International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: Mobius on April 06, 2015, 08:07:45 AM

Title: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 06, 2015, 08:07:45 AM
Well, I have only been tying and studying knots in earnest for a couple of months and I fully admit that acronyms like TIB had me guessing for quite awhile. The nomenclature in the knotting world is less than obvious in many cases and words like 'bight', 'bend' and 'hitch' do not always imply the same thing.

A notable definition: "That all Bowlines can be tied in a one-stage tying process a concept known as Post Eye Tiable (PET)"

I thought PET meant that the knot could be tied in a practical manner to a ring (endless rail), not that it had to be a "one-stage" process. Is the above definition right? If so, why is it so desirable? Some otherwise very good knots require a simple knot first (eg an overhand knot perhaps) before they are tied to an endless rail.

PET seems to be one of those 'holy grail' terms. I would not dismiss an otherwise good knot because I could not tie it in "one-stage". How easy it is to tie overall is a far more important aspect, right?

Cheers,

mobius

[Edit: Someone new to knotting might do a site search one day on "glossary", with the aim of finding out what certain obscure acronyms mean. I did exactly that a couple of months ago and I thought I would define a few of the well used ones here to help someone get started :) I have no intention of keeping it updated, and I hope no-one accuses me of promulgating undesired acronyms.

PET - Post Eye Tiable. This is the concept of tying a rope end to an endless rail (or a toroid) where the knot can be fully formed in a one-step process after the rope has been passed around the rail, or through a ring. That is, a knot-free rope first makes a loop around the endless rail, then the knot is tied.

TIB - Tiable in the bight. Here bight refers to a mid-line section of rope away from the ends and where the rope ends are not used to tie the knot.

SPart - Standing part of the rope.

EEL - Either End Loadable. The SPart and eye together is clearly the way many loops are loaded normally. However, if a loop was tied TIB and someone loaded the 'Tail' and eye (considered by some/many to be a new knot since we swap what was the SPart and what was the Tail) then it would be useful to know that the original loop satisfies EEL, from a security viewpoint.

... work in progress]
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 06, 2015, 02:46:16 PM
Thanks xarax,

I will start with this one tomorrow when I'm fresh: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4941.msg32500#msg32500

Cheers,

mobius
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 08, 2015, 08:22:47 AM
   I will try to make my reply as short as possible, because I have already spent a lot of bits and bytes of this Forum on this issue.
   Search for the word "relic", and read the posts where this word is written in relation to the bowlines.
   I short, a non-PET end-of-line loop may even become dangerous.
 

Strangely enough, I was browsing in a book store today and stumbled across a newly written guide to mountaineering/climbing. The knot recommended for end-of-rope loop applications was a retraced Figure 8 (relic). Knot sites still advocate this knot, so I assume it is still currently used.  A nice looking loop to be sure, and no doubt it has earned security status through successful use, however it certainly is not 'one-step'  and therefore not PET, as I understand it.

One is left wondering (and I am happy to learn new things about knots through discussion) whether the climbing fraternity is lacking judgment, or the PET concept is really not so important to climbing applications?

Cheers,

mobius

[edit added the word rope]
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Sweeney on April 08, 2015, 11:08:05 AM
   I will try to make my reply as short as possible, because I have already spent a lot of bits and bytes of this Forum on this issue.
   Search for the word "relic", and read the posts where this word is written in relation to the bowlines.
   I short, a non-PET end-of-line loop may even become dangerous.
 

One is left wondering (and I am happy to learn new things about knots through discussion) whether the climbing fraternity is lacking judgment, or the PET concept is really not so important to climbing applications?

Climbers use the retraced figure 8 because they trust it and as lives are often at stake this trust is crucial. Any loop may become dangerous if tied incorrectly - some may be more error prone than others - but the retraced figure 8 is easily checked and its non-PET status is irrelevant to users. Xarax has certainly written at length on this issue and with what he has said is well worth reading but if you are risking life and limb be careful to look to users of knots in the real world as well as knot theory.

