floor ! ( not any sub-freezing temperatures, ice falling from above, etc...) ! Why are they tying those knots this way ?
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on January 10, 2013, 11:05:49 PM
Sorry for the delayed response.

[But, no, the "reverse" side is NOT the same --tie
SmitHunter's bend and see how it differs
(using differently colored ropes, that is!).]
 
The knot originally presented and the SmitHunter's bend (#1425a) are the same on the 'reverse' side. Depending on how it is tied, one can produce enantiomeric (mirror image) forms but these are alternate representations of the same form. This knot differs from the Hunters' bend (#1425a) on the 'obverse' side in that the parallel strands (Hunter's bend) are wrapped around each other (forming an overhand knot).

[But if you nix the "a" and compare this to Ashley's #1425
--a much too ignored gem--, you should see their likeness
(and, overall, I think I favor Ashley's).  Mr. Gray (?) submitted
this end-2-end knot to the IGKT's New-Knot Claims Assessment
Committee some decade or so ago; so, you have company.
It's a natural result taking #1425 as a stimulus; and you
might play around with alternative exits of the tails vis-a-vis
themselves (something rewarding for SmitHunter's, too!).]

The difference between the bend originally presented and #1425 is that on the 'obverse' side  the ends exit 'thru' the overhand knot in #1425 and 'below' the overhand knot in the presented bend. So I agree, there is a similarity to #1425 although they are different. #1425 is more difficult to untie which may be an advantage/disadvantage depending on the circumstance. Thanks!

Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on January 10, 2013, 11:10:51 PM
Sorry- the above post by me references Dan Lehman's post #20. 
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on January 10, 2013, 11:31:10 PM
enantiomeric (mirror image) forms

I believe they are called enantiomorphic ( enanti = other, opposite side / opposing, morphi = form ).
They are called enantiomeric ( enanti + meri = composed by parts ) only in chemistry ?
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Luca on January 11, 2013, 01:16:31 AM
Hi Matt53,I apologize in advance for how(and also for how incomplete) I am going to write

The falsely tied Hunter's bend (or false Zeppelin) is so symmetrical that the reversed version is the same (other bends have this feature, for example the Hashley's and the Double Harness with parallel ends);this knot can take two different forms: one similar to real Hunter's (in this case, the difference resides in the fact that the standing ends are not interlinked), the other similar to ABOK #1425(in this case the difference lies in the fact that the standing ends are not crossed).In this thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4201.0 X1,for as I perceive,shows that such operation can be carried out also with the Hunter's(given the similar geometry/symmetry);and you consider that the bottom side twist falsely tied Hunter's bend http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19170#msg19170  is the same of ABOK #1425(but if you run an ABOK # 1425, and then instead by the standing ends you  load it by the tails, you may see a falsely tied Hunter's with crossed tails!).

                                                                                                           Bye!
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: X1 on January 11, 2013, 01:44:59 AM
   For readers who might wish to read a fairy tale about ABoK#1425 , ABoK#1425a and Hunter s bend :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3236
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on January 11, 2013, 10:49:06 PM
Luca,  No need for apology.  You bring up a good point- the falsely tied Hunter's bend 'becomes' ABOK #1425 when the free ends and the standing ends are reversed.  This does not seem to be the case with the knot presented in this thread or with the standard Hunter's (#1425).  Both of these seem to 'pull apart' when the free ends and standing ends are reversed.
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on January 11, 2013, 11:01:06 PM
enantiomeric (mirror image) forms

I believe they are called enantiomorphic ( enanti = other, opposite side / opposing, morphi = form ).
They are called enantiomeric ( enanti + meri = composed by parts ) only in chemistry ?

Enantiomer(ic) is from Organic Chemistry (a long time ago for me!). I agree, enantiomorphic is probably a better term. My reference on enantiomorphic links it to crystal structure so perhaps there is an even better term out there!
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Luca on January 12, 2013, 09:08:45 PM
Hi Matt53,and Thanks

I did not want to say only this(did you see that I have explained myself badly? Now maybe I explain even worse! So I apologize again!):that the falsely tied Hunter's bend becomes(almost,as can be seen from the diagrams shown in the interesting thread linked by X1,an interesting story on logical consequences that I want to reread carefully) ABOK #1425,when the free ends and the standing ends are reversed;but more I wanted to emphasize the fact that there is no need to perform this operation in order to the knot assumes the two different forms(the one similar to # 1425A, and the other similar to # 1425):if you tie a"Falsely"as appears here(the simplest version):

