International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => New Knot Investigations => Topic started by: siriuso on August 14, 2018, 04:18:51 PM

Title: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: siriuso on August 14, 2018, 04:18:51 PM
Hi dear all,

I have posted this bowline in KM 137 and would like to post it here for your comment.

Happy knotting
yChan
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: alanleeknots on August 14, 2018, 08:18:14 PM
yChan,
          Sorry to said it again, It is not a bowline, is a jam loop and jam bad.
          謝謝 alanleeknots
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 15, 2018, 08:37:19 PM
Siriuso,

I have to disagree with eric22.  This is not a jam.

Of all the strange things I have seen posted here, hailed as Bowlines, this is the nearest I have seen.

Yet it is a most strange knot.  An Overhand component and a hitch component, arranged to convert the OH almost into a Carrick (so it wont jam), loop legs parallel (but does not respond well to ring loading), Sheetbendesque in the hitch around the bight component.  Lovely clamping of the WE.

A very nice knot - well worth further study - thank you.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: knotsaver on August 15, 2018, 10:48:34 PM
...and I have to disagree with you, Derek.
I'm not so experienced as eric22 to say that the eye shown by siriuso will jam, but I think so, because the Overhand is tighten by the SPart and by one eyeleg. Maybe you are referring to the reversed eye (SPart as the WE and WE as the SPart)
[EDIT] : in fact that is a retucked Eskimo Bowline! I am wrong here: I was confused about the similar yChan's post title Y2A and Y3A: this comment was referred to yChan's knot Y3A see   
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6232.msg41910#msg41910
[/EDIT]
The nub is the same but they work differently, as in the other example I posted 2 days ago.
Ciao,
s.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: alanleeknots on August 15, 2018, 10:53:30 PM
Hi All,
         
Quote
An Overhand component and a hitch component, arranged to convert the OH almost into a Carrick (so it wont jam),

         It will jam 100% sure, I will test it, show you the result.   謝謝 alanleeknots
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on August 16, 2018, 12:06:22 PM
Hi yChan,

Thank you for your presentation.

Once again, this structure is not [a] 'Bowline'.

Fundamental to all 'Bowlines' is a functional 'nipping loop' that encircles and squeezes elements within the knot core. This encirclement and squeezing is normally acting on the 2 legs of the collar.

The core of your presentation is based around #46 overhand knot - which is known to jam (and not a 'nipping loop').

A 'nipping loop' is a closed helix that is formed by the overlap of one rope segment over the other (which is loaded at both ends) - and it may have S or Z chirality.

There has to be a strict set of rules to define what [a] 'Bowline' is otherwise, almost any eye knot could attempt to claim the title of 'Bowline'.

EDIT NOTE:
I admire your efforts to to prevent the #46 overhand knot from jamming.
It remains to open to debate as to the level of resistance to jamming this structure has.
I have not tested this structure so I can make no definitive comment.
I fully understand Alan Lee's remarks - which are likely derived from the fact that there is no functional nipping loop and instead, the core of the knot is based on #46 (overhand knot) which is known to jam.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: alanleeknots on August 16, 2018, 09:06:04 PM
Hi All,
         I got the test here, need tools to untie the knot.
         ( Used Bluewater Ropes 11mm(7/16")SAFELINE NFPA static Rope Tensile strenght 3487 kg (7688 lbf.) ).
           謝謝 alanleeknots
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 17, 2018, 03:16:27 PM
Hi All,
         I got the test here, need tools to untie the knot.
         ( Used Bluewater Ropes 11mm(7/16")SAFELINE NFPA static Rope Tensile strenght 3487 kg (7688 lbf.) ).
           謝謝 alanleeknots

Something strange going on here.  I have just taken this knot in 6mm Nylon braid (MBS 800kg) and loaded it to 300kg (error margin estimated at +/- 5kg) using a 100kg mass and a 3:1 lever (i.e. double the advised SWL of 160kg).

The structure does not contain an OH Component.  Although the knot starts with an OH, this is reconfigured by the reworking of the WE into the cross leg variant of the Carrick Component which is stabilised by a Simple Hitch Component.  This configuration should be highly stable and highly resistant to jamming.

My repeated tests in this cordage showed no sign of jamming, the knot opening as easily as a Carrick Loopknot.

How is it possible you are managing to jam a Carrick Component?

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: alanleeknots on August 17, 2018, 10:05:00 PM
Hi All,
           That is a WOW moment.
           
Quote
Something strange going on here.  I have just taken this knot in 6mm Nylon braid (MBS 800kg) and loaded it to 300kg (error margin estimated at +/- 5kg) using a 100kg mass and a 3:1 lever (i.e. double the advised SWL of 160kg).

