International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: NeopsycheMD on March 25, 2020, 06:38:52 PM

Title: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on March 25, 2020, 06:38:52 PM
Hi guys! Where under Ashley's 4-fold classification do the halfknot and binding knots fall. 'Knots'? or 'Hitches'? or... Please help me out...
 
-Dr. A.
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: SS369 on March 25, 2020, 07:40:21 PM
Good day Dr.A.

No need for multiple post of the same. I've removed your other.

SS369
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on March 25, 2020, 08:09:18 PM
Sorry, my bad! Thank you :)
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 25, 2020, 11:14:39 PM
As I find the traditional classes for knots not well
suited to the subject, I don't try to fit circles into
triangular holes and so on.

Binders, fro me, fall in the binders class : a knot
tied around an object in a single piece of material
and ends both untensioned --whereas a hitch would
load one.

Things get problematic with knots intended to have
varied loadings, such as a mid-line/inline eye knot.


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on March 26, 2020, 12:25:33 AM
@Dan_Lehman
Phew, that makes so much sense. (As a beginner I'm guilty of reductionist attempts at trying to fit all new incoming information into my current, negligible knowledge on the subject.) Thank you so much, and I hope to continue learning from you guys. G'day!

Dr.A
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: KC on March 28, 2020, 12:04:28 AM
I think of a Hitch as a an endpoint for termination against LINEAR force pull/flow, a Bend as dbl.ended Hitch continuation not termination LINEAR force flow thru a joint/coupling.   Simple as plumbing or wiring to carry /usher different type force flows.
.
The linear force input of SPart(s) decreases thru arcs to BE.
.
Binding Knots totally different, resist against RADIAL 'glow' of force pushing out evenly all around, no force exiting to any SPart., in fact only arcs, no straight parts (immediate pulls in opposite directions) like ends of linears(Hitch, Bend).  Balanced forces thru arcs until final Nip to BE.  To ABoK classification I say Knot as ties back to self, but Binding Knot to me is special radial form, that needs host .  Not standalone Knot like Bowline.
.
If Bag or Constrictor etc. is used as Hitch, it follows linear loading pattern functionally.  Does not load evenly around as in Binding usage with same knot..   For familiarity go by naming convention.  But in actual usage, follow forces in defining I think.
.
In further contrasting aspect definition:
I think Sailor Hitch gives the least compressive binding around of Hitch usage from linear input, thus ABoK  choice for swing pivot , as hangs most from top of spar than others seen.  Most abrupt , immediate reduction in force flow towards BE, almost stopping at Top/against side opposite initiating linear input pull. 
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on March 28, 2020, 02:18:01 AM
@KC
Yeah, came across one of your earlier posts, with your illustrations too and it does make sense! Thank you so much!!


Edit: another doubt. In the image you,ve shown (attatched), for a binding knot, even though the pull when we tie may be radially inwards, wouldn't the load exerted by the object be OUTWARDS??