Sweeney
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 08, 2015, 01:44:56 PM

Climbers use the retraced figure 8 because they trust it and as lives are often at stake this trust is crucial. Any loop may become dangerous if tied incorrectly - some may be more error prone than others - but the retraced figure 8 is easily checked and its non-PET status is irrelevant to users.

Thank you for the response, I thought what you said was probably the case.

Cheers,

mobius
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: xarax on April 08, 2015, 03:02:55 PM
  Any loop may become dangerous if tied incorrectly... Xarax has certainly written at length on this issue and with what he has said is well worth reading but if you are risking life and limb be careful to look to users of knots in the real world as well as knot theory.

   All each-and-every day sailors and fishermen are "users of knots in the real world" (sic) - especially the old ones !  :) . It is always worth the time required to read the very first sentence of ABoK ! )
   However, I understand that you have not understood a thing of the reasons why a relic knot, still knotted in the line after the loop has been released and the previously attached-to-the-anchor object starts to move, is dangerous. You are obviously no seaman !  :)  I have to inform you that sailors, fishermen, and a few only other professionals ashore ( as surgeons ) were those who have devised, improved and used knots throughout history - climbing is a relatively recent sport, and knot theory a relatively recent branch of mathematics. Do not expect much knowledge about the universe of practical knots coming from those activities.
   Whoever still does not understand why a non-PET knot may become dangerous, is advised to read AGAIN what I have written- or buy a house by the sea and a sailing or a fishing boat, and start his life again !  :)
   
   In passing, climbers know well the tragic incident at Eiger, with a relic knot, which should had not been there :
  " While abseiling however, Kurz could not get the knot that joined the two ropes to pass through his carabiner..."
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Eiger_north_face_climbing_disaster
   Therefore, after so much effort I had put, and probably wasted, to explain this matter, I, too, can only say :
   "Ich kann nicht mehr"

   here is a perfect knot for those who do not want a PET loop, or a Zeppelin-like knot ( probably because they do not tie knots, or they do not use knots, or they do not use their brain while they decide which knots they should use - or simply because they were not endowed with having a brain in the first place ( no pun intended - cnidarians, as a species, live without a central neural system for BILLIONS of years !  :) )). It is called Zeppelin loop, and it is neither a Zeppelin-like nor a PET loop - nevertheless, it is an ugly tangly which, if you tie and try long enough, will help you manage to appreciate in what a bowline-like PET loop differs, without reading anything, or anything else, of what I have written, I am sure ! 
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: xarax on April 08, 2015, 05:18:56 PM
   Let me try, once again, and as analytically yet simply as possible, explain why a "relic" knot still tied in the line of a just released loop is dangerous.
   The moment the continuation of the returning eye leg ( the Tail End ) has been pulled out of the nipping structure tied on the continuation of the Standing End ( the Standing Part ), the loop "opens up", and it can not keep any object attached to the line at its other end, stationary = at a constant distance from the anchor ( the bollard, the ring, the stake, etc ). Therefore, the object at the other end of the line, is now free to distance itself from the anchor, and move, dragging the line along with it, just because the loop which has been "opened up", behaves like it is not encircling the anchor any more.
    Now, two things may happen.
1. If the released loop was PET, by pulling the continuation of the returning eye leg out of the nipping structure, this nipping structure degenerates into the unknot, and the segment on which it was "knotted" becomes a straight line - which, as it is dragged by the moving object, does not run the danger to be caught on some obstacle it will meet in its path. A knot tied on a moving line can be stuck within a narrow passage, or be a factor a swirling line can become even more tangled and "knotted".
2. If the released loop was not PET, by pulling the continuation of the returning eye leg out of the nipping structure, this nipping structure remains "knotted", it is still forming a "relic" knot ( be it an overhand knot, a fig.8 knot, etc - but not un unknot ) - it is still forming a stopper ! And guess why stoppers are called like this !  :) :)
    This stopper, is not only annoying, because it has to be unknotted in a second stage. It may also become dangerous, because, dragged by the object at the other end of it, the line of the released loop can slip around the rim of the bollard, the ring or the stake, and move. A moving line, with a relic knot still tied within it, is something dangerous, not because the knot which has already been partially untied runs any danger to become more unknotted, but because the remaining knot is still unknotted ! And in an environment where everything tends to move, this line with a now not-functional, useless nub on it, is asking for a trouble. We can not always manipulate lines and tie and untie knots, while they, or we, do not move ! THAT is what a sailor or a fisherman can understand, but Sweeney, for example  :) :), can not ! The line may already be tensioned, or may be loose but become tensioned in the blink of the eye, because there are waves and gusts of wind out there, which push and pull the object / boat from all sides ! A loose line becomes tensioned, and vice versa, all the time, and at an instance. On such a line, a still knotted segment is potentially and probably dangerous, especially because, the moments just after an object free itself and is able to start moving away from the anchor, are the most critical. A previously static / stationary system now becomes a dynamic / moving system, and all the parameters which were determining the previous state now change - and they may change in an unpredictable, so potentially dangerous way.
    One may argue that, immediately after he has released the 'first" knot, the one on the Tail End, he can very well untie the "second" knot, the one on the Standing Part, because both knots are tied on the same point, within the reach of the knot tyer s hands and fingers. However, this is exactly what a no-seaman, Sweeney, for example  :) ( I use the same example, for no particular reason... :) ), can not understand : A loose line may become a tense line, and this may happen at an instance. Once the mechanism which immobilizes the whole three-part system ( anchor, line, object ), the loop, has been opened up, and it is not attached on the anchor any more, while it is still attached on the object which can now move, the line is free to slip around anything it was attached on previously, AND THROUGH OUR FINGERS as well ! It is not only annoying to untie two "knotted" segments, it may also be impossible, during the short time frame and the under the unfavourable circumstances described above.