The structure does not contain an OH Component.  Although the knot starts with an OH, this is reconfigured by the reworking of the WE into the cross leg variant of the Carrick Component which is stabilised by a Simple Hitch Component.  This configuration should be highly stable and highly resistant to jamming.

My repeated tests in this cordage showed no sign of jamming, the knot opening as easily as a Carrick Loopknot.

How is it possible you are managing to jam a Carrick Component?

Derek
            Not my mother language I need time to respond,  I will not shut up.
                謝謝 alanleeknots
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on August 18, 2018, 12:17:15 AM
per Derek:
Quote
How is it possible you are managing to jam a Carrick Component?

In my view, the use of the term 'carrick component' is an arbitrary one.
It is possible (ie I am not 100% certain) that you are attempting to draw an analogy between the core function of #1439 Carrick bend and yChan's presentation.

What you [possibly] observe as a 'carrick component' is (in my observation) a #206 crossing hitch (or crossing knot depending on perspective).

The core of #1439 Carrick bend (in my view) consists of 2 inter-linked crossing hitches.
In order for the 2 crossing hitches to remain linked and stable, there must be simultaneous through loading from both SPart's. What is occurring is that the continuation of each SPart traps and clamps the tail of the opposite crossing hitch. The trapping and clamping of the tails is occurring simultaneously in a balancing act.

Further off-topic remarks:
There is no functional 'nipping structure' in #1439 Carrick bend - because each crossing hitch is only loaded at one end. It is a balancing act of forces - where the tail of each crossing hitch is simultaneously trapped and clamped.
I also believe that a 'capstan effect' also plays a [lesser] role - in that, any potential slippage of a tail is inhibited by the U turn of the tail around its own SPart.

Also, #1439 Carrick bend is a final energy stable state which results from a capsizing event inducing from a particular initial dressing state. Although, it is possible to tie the final energy stable form directly, by inter-linking the 2 crossing hitches (which thereby avoids the capsizing event some knot tyers use to reach the final form).
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 18, 2018, 12:27:45 AM
@eric22,

I have great respect for those who have mastered two major languages when I have only one.

I look forward to reading your findings.

Meantime we might take a look at the images you posted of the knot loaded to ca 30% MBS

(https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6231.0;attach=22966;image)

In the LHS image we see the SP coming up through the Carrick Component bight turn and continuing up and over the RHS shoulder.

In the RHS image we can see the SP enter the back of the Carrick Component bight turn and we can see  that the back of the knot is clear for a bight turn rotation.

I we unload the SP and move it towards the loop legs, we are then able to rotate the bight turn at least 2 radians along the unloaded SP.  When the turn and the SP are then rotated back together, the Carrick component is relaxed, in turn releasing the Simple hitch component, which is so simple it simply cannot jam.  At that point all the cogging contact surfaces are released and the knot is easily taken apart.

Derek

Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: alanleeknots on August 18, 2018, 09:32:22 AM
Hi All,
         Derek, I bring more clearer pictures here, you can see the over hand knot is always in there.
           Third picture, there is nothing can stop standing part moving and tighten itself, even there
             is side friction ,the kind of parallel line inside the nob will not border the standing part much.
                謝謝 alanleeknots
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 18, 2018, 08:38:00 PM
Hi All,
         Derek, I bring more clearer pictures here, you can see the over hand knot is always in there.
           Third picture, there is nothing can stop standing part moving and tighten itself, even there
             is side friction ,the kind of parallel line inside the nob will not border the standing part much.
                謝謝 alanleeknots

Excellent images Alan, and I like your analysis in the third image.  But - there is no OH left inside Y2A when it is formed, dressed and set.

When I was setting out to catalogue knots using the Overs Index, I had to start by 'skeletonising the knots and laying them flat.  Wiser knotters than I, Geoffrey Budworth, Dan  Lehman and Roo all knew that I was facing failure.  They all knew that the internal structure of a knot could be distorted into a host of forms, that knots could be morphed from one form to another, dressing to totally obscure forms.  For example, you can take a carrick bend and rearrange it to form the Josephine matt, within that mat is not the slightest trace of the carrick component, yet draw out the ends of that bend and the carrick auto dresses itself into the two carrick components - it's one of the few knots that always dresses itself to its ideal form.

And so it is with Y2A, the 'formulae to make it is to make a slipped OH, then thread the WE back in such a way as to turn the OH into a cross leg Carric Component whilemaking itself into a simple hitch.  In the formed knot the OH has been converted into the non jamming Carrick form.

I will use memory cord to create this pair of components for you and post images here.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 19, 2018, 05:37:10 PM
Hi yChan,

This lovely knot, with its xlCarric Component and full Simple Hitch Component, is clearly not a bowline.  But I have to ask, why would you want to lumber this knot with the slur of being a bowline -  this knot is massively superior to the bowline.

