International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: InTension on September 04, 2015, 05:47:02 PM

Title: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 04, 2015, 05:47:02 PM
Here is what I believe to be an original binding knot. It seems such an obvious design, in retrospect, that I would not be too surprised to find it previously described. In either case, I'd like to advocate for the use of this binding knot, which is easy to tie, easy to remember, and works well in practice.

Naming
I originally thought of calling this the 'Drawstring Knot' for obvious reasons. In writing this description I decided to shorten its name to simply the 'Draw Knot', to emphasizes how smoothly it draws-up.
An alternative name might be the 'Double Bind', since the knot is based on the Clove Hitch, commonly referred to as a Double Hitch.

Purpose
I developed this knot with a specific goal in mind. I wanted a binding knot that could be tied in braided nylon rope that was easy to apply, would draw up easily, and have a ratchet like grip.

Ashley described the Constrictor Knot (#1249) as exhibiting these properties. He also described it as "one of the most difficult of knots to untie and is not suitable for rope unless the purpose is a permanent one."  Although that was true when working with the high-friction natural fiber ropes of Ashley's day, when I tied the Constrictor Knot in braided nylon the lines slid past each other and the binding came apart.

Description
The Draw Knot has two levels of structure: (1) an embedded clove hitch that nips to seal the knot, and (2) the paired coils (interior sliding lines) that surround the bundle to be bound. The paired sliding lines extend from the clove hitch and loop back around in a circle to pass out though the clove hitch. The tension in the interior sliding lines compresses the clove hitch, tightening its nip.

See figure '1. Loose Basic Form' below.

See figure '2. Tightened Basic Form' below.

Self-Similarity: The clove hitch binds the coils that bind the bundle. The dual 'coils' of the clove hitch run in opposite directions around the sliding lines they tighten about, much like the dual coils of the sliding lines run in opposite directions around the bundle they tighten about.

Several Ways to Tie the Draw Knot

Tied In the Hand: The Draw Knot is stable when pre-tied and held in the hand. To do so, form a loose clove hitch in the middle of a cord. Lead the two free ends of the clove hitch in opposite directions, circling back to the cove hitch. Pass both free ends out in the same direction through the cove hitch. Then tighten the clove hitch around the two sliding ends. Adjust the circumference of the binding loops so that they can be dropped around the bundle to be bound. Pulling the two free ends in opposite directions closes the binding loop and further tightens the clove hitch about the two free ends.

To open the bind, take hold of both interior sliding lines, up near the clove hitch, and pull them out in opposite directions.

Tied Around a Bundle: The Draw Knot can easily be tied around a bundle. To do so, form a loose clove hitch around the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Push the loose clove hitch up close to the base of the thumb and index finger so they can open wide. Lead one of the free ends around the bundle and take hold of that end with the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Run the other free end in the opposite direction around the bundle and again take hold of that line with the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Pull both running lines out through the clove hitch and work the clove hitch closed around the lines. Then pull the exterior running lines to tighten the bind as desired.

The Draw Knot can also be described as either Two Half Hitches (formed as a clove hitch) or a Buntline Hitch that is 'passed through twice'. You can loosely form either 'cloven' hitch, leaving a long working line and then run that line back around the bundle and rove it out through the clove hitch, in the same direction and parallel with the original 'standing' line. (In a Buntline Hitch the turns of the clove hitch progress towards the held object. With Two Half Hitches the turns of the clove hitch progress away from the object. Since the Draw Knot loops both lines from the clove hitch back around the object and out through the clove hitch, it doesn't matter whether you start with a Buntline or Two Half Hitches; an identical Draw Knot results in either case.)

Tied in the Bight: You should first have a good understanding of the form the knot takes when tied in the hand, because that is the goal you will be working towards. To tie the Draw Knot in the bight, form a clove hitch near the middle of the available line. Push the bights of both lines exiting the hitch back though the clove hitch. (See figure '3. In the Bight' below.) Then carefully turn the clove hitch inside out, adjusting portions to relieve unnecessary twists. Once this is done, arrange the lines directly exiting the clove hitch in opposite directions. The lines from the clove hitch should be formed into a pair of parallel circles running in opposite directions. Both lines exit running out in the same direction through the center of the clove hitch. Tighten the clove hitch and adjust the circumference of the binding loops as desired. Now the binding loops can be dropped around a bundle. Pull the free lines in opposite directions to tighten the bind.

How it Works
Pulling the sliding cords to close the bind applies tension to the clove hitch that in turn makes it nip the two sliding cords where they exit.  If the tied bundle was completely rigid and static then the force applied to the sliding ends is lead around 360 degrees to compress the clove hitch. However, most bundles will be flexible and spring outwards when compressed and/or consist of elements that dynamically pull apart. Both of these provide additional forces to tension the clove hitch, on an as needed basis.

The clove hitch tends not to jam as it does in a Buntline Hitch because of the two evenly tensioned lines running through it. However, when the binding is pulled very tight around a bundle that flexes, it can be difficult to get hold of the two interior sliding lines to pull them out. If the bind is worked very tight and needs to be opened quickly, cut the free ends up close to the clove hitch and work the outer loop of the clove hitch over the remaining ends. (Or cut into the clove hitch itself.)

Properties
- It's stable when pre-tied and held in the hand.
- It can easily be tied around a bundle.
- It can be tied in the bight.
- It closes and tightens when both free ends are pulled in opposite directions.
- It does not close further when both free ends are pulled together in the same direction. You can lift a tied bundle by holding the two free ends together in hand. This aspect of its stability makes it easy to work with.
- The sliding lines move with least resistance when they slide together in the same direction. This contributes to closing (and opening) the binding evenly on both sides.
- It can bind a bundle as narrow as the cords used to tie the knot.
- It can be used across an open space, for pulling two objects together.
- It is very stable as long as a constant tension is applied to pull the loop apart (from the inside). However, it can loosen if the tension is repeatedly released and reapplied, since the clove hitch will not maintain its nip when the applied tension is eased. There are many ways to cease the knot. A fast way to cease the bind is to tie the two free ends into a Flat Overhand Bend, up close to the clove hitch.
- As a 'trick knot' ("To tie up a Houdini" ABoK #2560) it looks like a normal binding knot, so a person unfamiliar the Draw Knot is likely to attempt to loosen the central clove hitch, which is has no loose ends.
- A drawback to the Draw Knot is that one can mistakenly pull the running ends back in the wrong direction, making a U-turn around the clove hitch instead of passing straight through it to the other side. (See figure '4. U-Turn' below.) In this case the coils of the bind still close when the two free ends are pulled in opposite directions, but the sliding lines also tend to pull the clove hitch open from within, even while increasing the tension at either end of the clove hitch that would normally close it.

Application
I have tied the Draw Knot in braided nylon rope of different diameters for temporary binds. I've also tied the Draw Knot in waxed dental floss to provide a low profile, semi-permanent binding. It served reliably in all cases.

Derivation
The Draw Knot is probably closer to a Double Ring Knot (ABoK #1126, also called the Double Running Knot) than anything else. If you replace the Ring Hitch with a Clove Hitch and run the free lines around in their 'preferred' direction before passing them out through the clove hitch, the Draw Knot is formed.

Of course I tried many other closing loops including the Constrictor but it tends to loose its shape when surrounding something as narrow as a pair of cords. The Double Overhand Knot faired better, but it relied on the friction in the knot, rather than seizing down as tension was applied to its ends.

Compared to the Constrictor Knot
The Constrictor Knot is simpler, and more streamlined than the Draw Knot. The clove hitch at the closing of the Draw Knot makes it 'knobby'. The Draw Knot is designed to hold better in braided nylon and other slippery synthetic fibers. The ends of a Constrictor Knot leave in parallel with the binding coils, while ends of a Draw Knot leave at right angles to the binding coils. I find it easier to remember how to tie the Draw Knot than the Constrictor, when used infrequently.

Compared to the Gleipnir Knot
See:  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.0 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.0)
The single loop Gleipnir Knot is a very elegant and effective binding. Like the Draw Knot, the Gleipnir has its closing twisted loop (or half hitch) in the middle of the paired coils. Tension applied to by pulling the sliding lines apart is transmitted back around the coils to tighten the closing loop that nips the sliding lines to seal the bind.

The single loop Gleipnir is less stable than the Draw Knot under certain conditions: If the lines are unevenly loaded, such that the adjustable side sees even a little more load, the binding slips. Differential tension is applied to the lines to release the knot. If the free ends are not secured a tug on one of them may unseat the closing loop.

The clove hitch of the Draw Knot has more stability than a single loop. Thus it is tempting to compare the Draw Knot to a double loop Gleipnir, with its loops arranged in a half hitch. It appears to me that the clove hitch nips the sliding lines tighter when they run through at right angles to the outer lines of its hitches, then when the sliding lines run parallel to the outer lines of the clove hitch. (I don't have either the theory or instrumentation at hand to prove this; it simply feels that way when I pull.)

Like the Gleipnir Knot:
(1) The Draw Knot can be used across a flat surface or in the open air such as when two pipes are separated and the closing loop tied in the middle.  It can be used for lifting or for pulling two objects together.
(2) The Draw Knot binding can work loose when subjected to "intermittent slack and tightening such as a shifting load or something blowing in the wind."
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 04, 2015, 07:55:01 PM
Here is what I believe to be an original binding knot.
It seems such an obvious design, in retrospect, that
I would not be too surprised to find it previously described.
Essentially, you do more : you show its arguable parent,
the Gleipnir, which was discovered previously by two
of us (if not more, yet to be known), and championed
by one to this forum and then gaining favor.  Vice the
simple "turNip" you have a clove hitch; this variation
can be seen as reasonably obvious or natural to explore.
Or maybe a better parent would be the Piwick knot
or bull hitch.

Quote
Ashley described the Constrictor Knot (#1249) as exhibiting these properties.
He also described it as "one of the most difficult of knots to untie
and is not suitable for rope unless the purpose is a permanent one
."
Although that was true ...
... to some extent, and not so much as has been made
of it, where the assertion "it must be cut" is parroted;
in fact, in many cases, the constrictor can be worked
loose --the tails that make much of the binding lock are
after all running pretty straight through the nipping area,
and at least with tools (and cutting requires a tool) can
often(usually?) be pried & pulled out.  In some other cases,
where the knot is used as whipping, one might find that
time & whatever have loosened the "must-be-cut" knot!

Quote
... when working with the high-friction natural fiber ropes of Ashley's day,
when I tied ... braided nylon the lines slid past each other and the binding came apart.
But here I must suspect that your binding was of some
inappropriate (for the knot) object bundle : against a nice
round & solid surface, there should be no such (easy) sliding
of lines --the constrictor isn't nothing!

Quote
it doesn't matter whether you start with a Buntline or Two Half Hitches; an identical Draw Knot results in either case.)
Although you take the ends around in opposite directions,
and so it should matter --at least as far as "identical" is
concerned, as there will be the difference in tail direction.
(Note that there's interesting difference when using the
clove hitch in the Gleipnir structure to reeving ends
through it one way or the other, where the paired half-hitches
either pull away or towards each other --the latter case
seems to make for a tighter hitch (as seen in some
commercial-fishing knotting), but perhaps less grip!?)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 04, 2015, 09:10:19 PM
   I believe that the really "new" / original binding knot, was the ( great ) Gleipnir - and all the others ( mid-air binders or "tight hitches" ), based on various other, more complex and possibly more stable and tight nipping structures, are just variations on the same theme.

   I would only remind two things :

   1. The two ends of a Gleipnir-like binder / tight hitch should better be "crossed" = twisted around each other, in an "elbow" configuration ( ABoK#35 ). When the nubs of those binders / tight hitches = the nipping structures themselves, are not symmetric, and/or when the possible ways they "sit" on the hard surface of a hitched object, and the ends enter into / exit from them, are not unique, we get even more versions. See, for example, the two versions of the "simple-hitch-a-la-Gleipnir" :
   
   Version A :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg30227#msg30227
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg30228#msg30228
   Version B :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg30229#msg30229
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg30230#msg30230
 
   Also, the two variations of the Clove-hitch-based similar hitch :
   
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg36748#msg36748
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg36751#msg36751
       
   2. However, when those nipping structures are very tight ( as the Clove hitch is, when it is tied around elastic and compressible materials ), it may be better to "cross" the tails, and "lock" the knot more securely, after we have tensioned the wraps :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4884.msg31968#msg31968
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 04, 2015, 09:12:52 PM
Here is what I believe to be an original binding knot.
It seems such an obvious design, in retrospect, that
I would not be too surprised to find it previously described.
Essentially, you do more : you show its arguable parent,
the Gleipnir, which was discovered previously by two
of us (if not more, yet to be known), and championed
by one to this forum and then gaining favor.  Vice the
simple "turNip" you have a clove hitch; this variation
can be seen as reasonably obvious or natural to explore.
Or maybe a better parent would be the Piwick knot
or bull hitch.

I believe that what you call the bull hitch is what Ashley called the double ring knot (ABoK #1126, also called the double running knot).

it doesn't matter whether you start with a Buntline or Two Half Hitches; an identical Draw Knot results in either case.)
Although you take the ends around in opposite directions,
and so it should matter --at least as far as "identical" is
concerned, as there will be the difference in tail direction.
(Note that there's interesting difference when using the
clove hitch in the Gleipnir structure to reeving ends
through it one way or the other, where the paired half-hitches
either pull away or towards each other --the latter case
seems to make for a tighter hitch (as seen in some
commercial-fishing knotting), but perhaps less grip!?)

--dl*
====

It's more a matter of starting with one part and finishing with the other, versus starting with the other and finishing with the one. - Simply the order in which they are passed around & through.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 04, 2015, 10:53:47 PM
   I believe that the really "new" / original binding knot, was the ( great ) Gleipnir - and all the others ( mid-air binders or "tight hitches" ), based on various other, more complex and possibly more stable and tight nipping structures, are just variations on the same theme.

Sorry, I should have made this clearer!

The fundamental difference between the Draw Knot and the Gleipnir is that:
- With the Draw Knot the two exiting lines pass together in the same direction out through the closing hitches.
- While with the Gleipnir family of Knots the two exiting lines pass in opposite directions out through the closing hitch(es).

That is the difference in form that makes such a difference in the functional handling properties of the two different kinds of knot.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 05, 2015, 12:26:11 AM
   You have made it very clear, by your clear text and pictures. My reply was about the Gleipnir ( and about some more stable/tight Gleipnir-like binders and "tight" hitches, based on other, more complex nipping structures - on the Clove hitch, for example ), because the Gleipnir was THE great new, original knot, which changed everything : In my opinion, all the binders and "tight" hitches that came after the Gleipnir ( and because of the arrival of the Gleipnir... ), are but a series of footnotes to the Gleipnir Idea.  :)
  " No one will drive us from the paradise which the Gleipnir created for us ". :)
   From which side of the nipping structure do the ends enter-into or exit-from, may be important for the balance of a mid-air binder, or for the behaviour of the nub of the hitch during its pre-tensioning by the pulling of its ends against the pole, but, in general, it is only a secondary characteristic.
    For hitches where the continuations of the ends both make clock-wise of counter-clockwise turns on the surface of the pole ( for which I use the adjective "Bull", because they can be considered as enhancements of the Bull hitch ), see :
    Bull Clove hitch
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.0
    Bull Overhand hitch
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34371#msg34371
    Bull Pretzel hitch
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34395#msg34395
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34410#msg34410
    Double Ring hitch ( ABoK#1126, which we could call Bull Cow/Girth hitch ), as you notice :
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg31275#msg31275
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg31771#msg31771
   
    Which is preferable ?
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5255
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 05, 2015, 03:38:56 AM
   You have made it very clear, by your clear text and pictures. My reply was about the Gleipnir ( and about some more stable/tight Gleipnir-like binders and "tight" hitches, based on other, more complex nipping structures - on the Clove hitch, for example ), because the Gleipnir was THE great new, original knot, which changed everything : In my opinion, all the binders and "tight" hitches that came after the Gleipnir ( and because of the arrival of the Gleipnir... ), are but a series of footnotes to the Gleipnir Idea.  :)
  " No one will drive us from the paradise which the Gleipnir created for us ". :)
   From which side of the nipping structure do the ends enter-into or exit-from, may be important for the balance of a mid-air binder, or for the behaviour of the nub of the hitch during its pre-tensioning by the pulling of its ends against the pole, but, in general, it is only a secondary characteristic.
    For hitches where the continuations of the ends both make clock-wise of counter-clockwise turns on the surface of the pole ( for which I use the adjective "Bull", because they can be considered as enhancements of the Bull hitch ), see :
    Bull Clove hitch
    Bull Overhand hitch
    Bull Pretzel hitch
    Double Ring hitch ( ABoK#1126, which we could call Bull Cow/Girth hitch ), as you notice :
   
    Which is preferable ?