   What am I doing ? I repeat the same things over and over again, when I know that there is no ear nerve, or no ear drum, or no elastic medium between the ear and my mouth - and I am not postulating the existence of brains, at the two far ends of this line !  :) The simplest advise is this : Tie and untie the infamous fake so-called "Zeppelin loop", many times. At the end, you will fall in love with the PET loops !     
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 09, 2015, 05:34:00 AM
Thank you xarax for such lengthy (and may I say passionate :) ) responses. I now don't doubt that PET is a very good quality for a knot to have, and though while I will strive to learn many different loop knots, I will most likely endeavour to focus on loop knots that have the PET property.

BTW, I am not negating my support of Sweeney's post. I think the essence of why the Retraced Figure 8 Loop (RF8L) is prevalent in climbing circles is how verifiable it is. Other loops maybe encompass some of the following aspects (all maybe :) ); secure, easy to tie/untie, non-jamming, PET, TIB, however the RF8L is a very good knot to tie since you know you got it tied right from it's distinctive look. If I was hanging off some cliff face in the wind and rain, knowing I had tied my RF8L tied correctly would give me a good feeling :)

Perhaps the trick is to find a loop knot for climbing that is: secure, easy to verify, easy to tie/untie, non-jamming, PET, TIB. The order of importance is interesting, not sure I have it right.

Cheers,

mobius
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 09, 2015, 06:20:04 AM
Perhaps we need a new acronym: VET - Verifiable Easy Tying

ie. after you have tried to tie some secure knot, the resultant form should be distinctive enough in appearance for you to know you have it right, or not. Reasonable?
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Dan_Lehman on April 09, 2015, 06:52:48 AM
I thought PET meant that the knot could be tied in a practical manner to a ring (endless rail),
 not that it had to be a "one-stage" process.
You are correct : the point is that one need
tie nothing until bringing the tail back from
forming the eye (say, around a big object for
which sizing the eye would be difficult),
AND THEN the entire knot can be formed
(e.g., the common bowline).

As for the now too-long-winded exclamations about
the imagined dangers of non-PET eyeknots (of which
you have quickly found one of the most common ones
used for critical, life-support purposes), just select the
words worth heeding:
for all of
Quote
Whoever still does not understand why a non-PET knot may become dangerous
 is advised to read AGAIN what I have written
take one of
Quote
As I said a few days ago, in relation to something else I had written, :
"Believe ... nothing at all of what they say or write"!
and call it a night!
 ;)

Yes, we've gotten to using some shorthand notations
for common and sometimes awkward expresssions.
"TIB" was my chop for "Tiable In-the Bight", and I also
condensed "standing part" into "SPart" or sometimes
gave some tiny suggestive indicator in 'S.Part'.