The Y2A is a knot in a class of its own.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: siriuso on August 19, 2018, 07:54:22 PM
Hi dear all and Derek,

The making of these knots are trails by using alternative knots/components, in stead of using helix loop. I use #559 Marlingspike Hitch (not #206 Crossing Knot) , or #514 Overhand Knot as the nipping loops for different 'New' bowlines. I agree to Derek's suggestion it is worth exploring.

I name them 'Bowline' because they compose with the elements so shown in #1010 Bowline. While after all views and discussions in this forum, I do not mind if these knots are categorized into 'Bowline' or not. If they fell to achieve the definitations, I would name them as Loop Knot. IMO, I do not prefer using the name 'Eye Knot' because an eye implies small hole/opening/ring, but a closed/fixed loop is much bigger and for use to encircling or connecting object(s) of bigger size(s).

The components of these knots are : -

Collar - in Y2A & Y3A Bwls : yes, they exist.
in Yia Bwl : yes, it exists in twisted form.

Nipping Loop - in Y2A & Y3A Bwls : Overhand Knot are used (while #1019 Eskimo Bowstring Loop Knot has it's WE goes round it's SP.)
in Yia Bwl : Marlingspike Hitch is used.

2 Legs - in Y2A & Y3A Bwls : yes, they exist.
in Yia Bwl : yes, they exist.

WE tucking - in Y2A Bwl : WE enters to the eye formed by one leg (in the way different to the Ashley's Loop which I posted in KM 137). To be more secure, the WE should be a round turn instead of just a turn as previous presented. I revised it to 'New Y2A Bowline' and present here. Please refer to this 'New' comer.
in Y3A Bwl : WE goes between two legs and enters to the eye formed by one leg.
in Yia Bwl : WE tucks in the way of a marlingspike to the Marlingspike Hitch. Finished with a round turn to obtain security though a turn is good for the purpose.

Jamming - Y2A & Y3A Bwls : not sure, because Overhand Knot tightens/encircling/binding the rope not in it?s centre eye, but in one of the opening.
Yia Bwl : not sure, because Marlingspike Hitch is used and a round turn WE tucking (can be tied loosely or tight).

Untying - knocking down the collar and nipping loop.

Here are the photos showing the 'New Y2A Bowline'.



Happy knotting
yChan

Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: alanleeknots on August 20, 2018, 02:15:30 AM
Hi All,
        yChan, Y2ABowlineNew is not a bowline,
       Mark have said it many time already
Quote
both legs of the collar must be fully encircled and gripped by [a] nipping loop

      The extra turn make it easy for over hand knot shrinking and buried inside the nub.
       Now you need knife to cut it loose.  謝謝 alanleeknots
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on August 20, 2018, 05:59:26 AM
Hello yChan,
Thank you for your presentation.
Quote
I name them 'Bowline' because they compose with the elements so shown in #1010 Bowline.
The knot presented in this post is not a 'Bowline'.

Please review the attached photos.

#46 overhand knot does not qualify as a 'nipping structure' (or a nipping loop).
A key requirement of all nipping structures is that they must be TIB (Tiable-in-the-bight) and non-jamming. #46 isn't TIB.
And I had previously tendered the definition of what a 'loop' is.
The word 'loop' has a particular meaning - and should not be diluted to describe other elements within a knot.

Quote
If they fail to achieve the definitions, I would name them as Loop Knot. IMO, I do not prefer using the name 'Eye Knot' because an eye implies small hole/opening/ring, but a closed/fixed loop is much bigger and for use to encircling or connecting object(s) of bigger size(s).
This proposition is incorrect.
The size of the eye has nothing to do with anything.
It comes down to how you define a 'loop'.
Using the word 'loop' to describe different elements is problematic and dilutes its definition.
I am currently debating the strict definition of what a 'loop' is with Derek.

Clifford Ashley uses the term 'loop knots' to describe a class of knots that permit attachments/connections.
Ashley published his masterpiece during WW2 - some 70  years ago.
I believe that his use of term 'loop knot' entered the common vernacular - and it has never been challenged.

Whether an eye knot is attached to a carabiner, a boulder or a very large tree makes no difference. In this case, size doesn't matter!  ;D

I would challenge you to come up with a precise definition for a 'loop'. Once you have tendered that precise definition, I would be interested to see how it can be consistently applied.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 20, 2018, 07:58:06 AM
Quote

Quote
If they fail to achieve the definitions, I would name them as Loop Knot. IMO, I do not prefer using the name 'Eye Knot' because an eye implies small hole/opening/ring, but a closed/fixed loop is much bigger and for use to encircling or connecting object(s) of bigger size(s).
This proposition is incorrect.
The size of the eye has nothing to do with anything.
It comes down to how you define a 'loop'.
Using the word 'loop' to describe different elements is problematic and dilutes its definition.
I am currently debating the strict definition of what a 'loop' is with Derek.