Dr. A
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: KC on April 12, 2020, 12:03:41 PM
YES!  Sorry missed this,
Loading force i see as radial 'glow' outwards as initiating force into rope in Binding usage;
As rope serves against this 'glow outwards' as containment, limiter.
>>Bind:Contain(envelope), Hitch:Termination(end run), Bend:Coupling(pass thru) 'of forces' each
.
Just as in linear loading hitch , rope serves against the input pull.
>>Rope is passive as electrical wire w/o power
>>active force initiating load is ported into rope and then rope holds ground against it , is now empowered by the force it limits range of.
.
In Binding, may initially compress bag/load in setup with input of force from outside world.
But in actual usage phase, load is trying to spring back open , bloom open, with equal 'glow force' that rope limits against.
>>no outside world influence to knot classically
>>while hitch is single outside forces into knot, bend is competing mutli from outside in thru SPart(s) input into heart of knot microcosm
>>In Binding, forces are already inside this zone, not mono nor multi inputs inwards from outside as defining differences, follow the forces!
Rope to most situations has no pertinent weight etc., PASSIVE RESPONDER as like hiPower hose, wire, glass fiber; has no force of own
>>only a force trail porting route to apply and manipulate
>>until an ACTIVE force seeks to persist thru the ported channel of rope/hose/wire/glass fiber etc.
Binding is also notably a radial solution against a radial input, and equal initiating force glow to EQUAL force arcs around
>>while linear hitch/bend locks thru DEGRADING force arcs as more linear input to radial hold
.
Difference i think is electrical/light/water/air resistance is degrading the initial force;
>>increasing resistance, decreasing load force
in mechanix of rope etc. the resistance is the loading itself,
friction is as the the degrading resistance of separate topic.
So resistance as we see works in 2 factors in rope i think:
>>load resistance to movement is as the loading in other forces air/light/water/electricity etc.;
>>while friction resistance in rope is as the resistance against force of the previous forces
Resistance against distance thus more integral to force in rope/mechanix
>>increasing force in rope by increasing resistance non-frictionally
>>while increase in resistance of non-mechanical forces air/light/water/electricity etc. decreases force ported thru
 as rope friction does.
.
This is pretty much jest my own story cartoons in head of how describe to self as making decisions in handling.
>>but has kept me alive in dealing and plotting the rawness of it's forces
Rope to me is generic substance, formed into parts, as wood or metal
>>tho we don't have to separate rope to different pieces to form the 'parts' nor their utilities.
>>nor must we cut, hammer nor heat rope to form these different parts
>>nor the connect/pin the separate parts together as connection run of rope skips this step too.
In real time the loading itself forges rope from the forming stage to forged against loading stage.
>>unloading as bringing metal parts back to melt into foundry to reform/re-deploy as rope likewise lays in melted puddle
The loaded rigid form of rope, is subject to the same inline and tension rules of metal and wood in normal states
>>but not compression nor cross axis rules of rigids, as a flexible rope can't resist alone like rigids wood or metal.
.
As to electrical schematic symbols as logistics overview:
i use/visualize friction as electrical resistor,
turns on bollard etc. as variable resistor,
purposeful weak link as mechanical fuse
pulley system as transformer,
Prussik grab to other rope as inductor coil,
rope as wire,
pull handle as input antennae to catch force ,
elasticity as capacitance,
cam or tended prusik as 1 way diode (while 1way cam or prussik set can polarize capacitance value) etc.
Volts needed against load x amperage time against load = watts of effort used
.
To then describe weight as a positive charge called to Earth as negative ground
>>If don't want to let weight fall to ground + to -
>>must provide alternate path to ground such as weight floating on rope, attached to overhead limb
>>and tree provides grounding path and satiates positive charge of weight
Anything interrupts or removes the alternate path(s) to ground, + charge of weight falls to - charge of ground faithfully
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: agent_smith on April 14, 2020, 05:03:06 AM
Hello NeopsycheMD,

Have a look at the attached image.
Its my view on a class of 'knots' known as hitches.

In my view, a hitch requires a host to form around.
If that host is removed, the hitch loses structural integrity.
Hitches can be further categorized into the following sub-classes:
[ ] slide and grip progression hitch
[ ] noose hitch
[ ] binder hitch
[ ] load control hitch

Within the subclass 'slide and grip progression hitch', there are a vast number of varieties and applications.
However, they all can generally be regarded as; symmetric, asymmetric, dual leg, and single leg.