"Bight" is odd as you allude in sometimes meaning only
"without ends" (and a sense of a straight segment to
be formed into ...) and other times "a U-turn", sort of
equal to "loop", which itself is heavily overloaded.
Hence, re the latter, I opt for "eye knot" to join the
commonly used "eye splice".

But the nomenclature challenges are tough, and remain.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: xarax on April 09, 2015, 07:01:40 AM
   The fig.8 eyeknot is a GREAT knot, and a most BEAUTIFUL knot as well, period. It is no coincidence that it is included in all "lists" of "best" knots - mine s too. ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1150.msg33735#msg33735 ). That does not mean it is the best in each and every aspect of it, or that it hasn't any shortcomings... I believe that we have TIB and PET loops ( bowline-like loops ) which are also very secure, and as easily tied and even more easily untied, than the retraced fig.8 knot. 
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Sweeney on April 09, 2015, 08:17:21 AM

   I did nt like that vitriolic :
   
... but if you are risking life and limb, be careful to look to users of knots in the real world

Xarax has taken exception to this remark assuming (wrongly) some personal slight. My point was simple and as future readers may misunderstand it I will explain. If you are going to risk life and limb then it's no use just reading books, watching videos and reading posts - that is the virtual world. You need to be taught in the real world with someone with experience at your side - someone to help ensure you can tie and dress an appropriate knot properly - whether PET or not.  Safety is paramount.

Sweeney
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: xarax on April 09, 2015, 03:48:53 PM
 
  Safety is paramount.

  Nobody can deny that - and I do not see any reason one has to repeat it time and again, in a Forum of knot tyers.
  However, the possibility of a "relic" knot, still tied on the one end of a line ( which is already released and dragged by a now free to move object, attached on its other end ) to slip through our fingers before we are offered the possibility to untie it, and then be caught somewhere, and so become a real and present danger, is a matter of safety ! ( Dan Lehman, who imagine imaginations, was quick8 to deny this fact, as he needs/likes to do with every knot and every knot tyer - except his and himself, of course ... :))
   No any knots still knotted on any lines, when they are not needed any more. When you can tie a knot which can be tied and untied in one stage, do it. This is a simple advice regarding SAFETY. Knots are dangerous when they become unknotted, but they can also become dangerous if they are not unknotted when they should.
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: xarax on April 28, 2015, 11:24:03 PM
   While I was trying to describe some EEL eyeknots ( EEL = Either End Loadable ), I had realized, once again, the limitations of the "traditional" knotting nomenclature.
   In particular, when we have a PET eyeknot which can also be loaded by either end ( without any drastic transformation of its nub, of course ), it is reasonable to ask for something more : to be PET in relation to either end, too - for the same reasons we had asked for a PET eyeknot, in relation to one end only, the Standing end. That is, the two knots tied on the Standing Part, at the continuations of the two eye legs, at the two sides of the tip of the eye, should better be PET, both of them. So, if we untie the eyeknot using either of the two ends, the moment we would pull it of the nub, the whole knot will be unknotted, without leaving any "relic" knot near the other end ( which should be untied at a second stage ).
   How we could call such a eyeknot ? For the time being, I use the term PEET or PEEET ( Post Eye - starting from - Either End, Tiable ). Any better (= shorter, more easily and clearly denoting this feature ) word ?
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 29, 2015, 03:37:40 AM
Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE. Post Eye Tiable, Either End

That does not corrupt the original PET acronym and keeps the latter EE consistent with EEL (Either End Loadable). A 5 letter acronym is rather a mouthful, though I think PETEE is a more logical acronym than either PEET or PEEET.