The goal was to provide a binding knot that "draws up easily, has a ratchet like grip and is secure" (ABoK 1249). It is intended to tie bundles that are flexible and spring outwards when compressed and/or consist of elements that dynamically pull apart. It appears that such knots can also serve as 'mid-air binders'.

The essential single hitch Gleipnir Knot is very elegant and effective, but is known to be unstable when unevenly loaded or when its free ends are tugged in the wrong direction. As you've noted, complications may be added to the Gleipnir to make is quite stable and secure.

The basic form of the Draw Knot is inherently stable. It is very easy to form a clove hitch in hand; it is very fast to pull a pair of lines together in the same direction through an open clove hitch; and it is easy for a novice to remember how to do this with little practice. Those properties can come in handy when faced with tying an unwieldy bundle.

I am not arguing that the Draw Knot is fundamentally better than the family of Gleipnir Knots in some absolute or existential sense. I am arguing that it is a distinct knot with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

Although functionally similar to the Gleipnir, structurally the Draw Knot has much in common with the Double Ring Knot, from which it was derived. Would you argue that a Ring Knot is just a variation of a Clove Hitch? As complication is added to turn a simple knot into a binding knot should we ignore the differences that make them different?
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 05, 2015, 04:35:03 AM
Perspective
If you look at it this way:

                                 Closing Knot           Coils Run In                 Lines Exit In
                               ---------------     ------------------------    ------------------
 Double Ring Knot :         Ring              Same Direction             Same Direction
      Draw Knot      :   Clove Hitch     Opposite Direction       Same Direction
 Essential Gleipnir :   Single Hitch       Opposite Direction      Opposite Direction
 Stablized Gleipnir :  Anything Goes    Opposite Direction      Opposite Direction

You could think that the Draw Knot has as much in common with the Gleipnir as it does with the Double Ring Knot.

But if you sought to classify the knots on this basis:

                               Closing Knot               Coils Run As                     Lines Exit In
                              ---------------     --------------------------      ----------------------
 Double Ring Knot :        Ring             Leaving Closing Knot         Same Direction
      Draw Knot      :   Clove Hitch     Leaving Closing Knot         Same Direction
 Essential Gleipnir :    Single Hitch      Leaving Closing Knot        Opposite Direction
 Stablized Gleipnir :   Anything Goes   Leaving Closing Knot        Opposite Direction

You could think that the Draw Knot has more in common with the Double Ring Knot then the Gleipnir.

Would anyone like to argue that the Gleipnir is just a variation of the Double Ring Knot?
If not, how can anyone argue that the Draw Knot is just a variation of the Gleipnir?
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 05, 2015, 06:56:22 AM
   The fundamental difference between the Draw Knot and the Gleipnir is that:
- With the Draw Knot the two exiting lines pass together in the same direction out through the closing hitches.
- While with the Gleipnir family of Knots the two exiting lines pass in opposite directions out through the closing hitch(es).

   That is the difference in form that makes such a difference in the functional handling properties of the two different kinds of knot.

   I do not say that there is no difference in form, I say that there is no difference in structure : A nipping "tube" tied in the middle of the line, and the two Tail Ends immobilized / secured by being tucked through and nipped by this nipping "tube". This is the essential ingredients of the Gleipnir Idea ! The way the ends are tucked ( through the same side or opposite sides ) is only of secondary importance. It turns out that if/when, as a nipping 'tube", we use a Clove hitch ( which is the first thing one would think of, if he would want to use a inherently more stable and self-locking nipping "tube" than a single or double nipping turn ), and if we tuck the ends through opposite sides, there is a "good" and a "bad" way to do this, because the pull of the ends tend to make the Clove hitch more compact, in the one case, and more elongated in the other - in fact, in the later case, they tend to tear the Clove hitch apart. This is more evident when we use the knot as a mid-air binder and not as a hitch, because the presence of the hard surface of the hitched object prevents the two parts of the Clove hitch to distance themselves from each other too much - as shown in :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg36751#msg36751
   On the contrary, if/when we tuck both ends through the same side, because of the transversal structural symmetry of the Clove hitch, it makes no difference which particular side is the entry and which the exit one of each end.
   However, when we use the Clove hitch as nipping "tube" of a Bull-like hitch ( instead of the double coil we use in the ordinary Bull hitch ), there is one functional advantage : When we tension the wraps, and we pull each end against the pole ( perpendicularly to its surface ) the one after the other, the previous pull by the one end does not influence negatively the next pull, by the other end - AND the nub itself of the Clove hitch is not "opened up", torn apart, and become less able to nip the penetrating lines of the two ends. Those were the advantages of this one-side feeding / loading of the Clove hitch, utilized in the Bull Clove hitch.
   In the case of the knot you show, there is no such advantage, because the knot is used as a mid-air binder. Moreover, I claim that the PROPER symmetric feeding / loading of the Clove hitch is preferable, because it enables the "crossing" of the Tail ends, their twisting around each other described in my first reply, which enhances the security of its nipping / immobilizing / self-locking action. Of course, one should tie the knot the PROPER way, because, if he ties it wrongly, he should not be surprized it will not work as expected ! :) You say that :

   [ The Gleipnir ] is known to be unstable when... its free ends are tugged in the wrong direction.

  MOST knots work less efficiently, and most of those do not work at all, if their free ends are tugged in the wrong direction ! :) :)

  Let me attempt to draw a parallelism here between the Bull Clove hitch and the knot you show.
  Read :
  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5258
  where it is claimed that the Constrictor, the Strangle and the Transom, although different in form, are, essentially, the same knot : their structure are the same, they "work" the same way, only the different angles/orientations of their wraps make them look different.
   Cut the four limbs of the Bull Clove hitch, some cms further away from the nub itself, and connect them the "other" way, to get the asymmetric Clove-hitch based mid-air binder you show.

   
...how can anyone argue that the Draw Knot is just a variation of the Gleipnir ?

   Yet he does :) :) - and he does also argue that it is not even one of the best / most secures one - as is the symmetric Clove-hitch based one, where  the ends are tucked through the proper opposite directions, shown at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4884.msg31968#msg31968
   When he argues that the Constrictor, the Strangle and the Transom are essentially/structurally the same knot, he would nt find it difficult to do the same with the Bull Clove hitch and the knot you show, or with the Bull Clove hitch, the Bull Pretzel hitch and the Double Ring hitch, or with the Bull Clove hitch and the great Gleipnir itself !
    Some people prefer to notice and elaborate on the differences of things, some others to try to find out and concentrate on the similarities - it may be only a matter of taste ! :) :) 

   P.S. To get things straight, and leave no room to unintentional or intentional misunderstandings / misconceptions which blur the facts, the Gleipnir was invented by ONE, and one only, person :
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1449.0
    Many people could had invented it, many more would had wished they had invented it, some even imagine they had "introduced" it ( a recent, "new" term, suitable to some practical knot tyer s illusions of grandeur... :) ), but the fact is that only ONE person invented it, tried it, used it, and then presented it in this Forum - and changed the not-so-important overall history of the sector of the practical knots that includes binders and hitches, as well as the totally-unimportant personal historiy of a handful of practical knot tyers ( including mine ).
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 05, 2015, 02:07:21 PM
   I do not say that there is no difference in form, I say that there is no difference in structure

As you stated earlier, I clearly delineated the structural difference. Of course you can redefine the structural definition of the Gleipnir to down play the distinction.  If one defies a clove hitch as simply a pair of hitches then there is no difference in form between it and a ring knot; but that?s not the whole story!

The way the ends are tucked ( through the same side or opposite sides ) is only of secondary importance.

It changes the form of the knot. It changes how the knot is tied. And it changes the functional properties of the knot. I do not understand how you can declare these as ?only of secondary importance?. Perhaps, one can love one particular thing so much that everything else is of secondary importance.

? if we tuck the ends through opposite sides, there is a "good" and a "bad" way to do this, because the pull of the ends tend to make the Clove hitch more compact, in the one case, and more elongated in the other ...

That is true for the Gleipnir but not for the Draw Knot.

   On the contrary, if/when we tuck both ends through the same side, because of the transversal structural symmetry of the Clove hitch, it makes no difference which particular side is the entry and which the exit one of each end.

This makes the Draw Knot more fool proof, an advantage that distinguishes it from the Gleipnir.  Thank you for adding to my case.

   In the case of the knot you show, there is no such advantage, because the knot is used as a mid-air binder.

The Draw Knot was designed serve as a binding knot, not a hitch.

Of course, one should tie the knot the PROPER way, because, if he ties it wrongly, he should not be surprized it will not work as expected ! :) You say that :

Yes, but that is equally true for the essential one hitch Gleipnir.  It does not diminish its beauty or practicality.

  MOST knots work less efficiently, and most of those do not work at all, if their free ends are tugged in the wrong direction ! :) :)

Once the Draw Knot is complete, tugging the free ends in any direction will only tighten the bind or have not effect. ? Another advantage for this binder.

   Cut the four limbs of the Bull Clove hitch, some cms further away from the nub itself, and connect them the "other" way, to get the asymmetric Clove-hitch based mid-air binder you show.

Since you can cut a clove hitch and turn it into a ring knot are they essentially the same knot?
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 05, 2015, 02:08:54 PM
The Draw Knot is not a Gleipnir, for it was forged from the gold of the Double Ring Knot. While it courses out through the middle of its closure, the fine Gleipnir flanks and pincers through the sides of its closing hitches.
It is time to free your mind from the Gleipnir as Fenrir is freed from it at Ragnarok. When the dust settles and the Bifrost falls the practical virtues of the Draw Knot will become known to future generations of the tiers of knots.

Had I followed the natural course of elaborating on the essential Gleipnir, I too would have experimented with different arrangements of hitches to better nip and tuck about the passing closing lines. If the Draw Knot were an obvious variation of the Gleipnir you would have seen versions with both free end extending from the central closing hitch, but there were no such cases.

The Draw Knot derives from replacing the ring knot of a Double Ring Knot with a clove hitch to derive a new knot that turns out to exhibit many of the functional properties of the Gleipnir family of knots. This is reminiscent of convergent evolution: the independent evolution of functionally similar features in different lineages. The fundamental structural difference between the Draw Knot & Gleipnir makes this clearly evident.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 05, 2015, 04:10:34 PM
   It is time to free your mind from the Gleipnir

   The Gleipnir was the great liberator of the minds of the knot tyers ( at least of the minds of those knot tyers who utilize their minds - because, to tie a knot, a small portion of parroting is always enough :) ). Your variation, as well as the dozens tied by other members in this Forum, would had not existed if the Gleipnir has not been not invented. It has already established its position on the Pantheon of great knots, for the benefit of this and future generations of knot tyers, as you say - not only because of what it is by itself, but mainly because of how it helped us to "see" in a more clear way even well-known ancient knots ( the bowline and the Sheepshank, for example ), and of the many similar binders and hitches it encumbered.

   
     The fundamental structural difference between the Draw Knot & Gleipnir makes this clearly evident.


   To me, there in no "fundamental" structural difference in all those Gleipnir variations whatsoever - however, evidently, if you wish to see that there is so much, at the very end you will manage to do so ! :)
   When I had tied the Bull Clove hitch, I thought that it was an evolution of the Bull hitch, exactly as you do now, when you think that the asymmetric Gleipnir variation you show is an evolution of the Double Ring hitch. The same could be said for the Bull Pretzel hitch, which also was tied in the course of a search for another, not Gleipnir-like knot. However, because I have been in this Gleipnir-inspired binders and tight hitches production line for some years now :), I know that this was only a superficial similitude. I would nt have been able to think that the Bull hitch could had been improved by the use of the Clove hitch, if I had not tied the ( symmetric ) Clove-hitch based binder before, and the "simple hitch-a-la-Gleipnir" before that... ( The same is true for Dan Lehman s Gleipnir-like binders, of course, even if I am not so sure that he will/can ever acknowledge that as I do :) )
    It is perhaps interesting that the creator of the Gleipnir himself though that his knot was a variation of the Constrictor ( ! ! ! ) Noope - he was just lucky and brave enough to visit a previously unchartered territory of the KnotLand, and after he saw the Gleipnir, he wished to "connect" it with some other already established knots, just as a means of an easy orientation into the unknown area.
    The great knots, just like the great ideas, are not variations of anything - they may have roots in many different things, but their creation has an element of emergence out of nothing. Less original things are derived from them, they do not converge to them !   
    People that had NOT understood what a Gleipnir is, will never understand what I am talking about. ( The same happens with the Zeppelin knot, but that is another story ). Even a knot tyer who himself has tied a Bull-Clove-hitch-like hitch ( the much advertised and sold " Estar hitch " ), has never understood that his hitch is different ( and inferior ) from the Bull Clove hitch, why it is different ( and inferior ), and how it works ! He will, for ever, remain with the false impression that it is a development of the Buntline hitch, he will also, for ever, keep tying it in-the-end like a re-tucked Buntline hitch and not as a TIB Clove-hitch based Bull hitch, and he will never understand why it works ( as much as it works... ). It is eye-opening how easily one can miss the essential elements, which are just under his nose, and concentrate on the distant secondary characteristics of everything... Perhaps this is what the "market" demands  :) : product differentiation, even in the most skin-deep, superficial way (1).
   As I said, this attitude is not my cup of tea : I tend to want and try to "see" the essential, primary similarities rather than superficial, secondary differences, and that is why I had replied as I did. It may be only a matter of taste :) ( although I doubt it...).

   Anyway, long live the asymmetric Clove-hitch based Gleipnir you show ! :) :)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 05, 2015, 05:04:00 PM
   
   Of course you can redefine the structural definition of the Gleipnir to down play the distinction.


   No, it is exactly the other way around ! It is you who define the structural characteristics of the Gleipnir in a very narrow way - and this exaggerates the distinction you want to "see" so much between the various Gleipnir variations, of course... :)

 
It changes the form of the knot. It changes how the knot is tied. And it changes the functional properties of the knot.
 Perhaps, one can love one particular thing so much that everything else is of secondary importance..


  By "form", you mean the geometric shape of the knot, which is not the only thing, or the most important thing, that determines the structure of the knot, the way the knot "works". The structure of the knot is based on the ends which are constricted, and immobilized, by a middle-line nipping structure ( be it a double nipping loop, a Clove hitch, a Constrictor, etc...). The way the ends penetrate this nipping structure, the "nipping tube", is secondary : they may enter and exit through the same side, or not. If they do not disturb the overall balance of the knot in mid-air, there is no structural difference.
   Any knot which is somehow different, geometrically, than another, can also ne tied differently - this is no big deal either ! The way a knot is tied ( if it is not veeery easy and quick, or the exact opposite ), is not of much importance in the evaluation of a knot. And you should not forget that any knot can be tied in maaany ways, many more than you can think of !
   Now, you have fallen into the trap of your rhetoric in an amusing way, indeed ! :) :) WHO exactly has more chances to "love one particular thing so much that everything else seems of secondary, only, importance to him" (sic)?  You, the proud "father" of a knot, as you believe you are of this particular variation the "virtues" of which "will become known to future generations of the tiers of knots - or me, who is just a humble producer of second-class Gleipnir variations, none of which will ever come close to the greatness of the original knot ?
   