Arborists like to generally imagine they exclusively own and control this subclass of hitch  ;D
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: KC on April 14, 2020, 10:51:46 AM
Slippery Slope, we paint;
if trying to understand knot functions, forces by given names tho.
At best allows fair communication for us.
.
Bowline Knot stand alone, no force
Bowline used as a Hitching(termination to non-rope), gives expected force pattern/flow
>>vs. IF Bowline was (errantly) to stop swell from inside (Binding) the force flow changes
>>as has a different force input, from different direction(s)
>>and is better with the 'anti-Bowline'/CowBoy Bowline
Still not proper best, but we have turned the trapping/Nip mechanism to fit direction of travel for forces thru the rope pipeline
.
In friction hitch/'slide and grip progression hitch' the ridden /host mount of the rope the hitch grabs
>>is more of a rail/spar that hitch rides than a rope part in this examination i think

Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: agent_smith on April 14, 2020, 02:47:51 PM
per KC:
Quote
Slippery Slope, we paint;
A slippery slope for whom?
Do you mean the information provided to the original poster (NeopsycheMD) will lead him down a slippery slope?

Quote
Bowline Knot stand alone, no force
Bowline used as a Hitching(termination to non-rope), gives expected force pattern/flow
>>vs. IF Bowline was (errantly) to stop swell from inside (Binding) the force flow changes
>>as has a different force input, from different direction(s)
>>and is better with the 'anti-Bowline'/CowBoy Bowline
Still not proper best, but we have turned the trapping/Nip mechanism to fit direction of travel for forces thru the rope pipeline
I'm trying to understand how this information answers the OP's question?
What is a knot? What is a hitch?
The term 'knot' is a general catch-all for all types of knot structures.
A hitch is getting more specific - drilling down to a particular type of knot structure.
It is possible to conceptualize a hitch as a type of knot that requires a host.

Quote
In friction hitch/'slide and grip progression hitch' the ridden /host mount of the rope the hitch grabs
>>is more of a rail/spar that hitch rides than a rope part in this examination i think
Interesting but, not sure if this is helpful to the OP?
Be that as it may, a slide and grip progression hitch requires a host.
There are several sub-classes of hitches... but they all require a host.
Load control hitches flow around their host (eg #206 Crossing hitch).
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: KC on April 15, 2020, 12:03:02 AM
Slippery Slope, we paint;
if trying to understand knot functions, forces by given names tho.
At best allows fair communication for us.
.
I try to present again my view that to understand knot forces, see that they load by  Hitching, Binding or Bending usage, irrespective of name.   A Bag (Binding) Knot is different  force loading from it's even around radial input from inside knot that rope stands against, with even loading arcs vs. as a Hitching of linear input from outside into knot to degrade thru arcs.  As a cost of linear to radial conversion not seen in same structure in Binding usage, and handling different force as input.  As same in usually linear input Bowline example  used to Bind, opposite type example to same point.
.
As far as friction hitch info, was trying to show further my take on naming and logic of friction as hitch not bend even tho rope to rope transfer.  This is a hair line division, once sorted gives more definition to rest, and no danglers.  End to End friction hitches smashed together more to Bending, but less so spaced hitches I think.
.
To me all working knots require a host.
Bowline is a Knot as standalone structure unused and keeps form w/o host mount.
But, this gives no description to force flow, as there is none
.
All in all, I think fair to say i see things differently, but not wrong,
With much thought, logical framework,
find it appropriate to show the tangible fabric of relationships of what I see as supporting explanation.
Especially so mathematically and logically based
as tested each part of theories in cross comparative to others in rope for decades.
And many times cross comparisons to verify same force logic in rigids
And even in waveforms of electricity, sound, light etc.
Looking for consistent over riding principles that rope is but small part of.
I know I can't take it with me so try to leave behind, as even simple coral polyps do.
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on June 05, 2020, 07:29:47 AM
Thank you all so much for your valuable replies. And my deepest apologies for the late response (got rather tied up at work, with the whole CoViD situation and all) I sincerely hope this finds you all in the best of your health!

@agent_smith Thank you! Yeah, that was my initial assumption as well. That Binder knots would fall under 'hitches'. But as @Dan_Lehman pointed out, shouldn't a hitch have at least one loaded end? The 'binder hitch' then seems like an odd one out amongst the four sub-classes you mentioned, in this regard. Would love to hear your view on this.