I would like to offer a qualification to Mark's above rather strident assertion that This proposition is incorrect. - by suggesting that he adds - 'in his opinion.'

While it is correct that Mark and I have been in discussion over his attempt to rename 'Loop Knots' as 'Eye Knots', it would be wrong to infer that there is any progress on this issue.

I totally disagree with Mark's opinion and what he offers as supporting argument as to why, in his opinion, this change is valid.  I have repeatedly rejected his supporting arguments as invalid in my opinion.

I remain of the opinion that all Working Knots which have a fixed loop external to the Nub belong to the classification of Loop Knots, with the sub classification that some Loop Knots are also Eye Knots, where the loop is small, the loop legs are parallel as they exit the nub, and particularly when the loop is intended to incorporate a thimble.

NB this categorisation does not include Spliced Eyes, notably because a splice is not a knot.

As a specialist group, we need an agreed lexicon in order to be able to communicate our thoughts and perceptions.  Today, our lexicon is both confused and incomplete.  However, we do not have a Governing Body to decide upon this lexicon for us.  Naming convention will only happen by consensus of use.

At this stage of the discussion it is my considered opinion that changing the name of all fixed Loop Knots to that of Eye Knots, causes unnecessary confusion and fails to add value to our lexicon.  It is therefore my intention to continue to use the term Loop Knots for all working knots which have a fixed external loop (or loops), irrespective of the loop size or intended mode of use.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on August 20, 2018, 08:11:39 AM
per Derek:
Quote
While it is correct that Mark and I have been in discussion over his attempt to rename 'Loop Knots' as 'Eye Knots', it would be wrong to infer that there is any progress on this issue.

Interestingly, I stated that we are debating the definition of what constitutes a 'loop'.
Your use of the phrase "making progress" is a leap of faith on your behalf. If you carefully read what I wrote, I did not say that we are making 'progress'.

per Derek:
Quote
I totally disagree with Mark's opinion and what he offers as supporting argument as to why, in his opinion, this change is valid.  I have repeatedly rejected his supporting arguments as invalid in my opinion.

And you are entitled to disagree! I had previously tendered a precise definition of what a 'loop' is.
And I am careful to apply it in a way that does not dilute its meaning. And yes, I am questioning Ashley's time honored view that knots such as #1047 F8 and #1010 Bowline are titled 'loop' knots. The alleged 'loop' in the alleged 'loop knot' doesn't take the form of a 'loop' (by my definition). To call it a 'loop' (in my view) is loosening the definition of what a 'loop' is. I probably should point out that I am not afraid to challenge old ideas and beliefs.

The 'loop' in a #1047 F8 doesn't actually take the form of a 'loop'. But, this comes down to how you wish to define what a 'loop' is (in contrast to a 'bight' and a 'turn').

I am still somewhat curious as to how you distinguish between the following elements:
[ ] bight
[ ] turn
[ ] loop
[ ] nipping loop
[ ] helix

Be that as it may, I remain somewhat optimistic that a precise definition of what constitutes a 'loop' is within reach. Keep in mind that I am an optimist :)

PS Derek, may I respectfully ask a favour from you?
Would you please read my posts very carefully before you reply - to ensure you don't apply an interpretation different to what I had intended?
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on August 20, 2018, 08:25:09 AM
per yChan:
Quote
I use #559 Marlingspike Hitch (not #206 Crossing Knot) , or #514 Overhand Knot as the nipping loops for different 'New' bowlines

This is interesting!

Using #559 Marlinspike hitch as the nipping structure would allow your presentation to be regarded as a 'virtual Bowline' (provided the other requirements are also met).
#559 Marlinspike hitch is TIB and non-jamming.
Assuming all requirements are met; a possible name would be "Virtual Bowline based on #559 Marlinspike hitch".

#559 isn't a nipping loop...but, it does permit encirclement and clamping of elements within a knot (ie the 'bight' component which is comprised of the collar and its 2 legs). Note that a nipping structure must be free to encircle and clamp elements within the core without jamming. It must also be TIB.

#559 is also jam resistant.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 20, 2018, 12:34:18 PM
@Mark,
Quote
PS Derek, may I respectfully ask a favour from you?
Would you please read my posts very carefully before you reply - to ensure you don't apply an interpretation different to what I had intended?

Well said, I hope we both consciously apply this sentiment.