On another matter, I think we need a Glossary of Terms for this site. The meanings of the acronyms we use are not obvious. Someone new here does not want to be looking at PETEE and thinking "not another bl...y acronym, what does that mean"?  ::)

Cheers,

mobius
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: roo on April 29, 2015, 04:55:41 AM
Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE.
If you cannot explain what you need in a knot and why you need it in plain English, you'll be severely limiting your audience.  This ever-shifting sand of alphabet soup is becoming self-parody.
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 29, 2015, 06:28:04 AM
Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE.
If you cannot explain what you need in a knot and why you need it in plain English, you'll be severely limiting your audience.  This ever-shifting sand of alphabet soup is becoming self-parody.

I read elsewhere your feelings about acronyms and I agree to a certain extent (read my OP here). I certainly found PET and TIB difficult acronyms to negotiate properly when I first started at the site. Unfortunately perhaps, they appear to be here to stay and others are joining them. Blame me for some of the others I suppose, I suggested VET (Verfiable Easy Tieing - which probably won't get used) and now suddenly we have EEL (Either End Loading) and PETEE, both of which I had something to do with. However, it was not my intention to start an avalanche of acronyms. Use them, or not, I suppose and see if some others (xarax will help us see them I'm sure :) ) start using them regularly. As for me, I am actually a bit ambivalent about EEL and PETEE and have not really used them in a knot discussion yet :P

Still, A Glossary of Terms would help a lot, though having one would not give us a license to impel an "alphabet soup" as you say has happened already.

Edit: I just stumbled on TALK (Truly Adjustable Loop Knot), however I had nothing to do with that one  ;D

Cheers,

mobius
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: Sweeney on April 29, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE.
If you cannot explain what you need in a knot and why you need it in plain English, you'll be severely limiting your audience.  This ever-shifting sand of alphabet soup is becoming self-parody.

I agree - a list of acronyms used only on this forum not only encourages them to breed it also becomes a pain to have to keep looking elsewhere for what should be clear from the text. If the idea is to keep this a sort of secret society and discourage newcomers (who may be experienced knot tyers) then this is the way to go.

Sweeney
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of terms)
Post by: xarax on April 29, 2015, 01:46:48 PM
If the idea is to keep this a sort of secret society and discourage newcomers (who may be experienced knot tyers)

   Of course, this in NOT the idea...
   However, I have seen experienced knot tyers ( at least, dozens of times more experienced than me ), who do not use the notions the acronyms are supposed to describe because simply they do not know them. Worse, many of them do not want to learn them, because they do not want to learn anything else any more... They are satisfied with the knots they have been parroting from the age they were boys, mostly out of the Bible ( ABoK ), and they believe that, since they "do the job", they are everything that exists, or everything that deserves to exist -
and each and every other knot which happen to be tied is just "random", "overcomplicated", "Fancy and Decorative", etc ( I just repeat the BS I have been listening about the knots I tie the last 5 years).
   Knot tyers should not participate in any secret society - by the way, I also believe that nobody should participate in any such society.
   However, what is of the greater concern is that they do participate in a society which creates myths, illusions about how close to rocket science knot tying is, and how great magicians and inventors knot tyers are. Worse, by rehearsing them many times, as they do with the knot tying recipes, they tend to believe to those myths and lies themselves, and to behave to anybody who dares to question them not only as a newcomer, but as a heretic, who should be chased relentlessly by the Holy Grail Keepers of the Knot Temple.
    Am I telling this, assuming (wrongly ) something that had NOT happened in this "society" ? I think not... :) :) :) 

   Now, it may be my illusion  :) :), but I have not seen anybody who understands what a PET is, because he accepts that there is such a thing in the first place, and that it may be useful, to describe this feature with a simpler, more clear way. For example, if you believe that PET is important, and useful, and it may even be proved a safety measure, you do not question the merit of the bowline-like loops - and, of course, you do not tie the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop", which is neither PET nor Zeppelin-like !
   The root of the denial of the PET acronym is the denial of the PET per se, as a useful feature of the loops. And that will be the reason some supposedly "experienced knot makers" / rocket scientist will never use it - simply because they will never accept what is opposed to their holy beliefs.
   However, it was always like this, everywhere... Even in the most supposedly myth-free science, physics, the really new notions and terms are accepted and used only by the next generation of physicists, when the previous one has ceased to exist.