I know all this may sound a li'l too trivial for you guys, and will have no implications on the practicalities or anything. But I just wanted to have the basics down first. Still a newbie here.😅

I think what I make of all this, so far, is that it is not satisfactorily possible to exclusively categorize all the knots into disjoint sets, I guess.

Thanks again.
Regards 

EDIT: @agent_smith Sorry I just noticed now. Yeah, binder knots could be used as hitches too, I guess. But my doubt is, where would one put a simple binder knot, say the shoe lace knot or a parcel  tying knot? Still can't convince myself this would be a 'hitch'!??
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: agent_smith on June 05, 2020, 11:53:33 PM
Hello NeopsycheMD,

Quote
EDIT: @agent_smith Sorry I just noticed now. Yeah, binder knots could be used as hitches too, I guess. But my doubt is, where would one put a simple binder knot, say the shoe lace knot or a parcel  tying knot? Still can't convince myself this would be a 'hitch'!??

Knots are complex systems - I am always looking for 'new' ways to understand, classify and identify 'knots'.
The terms 'knots' is often loosely and generically applied to encompass all types of knot structures.

I view a hitch as a sub-class of 'knots'.

In my view (note that i say "in my view")... a 'hitch' is a type of structure that requires a host.
If you remove that 'host' - the hitch loses structural integrity.

Now - to your further question re shoe lace.
Knot structures can also be 'composite'.
A shoelace is (in my view) an example of a 'composite' structure.
It is possible for a 'hitch' to coexist with a 'knot' - so that the entire composite structure is self-supporting.
A question to ask is: In the case of a shoelace, if the shoe (ie the host) is removed does the shoelace lose structural integrity and fall apart?

Most 'binder hitches' encircle or wrap around their host.
As load is applied, the binder hitch progressively crushes its host.
If - after tightening a binder hitch to the desired level - the loose ends are then further secured via a simple overhand knot - you now have a composite structure.
That is, you have the underlying hitch + a knot.
A reversal of this: If you untie the securing knot, you are left with the original hitch.

So for me, the test for determining if a knot structure is a 'hitch' - is to remove its host - and then observe if the 'hitch' loses structural integrity. If it does, it means that it is (or was) a 'hitch'.

As a side note... a 'noose' can exist either in 'hitch' form or in knot form.
A running Bowline is an example of a noose knot (it isn't a noose hitch).
And in the case of a Clove hitch - I note that it is universally described as a 'Clove Hitch'... and not as 'Clove knot'.
If I started calling it a 'Clove knot' - it would cause controversy. Why?
And 'Munter hitch'... climbers love this.... they call it a Munter hitch. They don't call it a Munter knot. To call it a Munter knot would cause controversy. Why?

No theory is perfect - and I note that Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were on life-long missions to find a theory of everything...
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on June 07, 2020, 12:23:14 AM
Thank you so much @agent_smith. So much info and wisdom in these replies. Very valuable.

I completely follow what you are saying here.

That is, you have the underlying hitch + a knot.
 

In fact, this was my first doubt on this forum -
That, in a square knot, (when used as a binding knot, say, in approximating the edges of a wound in surgery) would the first "halfknot" be considered a "hitch" and the next throw on top of it a "knot"(in the stricter sense)??

But if you think of this 'composite knot' as a single unit; and you remove the host; would the hitch actually lose structural integrity? Wouldn't it simply be converted from a hitch into a 'knot(in the stricter sense)' like an eye knot maybe ??
But yeah, if we untie the securing knot(s) on top, then the hitch would fall apart.