   
  This makes the Draw Knot more fool proof, an advantage that distinguishes it from the Gleipnir.

   Noope ! It only means that there is one, only, variation of the Clove-hitch based Gleipnir, which, as a mid-air binder, tends to become too elongated. The asymmetric Clove-hitch variation you show does not, but this is a virtue of the parent knot, of the Gleipnir, which has more than one "good" variations, not of the good variations ! :) :) 

   
 
   
   Cut the four limbs of the Bull Clove hitch, some cms further away from the nub itself, and connect them the "other" way, to get the asymmetric Clove-hitch based mid-air binder you show.
   Since you can cut a clove hitch and turn it into a ring knot are they essentially the same knot ?

   Sorry, you had not understood the similarity with the case of the Constrictor/Strangle?Transom, but that perhaps was my fault. Yes, those three knots are essentially the same knot : two-wrap hitches which "work" because the critical, regarding friction,"crossing"/twisting/embracing of their tails is squeezed under the diagonal riding turn, in between it and the hard surface of the hitched object., so friction is multiplied. Yes, those two hitches, the Bull Clove hitch and the asymmetric Clove-hitch Gleipnir variation you show are essentially the same knot. The two limbs of the Clove hitch can point to the same direction ( as they do in the case of the Bull Clove hitch ), or to opposite directions, as they do in the asymmetric Gleipnir variation  you show, but this changes nothing, regarding the structure of the knot. The angle the ends leave a Clove hitch is only of secondary importance. Do you believe that a Clove hitch where this angle is 60 degrees, and one where it is 90 degrees, work differently ? That they have "different functional characteristics" ? That they are a different knot ? :) :) The Clove hitch is a Clove hitch is a Clove hitch, in both knots - and the ends, since you pay sooo much attention to it, both enter into and exit from the nub through the same side.     
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 05, 2015, 05:19:20 PM
   Your variation, as well as the dozens tied by other members in this Forum, would had not existed if the Gleipnir has not been not invented.

That's simply not the case, since I invented the Draw Knot over twenty years ago, although I published it just yesterday.

It has already established its position on the Pantheon of great knots,

I have a great deal of respect for the Gleipnir family of knots. There is a lot to be learnt from it, but please keep learning new things from new and different knots.

   To me, there in no "fundamental" structural difference in all those Gleipnir variations whatsoever - however, evidently, if you wish to see that there is so much, at the very end you will manage to do so !

If you look at the world through rose-colored glasses then nearly everything looks rose colored.

The Draw Knot is not topologically equivalent to the Gleipnir, and it is not an embellishment to the Gleipnir since nothing is added to the Gleipnir to create the Draw Knot. It has a different form; its tied in a different way; and although it can perform some functions in common with the Gleipnir it has many distinct handling properties.

It is not legitimate to say that two knots have "no 'fundamental' structural difference" if only you run the lines through them in different ways!
One could then claim that all knots formed of two hitches are structurally equivalent, but that is simply not the case.

Does the community of knot tyers have any rigorous way of determining if two knots are structurally equivalent, or is it just a matter of opinion?
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 05, 2015, 05:57:19 PM
You, the proud "father" of a knot, as you believe you are of this particular variation the "virtues" of which "will become known to future generations of the tiers of knots

You really ought to go back to the paragraph you took those words from and consider how seriously it was being presented:

It is time to free your mind from the Gleipnir as Fenrir is freed from it at Ragnarok. When the dust settles and the Bifrost falls the practical virtues of the Draw Knot will become known to future generations of the tiers of knots.

   
  This makes the Draw Knot more fool proof, an advantage that distinguishes it from the Gleipnir.

   Noope ! It only means that there is one, only, variation of the Clove-hitch based Gleipnir, which, as a mid-air binder, tends to become too elongated. The asymmetric Clove-hitch variation you show does not, but this is a virtue of the parent knot, of the Gleipnir, which has more than one "good" variations, not of the good variations ! :) :) 

Saying "Noope ! It only means that" does not alter the fact that this makes the Draw Knot more fool proof.
   
the Bull Clove hitch and the asymmetric Clove-hitch Gleipnir variation you show are essentially the same knot. The two limbs of the Clove hitch can point to the same direction ( as they do in the case of the Bull Clove hitch ), or to opposite directions, as they do in the asymmetric Gleipnir variation  you show, but this changes nothing, regarding the structure of the knot.

Running the two lines surrounding the bundle in different directions changes how the knot is FORMED around the bundle. This in turn, transforms the Bull Clove HITCH into an effective BINDING knot, with some of the functional qualities found in the Gleipnir family of knots. If this was described before I presented the Draw Knot, please give me a citation to it.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 05, 2015, 07:12:05 PM
   To me, there in no "fundamental" structural difference in all those Gleipnir variations whatsoever - however, evidently, if you wish to see that there is so much, at the very end you will manage to do so ! :)
It changes the form of the knot. It changes how the knot is tied. And it changes the functional properties of the knot.
 Perhaps, one can love one particular thing so much that everything else is of secondary importance..

  By "form", you mean the geometric shape of the knot, which is not the only thing, or the most important thing, that determines the structure of the knot, the way the knot "works". The structure of the knot is based on the ends which are constricted, and immobilized, by a middle-line nipping structure ( be it a double nipping loop, a Clove hitch, a Constrictor, etc...). The way the ends penetrate this nipping structure, the "nipping tube", is secondary : they may enter and exit through the same side, or not. If they do not disturb the overall balance of the knot in mid-air, there is no structural difference.
   Any knot which is somehow different, geometrically, than another, can also ne tied differently - this is no big deal either ! The way a knot is tied ( if it is not veeery easy and quick, or the exact opposite ), is not of much importance in the evaluation of a knot. And you should not forget that any knot can be tied in maaany ways, many more than you can think of !
   
 
 
 
   Cut the four limbs of the Bull Clove hitch, some cms further away from the nub itself, and connect them the "other" way, to get the asymmetric Clove-hitch based mid-air binder you show.
   Since you can cut a clove hitch and turn it into a ring knot are they essentially the same knot ?

   ... Yes, those two hitches, the Bull Clove hitch and the asymmetric Clove-hitch Gleipnir variation you show are essentially the same knot. The two limbs of the Clove hitch can point to the same direction ( as they do in the case of the Bull Clove hitch ), or to opposite directions, as they do in the asymmetric Gleipnir variation  you show, but this changes nothing, regarding the structure of the knot. The angle the ends leave a Clove hitch is only of secondary importance. Do you believe that a Clove hitch where this angle is 60 degrees, and one where it is 90 degrees, work differently ? That they have "different functional characteristics" ? That they are a different knot ? :) :) The Clove hitch is a Clove hitch is a Clove hitch, in both knots - and the ends, since you pay sooo much attention to it, both enter into and exit from the nub through the same side.   

Is your concept of "no 'fundamental' structural difference" transitive?

If so, given that:
You are arguing that there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Draw Knot and the Gleipnir family of knots.
And you are arguing that there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Draw Knot and the Bull Clove hitch.

Implies that there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 05, 2015, 07:31:27 PM
   There is a lot to be learnt from it, but please keep learning new things from new and different knots.

   I doubt that we can really learn new things from every new and different knot we happen to tie... We can, and we do gain experience, and dexterity, and familiarity with convoluted paths in 3D space with which our brains are not accustomed to deal - but we can not / do not learn new things. I have not learned anything new from the asymmetric Clove-hitch based Gleipnir you show that I had not already known, and I believe I am no exception on this. 
   The great knots, are the knots that are but the implementation, in its most pure form, of a general knotting idea. Those are the knots that can teach us new things - in just a few days after I think that I had learned something from a common knot, I realize that what I learned was already present, in a much more clear and genuine form, in one of the great knots, but I had not paid the required attention to it. Learn from the masters - and learn from the great knots ! :)
 
 
  The Draw Knot is not topologically equivalent to the Gleipnir 

  Topological equivalence has nothing to do with two practical knots having the same structure, working the same way, playing the same role, doing the same job, etc.

   
 
...it is not an embellishment to the Gleipnir since nothing is added to the Gleipnir to create the Draw Knot.

   Nothing ... except a second nipping loop, connected to the first with the help of the Clove hitch s riding turn ! :)
   See it the other way : Since something can be subtracted from the knot you show, and what will be left will be the Gleipnir, the Gleipnir is the fundamental knot where this particular variation of the Gleipnir is based.

   
   
   It has a different form; its tied in a different way; .
   
   Completely irrelevant things, regarding the similarity / identity of two knots, the way they "work", their structural idea.

   
...although it can perform some functions in common with the Gleipnir, it has many distinct handling properties..

   It can perform ALL the functions a Gleipnir performs - and nothing else ! :) :)
   It may be more tight or stable, as we should had expected from the use of the Clove hitch ( which is a very tight, self-locking knot when it is tied around compressible and elastic materials ), but that remains to be proven experimentally.
   However, the "many distinct handling properties"(sic) are just another way for you to tell that you are in love with your brain child, and nothing else, I am afraid.
   The symmetric Clove-hitch-based Gleipnir, on which it seems you do not wish to refer, does everything the asymmetric does, and better : because the tails can be twisted around each other, in an ABoK#34 arrangement, and this multiplies the friction forces between them, as we all know since the invention of the Reef family of knots ! :)

   It is not legitimate to say that two knots have "no 'fundamental' structural difference" if only you run the lines through them in different ways ! 
   Strictly speaking, the "ways" are identical, and only one - the directions the ends enter and exit are different, but the way their segment which are encircled into the "nipping tube" are gripped and immobilized, is the same. In a "toggled bend" we were talking about recently, for example, you can pass the toggle from the any one side to the other, without changing the structure of the knot.

 
Does the community of knot tyers have any rigorous way of determining if two knots are structurally equivalent, or is it just a matter of opinion?

   No, this "community", if it exists, has not any such rigorous way to determine the "structural equivalence" of two knots - for the simple reason it has no rigorous way to determine any-thing ! :) And it may be the case that it is not even a matter of opinion, but a matter of definition. -
   However, speaking about me, I am pretty sure that two knots I see as equivalent, are equivalent ! This knot is an asymmetric Clove-hitch based Gleipnir binder, very similar, and, most probably, inferior, to the symmetric one. It is the exact opposite I am afraid of :  two knots that look different to me, but they are nothing but the same thing, into a different package... :)

   Last thing:  A mid-air binder is self-locking, by definition. This means that both ends, the "Standing" and the "Tail" end are immobilized and secured in/by the nub of the binder : precisely this is what characterizes a 'tight hitch" as well . There is no other difference - except the fact that, in some cases, the interaction between the hard surface of the hitched object and the nipping nub of the knot plays some positive role in how tight the nub can become after some pre-tensioning. ( Also, as I have mentioned in passing, the binders utilizing same-direction wraps can be transformed into "Tackled"  hitches ).

   Now, how the direction the lines of the wraps turn around the object ( both clockwise or counter-clockwise, or the one clockwise and the other counter-clockwise )does not matter in the integrity of the binder. It may alter the way you form the knot in the first place ( although I do not see why this is so important ), but it does not alter the way the knot works. In general, there are two different classes of binders : The binders where the multiple wraps form a single multi-line loop, and the handcuff-type binders, where we have two loops connected in the "middle", by the nub of the binder.
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4821.msg32017#msg32017
   In the past, I, too, had tried to make a distinction between binders belonging to the one or the other class, as you do, but I had soon realized that this was an artificial, too narrow and perhaps myopic distinction :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5014
   So, I do not blame you when you try to distinguish 50 shades of grey... :)
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 05, 2015, 07:39:44 PM
...there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots.

  There is not. :)
 
   Try to "feel" the knot, as if you were a small creature crawling inside the lines, and "eating" tensile forces as you proceed forward.
  All those differences we see are secondary : There is a nipping structure, a whatever nipping structure, tensioned by the two limbs/lines, which, in their turn, and after some binding or hitching action around something, return to the place where they were born, and die there ... :) 
   For just another essentially Gleipnir-like binder, see :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4819.0
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 06, 2015, 04:40:19 AM
I have not learned anything new from the asymmetric Clove-hitch based Gleipnir you show that I had not already known, and I believe I am no exception on this. 

I guess you were already aware of the connections between the Gleipnir & Bull hitches.
If you look into the Draw Knot, you might find a family of Draw Knots.
You seem to be the exception in terms of being the primary person engaging me in a dialogue. - Thank you for that.
   
 
   See it the other way : Since something can be subtracted from the knot you show, and what will be left will be the Gleipnir, the Gleipnir is the fundamental knot where this particular variation of the Gleipnir is based.

Structurally that simply isn't true: If you take one of the lines out of the closing clove hitch and don't reinsert it any where else, you do not get a Gleipnir.

I think that what you mean is that in the way you've learned to think about knots you associate your concept of the Draw Knot "with something subtracted" with your notion of the Gleipnir. The way you've learned to think about knots clearly has merit because you've devised a lot of neat new designs based on it.
 
 
   
   
   It has a different form; its tied in a different way; .
   
   Completely irrelevant things, regarding the similarity / identity of two knots, the way they "work", their structural idea.

The term 'structure' is generally synonymous with 'form'. I think that what you mean here by "their structural idea" is how their form gives rise to their function. But you seem to factor out that different forms may produce some functions in common, mixed in with some other different functions.
 
 
   
...although it can perform some functions in common with the Gleipnir, it has many distinct handling properties..

   It can perform ALL the functions a Gleipnir performs - and nothing else ! :) :)
   ...
   However, the "many distinct handling properties"(sic) are just another way for you to tell that you are in love with your brain child, and nothing else, I am afraid.

You consistently discount whatever distinct handling properties I mention.  You seem to be fixated on the 'mechanics' of knots.
You do not seem concerned about the 'user interface' aspect of knots:
- How easy it is to tie?
- How fast it is to tie?
- How fast & easy it is to tie around awkward or unwieldy bundles?
- How easy it is for a novice to learn to tie?
- How memorable it is, when infrequently applied?
Those aspects have a big impact on the practical application of a binding knot. Ashley did not ignore such properties. How can you, without acknowledging that your concern for what makes a knot 'practical' is rather limited.

 
 
   Strictly speaking, the "ways" are identical, and only one - the directions the ends enter and exit are different,

Strictly speaking if the lines run in different ways, as in: "the directions the ends enter and exit are different" then they are not identical.

Again, you seem to be operating in some higher-level conceptual space were you decide what is similar and then declare that things that you consider as similar to be equivalent. I don't really trust you to take every relevant factor into account.  Every representational system has biases.
 
 
   No, this "community", if it exists, has not any such rigorous way to determine the "structural equivalence" of two knots - for the simple reason it has no rigorous way to determine any-thing ! :)

Pity. The field would benefit from a well thought out taxonomy. Balancing form, function, practical use, and lineage would be a real chore.  It would make one hell of a dissertation topic, but what field today would support such research into organizing the field of practical knots? Is their anything beyond ABoK that comes close to providing a general taxonomy of practical knots?
 
 
   Now, how the direction the lines of the wraps turn around the object ( both clockwise or counter-clockwise, or the one clockwise and the other counter-clockwise )does not matter in the integrity of the binder.