Quote
per Derek:

Quote
While it is correct that Mark and I have been in discussion over his attempt to rename 'Loop Knots' as 'Eye Knots', it would be wrong to infer that there is any progress on this issue.

Interestingly, I stated that we are debating the definition of what constitutes a 'loop'.
Your use of the phrase "making progress" is a leap of faith on your behalf. If you carefully read what I wrote, I did not say that we are making 'progress'.

My comment Mark was not aimed at contradicting your statement, it was meant for your readers who might otherwise draw a false inference from your (totally factual) statement.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 20, 2018, 01:22:58 PM
@ Mark,

Quote
I am still somewhat curious as to how you distinguish between the following elements:
[ ] bight
[ ] turn
[ ] loop
[ ] nipping loop
[ ] helix

And here we have your favourite list again.  From your persistence, I am drawing the impression that your goal is to 'tighten down' the definition of the term 'loop'.  I on the other hand, do not wish to see its value or use restricted in any way, especially not its exclusive restriction to the term 'nipping loop'

'Loop' is a very open term, having many meanings dependent upon its context.  If we wish to more tightly identify the specific aspect of loop, where that is not immediately obvious from the context, then we have the normal tools available for doing this
a) use a specific name denoting a subset i.e. Noose, Loopknot, Eyeknot etc.
b) add an identifier i.e. 'Nipping Loop Component', 'Fixed Loop External Component' etc.

This leaves the remaining delightful looseness of the term Loop, free to be used wherever we wish - Loop around - Loop the Loop - Fruit Loops - etc...

The rest of the terms - bight - turn - round turn - helix.  I am sure these are all sufficiently well established and understood as to need no further definition.

However, by way of compromise, instead of flogging the use of the term 'Nipping Loop' , how about trying the term 'Nipping Component', then building a definition on that term?

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on August 20, 2018, 04:05:32 PM
per Derek:
Quote
This leaves the remaining delightful looseness of the term Loop, free to be used wherever we wish - Loop around - Loop the Loop - Fruit Loops - etc...

The rest of the terms - bight - turn - round turn - helix.  I am sure these are all sufficiently well established and understood as to need no further definition.

I have attached a delightful little exam paper to put your 'well established' definitions to the test.
Your responses would be appreciated...

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood agent_smith :)
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 21, 2018, 08:32:59 AM
@Mark.

You first :-
Quote
However, by way of compromise, instead of flogging the use of the term 'Nipping Loop' , how about trying the term 'Nipping Component', then building a definition on that term?
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: siriuso on August 21, 2018, 09:52:46 AM
Hi Mark,

We use 'Loop Knot' for a long time, 'Eye Knot' is not new to me too. But use the name Eye Knot instead of Loop Knot is not necessary and not appropriate.

I do not have any precise definition for a 'loop'. 

To my knowledge, a loop is used for describing a rope, string in the form of a circle/ring/non-complete circle of flex materials, so it includes closed loop, fixed loop and knotted loop in knotting. 'Ring' is used to described a closed circle, 'D-ring' for a ring in D shape. Besides our eyes (an organ), 'Eye' is used to descibed a hole/opening in/on an object, always in small size in comparison with to what it situated. Such as the opening of a spring on the ground, a focal centre opening of a tropical cyclone. Mesh is even smaller. My understand of English is not good, but the names used in Chinese for the above have the same and precise different definitions.

If it is needed to change the names, besides using 'Loop Knot'. I prefer 'Ring Knot' more than 'Eye Knot".

Happy Knotting
yChan
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: siriuso on August 21, 2018, 10:01:48 AM
Hi Mark,

My starts for the Y2A Bowline is completely different to yours in your photo presentation. Please analyze my knot will be very much appreciated.

yChan
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: agent_smith on August 21, 2018, 03:44:35 PM
per yChan:
Quote
My starts for the Y2A Bowline is completely different to yours in your photo presentation. Please analyze my knot will be very much appreciated.

I think you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.
My photo images were not intended to compete with your creation - or to attempt to re-create your work.

Also, I am not sure how many different ways I can repeat what I have already stated - that your creation isn't a 'Bowline'. I 'feel' that it is like trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but the alternative viewpoint claims that the answer is 5. Both parties refuse to back down (although, who really knows if our invention of numbers is correct!).
And there is also the story of the lighthouse and the ship at night. The ship approaches the lighthouse and demands that the lighthouse alter course to avoid a collision (the ships Captain doesn't realize the light in the distance isn't another ship but, is actually a lighthouse).

The point of my images was to show that an eye knot built around #46 overhand knot does not, and cannot qualify as [a] 'Bowline'.