So, if you allow me to ask one more doubt-

While classifying/terming knots, is it coventional to consider each knot in given 'layers' (if I may) under their respective categories or to consider the knot as a composite 'whole' and categorize it accordingly? i.e.,-
Please see picture attatched (kindly excuse my lousy representation). Say we have a series of sqaure knots (does this have a name?), a simple series of halfknots of alternating chirality in succession, formed around a host solid. Would one call the first knot (layer) a hitch and the rest of the securing knots (overhand knots) on top of it 'knots'; Or would one consider the whole thing as a single unit and place it under 'hitches'? or 'binding knots' as a separate category as @Dan_Lehman would probably do?
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: agent_smith on June 07, 2020, 03:38:03 AM
Hello NeopsycheMD,

Just a few housekeeping matters I need to attend to first :)   (if I may!)...

1. I don't represent the IGKT or other members on this forum.
2. My replies are purely my own thoughts and ideas.
3. I am only advancing my own theory - which is likely not perfect and will need amending.
4. I'm no 'expert'.

Here goes...

They key test (for me) if a structure can be viewed as a 'hitch' can be framed via this question... "Does it lose structural integrity when the host is removed?"

Things get tricky if the structure is a composite of hitch + knot.

In your attached image, the first (initial) structure (some would identify as a 'half knot') is not TIB (Tiable In the Bight).
If the host is removed, the initial structure does not lose structural integrity and 'collapse'. Although it could shrink to a more compact dressing state (if there was load).
It in fact exists as a self-supporting knot - found at #46 in 'ABoK' - as a simple overhand knot ('thumb knot').

If the first (initial) structure was 'TIB' - for example - a Clove hitch or a Constrictor hitch - as soon as the 'host' is removed, the TIB hitch would lose structural integrity and collapse.

...

Another example is #1720 (round turn and 2 half hitches).
What happens when the 'host' is removed?
It loses structural integrity and transforms into a 'Noose'.
This Noose is structurally a Clove hitch formed upon its own SPart (standing part).
If that SPart is then removed, the Clove hitch also loses structural integrity and collapses.
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on June 07, 2020, 07:36:53 AM
Of course @agent_smith; will keep that in mind. And thank you; once again, that does make sense. But just to clarify- so, in your opinion, whether the 'ends' have any load or not (or the direction of the force acting on them) is immaterial when it comes to classifying a knot as a hitch, right?
I mean,... in hitches with an outward load, the force tends to pull that end away from the host. And in the mooted 'binding knots' the load appears to BE the 'host' itself, thereby exerting forces on both the ends inwards (or towards the host). And yet we could reasonably place these both kinds under the one heading of "hitches". Am I Right? Please correct me if otherwise. 

I'm really sorry for dragging this out this long. But I just want to know, like I asked before, if I could safely call the 'initial structures' of, say, a seires of stitches when suturing a laceration, as "hitches" (without blatantly offending someone, maybe😅)

Regards,
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: agent_smith on June 07, 2020, 10:35:13 AM
Hello again NeopsycheMD,

In reply to your question... and again keeping in mind the caveat of the above 4 key points I raised:

The question of load as being a necessary ingredient in declaring if a knot can exist has been raised before.
That is, some might posit that load is a necessary ingredient to identify and classify a 'knot'.
Others would disagree - and posit that load is not a requirement - that a knot can exist and be classified without being subjected to load.
I use the term 'knot' in a broad sense here... to encompass all bends, hitches and self-supporting knots.

If we make the requirement that a 'knot' can only exist and be classified when subjected to load - this (in my view) introduces difficulties.
You could run your own thought experiments here... and try to come up with scenarios to either prove or disprove a proposition (sort of like Einstein and Bohr with their great debates over the nature of quantum mechanics - and also Schrodinger's cat).

For me, the existence of load is not a necessary ingredient - but, I may be proved wrong.
It may be useful to conceptualize what would occur if load was to be applied after the 'host' is removed - in a sort of thought experiment.

I've attached some images to clarify some concepts...