That makes no sense whatsoever to me.
- The Double Ring hitch and the Bull Clove hitch are examples where the lines of the wraps turn around the bundle in the same direction. When tied in braided nylon they will not hold when pushed apart from within by the dynamic bundle that they are meant to bind.
- The Gleipnir and Draw Knot are examples where the lines of the wraps turn around the bundle in opposite directions. When tied in braided nylon they will hold when pushed apart from within by the dynamic bundle that they bind.
- So how can you claim that the direction the lines of the wraps turn around the object does not matter in the integrity of the binder? What do you mean by: "the integrity of the binder"?
 
 
   In the past, I, too, had tried to make a distinction between binders belonging to the one or the other class, as you do, but I had soon realized that this was an artificial, too narrow and perhaps myopic distinction :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5014

There you go again, readjusting your definition to reinforce your current point of view. Yes, there are good insights in that posting, but its really more of a collection of design principles relating to Gleipnir-like constructs than part of an objective classification scheme.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 06, 2015, 04:49:36 AM
Is your concept of "no 'fundamental' structural difference" transitive?  If so, given that:
You are arguing that there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Draw Knot and the Gleipnir family of knots.
And you are arguing that there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Draw Knot and the Bull Clove hitch.
Implies that there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots.

  There is not. :)

I cannot interpret your response: "There is not."
Does it mean: There is not a 'fundamental' structural difference between the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots?
Or does it mean: There is not such an implication?

If you believe that there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots, then you would have to deny that the Gleipnir represented a new knot, since the family of Bull hitches predated it.

If you believe that the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots are 'fundamentally' structurally different, then please note that the Draw Knot is closer in FORM to the Bull Clove hitch than the Gleipnir.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 06, 2015, 11:09:15 AM
I guess you were already aware of the connections between the Gleipnir & Bull hitches.

   You mean, if I was aware of the Gleipnir before I had tied the Bull Clove hitch or any other of the "tight hitches"  ? Of course I was, and that is what enabled me to "see" the binders and hitches with an entirely new way - but not only that ! I believe I would nt even had tied most of the other knots I had ever tied, if the Gleipnir had not been invented and I had not been lucky to learn about it. Perhaps I would nr even had been seduced in the hobby of knot tying at all. You see, the Gleipnir, for me, but also for most of the members of this Forum ( I say "most", because there are always some people who simply can not understand, or do not wish to understand, for their own personal reasons ), was a revolution. And revolutions change the Weltanschauun, the World view :).   

  If you take one of the lines out of the closing clove hitch and don't reinsert it any where else, you do not get a Gleipnir.

   In the Gleipnir, and all its variations, both ends are secured when they pass through the "central" nub. If the one of them is not secured there, but somewhere else, you do not get a Gleipnir, indeed. However, I was not talking about that ! I was talking about HOW do those ends pass through the central nub, regarding their orientations when/while they do that : Do they pass by entering into and exiting from different sides, or the same side ? That, in my opinion, is not an important structural difference - at least in the case of the Clove-hitch based Gleipnir variations.
   In the asymmetric Clove-hitch Gleipnir you show in this thread, both lines enter into and exit from the same side of the Clove hitch, in the symmetric one ( which I think it can be more secure, because there the lines can be twisted around each other ), they enter into and exit from different=opposite sides. So what ?
   I should also remind something you may not be aware of. In Dan Lehman s Gleipnir variation ( which, probably, just like you, its author will never accept that it just a Gleipnir variation...:) ), both lines converging to the "central" nipping structure arrive there coming from the same direction. Not much difference. The "nipping tube", having had a turn more, is longer, so it can encircle the pair of ends better, but that is not a structural difference that makes it a new knot. If we just use a three-turn Gleipnir, we get an even longer nipping tube, which allows us to twist the ends around each other inside it more easily, but that is, perhaps, just an improvement, not anything else. The inventor of the Gleipnir had probably tried all those variations, but he says that he prefers to just add one classic Gleipnir after the other, in a series - and he may well be right in this.
     
   I think that what you mean is that in the way you've learned to think about knots you associate your concept of the Draw Knot "with something subtracted" with your notion of the Gleipnir. The way you've learned to think about knots clearly has merit because you've devised a lot of neat new designs based on it..

   Nooo, it is not the "way" ! It is the Gleipnir itself ! That is what I am trying to convey to you. A great idea, a great knot, is not only great because it does what it does, but because it is what it is, and so it teaches what it teaches : Its mere existence has an educational value. It is not the pupil that has learned something, it is the teacher that has taught him that !

   The term 'structure' is generally synonymous with 'form'.
   that different forms may produce some functions in common.

   "Generally" ? ? ? :) :) :)
    Never ! Not even in the so-called "modern movement", which only declared that "Form follows function".
    Form is akin to the shape, the geometry. Structure has to do with the distribution of forces within the elements of the form, which make something "work" : either be stable and on its feet ( when it is a building, for example ), or move without its parts be spread all over the place ( when it is a vehicle, for example ). Form can be seen, structure has to be understood, that is, "seen" by the mind s eye. The distribution and the equilibrium or not of the forces within a rigid or flexible material is invisible.
     Indeed, different forms may/can produce the same results, regarding structure. Perhaps that is why we have infinite different forms, but few different structures. 
 
   You consistently discount whatever distinct handling properties I mention.  You seem to be fixated on the 'mechanics' of knots.
You do not seem concerned about the 'user interface' aspect of knots .


  your concern for what makes a knot 'practical' is rather limited..


   It is ! :) It is concentrated in one, and one only, point ! The better is the knot, per se, the more practical it can be.
Of course, as I said, there are some good knots which are extremely unfortunate, as practical knots, because there is not ( or we have not yet found ) an acceptably easy and quick method to tie them - but they are rare exceptions of the general rule.
  You see, practical knots are, almost by definition, simple knots, and, in general, simple knots can be tied easily and quickly. The small differences in this "easily and quickly" are not enough to make a serious knot tyer prefer an inferior knot from a better one.
   However, the asymmetric Clove-hitch-based Gleipnir variation you  show is NOT tied or untied more easily and quickly relatively to the symmetric one ! Do not try to shift the goalposts ! :)

...you seem to be operating in some higher-level conceptual space were you decide what is similar and then declare that things that you consider as similar to be equivalent. I don't really trust you to take every relevant factor into account.  Every representational system has biases.

   Starting from the last sentence, which is the only one that makes semse to me :
   True, but you hide the most important thing in the representational systems : they are structured ! They can be placed into an hierarchy of systems, when some "belong" to others, some can be "derived" from others, and some can not. ( Unless you are talking about art or religion, of course ).
   Let me give an example : You see a circle, and you see an ellipse. Are they different ?
   To ancient Greeks they were, so the representational system of Ptolemy was based only on circles, which were thought to have some divine substance, which "ovals" did not. Until the time of the great Kepler, this was the mode of thinking, and Kepler himself was sad when he was forced, in a way, to abandon his beloved previous system, the "Mysterium Cosmographicum" (1), based on perfect Platonic solids, in order to "save the phenomena", and accept the ellipses.
   You know only Euclidean Geometry - your "conceptual space" is filled only with that. The circle is different from the ellipse.
   Then, suddenly, out of the blue, there comes Desargues, and "Projective Geometry", and your conceptual space is filled with a new, more general way to "see" the same ancient geometrical forms - and, as consequence of that revolution, the circle and the ellipse become one and the same thing. ( Notice that the work of Desarques around 1600 was re-discovered after 250 years, so there is plenty of time to you to "see", at last, that the knot you show is but a variation of the classic Gleipnir. :) :) )
    So, yes, the more we tie, the more "sophisticated" our "conceptual space" becomes - and more general, more powerful in its task to describe, explain and, if possible, predict reality.

 
  The field would benefit from a well thought out taxonomy.
 
   Say that again ! :) Hic Rhodus his saltus.

   What do you mean by: "the integrity of the binder"?

   Not the secondary characteristics, which there may be quantitative differences : the balance of the nub in mid0air or on the surface of the hitched/bound object(s), or its tightness, which may be more or less efficient in immobilizing and "locking": the ends. The primary characteristic, which is to enable the binder to "work", to enable the nipping structure to : 1. Be tensioned by its limbs. 2. nip both penetrating ends. If the nipping structure is not tensioned by both limbs ( attention : I do not say " both limbs pointing to different or opposite directions" ), and it is not forced to shrink, to grip, to nip anything that penetrates it, we do not have a Gleipnir. If it does not nip both ends, and, by this nipping, it secures them, we do not have a Gleipnir.
   There may be differences in the efficiency a particular Gleipnir variation does those things - but this does not change the identity of the knot : A not-so-effective Gleipnir variation, is still, and will remain, a Gleipnir variation. Same thing with Zeppelin-like bemds, bowlines, etc.

readjusting your definition to reinforce your current point of view..

  Do you really want me to re-adjust my definition to reinforce the point of view I had in the past ? :) Perhaps even before I had learned about the Gleipnir, or about how to tie my shoelaces ? :) Would you feel safer if the pilot of the airplane you are on finds his way using sextant and Ptolemaic astronomy ? :) 

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterium_Cosmographicum
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 06, 2015, 11:43:15 AM
  There is not a 'fundamental" structural difference between the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots?

  There is not, indeed. However, we are NOT talking about that in this thread, are we ? We are arguing if there is a fundamental structural difference between a Glove-hitch based, or a whatever-tight-hitch based Gleipnir, and the knot you show, are nt we ? You have tried to push the whole argument to its limits, hoping, perhaps, that there your view may confront less objections, but it did nt work... :) I could simply / bluntly had replied : " This not is nothing but a Clove-hitch based Gleipnir, and, because it is asymmetric, it is probably inferior from the symmetric one ", period - but I did not. I had tried to explain my view, for whatever it is worth. Other people will have other views, but I guess you are more interested to the views of the people who happened to have more experience in this particular class of knots ( and had proved that they have more experience, because they have tied more similar knots ).
 
   If you believe that there is no 'fundamental' structural difference between the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots, then you would have to deny that the Gleipnir represented a new knot, since the family of Bull hitches predated it.
 
   Going even before the Bull hitches, there is the bowline, and the Sheepshank, and the Captain Mullin s knot, which have elements of the Gleipnir - but not in the PURE, minimal, non-reducible form they exist in the Gleipnir. Elements of something may exist for many years, merged with or hidden under other things, but only when they are revealed in front of our eyes in their purest form, we appreciate what was there, just under our nose, invisible from the "common sense" - which is, oftentimes, just the current prejudice.

   the Draw Knot is closer in FORM to the Bull Clove hitch than the Gleipnir.

   No, because, regarding the form ( NOT the structure, which is about what we are talking for ages...), the orientation of the LIMBS that converge to the nipping structure, does matter. So, Dan Lehman s variation of the Gleipnir also looks more ( in form ) like a Bull-like hitch/binder, than a Gleipnir - but it IS a Gleipnitr variation, no question about that. As I said at least a dozen of times, neither the topology, nor the particular form/shape of the knot determines its structure, its identity as a "knot" tied on rope/material, the way it "works", which is all what matters for a practical knot.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 06, 2015, 08:33:13 PM
I guess you were already aware of the connections between the Gleipnir & Bull hitches.

   You mean, if I was aware of the Gleipnir before I had tied the Bull Clove hitch or any other of the "tight hitches"  ? Of course I was, and that is what enabled me to "see" the binders and hitches with an entirely new way - but not only that ! I believe I would nt even had tied most of the other knots I had ever tied, if the Gleipnir had not been invented and I had not been lucky to learn about it. Perhaps I would nr even had been seduced in the hobby of knot tying at all. You see, the Gleipnir, for me, but also for most of the members of this Forum ( I say "most", because there are always some people who simply can not understand, or do not wish to understand, for their own personal reasons ), was a revolution. And revolutions change the Weltanschauun, the World view :).

Your classification system is based entirely of the particular way and order in which you studied and learned to tie knots. It is a subjective, rather than an objective classification system. I'm sure it works for you, as a designer of knots.

  If you take one of the lines out of the closing clove hitch and don't reinsert it any where else, you do not get a Gleipnir.

   In the Gleipnir, and all its variations, both ends are secured when they pass through the "central" nub. If the one of them is not secured there, but somewhere else, you do not get a Gleipnir, indeed. However, I was not talking about that !

Here you are classifying knots (variations of the Gleipnir) based on a high-level description, grounded in your principles of design. That is a perfectly legitimate way of constructing a classification system, but it also fraught with peril. Every different set of design principles will generate a different classification system. One can have multiple sets of design principles coexisting at the same time, intended to stress different design goals.

The underlying problem with this approach is that it is difficult to ground it on a stable, agreed upon set of characteristics.

I was talking about HOW do those ends pass through the central nub, regarding their orientations when/while they do that : Do they pass by entering into and exiting from different sides, or the same side ? That, in my opinion, is not an important structural difference - at least in the case of the Clove-hitch based Gleipnir variations.

Here's my central point, and it illustrates how one can ground the classification of a knot in their low level characteristics.

Back in Reply 12 you provided a fine explanation of how the Bull Clove hitch can be transformed into the Draw Knot by reversing the direction of one of its coils runs. That is accomplished without taking the knot apart and putting it together again, as is required to convert the Draw Knot into a symmetric Clove-hitch Gleipnir. The act of extracting a line from a knot and pushing it back through a different part of the knot can be used to turn many knots into other knots that have little in common with the original.

Thus I argue that in terms of these low level, well-grounded characteristics, the difference between the Draw Knot and the Bull Clove hitch is smaller/less significant than the difference between the Draw Knot and the Clove-hitch Gleipnir. Therefore the Draw Knot should be classified as a variation of a Bull hitch, rather than a variation of the Gleipnir.

(Running the lines of a Bull Clove hitch surrounding the bundle in different directions changes how the knot is formed around the bundle. This transforms the Bull Clove hitch into an effective binding knot, with some of the functional qualities found in the Gleipnir family of knots.)

   The term 'structure' is generally synonymous with 'form'.
   that different forms may produce some functions in common.

   "Generally" ? ? ? :) :) :)
    Never ! Not even in the so-called "modern movement", which only declared that "Form follows function".

When the architect Louis Sullivan stated that he meant that it is the duty of an architect to design buildings to facilitate the function(s) they are intended to serve. (He wrote a great book entitled "Kindergarten Chats" that I think you would enjoy.) This is applicable to the design of practical knots.

Many people try to apply "form follows function" to biological systems, but in that case form and function are so intimately intertwined that they arise together. This may be applicable to the objective classification of practical knots.

    Form is akin to the shape, the geometry. Structure has to do with the distribution of forces within the elements of the form, which make something "work" : either be stable and on its feet ( when it is a building, for example ), or move without its parts be spread all over the place ( when it is a vehicle, for example ). Form can be seen, structure has to be understood, that is, "seen" by the mind s eye. The distribution and the equilibrium or not of the forces within a rigid or flexible material is invisible.

Please don't redefine the meaning of the term 'structure.' It means: "the arrangement and interrelationship of parts in a construction, such as a building", as you will find in any dictionary. The moment you start talking about forces or functions you need to apply a different word. In the field of mechanics they divide the analysis of how forces operate on structures into statics (which applies to structures that do not move) and dynamics (which applies to structures that move). You might consider using the word 'mechanics', however, I suspect that your focus is really on the 'mechanical principles' that apply to knots rather that the detailed mechanics of how knots operate (quantitative differences, which you consider secondary). Alternatively, you might adopt a modifier and refer to it as the 'functional structure' that conveys that you're referring to something more than just the structure.

   You consistently discount whatever distinct handling properties I mention.  You seem to be fixated on the 'mechanics' of knots.
You do not seem concerned about the 'user interface' aspect of knots .