In the first instance, a nipping structure (or if you prefer, nipping component) must be 'TIB' (Tiable-in-the-bight). It is (by definition) topologically equivalent to the unknot.

A nipping structure must be able to freely encircle and clamp both legs of the collar without jamming
Note: Some people prefer to identify the collar and its 2 legs as a 'bight'.

All Bowlines have a fixed 'eye' - which allows connections/attachments (some prefer to think of the eye as a loop, even though this may dilute the definition of what a 'loop' is). I was venture to say that the term 'loop knot' is inherited from Ashley and has become entrenched even though the precise definition of what constitutes a 'loop' is elusive.

Another characteristic of 'Bowlines' is that they are 'PET' (Post Eye Tiable).

Anyhow, that's enough from me... the ball is in your court (so to speak) and whether you choose to believe or disbelieve these assertions :)
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: siriuso on August 21, 2018, 06:10:21 PM
Hi dear all,

Up to now, I have received comments mostly focus on my knots' names because I named them bowlines. Upon the comments made by our fellow expert members, these knots are not qualified as Bowline. I concur with their opinions based on some well observed definitions. So I modified these post titles, and hope to receive more comments on these Loop Knots.

Happy Knotting
yChan
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 21, 2018, 06:54:06 PM
per yChan:
Quote
My starts for the Y2A Bowline is completely different to yours in your photo presentation. Please analyze my knot will be very much appreciated.

I think you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.
My photo images were not intended to compete with your creation - or to attempt to re-create your work.

Also, I am not sure how many different ways I can repeat what I have already stated - that your creation isn't a 'Bowline'. I feel that it is like trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but the alternative viewpoint claims that the answer is 5. Both parties refuse to back down.
And there is also the story of the lighthouse and the ship at night. The ship approaches the lighthouse and demands that the lighthouse alter course to avoid a collision (the ships Captain doesn't realize the light in the distance isn't another ship but, is actually a lighthouse).

The point of my images was to show that an eye knot built around #46 overhand knot does not, and cannot qualify as [a] 'Bowline'.

In the first instance, a nipping structure (or if you prefer, nipping component) must be 'TIB' (Tiable-in-the-bight). It is (by definition) topologically equivalent to the unknot.

A nipping structure must be able to freely encircle and clamp both legs of the collar without jamming
Note: Some people prefer to identify the collar and its 2 legs as a 'bight'.

All Bowlines have a fixed 'eye' - which allows connections/attachments (some prefer to think of the eye as a loop, even though this may dilute the definition of what a 'loop' is). I was venture to say that the term 'loop knot' is inherited from Ashley and has become entrenched even though the precise definition of what constitutes a 'loop' is elusive.

Another characteristic of 'Bowlines' is that they are 'PET' (Post Eye Tiable).

Anyhow, that's enough from me... the ball is in your court (so to speak) and whether you choose to believe or disbelieve these assertions.

Mark, I am virtually (but not totally) dumbstruck by the unmitigated arrogance of your post.

By all means hold your own opinion, but when you express it please have the modesty to declare that it is your opinion.  But no, not a single 'in my opinion'  just a tirade of what you insist must be the definition of a Bowline, followed up with abusive statements relating to others ability to perform simple arithmetic and the inference that your statements are the 'rock of authority' .

I am surprised at you.

Oh, and Y2A is PET.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: agent_smith on August 22, 2018, 12:15:02 AM
per Derek:
Quote
Mark, I am virtually (but not totally) dumbstruck by the unmitigated arrogance of your post.

And I am dumbstruck that you are dumbstruck by my post.

I am not going to add a qualifying statement to each and every post that I make in the IGKT forum universe - that would be ludicrous. I could also suggest that you go back and edit each and every post and add the qualifying remark "in my opinion".

What is really happening is that you are starting to fire the first warning shots across my bow - because what I write challenges your own paradigm - so you take a decisive move at each instance where I advance an opinion that conflicts with your own.

There is no arrogance Derek - that concept exists only in your own imagination.
I wasn't the only person declaring that this particular presentation from yChan isn't a Bowline - and it was stated several times. Examples and descriptions were tendered in a respectful way. You may not like that fact.

With regard to your reference to 'PET' - this is another example of your leaps of imagination...I did not state that yChan's presentation was not PET. I was giving a basic list of what [a] 'Bowline' is. That list also included a fixed eye that permits attachment/connections to be made. If I had intended to declare that yChan's presentation was not PET - I would have used very specific language such as; "yChan, your presentation isn't PET" (but I didn't write that, did I?).

Oh, and for Derek - it goes without saying that this is my own opinion typed by my own hand, as it obviously is so with every other post I make.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: knotsaver on August 22, 2018, 07:34:50 AM

Oh, and Y2A is PET.