Sounds like you are a doctor/surgeon?
If your colleagues are susceptible to being offended because of a name change (ie by calling a hitch a knot or vice versa) - i think you have bigger issue to contend with!
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on June 07, 2020, 12:34:32 PM
Thanks again @agent smith. Your replies are compelling. Greatly appreciate the help. And the images are really helpful as well. But yeah, this will still probably remain mildly contentious then, I guess.
And regarding the last Q, yeah, a general surgeon. But I was not refering to the colleagues, so much as the knot tying community in general. Most surgeons I've known wouldn't really give a tinker's damn about proper knot terminologies, let alone classifications. We're pretty complacent with a very few made-up terms of our own for these ;)😅.

G'day!
Regards,
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: agent_smith on June 08, 2020, 04:50:48 AM
Dr NeopsycheMD,

Just before you vanish into thin air... I thought I'd share some more concepts with you :)

On the subject of knot terminology - I can confirm that there is no consistent approach across the world.
I can go one step further than that... there is no international standard for knot terminology (eg like an 'ISO' standard).

The real question here is: "Why is there no consistent approach or no international standard for knot terminology?"

If you can answer that question, you would possibly be a contender for the Nobel prize in knotting (if there was one)!

...

Here are some points which are guaranteed to raise controversy!

1. 'Loop' versus 'Eye'.
https://learningknots.com/terminology/  Note how underhand and overhand is used to define a 'loop' (which is nebulous in my view).
Note also the definition of an 'elbow'...

2. 'Elbow' versus 'Twist' (either S twist or Z twist)
See these links for examples of how an elbow is defined:
https://www.ropebook.com/information/knots/terminology/
https://www.netknots.com/rope_knots/rope-knot-terms
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Parts_of_the_knot

3. 'Turn' versus '180 degree U turn'; 360 degree turn; 540 degree round turn; and so on...
The definition of a 'turn' is muddled by many knot book authors and websites.

...

Anyhow, knot tyers can be passionate - and you can be assured that some will be offended if you try to change old concepts.
I don't have all the answers... but I do like to ask questions!
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: NeopsycheMD on June 10, 2020, 02:32:57 AM
Thanks again @agent_smith. It's strangely comforting to know that. In fact, these are some very things I've been having a hard time wrapping my head around. I remember having come across some such heated conflicts in this forum as well. Anyway, I think matters will stay resolvedly unresolvable. Guess I'll just lay it to rest at that.😅
And hope you're doing well, in these dark times. Sending good vibes your way. Stay safe!
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 10, 2020, 11:42:03 PM
whether the 'ends' have any load or not (or the direction of the force acting on them)
is immaterial when it comes to classifying a knot as a hitch, right?
?!  No, not per my definitions : a hitch is a knot
of one piece of cordage and an object in which
one end is loaded in opposition to the object
and the other end is not loaded.
(That's for a basic hitch, neverminding that one
can think of more complex things (and the simple
girth hitch).

Quote
I mean,... in hitches with an outward load, the force tends to pull that end away from the host.
Yes, as noted above.
 
Quote
And in the mooted 'binding knots' the load appears to BE the 'host' itself, thereby exerting forces on both the ends inwards (or towards the host).
Hmmm, the "forces on both ends inwards"
seems to slip in a practicality belying my definition;
the ends have no resistance (but mass/inertia),
and I'd not go so far as you do, here.
But it does put *binder* qua class in a challenging light!

Which I should remark shows my classification
having a *formal*/IvoryTower view : one needs
the defined loading, really, to establish the
entity; devoid of load, it's ... *a*-defined (the "a"
vs "un" as in "amoral"/"immoral", so ... vs. "undefined").