It is ! :) It is concentrated in one, and one only, point ! The better is the knot, per se, the more practical it can be.

I like the way George R.R. Martin makes the point in "A Song of Fire & Ice": You can have the best sword blade in the world but if the bade has no handle it is not very useful. The handle is the user interface of a sword.

You see, practical knots are, almost by definition, simple knots, and, in general, simple knots can be tied easily and quickly. The small differences in this "easily and quickly" are not enough to make a serious knot tyer prefer an inferior knot from a better one.

I've got to wonder how many people who tie practical knots are "serious knot tyers".

   However, the asymmetric Clove-hitch-based Gleipnir variation you  show is NOT tied or untied more easily and quickly relatively to the symmetric one ! Do not try to shift the goalposts ! :)

As I keep saying, its easier & faster to pull two lines together through an open clove hitch then it is to individually pass them through in different directions. This is probably insignificant if you're tying a static object sitting on a table in front of you, but if you are trying to tie an unwieldy bundle it can make a significant difference.

   What do you mean by: "the integrity of the binder"?

   Not the secondary characteristics, which there may be quantitative differences : the balance of the nub in mid0air or on the surface of the hitched/bound object(s), or its tightness, which may be more or less efficient in immobilizing and "locking": the ends. The primary characteristic, which is to enable the binder to "work", to enable the nipping structure to : 1. Be tensioned by its limbs. 2. nip both penetrating ends. If the nipping structure is not tensioned by both limbs ( attention : I do not say " both limbs pointing to different or opposite directions" ), and it is not forced to shrink, to grip, to nip anything that penetrates it, we do not have a Gleipnir. If it does not nip both ends, and, by this nipping, it secures them, we do not have a Gleipnir.
   There may be differences in the efficiency a particular Gleipnir variation does those things - but this does not change the identity of the knot : A not-so-effective Gleipnir variation, is still, and will remain, a Gleipnir variation. Same thing with Zeppelin-like bemds, bowlines, etc.

If one bases the design or selection of a knot around the use it will be put to (form follows function) then, in some cases, what you designate as secondary characteristics may become significant or even the deciding factor.

readjusting your definition to reinforce your current point of view..

  Do you really want me to re-adjust my definition to reinforce the point of view I had in the past ? :)

No, but if your classification of knots is based on your current set of design principles, and your system of design principles is constantly evolving, then your classification scheme changes over time.

If the classification scheme was codified it could be updated at specified dates. You are performing a free-form version of that by posting articles of the forum describing your latest set of design principles. ? Bravo!
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 06, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
  There is not a 'fundamental" structural difference between the Bull Clove hitch and the Gleipnir family of knots?

  There is not, indeed. However, we are NOT talking about that in this thread, are we ? We are arguing if there is a fundamental structural difference between a Glove-hitch based, or a whatever-tight-hitch based Gleipnir, and the knot you show, are nt we ? You have tried to push the whole argument to its limits, hoping, perhaps, that there your view may confront less objections, but it did nt work... :)

We are engaged in a discussion of how to best classify knots, determine how similar they are to other knots, and if they are equivalent to other knots. I am 'drilling down' because I'm trying to figure out how you do that, and how your approach compares to the classification techniques I've seen applied in other fields. (The mother of all taxonomies is Linnaeus' "Systema Naturae" and its modern day 'derivatives'.)

I could simply / bluntly had replied : " This not is nothing but a Clove-hitch based Gleipnir, and, because it is asymmetric, it is probably inferior from the symmetric one ", period

Had you done that I would have written you off as a hack.

- but I did not. I had tried to explain my view, for whatever it is worth.

I truly appreciate that, and hope that you are enjoying this discussion as I am. I am a designer at heart, and like to interact with others who exist in that realm.

   the Draw Knot is closer in FORM to the Bull Clove hitch than the Gleipnir.

   No, because, regarding the form ( NOT the structure, which is about what we are talking for ages...), the orientation of the LIMBS that converge to the nipping structure, does matter.

Yes it matters, but does it matter more or less than the orientation of how the LIMBS pass through the nipping structure? This is the question on which the classification hangs.

As I said at least a dozen of times, neither the topology, nor the particular form/shape of the knot determines its structure, its identity as a "knot" tied on rope/material, the way it "works", which is all what matters for a practical knot.

As pointed out in previous posts there are many different ways of describing the operating principles by which a knot works. If the design of the Gleipnir is the cornerstone of your design principles, then the orientation of the limbs that converge to the nipping structure may be stressed more than the orientation of how the limbs pass through the nipping structure.

I respect your knowledge and opinion. I'm sure that is a very effective way to think about designing new knots. But it does not satisfy me in terms of a classification system. I favor systems based on more concrete, lower-level characteristics, because they provide a more stable grounding for building an objective, long lasting classification scheme. Although I cannot offer you a full blown taxonomy, I previously explained why I consider that reversing the direction of one of its limbs of a knot is a less significant change then reversing the direction in which one of its limbs pass through the nipping structure (which requires taking the knot apart and putting it back together).
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 06, 2015, 10:15:22 PM
   
   Your classification system... is a subjective, rather than an objective classification system.
   I do not see any "objective" classification system around, so, until you or somebody else finds one, allow me to use mime ! :)
   
... you are classifying knots based on a high-level description, grounded in your principles of design.
... how one can ground the classification of a knot in their low level characteristics.
   Why do you want to base your classification scheme of knots on their low-level characteristics ?
   If you do that, you run the danger to get more classes than the knots that were ever tied in the Universe :) - because some of them might had been tied, dressed or loaded slightly differently, their forms might had became slightly different, so, those slightly different FORMS should belong to even more different classes of knots than the knots that were actually tied...
   The form/shape of a knot is a very superficial criterion of its identity. "See" deeper, in how do they wok, why they do not fall apart.
   
...it is the duty of an architect to design buildings to facilitate the function(s) they are intended to serve. This is applicable to the design of practical knots.
   If you believe in this "modern movement" s BS, you may manage to be happy to live in, and see around you, those mass-produced BOXES, which were the implementation, in concrete and brick ( like" flesh and blood" ) of this utilitarian ( like "totalitarian" ) ideology. Fortunately, architecture was,is and will be an art, and does not do this - just as painting does not fill canvases with colour. "Duty" to "serve" ? Come on !
   And practical knots do not exist because we need them - they exist, period - and because they exist, we can use them for our needs, or not. Unless you believe that numbers exist because we made them, to count our fingers. :)
   We do not "design" practical knots ! Just as we do not design mathematical theorems. We find them - and after we find them, we decide if they can be used for something or not.
   
   Please don't redefine the meaning of the term "structure". It means... , as you will find in any dictionary.
   I do not need to define or re-define what is a structure, thanks KnotGod ! And, of course, I do not learn what IS a thing, by looking in a dictionary. :)
  To "feel", in your bones, what a structure IS, you must build structures - and some of them must collapse, to teach you what you did wrong. A nice, small, clear booklet on structures, is the :
   Structures, or why things don't fall down, by J.E.Gordon
   Just three lines of this marvelous book :
   "Science"...has subtly warped our system of values by teaching us to judge things on grounds which are excessive functional. The modern man asks : What is this man or thing FOR ? rather than : What IS this man or thing ? Herein, no doubt, lie the cause of many of our modern sickness.
 
   I like the way George R.R. Martin makes the point in "A Song of Fire & Ice": You can have the best sword blade in the world but if the bade has no handle it is not very useful. The handle is the user interface of a sword.
   OK. I will make the best steel, and the best blades, and you will make the best handles... :) ( And please, do not tell me after that what "noble" function those swords will "serve"...)
   
   I've got to wonder how many people who tie practical knots are "serious knot tyers".
   Are you interested to learn only in what "maaany" people do ? Then, I suggest you should study LOTTO, or toothpastes, not knots ! :)
 
...its easier & faster to pull two lines together through an open clove hitch then it is to individually pass them through in different directions. .
   HOW do you know this ? Have you actually MEASURED the time to tie the symmetric and the asymmetric Clove-hitch based binders, and found any difference, or such a big difference that would persuade somebody to tie the one instead of the other ?
   If THIS is the advantage of the asymmetric variation you think it is critical, well, think again ! :)
   I have to notice that, again, for the n-th time, unintentionally or intentionally, you remain notoriously silent about the real advantage of the symmetric variation over the asymmetric one - but sorry,  I am not going to repeat it here again !
   
...what you designate as secondary characteristics may become significant or even the deciding factor.
   I have seen, in use, that a very significant factor which can determine the outcome of a knotting activity is how WET is the rope I pull - remind me to take it into account the next time I will "design" a knot, which will "serve" a purpose. :)
   Secondary characteristics should be offered the fair amount of attention they deserve : not much. 
   
... your system of design principles is constantly evolving, then your classification scheme changes over time.
If you mean that, in the future, pilots of airplanes will, again, use sextants and the Ptolemaic astronomical system to orient themselves, the meaning of the word "future" in your dictionary is different than in mine. :)
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 06, 2015, 10:34:27 PM
   We are engaged in a discussion of how to best classify knots, determine how similar they are to other knots, and if they are equivalent to other knots.
   This is the question on which the classification hangs.
...it does not satisfy me in terms of a classification system.
   I favor systems based on more concrete, lower-level characteristics, because they provide a more stable grounding for building an objective, long lasting classification scheme.

   The issue of classification is important - up to a point.
   When we see a great knot, it is not important any more... If we "classify" the Gleipnir, this would mean we have not understood nothing about it, in particular, and about practical knots, in general.
   Van Gogh may be classified as an "impressionist" - but he is simply a great painter.
   Great knots should define the classes we better use, not the other way around.
   The knot you have presented is an asymmetric Clove-hitch based binder. It belongs to the Gleipnir "class" of knots, even if it "resembles", in form, the Double Ring knot, the Bull Clove hitch, or the Mona Lisa ! :)
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 07, 2015, 03:41:52 AM
... you are classifying knots based on a high-level description, grounded in your principles of design.
... how one can ground the classification of a knot in their low level characteristics.
   Why do you want to base your classification scheme of knots on their low-level characteristics ?

"I favor systems based on more concrete, lower-level characteristics, because they provide a more stable grounding for building an objective, long lasting classification scheme." The opinions of subject matter experts vary over time & between experts.

...it is the duty of an architect to design buildings to facilitate the function(s) they are intended to serve. This is applicable to the design of practical knots.
   If you believe in this "modern movement" s BS, ...

What makes you think that? I cited the master architect who coined the expression "Form follows function" and recommended his book. I also pointed out that form & function arise together in biological systems. - For the record, I'm pro modern movement and fascinated by biomorphic designs.

   And practical knots do not exist because we need them - they exist, period - and because they exist, we can use them for our needs, or not.

Yes, but if you explore the 'design space' of knots with a particular focus or goal in mind you're apt to try out certain approaches and ignore others. People don't really invent knots they 'merely' discover them. The trick is to use your time wisely to discover more useful knots than useless ones.

   
   Please don't redefine the meaning of the term "structure". It means... , as you will find in any dictionary.
   I do not need to define or re-define what is a structure, thanks KnotGod ! And, of course, I do not learn what IS a thing, by looking in a dictionary. :)

You can alter the meaning of terms for your own internal use to your hearts content. The problem arises when you attempt to discuss or explain something to others who are not aware of how you have altered the use of common terms. It took me a long time to figure out that when you said "structure" you meant more than just "the arrangement and interrelationship of parts in a construction".

...its easier & faster to pull two lines together through an open clove hitch then it is to individually pass them through in different directions. .
   HOW do you know this ?

It's generally faster to perform an action once than twice.

... your system of design principles is constantly evolving, then your classification scheme changes over time.
If you mean that, in the future, pilots of airplanes will, again, use sextants and the Ptolemaic astronomical system to orient themselves, the meaning of the word "future" in your dictionary is different than in mine. :)

It is the nature of designers to be ever looking forward to new ways to think about and do things. I'm afraid we need someone who enjoys organizing things (like a librarian) to construct classification systems that are useful and stable. - I'm not applying for the job either.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 07, 2015, 03:50:48 AM
The issue of classification is important - up to a point.
   When we see a great knot, it is not important any more... If we "classify" the Gleipnir, this would mean we have not understood nothing about it, in particular, and about practical knots, in general.
   Van Gogh may be classified as an "impressionist" - but he is simply a great painter.
   Great knots should define the classes we better use, not the other way around.
   The knot you have presented is an asymmetric Clove-hitch based binder. It belongs to the Gleipnir "class" of knots, even if it "resembles", in form, the Double Ring knot, the Bull Clove hitch, or the Mona Lisa ! :)

Thank you for being clear about your preferences.

   "The crow wish'd every thing was black, the owl that every thing was white." -- William Blake

I believe that the only unbiased solution is to split the difference: Observing that the knot I presented is like the Bull Clove hitch but with the direction of one of its limbs reversed, and like the symmetrical Clove-hitch Gleipnir but with both limbs entering the nipping structure from the same side, I conclude that the Draw Knot is half way between the symmetrical Clove-hitch Gleipnir and the Bull Clove hitch.

I will leave it to others to determine the usefulness of this knot, and, once a better perspective has been gained, to determine if it is worthy of being considered a new binding knot.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 07, 2015, 05:11:15 AM
...it is the duty of an architect to design buildings to facilitate the function(s) they are intended to serve. This is applicable to the design of practical knots.
   If you believe in this "modern movement" s BS, ...

  What makes you think that ?

   Maaaany years of experience :) :) - and of study, but, most of all, of just looking around with an innocent/honest eye...
   The so-called "modern movement", this "utilitarian"/"functionalistic" ideology, in architecture, produced b o x e s - cheap boxes. I lost so many years of my life in the bottom of this dark pit, and I know. Do not listen what the "modern movement" was saying ( better : preaching ), just LOOK what it had built - how it had destroyed the cities, and transformed humans into subway rats.
   ( Moreover, the same ideology which considered that houses are/should be just "machines a habiter", was responsible for much worse things.... One step further lurks the "modern" idea that man himself is also machine, which "functions", and his function/behaviour is/should be controlled accordingly. As a comment on a recent debate about the dangers of artificial intelligence, read this :
   " Some prominent scientific gurus are scared by a world controlled by thinking machines. I am not sure that this is a valid fear. I am more concerned about a world led by people, who think like machines..." )   
   
  The "modern movement" did not produced "biomorphic designs", it produced rectangular cuboids = boxes, and rows of boxes, made from cement, glass and steel, we have to call "cities".
   
   It took me a long time to figure out that when you said "structure" you meant more than just "the arrangement and interrelationship of parts in a construction"....
   You were unlucky ! :) It took me a fraction of a second to dismiss your statement :
   
   The term 'structure' is generally synonymous with 'form'.
   Because that is what we are talking about : how and why the knot you show "works", its structure, not how it "looks", its form.
   The structure of your knot is the structure of the Gleipnir ( more than the structure of the Bull hitch, which, after all, may be seen as just an attempt to "lock" the Cow hitch ). 

...its easier & faster to pull two lines together through an open clove hitch then it is to individually pass them through in different directions. .
   HOW do you know this ?

   It's generally faster to perform an action once than twice.
   When I read a supposedly devastating, "clever" one-liner, I usually smile. :)
   To pass, through the same side of a hole, the end of one line coming from the east. and then the end of one line coming from the west, is "generally faster to perform"(sic) than to pass the same ends, of the same lines, through the same hole, from different sides... :) :)
   However, I had not asked about anything "general" ! I asked if you had actually m e a s u r e d the time you need to perform those particular actions, on this particular knot, and if you had found that there is a difference, and that this difference is sufficient to make one tie the asymmetric rather than the symmetric variation. Read my lips - the whole sentence, please :
   
   HOW do you know this ? Have you actually MEASURED the time to tie the symmetric and the asymmetric Clove-hitch based binders, and found any difference, or such a big difference that would persuade somebody to tie the one instead of the other ?
 