Oh Derek,
Y2A is NOT PET!!!
(As before I ask you: do you refer to the reversed knot?)
If you untie (starting from the tail!) the loop/eye of the Y2A (for instance it was tied around a tree) you will have, (tied) on the rope, a big OH (OverHand knot)!
----
@siriuso
the discussion about the name is about the structure of the loop/eye/ring too!
However, as often I find "brother" "sister" "cousin", this knot can be considered a brother of the loop/eye/ring tied from Ashley Bend (if you tuck the tail from the other side of the last bight, I mean if you tie an OverHand with the tail too).
It can be considered also an "one-side-Overhanded relative" of the Carrick loop/eye/ring.
Ciao,
s.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: siriuso on August 22, 2018, 08:13:20 AM
Hi Knotsaver,

Thanks for your comment. You are perfectly right about it is relative of the Ashley's Bend. In my article in KM 137, I present a Ashley's Loop and also with this Y2A.

yChan
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Bowline
Post by: DerekSmith on August 22, 2018, 08:26:11 AM
Hi yChan,

This lovely knot, with its xlCarric Component and full Simple Hitch Component, is clearly not a bowline.  But I have to ask, why would you want to lumber this knot with the slur of being a bowline -  this knot is massively superior to the bowline.

The Y2A is a knot in a class of its own.

Derek

@Mark

Sorry that you think that I am at odds with you because you claim this Y2A is not a bowline.  As you will see from my earlier post - I agree with you.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: knotsaver on August 22, 2018, 08:47:47 AM

 You are perfectly right about it is relative of the Ashley's Bend. In my article in KM 137, I present a Ashley' Loop and also with this Y2A.


ooops, sorry, I haven't read KM137, but I hadn't read (carefully) your #14 reply
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6231.msg41975#msg41975

you said it there: I have to pay you a beer :)

Ciao,
s.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: DerekSmith on August 22, 2018, 09:03:12 AM
@knotsaver
Quote
Oh Derek,
Y2A is NOT PET!!!
(As before I ask you: do you refer to the reversed knot?)
If you untie (starting from the tail!) the loop/eye of the Y2A (for instance it was tied around a tree) you will have, (tied) on the rope, a big OH (OverHand knot)!

I do not have the reference, but I believe Xarax described PET as allowing any preparations needed to be made to the cord in advance of the WE being passed around the looped object - then using the WE to finish tying the knot.  Yes, you have to start with an OH, and yes after releasing the loop you are left with an OH.

If my recollection is wrong, or if the definition has moved on since my first encounter with the term, then I stand corrected, otherwise it is PET - or more aptly PLT.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: siriuso on August 22, 2018, 09:52:36 AM
Hi Knotsaver,

My article in KM 137 with the title of 'Manipulating Alpine Butterflies' was not named by me. I have had reflected to the editors. I preferred it should be 'Manipulating Ashley's Bend', because they are about Ashley's Bend and the AA Bowline (recently I have revised it's name and the structure to Y2A Loop Knot.)

Happy Knotting
yChan
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: knotsaver on August 22, 2018, 09:52:49 AM

I do not have the reference, but I believe Xarax described PET as allowing any preparations needed to be made to the cord in advance of the WE being passed around the looped object - then using the WE to finish tying the knot.  Yes, you have to start with an OH, and yes after releasing the loop you are left with an OH.

Derek, please look at this:

"Bowlines are post-eye-tiable eyeknots ( = PET loops ) - and this means that their nipping structures, tied before the eye, are ""open"" knots, topologically equivalent to the unknot. When their collar structures, tied after (=post) the eye, are detached from them, those nipping structures ( be them simple or double nipping loops, Clove, Girth, or Constrictor hitches ) can be straightened and released completely, leaving no "relic" ""closed knot"" still tied on the rope."

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6231.msg41975#msg41975

Quote
If my recollection is wrong, or if the definition has moved on since my first encounter with the term, then I stand corrected, otherwise it is PET - or more aptly PLT.


Let's add PRT (R is for ring) :)
I have no problem to use "loop" "eye"  even "ring" even if it is not my preferred one. In Italian we say "gassa" but if you look at the dictionary definition you read ... every eye ("occhio") tied with a rope :)
I understand the attempt by Mark G, but it is not easy and can be misleading.
Ciao,
s.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: DerekSmith on August 22, 2018, 10:52:25 AM
Quote
"Bowlines are post-eye-tiable eyeknots ( = PET loops ) - and this means that their nipping structures, tied before the eye, are ""open"" knots, topologically equivalent to the unknot. When their collar structures, tied after (=post) the eye, are detached from them, those nipping structures ( be them simple or double nipping loops, Clove, Girth, or Constrictor hitches ) can be straightened and released completely, leaving no "relic" ""closed knot"" still tied on the rope."