   If one would REALLY wish to help in this matter, he should better find other, simpler ways to describe the features and things we want to describe with those acronyms. However, to do this, he should first read the posts and learn about the ideas of those who write about them, is nt that so ? If he has put them in his "ignore list", as roo advises the newcomers to do with me in his ingenious "signature", then I am afraid he will keep whinning, and only help the so-called "society" to degenerate...   
   
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Mobius on April 29, 2015, 01:58:35 PM
Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE.
If you cannot explain what you need in a knot and why you need it in plain English, you'll be severely limiting your audience.  This ever-shifting sand of alphabet soup is becoming self-parody.

I agree - a list of acronyms used only on this forum not only encourages them to breed it also becomes a pain to have to keep looking elsewhere for what should be clear from the text. If the idea is to keep this a sort of secret society and discourage newcomers (who may be experienced knot tyers) then this is the way to go.

Sweeney

Get rid of all the acronyms then, I didn't start them and learning here would have been easier for me without them. I'm not even using many of them apart from the two seemingly well established ones. However, If TIB and PET are only used here they can go too for all I care.

.... So, if we untie the eyeknot using either of the two ends, the moment we would pull it of the nub, the whole knot will be unknotted, without leaving any "relic" knot near the other end ( which should be untied at a second stage ).
   How we could call such a eyeknot ? For the time being, I use the term PEET or PEEET ( Post Eye - starting from - Either End, Tiable ). Any better (= shorter, more easily and clearly denoting this feature ) word ?

I was simply pointing out to xarax (a question he raised) that PETEE made more sense than either PEEET or the PEET he was already using. Maybe there have been discussions about acronyms before and I have just stepped into the middle of a two way argument, however we either use them and explain somewhere what they mean... or don't use them!

Cheers,

mobius

(Edit: added a quote from xarax for context)
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 01, 2015, 07:01:24 PM
(I recall writing a nomenclature/acronym response,
but must've only Preview'd it and then lost it, thinking
I'd Post'd it as well.)

Quote
I'm not even using many of them apart from the two seemingly well established ones.
However, If 'TIB' and 'PET' are only used here they can go too for all I care.
Along with 'SPart' (& 'S.Part') vice "standing part"
(and vice partly w/accent on a functional aspect[**]
of the completed --not inchoate-- knot), I've
brought these shorthand terms into usage with the
belief that they capture in few keystrokes fundamental,
commonly used expressions of knotting.  "PET" abbreviates
an expression that IMO originated with Rob Chisnall (one
of our former IGKT presidents, a co-founder member,
and influential in Canadian rockclimbing & SAR circles).

To these, "EEL" seems reasonably solid, too, in its
expansion and connotation.  (One could see it as saving
ourselves from a jocular borrowing of "ambidextrous".  ;) )
Although, there is a not insignificant subjective element
in so judging this condition.

I sympathize with the resistance to having a proliferation
of acronyms, and the "secret-society" aspect they present;
but there is some benefit to capturing a thought in a short
character string, readily recognized --a benefit that comes
much from weighting (usage frequency).  As I assert above,
these few terms are for commonly used expressions.  There
are things for a newcomer to overcome, regardless of language.
Given the notions of this trio of terms, the learning time should
be quite short ("EEL" I think will not be immediately recognized,
but "SPart" is closer to its full term).  --in contrast to the long
strings such as "tiable in the bight" (where "tiable"/"tyable" both
get red-lined reprimand from this editor!).

[**] IMO, "standing part" is defined and much used in the
literature to denote a part of the rope-to-be-tied... that is
passive in the tying process, in contrast to "the working end"
with which one makes the entanglement.  Often, but not
assuredly so, the standing part will emerge as that part
of the knot that bears full tension into the knot; but it
is sometimes the case that tying goes the other way
'round, and then one has a conflict with the sense that
*I* want for the term --which is of the load-bearing in
the (completed) knot, not of some transient, tying aspect.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: xarax on May 01, 2015, 07:32:53 PM
..."standing part" is defined and much used in the literature to denote a part of the rope-to-be-tied... that is passive in the tying process, in contrast to "the working end" with which one makes the entanglement. 