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 07, 2015, 05:52:51 AM
I believe that what you call the bull hitch is what Ashley called
the double ring knot (ABoK #1126, also called the double running knot).
No, what I mean is that  the knot is to the cow hitch
as the dbl. bowline is to the bowline --where the latter
of each pair has a full/round turn vice the single turh--; and your knot
is to the bull h. as the water bowline is to the d.b.
--the clove structure is more stable.

Quote
it doesn't matter whether you start with a Buntline or Two Half Hitches; an identical Draw Knot results in either case.)
Although you take the ends around in opposite directions,
and so it should matter --at least as far as "identical" is
concerned, as there will be the difference in tail direction.
(Note that there's interesting difference when using the
clove hitch in the Gleipnir structure to reeving ends
through it one way or the other, where the paired half-hitches
either pull away or towards each other --the latter case
seems to make for a tighter hitch (as seen in some
commercial-fishing knotting), but perhaps less grip!?)

--dl*
====

It's more a matter of starting with one part and finishing with the other, versus starting with the other and finishing with the one. - Simply the order in which they are passed around & through.
Well, I'm clearly right, but in the narrowest, most
technical sense --I was thinking that there was more
significance, but, no, you're right.  (If you tie the one
approach going the opposite way to the other, you
end up with identical knots (given appropriate dressing
and all, getting the two ends like-aligned through the
hitch part).)
Thanks,

--dl*
====
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 07, 2015, 01:16:56 PM
   The so-called "modern movement", this "utilitarian"/"functionalistic" ideology, in architecture, produced b o x e s - cheap boxes. I lost so many years of my life in the bottom of this dark pit, and I know. Do not listen what the "modern movement" was saying ( better : preaching ), just LOOK what it had built - how it had destroyed the cities, and transformed humans into subway rats.

I'm sorry, I thought you were equating the design principle of "Form follows function" with the Modern Movement. Louis Sullivan who coined the phrase was Frank Lloyd Wright's mentor. I've never heard anyone liken Fallingwater to "architecture, produced b o x e s - cheap boxes." I think you'd enjoy reading "Kindergarten Chats".

To pass, through the same side of a hole, the end of one line coming from the east. and then the end of one line coming from the west, is "generally faster to perform"(sic) than to pass the same ends, of the same lines, through the same hole, from different sides... :) :)

As stated in the original post:
Several Ways to Tie the Draw Knot  ...
Tied Around a Bundle: The Draw Knot can easily be tied around a bundle. To do so, form a loose clove hitch around the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Push the loose clove hitch up close to the base of the thumb and index finger so they can open wide. Lead one of the free ends around the bundle and take hold of that end with the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Run the other free end in the opposite direction around the bundle and again take hold of that line with the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Pull both running lines out through the clove hitch and work the clove hitch closed around the lines. Then pull the exterior running lines to tighten the bind as desired.

That way the 'pull through operation' is only performed once.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 07, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
   I thought you were equating the design principle of "Form follows function" with the Modern Movement.

   I do. From Wikipedia :

 " Common themes of modern architecture includes :
  - the notion that "Form follows function", a dictum originally expressed by Frank Lloyd Wright's early mentor Louis Sullivan, meaning that the result of design should derive directly from its purpose
  - materials at 90 degrees to each other [ = boxes ]
  - use of industrially-produced materials; adoption of the machine aesthetic. "

  (  The only result of a "design" of a practical knot which derives directly from its "purpose", indeed, is the unknotted straight line ! )
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 07, 2015, 01:46:56 PM
  That way the 'pull through operation' is only performed once.

   Noope ! To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other. If the binder is under tension, the friction will not allow the nub to be freely "floating" in mid air. In both cases, in the case of the symmetric as well as the asymmetric Clove-hitch based Gleipnir, at some point you have to pull each end independently from the other. The initial set up, of the loose knot, does not mean a thing. In fact, it is harder to try to tighten the binder while you are holding both ends ( which, in the asymmetric case, stem out of the same hole ) with your one hand, and the whole nub with the other, than to pull both ends towards opposite directions, holding each one with a different hand, and not hold the nub at all.
   In practice, you always have to take the slack, and equalize the tension, of two wraps, because, due to friction with the surface of the hitched/bound object(s), they do not behave as the line of a two-pulley simple machine, as one may think. The lines of each wrap are "communicating" theoretically, but not actually...
   You still keep being silent about the advantage of the symmetric variation ; it may be a viable short-term tactics :), but, in the end, it will not change the fact that, in the asymmetric variation, you can not increase the friction forces between the two tail Ends by twisting them around each other... The two ends are not securing each other, they depend only in the constricting action of the surrounding Clove hitch to immobilize them - which may be enough, or not...
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 07, 2015, 04:23:30 PM
   I thought you were equating the design principle of "Form follows function" with the Modern Movement.

   I do. From Wikipedia :

 " Common themes of modern architecture includes :
  - the notion that "Form follows function", a dictum originally expressed by Frank Lloyd Wright's early mentor Louis Sullivan, meaning that the result of design should derive directly from its purpose ?"
 

Fallingwater illustrates how "form follows function" was meant to be applied.
What the Modern Movement did with the expression is a whole other story.

  That way the 'pull through operation' is only performed once.

   Noope ! To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other. If the binder is under tension, the friction will not allow the nub to be freely "floating" in mid air. In both cases, in the case of the symmetric as well as the asymmetric Clove-hitch based Gleipnir, at some point you have to pull each end independently from the other.

"To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other."
Really? !!!

Background:
- The Draw Knot is designed for binding bundles; it was not intended to be used as a winch for lifting heavy objects. (If it can serve that purpose, great!)
- The Draw Knot is designed to be tied in soft braided nylon (the cheap stuff, as shown in my original pictures).

   "The nature of materials influences the texture of the finished product." -- Frank Lloyd Wright

The Draw Knot closes evenly around a bundle when you smoothly increase the pull on the two emerging ends.

It works on the same mechanical principle as the 'centering ruler trick': Support a ruler with one finger from each hand, starting with the fingers far apart. If you evenly slide the fingers together you are guaranteed to end up with the fingers next to each other at the center of the ruler. This works because of the dynamic rebalancing of fictional forces. The longer the proportion of the ruler extends beyond the support finger on one side, the less weight is supported by the opposing finger. Reducing the weight reduces the frictional force making it easier for the finger further from the center to slide towards the center.

The Draw Knot works the same way. When one coil becomes tighter than the other, the slack in the looser coil allows it to slide through the nub. So the coils contract evenly when their free ends are pulled smoothly apart. You may recall that I called it the Draw Knot "to emphasize how smoothly it draws-up."

Maybe the nub of the Draw Knot (tied in soft braided nylon) 'squeezes down firmly' on the lines running though it, rather than applying a 'hard bite' like the Gleipnir, and this makes it draws up differently. Maybe it's (also) a difference in the magnitudes of tension being applied.

By the way: What you refer to as the 'structure of the knot', I refer to as the 'design of the knot'.

   You still keep being silent about the advantage of the symmetric variation

The Draw Knot shares some functional features in common with the symmetrical Clove-hitch Gleipnir. I am focusing on the more useful properties of the Draw Knot that distinguish it from other knots. I'm sure the symmetrical Clove-hitch Gleipnir has some advantages over the Draw Knot. I have not disputed your points on that matter.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 07, 2015, 08:14:52 PM
  "To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other."
   Really? !!!

  " Really..." 
  You have not understood what I said, you have not understood that you have not understood, and now you feel so "vindicated" that you start replying by "polite" one-word sentences. Evidently, IMO, you have not much experience in tying and trying Gleipnir-like binders.
  The nub of the knot may be freely "floating" in mid-air, but the lines of the wraps are not. They are both in contact, in at least four ( but perhaps in many more ) differently tensioned segments of the line with the surface of the bound object(s), which are not "communicating" freely ( because friction absorbs tension, and does not allow the tensile forces to run freely along the whole line ) : when you pull one end, the whole system does not re-adjust itself, and the different tensions along all those differently tensioned segments of the two wraps do not became equal automatically, as you may wish, or believe, or wish to believe...:)  Pulling both ends, the one after the other, each one as much as it is required to correct the imbalances, you can manage to get a more evenly tensioned wraps - although the perfect equilibrium is only possible when the four bound parts are four freely rotating pulleys ! :)  Now, if you want a binder where one whole wrap ( or one or more segments of one wrap ) is and remains much less tensioned than the others, then you are right : Just pull ONE whatever end, and watch what amusing things are happening... :)   
   ( Next time, if you do not understand what I try to say, in my poor English, you better use question marks, and avoid the exclamation marks. If you start replying in this "clever" way ( " Really ? ! ! !" (sic) ), I will leave you alone, to enjoy the glory... ) 

 " The Draw Knot is designed..." 
   It is not - as I had mentioned before, practical knots are not "designed" for some particular purpose - they just do what it happens they can do, when they are tied on a particular material. The more they can do, and the more materials they can be tied on, the better. What indirect, strange, convoluted path the "designer" of a practical knot had followed, to reach something which may work, does not matter. The "designer" of the Gleipnir thought that he was tying a better Constrictor ! He tied the great Gleionir, ( which means : he met the great Gleipnir, while he was wandering back and forth in the KnotLand, the land of all knots ), which Gleinir can do whatever it can do, not what we wish it to do - with only minor "improvements", offered by all those variations. 
  " It works on the same mechanical principle as the..."   Clove-hitch based Gleipnir - Yes, I know... :)
  " The Draw Knot works the same way as the... "  Clove-hitch based Gleipnir. Indeed ! :)

Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 07, 2015, 10:03:15 PM
  "To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other."
   Really? !!!

  " Really..." 
  You have not understood what I said, you have not understood that you have not understood, and now you feel so "vindicated" that you start replying by "polite" one-word sentences.

The one word response was just meant as a transition into the entire section of text that followed your quote. That section needed a fair amout of set-up (background), so in retrospect I can see why you thought I was being flippant.

Evidently, IMO, you have not much experience in tying and trying Gleipnir-like binders.
  The nub of the knot may be freely "floating" in mid-air, but the lines of the wraps are not. They are both in contact, in at least four ( but perhaps in many more ) differently tensioned segments of the line with the surface of the bound object(s), which are not "communicating" freely ( because friction absorbs tension, and does not allow the tensile forces to run freely along the whole line ) : when you pull one end, the whole system does not re-adjust itself, and the different tensions along all those differently tensioned segments of the two wraps do not became equal automatically, as you may wish, or believe, or wish to believe...:)  Pulling both ends, the one after the other, each one as much as it is required to correct the imbalances, you can manage to get a more evenly tensioned wraps - although the perfect equilibrium is only possible when the four bound parts are four freely rotating pulleys ! :)  Now, if you want a binder where one whole wrap ( or one or more segments of one wrap ) is and remains much less tensioned than the others, then you are right : Just pull ONE whatever end, and watch what amusing things are happening... :)

I have only tied a few simple cases of the Gleipnir binders. I've noticed that even when tied in soft braided nylon, they tend not to draw up as smoothly as the Draw Knot. A bit more sequential adjustment of the individual lines is required.

I bow to you for having vastly more experience tying Gleipnir binders.
However, I do not understand why you're not seeing the same behavior with the Draw Knot that I am. Perhaps I am tying more slippery cords over more slippery objects. Perhaps I'm focusing on taking out the slack in the binder and then just adding enough tension to the coils to hold the bind together. Once the knot is 'engaged' additional outward forces from the bundle further tighten the closing nub. Your analysis of how tension & friction interact within the bind makes sense to me. My best guess is that you and I are looking at the knots under different operating conditions in terms of friction encountered and tension applied. Things tend to operate differently along different portions of a system's 'response curve'.

A related possibility is that you & I have different expectations as to how this kind of knot should operate, and that is causing us to judge its behavior differently. But our expectations can also lead us to operate the knots under different conditions, and that just takes us back to end of the preceding paragraph.

One other possibility:
Now, if you want a binder where one whole wrap ( or one or more segments of one wrap ) is and remains much less tensioned than the others, then you are right : Just pull ONE whatever end, and watch what amusing things are happening... :)

When using slipperier cords the threshold at which the differentially tensioned lines will slip out is reduced, so the incremental slippage is smaller. This combined with the stability of the clove nub may be allowing the binder to 'fail soft': to let up a bit without loosing the structural integrity of the bind. (There, I used your term.) ;) And please remember that I'm always pulling the two ends apart at the same time.

" The Draw Knot is designed..." 
   It is not - as I had mentioned before, practical knots are not "designed" for some particular purpose - they just do what it happens they can do, when they are tied on a particular material.

These kinds of disagreements frequently flare up between people with different backgrounds and different ways of thinking about things (e.g., different 'technical' or 'philosophical' frameworks). I've found that the best thing to do about it is to point out that they are arguing about 'semantics' (how we use words to get the point across) while both parties understand the real conceptual content under discussion and can reach a level of consensus in spite of their semantic differences.

In this case, I have a problem with the way you use the word 'structure' and you have a problem with the way I use the word 'design', but so long as we can get over the hurdle of understanding what the other person really means, then we can proceed in having a fruitful conversation.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 07, 2015, 11:29:40 PM
  The nub of the knot may be freely "floating" in mid-air, but the lines of the wraps are not. They are both in contact, in at least four ( but perhaps in many more ) differently tensioned segments of the line with the surface of the bound object(s), which are not "communicating" freely ( because friction absorbs tension, and does not allow the tensile forces to run freely along the whole line ) : when you pull one end, the whole system does not re-adjust itself, and the different tensions along all those differently tensioned segments of the two wraps do not became equal automatically, as you may wish, or believe, or wish to believe...:)  Pulling both ends, the one after the other, each one as much as it is required to correct the imbalances, you can manage to get a more evenly tensioned wraps - although the perfect equilibrium is only possible when the four bound parts are four freely rotating pulleys ! :)  Now, if you want a binder where one whole wrap ( or one or more segments of one wrap ) is and remains much less tensioned than the others, then you are right : Just pull ONE whatever end, and watch what amusing things are happening... :)   

Other factors include the springiness of the cord and the compressive springiness of the bundle.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 08, 2015, 12:20:50 AM
  The nub of the knot may be freely "floating" in mid-air, but the lines of the wraps are not. They are both in contact, in at least four ( but perhaps in many more ) differently tensioned segments of the line with the surface of the bound object(s), which are not "communicating" freely ( because friction absorbs tension, and does not allow the tensile forces to run freely along the whole line ) : when you pull one end, the whole system does not re-adjust itself, and the different tensions along all those differently tensioned segments of the two wraps do not became equal automatically, as you may wish, or believe, or wish to believe...:)  Pulling both ends, the one after the other, each one as much as it is required to correct the imbalances, you can manage to get a more evenly tensioned wraps - although the perfect equilibrium is only possible when the four bound parts are four freely rotating pulleys ! :)

All of the (2-3) elements of the bundles I've been tying have rounded cross sections (more like pulleys).
Is that why I'm not having to individually adjust the tension in the lines?
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 08, 2015, 12:31:03 AM
   
   I've noticed that even when tied in soft braided nylon, they tend not to draw up as smoothly as the Draw Knot. A bit more sequential adjustment of the individual lines is required.

    The same thing happens in all Gleipnir-like binders. It simply has to do with the fact those binders use both wraps the way they use them, to utilize the offered mechanical advantage. The situation is different in the "handcuff-like" binders :
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4821.msg31429#msg31429
    So, there is no difference between the symmetric and the asymmetric Clove-hitch based binder you show - I have not seen any such difference, and I do not see the reason there should be any.

   
   Perhaps I am tying more slippery cords over more slippery objects. .