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.0

and then you run an operation(in reverse)similar to that described here:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4201.0

you obtain the"1425-like"form.
However, once loaded, the bend has a tendency to take this form, but this  not happens in a complete way without a manual intervention, because the knot jams before the process is completed,taking a"middle way"form.
So, for as I perceive, the Falsely, this jamming and poor knot, which is neither meat nor fish,unstable/bistable,is"conceptually"the real basic  knot ,from which we can start to make other versions:
If you want that this basic bend spontaneously takes the"relieved collars with'parallel'ends"form before it jams, then the bottom side twisted version is for you(= #1425).
If instead you want to prevent this from happening, wanting to get an unjamming knot that keeps the "Hunter's-like" setting,the top side twisted version(the knot that you present) is the solution(I know that basically I'm not adding anything to what one can read and observe in the threads linked above by X1 and me).
Given the similarity between the geometry of Falsely and that of the real  Hunter's , I might even venture that the Hunter's is an interlinked overhand knot version of the former,but frankly I would not pushing me this far (and then the Shakehands,as we place?)because the difference that is generated in this case, is much deeper in respect with the twistings mentioned above:tie a Falsely(or a top side twist Falsely)with ropes differently colored,and look at the bottom side:if you then tie two Hunter's bends,the one mirror image of the other,looking at the correspondents sides of these,you will not be able to find in any case a match between how they combine the colors of the two ropes and  the direction of how the tails come out,with respect to the Falsely!

                                                                                                           Bye!
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Dan_Lehman on January 12, 2013, 10:25:45 PM
Sorry for the delayed response.

Quote
[But, no, the "reverse" side is NOT the same --tie
SmitHunter's bend and see how it differs
(using differently colored ropes, that is!).]
 
The knot originally presented and the SmitHunter's bend (#1425a) are
the same on the 'reverse' side.  Depending on how it is tied, one can produce
enantiomeric (mirror image) forms but these are alternate representations
of the same form. This knot differs from the Hunters' bend (#1425a) on
the 'obverse' side in that the parallel strands (Hunter's bend) are wrapped
around each other (forming an overhand knot).

Let me reiterate, and I hope that given this you
DO tie them with colored ropes and so see the
truth --to be clear, I'm referring to what was shown
as 08 Final configuration reverse side (enlargement).JPG .
SmitHunter's bend is NOT this (although similar).
The position of the straight-in parts of the SParts is
reversed (re upper/lower, in the image).

Now, for some folks it's possible that their reference
for what is SmitHunter's bend is wrong, in showing
what is better called a "false zeppelin bend" ; but you
have ABOK which has the former correctly drawn.
In the correct knot, the overhands *interlock* with
their SParts' turns, each into the other, unlike the zeppelin.

Quote
You bring up a good point- the falsely tied Hunter's bend
'becomes' ABOK #1425 when the free ends and the standing ends are reversed.

Matt53, again, please note the subtleties here --this assertion
is wrong, as Luca indicates (slightly) in reply.  The former
knot doesn't interlock overhands no matter how one
loads the ends (in reverse, normally) --so it cannot be
the same as the latter knot, which is so interlocked.



--dl*
====
Title: Re: Possble New Knot/Bend
Post by: Matt53 on January 13, 2013, 11:32:53 PM
Don,  You are correct on both points! The reverse side of the Hunter's bend and the current bend are similar but NOT identical. (see attached photos).  The difference is that with the Hunter's bend the free end exits opposite (contralateral) the standing portion of this same line that forms half of the 'parallel formation' on the reverse side of the knot. By contrast with the current knot presented, on the reverse side the free ends exit on the SAME side (ipsilateral) as the corresponding standing parts. I may not have described this  clearly, but the photo of the reverse aspect of both knots side by side (photo 2) demonstrates the different direction of free end  exit between the two knots. In retrospect this 'makes sense' because the overhand loop on the front side of this knot reverses the direction (relative to the parallel strands on the front surface of the Hunter's Bend) of the respective free ends (see photo 1).
      As you correctly pointed out the 'reversed' falsely tied Hunter's and ABOK #1425 are not identical (although similar). As with the above situation, with the falsely tied Hunter's the free end exit OPPOSITE the corresponding standing parts and with #1425 (if the standing and free ends are reversed to produce a configuration more easily compared with the falsely tied Hunter's) the free end exit on the SAME side as the corresponding standing parts.