  Indeed, this concerns me, too - I find myself describing completely tied knots, and wondering what is there except a Standing Part... as all the "work" of the "Working End" has been finished.
   Also, oftentimes I have to call as " Tail End" a short segment of the Standing End which is a direct continuation of the proper "tail" ( which can be waged !  :) ) inside the knot s nub - and this may confuse the reader. 
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Mobius on May 02, 2015, 05:30:45 AM
..."standing part" is defined and much used in the literature to denote a part of the rope-to-be-tied... that is passive in the tying process, in contrast to "the working end" with which one makes the entanglement. 

  Indeed, this concerns me, too - I find myself describing completely tied knots, and wondering what is there except a Standing Part... as all the "work" of the "Working End" has been finished.
   Also, oftentimes I have to call as " Tail End" a short segment of the Standing End which is a direct continuation of the proper "tail" ( which can be waged !  :) ) inside the knot s nub - and this may confuse the reader.

If I take the Right Hand Bowline as an example:

I tend to think of the Standing Part of that knot being the loaded end and the extension of that to the Nipping Loop. Then the Nipping Loop extends to the Eye Leg from/of the/to the Standing Part. One could change the focus of this description and think eye-to nipping loop-to standing end. Either way, I find it useful to think of parts of the nub as 'standing parts'.

On the other side when the Eye turns back towards the nub it becomes the Eye Leg to the Tail End, followed by the Bight (an extension of the Tail) and then finally the "wagging" Tail. Therefore, I think of parts of the nub as 'tail parts'.

None of the above, or perhaps only some of this is technically correct, however a lot of our discussions and knot part descriptions (particularly about the bowline) seem to make better sense to me if I think in those terms.

I know this is not the traditional meaning of the terms, however there is certainly quite a lot of 'grey' nomenclature used in knot tying. After reading most of the 22 pages (to date) concerning the definition of a bowline (sometimes conflicting), I don't think I am alone thinking this.

Cheers,

mobius
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Mobius on May 02, 2015, 03:09:04 PM
I tend to think of the Standing Part of that knot being the loaded end and the extension of that to the Nipping Loop. Then the Nipping Loop extends to the Eye Leg from/of the/to the Standing Part.

   It is like you have already tied the bowline before the nipping loop, and you are now tying the rest of it !  :) There is nothing there before the nipping loop, no "knot", not even an open helical coil like it happens in the Helical loops.
   I use to see the nipping loop as part of the Standing Part, only a part with some individual characteristics which allow us to label it with yet another name.

An un-knotted piece of rope has an incipient Standing Part and a Tail End in my schema (let's ignore Either End Loading  considerations) so when a Right Hand Bowline is tied I do see the Nipping Loop as 'belonging' to the Standing Part (SPart). The SPart and Tail were there first so it seems to make sense to me to also think about parts of the nub and eye in terms of Sparts and Tails.

Quote
   And what about the "collar structure" - which is not a simple "bight", as the collar is called in Analysis of bowlines.
   Is it a part of the Standing Part, or not ? We can not call "Tail" or "Tail End" this "knotted", tangled segment of rope, interweaved with the nipping loop, the Standing End and the eye leg, which plays the role of the common s bowline collar ( and that is why I call it "collar structure" ).

The "collar structure" is a tail part of the knot to me. That the tail forms a Bight around the Spart doesn't deter me :) The nub is simply made up of parts that better belong to either the SPart or the Tail in my schema.

Quote
   At the end of the day, definitions and nomenclature do not matter. They are only mental tools, to help us further understand and classify the knots.

Indeed, I am new at studying knots and my current schema for considering knots is just that, a tool to help me think about the structure, composition and essence of a knot, no more.

Cheers,

mobius
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Mobius on May 02, 2015, 11:34:01 PM
  The "collar structure" is a tail part of the knot to me. That the tail forms a Bight ...

  Not only a bight ! In the case of the secure bowlines, it forms much more complex "knotted" forms.
 

Sure, I was only using the Right Hand Bowline as a simple reference point.
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 03, 2015, 06:16:38 AM
I tend to think of the Standing Part ... .
... I think of parts of the nub as 'tail parts'.