   No, I use some quite slippery caving/canyoning ropes, wrapped around the sleek PVC tubes shown in my pictures The only reason I can imagine, which may, I repeat, may cause some difference, is that I always use stiff, thick ropes ( 9-12.5mm ), not small size cords.

   
...different expectations as to how this kind of knot should operate,
...operate the knots under different conditions,

   From the very first moment I saw the Gleipnir, I knew that, if we want to use one, only, nub ( i.e., without just adding a second Glepnir, as the author of the original Glepnir had suggested ), we should always use the friction between the two ends, by twisting them around each other into their surrounding nipping structure, in order to get a more secure knot, able to withstand a stronger pull. That is why a two- or even three-turns Gleipnir makes sense : the double or triple nipping loop is much longer, forms a longer "nipping tube", so the two Tail Ends have more/enough room to complete a turn around each other. Many people who just "watch" how knots are tied, but who do not tie them a sufficiently large number of times, do not have, to this day ( after 6 = six years ! ) understood the great difference in the holding power between a Gleipnir with "crossed" / twisted / embraced Tail Ends, and the "original" Gleipnir. 
   The Gleipnir-like binders can withstand more tension than it is believed/expected by the "average" knot user. However, when the most "popular" web site on knots does not even include the Gleipnir in the 337 (!) knots it "animates" :), we should not be surprized by this lack of understanding.
   THAT is the reason I had never tied the asymmetric Clove-hitch-based Gleipnir binder you show in this thread, although I had tied and tried both the symmetric versions many times. Since the two ends, when they enter-into and exit-from the same side of the nipping Clove hitch, can not be dressed in an "elbow" configuration, and even if we manage to twist them around each other, this twist is not stable, and it does not remain intact during the later tensioning, I had dismissed the asymmetric case right beforehand. 

 
   When using slipperier cords the threshold at which the differentially tensioned lines will slip out is reduced,
   Of course - but what will happen when the bound object(s) have sharp edges, as it often happens ? Even very slippery cords, when tensioned hard, do not slide easily around sharp corners.

   
     
   I have a problem with the way you use the word "structure", and you have a problem with the way I use the word "design",
   
   I do not use the word "structure" in any particular way, because I have designed and built things ( apartment buildings ) which have not, to this day, fell down  :), and I know. My point was, simply, that "structure" is different from "form", as you said, or from "shape", or "pattern", or "geometry", or whatever word you use for something visible, that does not take into account the interaction between the materials and the various forces, which determines how a thing "works", why it does not fall down = why a knot does not fall apart.
   Now, the "design" of objects is a very object-depended procedure. It is a different thing to design a boat ( I use this example on purpose, because there is a well-know description of the boat design as a "spiral" which. although very simplistic, nevertheless is interesting ), and a different thing to design a chair, or a bottle. The amount of resemblance of what the designer had in mind as a "purpose" or "form" for this object, before he concludes his design, and what the final object itself does, or how it looks, varies a lot. I only have this to say : In practical knots, there is no such resemblance whatsoever ! :) On the contrary, when one happens to find a practical knot that works, he is surprized by its looks, and even more by how it works and he may need some time before he understands why, on Earth, this knot works, while the knot he initially had in his mind does not ! So this is how I judge the greatness of a knot : Does it surprizes me ? The greater the knot, the bigger the surprize !  :)
    Am I surprized by the knot you show in this thread ? Nooope. Why ? Because I "see" the structure of a Gleipnir-like binder ( and I already know that a Gleipnir works, and how it works ), and I do not "see" anything else. Is it a "new" knot ? To me, although I had never seen it or tied it, it is not. To other knot tyers, using more strict criteria ( if it was published, in exactly this form, previously, etc ), may be. However, personally I do not care about "novelties", especially when they are skin-deep, i.e., novelties of one form/shape of one knot. I am interested about things, "old" or "new", that can teach something about the structure of knots, so someday we will become able to understand ALL knots. Does this knot "work" ? Of course it does - but as knot tyers ( and not knot-users, consumers of knots, advertisers of knots, sellers of knots, etc. ), I believe we are beyond the point when we were just interested in anything that works - perhaps because we know that any convoluted enough knot ''works" ?   

   
   Is that why I'm not having to individually adjust the tension in the lines?

   If I remember correctly, the author of the Gleipnir used the original, single-nipping-loop-based binder to tie furniture he moved with his truck - and furniture ( at least not the "biomorphically" designed ones :) :) ) has sharp corners.
   If the binder has not reached its limit, the difference in tension between segments of wraps or the wraps themselves may not matter much - but I do not like "structures" :) where we do not have the most even distribution of forces possible : I imagine that, this way, we somehow help the future failure to be "focused" on one part of the whole, and that makes its job easier. 
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 08, 2015, 04:06:55 AM
I use some quite slippery caving/canyoning ropes, wrapped around the sleek PVC tubes shown in my pictures The only reason I can imagine, which may, I repeat, may cause some difference, is that I always use stiff, thick ropes ( 9-12.5mm ), not small size cords.

Good to know.

From the very first moment I saw the Gleipnir, I knew that, if we want to use one, only, nub ( i.e., without just adding a second Glepnir, as the author of the original Glepnir had suggested ), we should always use the friction between the two ends, by twisting them around each other into their surrounding nipping structure, in order to get a more secure knot, able to withstand a stronger pull. That is why a two- or even three-turns Gleipnir makes sense : the double or triple nipping loop is much longer, forms a longer "nipping tube", so the two Tail Ends have more/enough room to complete a turn around each other. Many people who just "watch" how knots are tied, but who do not tie them a sufficiently large number of times, do not have, to this day ( after 6 = six years ! ) understood the great difference in the holding power between a Gleipnir with "crossed" / twisted / embraced Tail Ends, and the "original" Gleipnir.

So, you twist the two ends around each other INSIDE of the nipping structure, to make the knot more secure?
? Elegant, I must say. Does that make it harder to intentionally loosen the binding?

My strategy is simpler (& cruder). Once drawn up, the Draw Knot holds the bundle together without having to apply further tension on the tail ends. This makes it easily tie the tail ends about themselves or about either side of the nib, if greater security is desired.

The Gleipnir-like binders can withstand more tension than it is believed/expected by the "average" knot user. However, when the most "popular" web site on knots does not even include the Gleipnir in the 337 (!) knots it "animates" :), we should not be surprized by this lack of understanding.

The Gleipnir harnesses a powerful principle for securing binds.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid people don't trust knots that they don't think they understand.

   I do not use the word "structure" in any particular way, because I have designed and built things ( apartment buildings ) which have not, to this day, fell down  :), and I know. My point was, simply, that "structure" is different from "form", as you said, or from "shape", or "pattern", or "geometry", or whatever word you use for something visible, that does not take into account the interaction between the materials and the various forces, which determines how a thing "works", why it does not fall down = why a knot does not fall apart.
   Now, the "design" of objects is a very object-depended procedure. It is a different thing to design a boat ( I use this example on purpose, because there is a well-know description of the boat design as a "spiral" which. although very simplistic, nevertheless is interesting ), and a different thing to design a chair, or a bottle. The amount of resemblance of what the designer had in mind as a "purpose" or "form" for this object, before he concludes his design, and what the final object itself does, or how it looks, varies a lot. I only have this to say : In practical knots, there is no such resemblance whatsoever ! :) On the contrary, when one happens to find a practical knot that works, he is surprized by its looks, and even more by how it works and he may need some time before he understands why, on Earth, this knot works, while the knot he initially had in his mind does not ! So this is how I judge the greatness of a knot : Does it surprizes me ? The greater the knot, the bigger the surprize !  :)

I can see that your terminology is self-consistent and I can appreciate your 'philosophy'. I have a different way of talking about 'the way things work'. For me a design is simply an element within a 'design space'. I uncover designs by exploring the space. When I say 'I designed a knot to fulfill a purpose' it means that I explored the design space of knots, seeking knots with certain desired qualities, rather than searching haphazardly. My 'philosophy' is not as knot-centric as yours.

    Am I surprized by the knot you show in this thread ? Nooope. Why ? Because I "see" the structure of a Gleipnir-like binder ( and I already know that a Gleipnir works, and how it works ), and I do not "see" anything else. Is it a "new" knot ? To me, although I had never seen it or tied it, it is not. To other knot tyers, using more strict criteria ( if it was published, in exactly this form, previously, etc ), may be. However, personally I do not care about "novelties", especially when they are skin-deep, i.e., novelties of one form/shape of one knot. I am interested about things, "old" or "new", that can teach something about the structure of knots, so someday we will become able to understand ALL knots. Does this knot "work" ? Of course it does - but as knot tyers ( and not knot-users, consumers of knots, advertisers of knots, sellers of knots, etc. ), I believe we are beyond the point when we were just interested in anything that works - perhaps because we know that any convoluted enough knot ''works" ?   
...
   If the binder has not reached its limit, the difference in tension between segments of wraps or the wraps themselves may not matter much - but I do not like "structures" :) where we do not have the most even distribution of forces possible : I imagine that, this way, we somehow help the future failure to be "focused" on one part of the whole, and that makes its job easier.

Well said. Again, my emphasis would be different, but you're very clear about your own approach, far more than most people, and probably more than I am about my own approach.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 08, 2015, 05:19:19 AM
   
   you twist the two ends around each other INSIDE of the nipping structure, to make the knot more secure ?
   Does that make it harder to intentionally loosen the binding ?
   I keep saying ( and repeating ) this from my very first reply ( #2 ), but you do not listen :
   
The two ends of a Gleipnir-like binder / tight hitch should better be "crossed" = twisted around each other, in an "elbow" configuration ( ABoK#35 ).
   If you had read the posts I had referred to, and had looked at the pictures there, you would had understood what I mean right from the beginning...
   Read also :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg17791#msg17791
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4763.msg34664#msg34664
   The Clove hitch, in general, when tied around compressible+elastic material, can "close" around itself more tightly than we need/want - the crossing/twisting/embracing of the Tail Ends is not what should concern us in this knot. Same thing happens with the Girth hitch ( used in the Double Ring knot ), but to a lesser degree :
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4347.msg27233#msg27233
   
   Once drawn up, the Draw Knot holds the bundle together without having to apply further tension on the tail ends.
   In practice, all binders will need re-adjustment from time to time, because, with dynamic loadings, and the movement of the bound objects inside the bundle, they will either "swallow" a part of their free ends, however small, or they will become more loose than they were initially, right after the initial pre-tensioning. You can solve the former problem ( by further securing the knot with additional half hitches ), but not the later.

   
   For me a design is simply an element within a 'design space'. I uncover designs by exploring the space. When I say "I designed a knot to fulfill a purpose", it means that I explored the design space of knots, seeking knots with certain desired qualities, rather than searching haphazardly.
   You underestimate the fact that the "design space" in infinite ! :)  There can be no such thing as a systematic/exhaustive exploration of a ( limited ) area, which your scheme implies. The number of even those very simple knots we use for practical purposes, is very big. People tie knots for thousands of years now, and the Gleipnir, a most simple knot, was discovered 6, only, years ago... Why ? Because the "design space" of knots is larger that we believe.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 08, 2015, 11:19:37 PM
   
The two ends of a Gleipnir-like binder / tight hitch should better be "crossed" = twisted around each other, in an "elbow" configuration ( ABoK#35 ).
   If you had read the posts I had referred to, and had looked at the pictures there, you would had understood what I mean right from the beginning...

I read your post and glanced at the pictures. I admit, at that time I wasn't concerned with your technique for making symmetrical Glepnirs more secure, since it did not apply to the Draw Knot. And since the Draw Knot has many (admittedly less elegant) ways to secure it, I considered it a secondary feature.

I thought that you were simply criticizing the Draw Knot for the limited way it was secured, which I did not dispute. I did not appreciated that you were also telling me that although you were aware of the possibility of asymmetrical Glepnirs, the inability to secure them in your preferred way was the reason why you never actually tied the asymmetric Clove-hitch-based Gleipnir binder. By avoiding it you missed the opportunity to study its physical form, to examine its secondary features.

I think I see a higher-level pattern here. People tend to focus on certain features that they consider most important and neglect other 'secondary' factors.

You concentrated on knots that emphasize your preferred feature set, which includes building in an integral way of securing the knot. I concentrated more on the knot's user interface (not surprising since user interface development is my profession). 

(My turn to criticize)  I find that your way of twisting the ends around each other inside the clove hitch "nipping tube" a bit challenging. I'm not confidant that I can do it 'to spec', to meet all the criteria an expert would expects to see with a symmetrical Clove-hitch Gleipnir. I also suspect that the inner turn makes the need for careful sequential adjustment even more critical, but I may be mistaken (since I'm not sure I'm doing it right). It seems to me that adding the internal twist increases the integrity of the bind at the expense of making the user interface more complex. -- There are always tradeoffs.

   For me a design is simply an element within a 'design space'. I uncover designs by exploring the space. When I say "I designed a knot to fulfill a purpose", it means that I explored the design space of knots, seeking knots with certain desired qualities, rather than searching haphazardly.
   You underestimate the fact that the "design space" in infinite ! :)  There can be no such thing as a systematic/exhaustive exploration of a ( limited ) area, which your scheme implies. The number of even those very simple knots we use for practical purposes, is very big. People tie knots for thousands of years now, and the Gleipnir, a most simple knot, was discovered 6, only, years ago... Why ? Because the "design space" is larger that we believe.

   "There are more knots in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
      -- (What Hamlet should have said)

In deference to your preference, let's call it 'the space of realizable knots' and shorten this to 'the space of knots' or more simply 'knot-space'. I never implied that knot-space could be exhaustively searched; the fact that it cannot be means that we have to rely on peoples' skill at sampling the more promising cases. Thank goodness that different people will explore the space in different ways. I also agree with you that you never know 'what's just around the corner' in knot-space. That keeps it interesting!

It's easy to alter the form of any knot, but its difficult to 'fully' evaluate all the strengths and weaknesses of each variation. I would argue that it's impossible to fully evaluate all the strengths and weaknesses of a knot, because it always depends on the context in which the knot is to be used, or the context in which it is to be judged.

The preferences we have for what constitutes a 'good' knot alters the trajectory with which our attention moves through knot-space in a never-ending search for 'better' knots. Our preferences register in the criteria by which we evaluate the merits of a knot. But the insights and intuition we gain by studying a succession of knots will also shape how we choose the next knot to examine, the next step in our trajectory. As we learn even more we may be able to formulate principles to better articulate those insights.

(In my twisted mind) I consider the evaluation criteria, insights, intuition, and principles that govern a person's trajectory through knot-space as their "design approach", which leads different people to uncover different knots and appreciate them in different ways.

Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 09, 2015, 12:44:57 AM
   You envision a gradual, step-by-step exploration of the knot-space along some "paths" / trajectories, defined by personal / subjective "criteria, insights, intuition, and principles...". You believe that the evaluation /appreciation of the values of the knots discovered during this journey in KnotLand depends on "many" things, because : "Our preferences register in the criteria by which we evaluate the merits of a knot ". 
 " Different people uncover different knots and appreciate them in different ways "
   
   There are two ways to escape from this totally virtual and false model of what truly happens in real life :
   
   1. Study the history of science - and realize that there is nothing "gradual" there, and that "there are no paths - paths are made by walking". There is nothing "personal" or subjective in the evaluation of a great scientific theory and the scientific revolution it initiates, which changes the "scientific paradigm", and comes out of the blue, unpredicted, unasked, and unexplained. Things that could well had been discovered centuries ago, had not ( the steam engine, for example ), and things which nothing "ordered" them, which served no "purpose" in their time, were discovered centuries before they were finally appreciated and applied ( the "method of exhaustion", and the "method of mechanical theorems" of Archimedes - precursors to the methods of calculus -,  the conic sections" and the projective geometry I had mentioned in a previous post, for example ). The history of science is not "gradual" - far from it !   
   2. Stand for one hour in front of a great piece of art, or listen for one hour a great piece of music.