Hi Knot saver, I had not realised that the definition had been upgraded (perhaps it has always been so) to defining the nipping component being made before the loop, although I did read recently that Mark was adding to the definition that the nipping component must be an unknot.

Either way, function of the Y2A is misunderstood.  The OH component is not the nipping component.  The OH component is transformed by the WE relacing into an xlCarrick Component and the WE lacing becomes the nipping component, therefore as such the nipping structure is PET and conforms to the more recent demand that it be an unknot (although to be honest the majority of components are unknots).

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: agent_smith on August 22, 2018, 11:16:45 AM
per Derek:
Quote
The OH component is not the nipping component.  The OH component is transformed by the WE relacing into an xlCarrick Component and the WE lacing becomes the nipping component, therefore as such the nipping structure is PET and conforms to the more recent demand that it be an unknot (although to be honest the majority of components are unknots).

Its not recent Derek.
Xarax had this concept long ago - and he contacted me about it quite some time ago.
I simply overlooked and then forgot to include it in my Analysis of Bowlines paper.
I had also forgotten to add it to the mix of requirements that define [a] 'Bowline'.

Hmmm, if you think about it, all nipping components (within a Bowline) are TIB and equivalent to the unknot - this is simply factual and not a last minute after thought by me. As stated, Xarax had already conceptualised the idea long ago. Furthermore, all 'Bowlines' are 'PET' (Post Eye Tiable).

All I am doing is trying to rationalize the use of certain terminology (so it can be applied in a consist and coherent way) and, attempting to tighten the definition of [a] 'Bowline'. This is why I disagree with your use of the term 'carrick component' - which I find to be nebulous.
The other technical issue that I see as 'problematic' is finding a strict definition of what a 'loop' is.
For example, inserting loop into PET is problematic - because which part is the 'loop' - and which part occurs in what order? It 'appears' to me that your use of the term 'loop' has a fluid and diluted meaning.

EDIT NOTE

per Derek:
Quote
Either way, function of the Y2A is misunderstood.
No Derek - I think the misunderstanding lies with the way in which you choose to apply some terminology and; closely linked to this - is the way in which you choose to interpret what some are advancing.

Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: DerekSmith on August 22, 2018, 12:19:52 PM
@Mark
Quote
Its not recent Derek.
Xarax had this concept long ago - and he contacted me about it quite some time ago.
I simply overlooked and then forgot to include it in my Analysis of Bowlines paper.
I had also forgotten to add it to the mix of requirements that define [a] 'Bowline'.

Then if you have only recently published it, you will hopefully forgive me for not knowing you had known this for a long time and concluding it to be a recent amendment.

Quote
Hmmm, if you think about it, all nipping components are TIB and equivalent to the unknot - this is simply factual and not a last minute after thought by me.

If you believe this to be so, then why does it need declaring?

But actually, it is false.  An OH is a Nipping Component, but is not an unknot.  Or are you now going to propose, for the purposes of your definitions, that all Nipping Components must be unknots?  If you are, then I am sure you can take a guess at my response.

Quote
No Derek - I think the misunderstanding lies with the way in which you choose to apply some terminology and; closely linked to this - is the way in which you choose to interpret what some are advancing.
There is no terminology issue here.  The issue stems from the fact that the knot is tied starting from an OH for clarity and simplicity.  However, it has long been accepted that it is a fallacy to identify a knot from the method used to tie it, because totally identical knot structures may be tied by different methods, or recipes.  The recipes are there simply to facilitate ease of tying and to aid memory - they do not command the knot.

Derek
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: agent_smith on August 22, 2018, 12:52:20 PM
per Derek:
Quote
Or are you now going to propose, for the purposes of your definitions, that all Nipping Components must be unknots?  If you are, then I am sure you can take a guess at my response.

Within a 'Bowline'?

If you mean within a 'Bowline' - then yes.
As an example, #46 overhand knot cannot qualify as a 'nipping structure (or nipping component)' within [a] 'Bowline'. The nipping structure (within a 'Bowline') must be jam resistant, and it must be free to encircle and clamp the 2 legs of the collar (which you might prefer to conceptualize as a 'bight').

And this is not a new idea.
Title: Re: yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot
Post by: DerekSmith on August 22, 2018, 04:21:09 PM
Quote
If you mean within a 'Bowline' - then yes.

Thanks Mark, do you see how important the qualifying details are to eliminating assumptions and confusion.

So, how about this :-

It incorporates a considerable amount of flexibility, yet retains the core essence of the Bowline.  The price is that the Eskimo will probably have to become known as the Sheetbend Loopknot ....

Derek