Quote
And yet we could reasonably place these both kinds
under the one heading of "hitches". Am I Right?
Some might, but I like my thoughts of the circle
w/"X" in it indicating the tangle, and however
many ends emerging, to be given a loading profile
per class.  And my hitch & binder classes have the
necessary object, and different loading profiles.
Quote
But I just want to know, like I asked before,
if I could safely call the 'initial structures' of, say,
a series of stitches when suturing a laceration,
as "hitches" (without blatantly offending someone, maybe😅)

You could possibly call them "bends" or "bights"
and many would be none the wiser!
But would "a series of knots" work?
"throws" is used in the multi-square knotting,
yes?)

Quote
Say we have a series of square knots (does this have a name?),
a simple series of halfknots of alternating [handedness] in succession,
formed around a host solid.
Would one call the first knot (layer) a hitch
and the rest of the securing knots (overhand knots) on top of it 'knots';
Or would one consider the whole thing as a single unit
and place it under 'hitches'? or 'binding knots' as a separate category
as Dan_Lehman would probably do?
Per my loading-profile basis,
the first throw is a binder, were that all :
the "overhand" crossing and unloaded tails.
Completing a squaREef knot as a next step
opens our can of worms : at this point (ends
unloaded), I'd call it a binder,
but sans object (removed, say) AND LOADED
as a round sling, it's an end-2-end knot (a knot
with 2 pieces (1-2 & A-B) with end-1 loaded
vs. end-A, the others slack.
And further with the "throws" ... , egadz, one
does face definitional chaos.  (Put overhand
stoppers
in the tails ultimately, and THOSE
I'm happy to see as separate, "back-up" knots.
But one can construct problematic cases with
these or their like, too.)

What, really, hinges/matters on this definition?


--dl*
====

ps : Re "bight", it's recently occurred to me that
it might be pushed to take primarily, openly,
the U-shaped-construct sense,
and we'll hope for a better term for the sense
of "without using cordage ends"; what of this
might remain in some knot names, eh, just
shrug.  (And escaping all English terms --i.e.,
having a mixture of language sources-- for
some terms would be good.
("TIB"=>"SULE"  >>> " sans utiliser les extre'mite's ", say ? )
)
Title: Re: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?
Post by: KC on June 11, 2020, 01:49:30 AM
i  think  of a Hitch USAGE as a node deformity in otherwise smooth linear force rope run as termination of force line thru rope.
>>to decreasing force thru rope arcs, from linear force to radial conversion at restriction against.
>>primary arc /conversion point is on opposite/opposing side of host mount than imposing load of equal force.
.
Binding is not end to end like linear, but seized ends of change only
>>radial force is constrained by radial force
>>no conversion, no loss/no decreasing force thru arcs(only ends)
thus same rope force all around as Equal /Opposite reflection back w/o conversion loss.
Equal 'radial glow' of force from host, met evenly by rope restriction against.
No external force, self contained arc system
.
As we go from radial restriction to linear pass to radial restriction etc. in series to me is chain  system
>>even as list of Half Hitches or Marls etc. to some termination point.
Stitch line seems would have 'bookends' /anchors of Binding knots as self contained force, not from external pull in USAGE if tensioned
Granny side feeds to Bind direction lend to this some,
>>and is  more self equalizing>> but can tear at skin in doing so
.
To this model Capstan Equation (http://www.jrre.org/att_frict.pdf) NEEDS linear input, thus does not exist in Binding
>>Equal force thru linear pass portion, converting to compounding force reduction thru arcs give the effect.
.
i  define arc as 180, mid apex between 2x90s; mid/apex lines up parallel (at  least) with linear input (SPart)
1arc  : Turn     
2arcs: Full Turn (generally not seen)
3arcs: Round Turn(RT)
5arcs: Dbl. Round Turn (Dbl.RT)
7arcs: Coil
A simple Turn is just a reverse in direction @ friction cost
Full Turn throws in 2nd arc for some grip from line of force between each arc apex into/thru host mount, but not as usable in termination/as goes on to next distant point.
RT adds another arc, firmer grip, force line between arc apexes more 2 dimensional grip; can take some side force, and capstan equation frictions starting to show much harder etc.
Binding is different..