   There is a land of common things, and there is a land of great things, and there is no bridge between them. :)
   The Gleipnit binder is a great knot - it can not be evaluated in the way we evaluate the common knots we learn and we forget every day. 
 
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 09, 2015, 03:47:48 AM
   You envision a gradual, step-by-step exploration of the knot-space along some "paths" / trajectories, defined by personal / subjective "criteria, insights, intuition, and principles...". You believe that the evaluation /appreciation of the values of the knots discovered during this journey in KnotLand depends on "many" things, because : "Our preferences register in the criteria by which we evaluate the merits of a knot ". 
 " Different people uncover different knots and appreciate them in different ways "
   
   There are two ways to escape from this totally virtual and false model of what truly happens in real life :
   1. Study the history of science - and realize that there is nothing "gradual" there, and that "there are no paths - paths are made by walking". There is nothing "personal" or subjective in the evaluation of a great scientific theory and the scientific revolution it initiates, which changes the "scientific paradigm", and comes out of the blue, unpredicted, unasked, and unexplained. Things that could well had been discovered centuries ago, had not, and things which nothing "ordered" them, which served no "purpose" in their time, were discovered centuries before they were finally appreciated and applied . The history of science is not "gradual" - far from it !   
   2. Stand for one hour in front of a great piece of art, or listen for one hour a great piece of music.
   There is a land of common things, and there is a land of great things, and there is no bridge between them. :)
   The Gleipnit binder is a great knot - it can not be evaluated in the way we evaluate the common knots we learn and we forget every day. 

Two Quotes from Alan Kay, that you might appreciate:

   "Any thing that's interesting works because its got an architecture. Life is an architecture."

   "One of my sayings is that relative judgments have no place in art.
    You never worry about whether a Beethoven symphony is better than Bach;
    the real question is "Is this piece of music great?" because that's the
    only superlative you deal with in art."

Great scientific theories don't 'come out of the blue' (whatever that means). They come out of the minds of men - men standing on the shoulders of those they've studied. Without personal / subjective "criteria, insights, intuition, and principles" there would be no science. The laws of nature predate their discovery by man, but science is mankind's collective discovery of the laws of nature. Yes, "The history of science is not gradual" - neither are discoveries in other fields, or evolution itself.

Every knot is unique (like a snowflake). Knot-space is composed of discrete elements, so trajectories through it are not continuous; they have to jump. Jumps between similar knots are shorter than those between dissimilar knots.

Is your statement:
   "Things ..., were discovered centuries before they were finally appreciated and applied"
really that different from my statement:
   "Different people uncover different knots and appreciate them in different ways"

I don't believe that we're as far apart as you think. I'm just trying to describe how people go from studying the known to discovering something new. 

I am not immune to awe & wonder:

   "When thou seest an Eagle, thou seest a portion of Genius; lift up thy head!" -- William Blake

Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 09, 2015, 11:35:35 AM
   Great scientific theories ...come out of the minds of men

   And where did t h o s e men come from ? Have you met anybody ? ( because I have not...) :)
   Why they were born 1800 years before the time they "normally" would ? ( Archimedes was, intellectually, contemporary to Newton and Leibniz ).

   Jumps between similar knots are shorter than those between dissimilar knots.

   You still do not get it.
   There is no comparison, no linear relation, no "similarity" between common and great knots, and, of course, not between great knots. Gleipnir is not "similar" to the bowline and to the Sheepshank, and that is why it was NOT discovered c e n t u r i e s ago, when the bowline and the Sheepshank were discovered. A f t e r  it has been discovered, and only b e c a u s e it has been discovered, we can scratch our heads and try to figure out ad-hoc "similarities", and sort / "explain" everything in a simple, "comprehensible" way that will make us feel good...  Some knot tyers ( with ego problems...) will go as far as to pretend or even believe that they had "introduced" it, somehow, before its author ! :) Personally, I am somehow modest regarding this, when I declare that I would nt been able to discover Gleipni even after 1000 years ! :) :)
   Every knot is unique, as is every great scientific theory or piece of art - but the great ones are more unique than the others ! :)
   Perhaps you have not felt yet what you would, when you will really meet/fall into, immersed/absorbed by, such a thing. There are many mountain peaks. Do you believe that Everest is the same like every other, just a few meters higher ? And that climbers who had reached there, felt the same thing they feel when they climb to the peak of the roof of their house, to fix the antenna ?
  "Mankind collective discovery" is the politically correct way to say that we watch, and applaud, when somebody out there discovers something great. :)
   If THAT is how a horse designed collectively looks like, imagine how a collectively painted painting would be ! :)
   I only want to say that, regarding man, Natura facit saltus ! In other words, " Beauty will be CONVULSIVE or will not be at all".
   Gkeipnir was such a jump.

I am not immune to awe & wonder
   I am sure you are not - but we are all "spoiled", somehow, by the contemporary "politically correct" ideology of collective inventions and discoveries, of the gradual, non-revolutionary way everything in nature and society evolves, and the desperate need we feel to "explain" and "predict" phenomena, far more complex than our models and our processing powers enable us to do. 
   Why the Gleipnir was not discovered 2000 or 4000 years ago, is a mystery - and it will make no harm to us to accept that there will always remain some mysteries out there ! :)

Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 09, 2015, 05:15:07 PM
   Great scientific theories ...come out of the minds of men

   And where did t h o s e men come from ? Have you met anybody ? ( because I have not...) :)
   Why they were born 1800 years before the time they "normally" would ? ( Archimedes was, intellectually, contemporary to Newton and Leibniz ).

My short list of more recent Greats:
   Charles Darwin
   James Clerk Maxwell
   Michael Faraday
   Werner Heisenberg
   Albert Einstein
   Norbert Wiener
   Alan Turing
   John von Neumann
   Ivan Sutherland
   James J. Gibson (I met his wife, who also did good research.)
   Vernon Mountcastle
   Hubel & Wiesel (I met Wiesel.)

   Jumps between similar knots are shorter than those between dissimilar knots.

   You still do not get it.
   There is no comparison, no linear relation, no "similarity" between common and great knots, and, of course, not between great knots.

The real question is "Is this knot great?" because that's the only superlative you deal with in art.

   There is no comparison, no linear relation, no "similarity" between common and great knots, and, of course, not between great knots. Gleipnir is not "similar" to the bowline and to the Sheepshank,

Forgive me if I'm telling you something you may already know: Gleipnir-like knots exhibit the principle of 'tensegrity', in fact they are the simplest useful system that I've come across that does so.

Wikipedia:
"Tensegrity, tensional integrity or floating compression, is a structural principle based on the use of isolated components in compression inside a net of continuous tension, in such a way that the compressed members (usually bars or struts) do not touch each other and the prestressed tensioned members (usually cables or tendons) delineate the system spatially.
The term tensegrity was coined by Buckminster Fuller in the 1960s"

In Gleipnir-like knots, the cords inside the nub are elements under compression within a circuit of continuous tension; thus these binds apply 'tensegrity' inside a very simple structural arrangement. Tensegrity structures are usually built with struts as compressive elements & cables as tensional elements, but there's no reason to confine the principle to apply only to struts & cables.

I hear it coming:
A f t e r  it [Gleipnir] has been discovered, and only b e c a u s e it has been discovered, we can scratch our heads and try to figure out ad-hoc "similarities", and sort / "explain" everything in a simple, "comprehensible" way that will make us feel good...

That's how science works. Sometimes people make new observations and check to see if preexisting theories & principles account for it. At other times, people make predictions & run experiments to verify them. It's called the scientific method.

My take is that Gleipnir's author had an intuition that: 'Hey, this might just work.' He tied the knot & started testing it (running an experiment) and was amazed by how well it worked. He was not a research mechanical engineer specializing in knots, so his initial idea was based on intuition, derived from experience working with knots, rather than an engineering theory. Since the knot was not derived from theory it was only natural for him & others to seek out a better understanding of how it worked, after the fact.

Personally, I am somehow modest regarding this, when I declare that I would nt been able to discover Gleipni even after 1000 years ! :) :)

You're either being humble, over estimate what it takes to see things in a different way, or are over awed by the Gleipnir.

Biologists didn't stop making great discoveries just because Darwin came out with the (awesome) Theory of Evolution, they drove forward to crack the genetic code which explained the internal mechanism driving evolution.

You never know when your next attempt at discovery will fail badly, fail but provide a new insight, work as expected, work well and provide a new insight, work great, or work great and provide a whole new set of marvelous insights. The day the Gleipnir was invented it's author did not say to himself: "Now I am ready to construct the greatest knot seen over the last few millennia." Just keep learning, thinking, & trying out new things, and maybe, just maybe...

I am not immune to awe & wonder
   I am sure you are not - but we are all "spoiled", somehow, by the contemporary "politically correct" ideology of collective inventions and discoveries, of the gradual, non-revolutionary way everything in nature and society evolves, and the desperate need we feel to "explain" and "predict" phenomena, far more complex than our models and our processing powers enable us to do.

I did not say that most inventions are made collectively. I paraphrased Newton when he said in effect that: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

In saying: "science is mankind's collective discovery of the laws of nature." I was simply pointing out that science is the sum of all the scientific theories and discoveries garnered to date.

   Why the Gleipnir was not discovered 2000 or 4000 years ago, is a mystery - and it will make no harm to us to accept that there will always remain some mysteries out there ! :)

You never know "what's just around the corner" in knot-space. - That keeps it interesting!

Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: xarax on September 09, 2015, 05:50:31 PM
   I think that the five first persons of your list will remain there for a long time. Alan Turing s life became a movie because nobody would go to see a movie on Kurt Godel. :)  ( I do not know anything about the four persons at the end of the list ).
   Gleipnir is a great knot. The bowline, the fig.8 bend/loop, the Fisherman s knot and the Zeppelin bend, too - and perhaps a few, only, more.
   Great things have a great disadvantage : they are few ! :)
   I do not believe we can say that any knot is a "tensegrity structure" : even the simplest knots are much more complex than them.
   The so-called "scientific method" can not explain why the author of Gleipnir was not born 2000 or 4000 years ago. And it can not predict when the next great knot will come - or if there will be any other such great knot like the ones we have, ever, if there will be anything other around any other corner...
   Great scientists do not follow any "scientific method" : they were born such, and they follow their heart. 
   I am awe by the Gleipnir, indeed - thanks KnotGod ! :)   
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 09, 2015, 09:01:23 PM
   I think that the five first persons of your list will remain there for a long time. Alan Turing s life became a movie because nobody would go to see a movie on Kurt Godel. :)  ( I do not know anything about the four persons at the end of the list ).
   Gleipnir is a great knot. The bowline, the fig.8 bend/loop, the Fisherman s knot and the Zeppelin bend, too - and perhaps a few, only, more.
   Great things have a great disadvantage : they are few ! :)
   I do not believe we can say that any knot is a "tensegrity structure" : even the simplest knots are much more complex than them.
   The so-called "scientific method" can not explain why the author if Gleipnir was not born 2000 or 4000 years ago. And it can not predict when the next great knot will come - or if there will be any other such great knot like the ones we have, ever, if there will be anything other around any other corner...
   Great scientists do not follow any "scientific method" : they were born such, and they follow their heart. 
   I am awe by the Gleipnir, indeed - thanks KnotGod ! :)   

   Agreed!  & I do appreciate your enthusiasm.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 10, 2015, 06:51:00 AM
Where's Guass?!

Quote
In Gleipnir-like knots, the cords inside the nub are elements under compression within a circuit of continuous tension; thus these binds apply 'tensegrity' inside a very simple structural arrangement. Tensegrity structures are usually built with struts as compressive elements & cables as tensional elements, but there's no reason to confine the principle to apply only to struts & cables.
Calling the parts within the turNip's compression
"under compression" seems to miss that they are
principally in tension --and just held from movement
by the constriction, which is a far cry from Fuller's vision, IMO.

Now, whether I'll peruse the rest of this extended discussion
is a matter for later thought.

 :)
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 10, 2015, 02:55:06 PM
Where's Guass?!

Good point!

In Gleipnir-like knots, the cords inside the nub are elements under compression within a circuit of continuous tension; thus these binds apply 'tensegrity' inside a very simple structural arrangement. Tensegrity structures are usually built with struts as compressive elements & cables as tensional elements, but there's no reason to confine the principle to apply only to struts & cables.

I admit that I'm reaching a bit, seeking for a principle that applies to Gleipnir-like knots.

   I do not believe we can say that any knot is a "tensegrity structure" : even the simplest knots are much more complex than them.

Of course Xarax was correct, but a principle only needs to shed light on certain aspects of a phenomena to have value.

Calling the parts within the turNip's compression
"under compression" seems to miss that they are
principally in tension --and just held from movement
by the constriction, which is a far cry from Fuller's vision, IMO.

The coils (limbs) within the Draw Knot are under tension as they enter the turNip's, but the free ends (limbs) that exit are not. Certainly parts of the limbs within the turNip's are also under tension, but that's not the key factor locking (nipping) them in. The compression applied by the cove hitch under tension applies compression on the limb lines running though it. That compression increases the frictional force that nips the lines ("and just held from movement by the constriction"). The compression is critical to making the turNip's fulfill its function.

In these terms, the Draw Knot is simple because there is a fairly clear factoring between tension and compression. It?s the more minimal joining knots, like the square knot, where to lines wrap around each other that I do not really understand. Exactly how do the to lines of square knot interact to distribute their tension & compression in order to generate & direct the frictional forces necessary to hold them together? If you could refer me to a good reference explaining this mystery I would appreciate it.

"which is a far cry from Fuller's vision, IMO."

The definition of the principle of tensegrity appears to apply to Gleipnir-like knots. But in itself a Gleipnir-like knot is not a self-supporting rigid 3D structure, which has become so strongly associate with tensegrity. A Gleipnir-like bind needs a bundle to compress in order to maintain its rigid structure. I see no reason that the well defined principle of tensegrity must be confined to only apply to strut & cable constructions.

BTW, Bucky was big on knots. He described them as (I paraphrase):
' A knot is a regenerative pattern in the rope; a self-interfering pattern of energy and restraint that maintains its "patterned integrity." '

Now, whether I'll peruse the rest of this extended discussion
is a matter for later thought.

 :)

In retrospect, I find the most interesting observation to be that Xarax & I were seeking & emphasizing different features & functions of Gleipnir-like binders, which led us to appreciate & dismiss/neglect different variant types.
Title: Re: A New Binding Knot?
Post by: InTension on September 10, 2015, 08:36:25 PM
I'm taken aback that there seems to be so little known regarding the science of how practical knots work:

I got the following quote from:
      Knots and Physics: 53 (Series on Knots and Everything)
      by Louis H Kauffman  (Author)
      Kindle Edition
      Publication Date: November 9, 2012

      "It is important to come to some practical understanding of how these knots work.
       The facts that the square knot holds, and that the granny does not hold are best
       observed with actual rope models. It is a tremendous challenge to give a good
       mathematical analysis of these phenomena. Tension, friction and topology conspire
       to give the configuration a form - and within that form the events of slippage or
       interlock can occur.

       I raise these direct physical questions about knotting, not because we shall answer
       them, but rather as an indication of the difficulty in which we stand. A book on knots
       and physics cannot ignore the physicality of knots of rope in space. Yet all of our
       successes will be more abstract, more linguistic, patterned and poised between the
       internal logic of patterns and their external realizations."

Ouch!
---------
PS. I just found that dared posted the exact same quote in
      Re: testing physical theories of knots
      ? Reply #6 on: November 25, 2012, 04:16:51 AM ?