In a general sense, you could be said to be discriminating
the two pieces of flexible material in the knot.  That is,
put a "cookie cutter" circle around any knot, such that
all "ends" pass out of the circle into undefined oblivion,
and you can identify one piece/segment/line but by its
endpoints "1" & "2", the other ... "A" & "B".

From which one can specify different *knots* (or how
do we make particular terms, here?) by loading : load
1 vs. 2 + A = bowline-L, 1 vs 2+B = bowline-R,
2 vs ... = "Eskimo" bowlines, and 1 vs A is a sheet bend,
and so on.

For me, the "tail" is the unloaded finish of such a "piece";
I might take it into the nub a bit, but not for the entire
piece.  I have mused about defining "SPart" per effect :
it extends into the nub until a major deflection will not
affect strength --e.g., one might presume after the U-turn,
or some arc around a bowline's turNip (<-aha, another
beloved term!), there's little force on the part (consider
that in a sheet bend it runs to "tail"/unloadedness).
However, I think that such a definition would see the
extent of a SPart vary per material --slick ones delivering
force farther in?!

--dl*
====
[edit to correct 'but' mistyped for 'by' --an odd but not
uncommon mistake, curiously]
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Mobius on May 08, 2015, 01:17:04 PM
I tend to think of the Standing Part ... .
... I think of parts of the nub as 'tail parts'.

In a general sense, you could be said to be discriminating
the two pieces of flexible material in the knot.  That is,
put a "cookie cutter" circle around any knot, such that
all "ends" pass out of the circle into undefined oblivion,
and you can identify one piece/segment/line but its
endpoints "1" & "2", the other ... "A" & "B".

From which one can specify different *knots* (or how
do we make particular terms, here?) by loading : load
1 vs. 2 + A = bowline-L, 1 vs 2+B = bowline-R,
2 vs ... = "Eskimo" bowlines, and 1 vs A is a sheet bend,
and so on.

For me, the "tail" is the unloaded finish of such a "piece";
I might take it into the nub a bit, but not for the entire
piece.  I have mused about defining "SPart" per effect :
it extends into the nub until a major deflection will not
affect strength --e.g., one might presume after the U-turn,
or some arc around a bowline's turNip (<-aha, another
beloved term!), there's little force on the part (consider
that in a sheet bend it runs to "tail"/unloadedness).
However, I think that such a definition would see the
extent of a SPart vary per material --slick ones delivering
force farther in?!

--dl*
====

I think if you take your 1,2,A,B model and think about potential respective loading arrangements on each part, maybe you are able to define different knot types. I am not experienced enough to do that (If it's worth trying), though it is interesting.

For example, could we differentiate between a Double Dragon Loop and a Right Hand Bowline, just based on the two knots load characteristics? I suspect not. I think we could differentiate between a RH Bowline and a Zeppelin Bend  by looking at loadings on 1,2,A,B , however I don't know how useful that is either since we are really probably just differentiating between a Loop and a Bend.

The whole concept is interesting though, thanks for sharing.

Cheers,

mobius
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: Dan_Lehman on May 09, 2015, 05:17:33 AM
Quote
could we differentiate between a Double Dragon Loop and a Right Hand Bowline,
just based on the two knots load characteristics?
Oh, goodness, no.  The purpose of the loading profile
is just to define "end-2-end", "eye knot", ... and so on.
It is, as you see, simply taking whichever parts of the
given "tangle" and specifying the load.  (There is an
equal way : to specify angle --one implies the other.)

I was reacting to your "tail parts", by which I took you
to mean what I might see as segment "A-B" if we've
identified "1-2" as the S.Part (and for an eye knot, see
2 being connected in forming the eye to either A or B,
and the vice-versa of the lettered segment being my "tail").

 :)
Title: Re: PET (Glossary of Terms)
Post by: jarnos on January 12, 2021, 04:19:59 PM
As for the glossary of terms, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_knot_terminology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_knot_terminology) in Wikipedia. At the time of writing, there is no definition of PET there, but TIB is mentioned as 'tying-in-the-bight' in the description of 'Loop knot'. The article has much more terms, but no acronym for them.

I started another thread about PET at https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6935.0 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6935.0)