International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Knotting Concepts & Explorations => Topic started by: enhaut on April 15, 2020, 06:48:49 PM
-
I have not tied nor seen this structure before, maybe our habitual diggers can find it here or elsewhere.
I present it anyway because of these qualities.
It is TIB and has 3 rope diameters inside the nipping loop.
The working-end travel through the nip making a helical pattern and a pretzel finish.
The action of the nipping loop helps the cementing of the helix (2 rope diameter) and press down on the pretzel part (third rope diameter) to secure the loop.
The jamming profile seems good too.
TIB-Loop helical-pretzel finish side A
TIB-Loop helical-pretzel finish side B
TIB-Loop helical-pretzel loose form recto
TIB-Loop helical-pretzel loose form verso
-
It's an extension to the myrtle eye knot.
(I'll take your word on the TIB aspect, but it
looks to be a tricky tying.
Thanks,
--dl*
====
-
@Dan_Lehman
Apart from the myrtle eye knot observation, your comment bares nothing.
You did not tie the knot so spare us the "looks tricky tying.?
Next time please taste the dish before commenting.
-thanks-
jr.
-
Hello Enhaut
Actually, i have tasted your fresh baked creation several times and i found that knotting flavour is there, which indicates that the recipe is good, plus it has been adequately implemented. :)
I believe you would had made a reference in your initial post, if you had played around a bit more with your nub.
Your knot is topologically equivalent to 1053 alpine butterfly (yes, the midline), as well as to some alternate intervening alpine `tresse` knots. This equivalence was tracked down by Xarax, who has messed up with the alpine before, and has come up with his own end of line, alpine `tresse` dressing state.
It would be an educative knotting exercise/experience, starting from your knot, and arriving at alpine butterfly with all the mid stops. I may not have Alan Lee's hands, but i have managed to get it done.
You will also encounter another dressing for the alpine, by pulling the returning eye leg of your knot, the Mobius `tresse`, for which i can't locate a link right now.
Note that your knot, inherits all the good properties as a descendant of the alpine, like stability, security ,EEL but also its vulnerability to jamming. It needs testing to confirm that your geometrical profile, is the less jamming profile.
It might be tricky to capture all the frames of transformation sequence, but let me know if you would like to have some images of the in-between complete knots, for your reference (Xarax/Mobius).
Perhaps, Alan Lee is willing to make a transformation video about this case? It would be surely quite interesting!!
Knotting sequence transition = Enhaut's/tresse ~ Mobius/tresse ~ Xarax/tresse~ 1053 Alpine butterfly and vice versa.
Nice work!!!
-
@ tsik_lestat
Thanks for providing such good feedback, it seems that you have fiddled with this nub more than I did.
I was playing and deforming the nub of a loop (an Alan Lee's creation) when I came across a promising form, I stopped my explorations when I find out how to make the whole structure TIB.
Of course I would love to have a look at all those intermediate state you are mentioning. Photos and links are welcome.
Finding this surprising (for me) #1053 equivalence and parenthood is a "tour de force" in itself.
Contrary to the form presented here the #1053 does not offer, form one side or the other, a simple helix-nipping acting first responder.
Looks can be deceiving it seems, I need to discern why in this instance. Stepping back must be the key. For now I am guessing that this simple missing nipping loop is located in the centre of #1053. I am providing an image from the book to illustrate the suppose location.
Regarding the jamming effect; I think that if we omit the EEL and stick with loading the form as presented we have good chances for a comfortable jamming profile.
Image from Ashley's Book, the #1053
-
That's my depiction of the intermediate , end of line, alpine dressing states. Note that i have coordinated with your instance, which means that the tail end is at your right hand side when you see the front_side, and at your left hand side when you see the back_side of the images.
1. Now, starting from your knot, just pull the returning eye leg. Becareful, do not pass it through the eye, you might end up with a different result. Make the two ends parallel to one other, and the eye leg continuation cords crossed, as shown in first image and you are done with Mobius/tresse.
2. Alternate the crossing of the eye leg continuation cords and you have the Xarax tresse.
3. This is the most tricky part as you have to transform the previous knot(s), in a state where the eye legs become the two ends now, while the two ends become the eye legs. To achieve this, you must loosen the nub quite enough to make it pliable, and pull the two ends in opposite directions in order to contort the nub, exposing after some dressing, the notorious alpine butterfly.
It seems to me that midline alpine's two dressing states, where the lines inside the nub are crossed or almost parallel, extend to the end of line structures.
Regarding the jamming effect; I think that if we omit the EEL and stick with loading the form as presented we have good chances for a comfortable jamming profile.
I kind of concur to that statement, because in my view you have transfered the complexity (overhand) to the collar structure level, keeping the nipping component in the simplest form.
Well, when it comes to end termination loopknots, one would have to weigh in between your geometrical less jamming profile and esthetic alpine's pseudo symmetry.
-
Your knot is topologically equivalent to 1053 alpine butterfly (yes, the midline), ...
In knot-"topological" sense, every TIB knot is equivalent
(to the non-knot). Here, in a more practical-immediate
sense, it's not so equivalent as just re-dressing the "nub"
but comes with the substitution of which part forms the eye
--and, yes, neat to see that pulling out that intermediate loop
vice the given eye yields the butterfly!
As for the latter's jamming --and forms-- note that although
typically the eye legs are shown as here *abutting*,
they can be crossed (as e.g. recommended by Wright &
Magowan's presentation way back). Then, beyond that,
one side's SPart turn can be given a half-twist to cast
it in Fig.8 form, yielding same-rotation of SParts (like
for zeppelin, Ashley's), and a bit of resistance to jamming.
--dl*
====
-
tsik_lestat:
The so-called "Mobius tresse" is simply one of the corresponding eye knots of #1053 Butterfly.
All of the corresponding eye knots to #1053 have been tied before.
I had also shown the corresponding eye knots in my Zeppelin bend paper.
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (download at #5 in the table - refer to page 15).
The name 'Mobius tresse' is therefore not appropriate in my view.
I would also point out that this particular corresponding form (as you have presented) of #1053 is TIB! (that might arouse Xarax's interest)!
Other corresponding forms of #1053 are not TIB (refer to my Zeppelin bend paper).
per Dan Lehman:
typically the eye legs are shown as here *abutting*,
they can be crossed (as e.g. recommended by Wright &
Magowan's presentation way back). Then, beyond that,
one side's SPart turn can be given a half-twist to cast
it in Fig.8 form, yielding same-rotation of SParts (like
for zeppelin, Ashley's), and a bit of resistance to jamming.
Unfortunately, any heavy eye loading of #1053 ultimately leads to jamming - even if your stated counter-measures are taken.
I've tried various twists to boost resistance to jamming - but all lead down the same path in the end (with heavy sustained loading) - jamming.
Note: This is in EN892 certified climbing ropes.
However, in through loading from SPart-to-SPart - #1053 is jam resistant.
-
Unfortunately, any heavy eye loading of #1053 ultimately leads to jamming
--even if your stated counter-measures are taken.
Hmmm, the best of those I'd think would be the
turning the one side into a Fig.8 for like rotation,
and loading the end collared by the OH (so, the
collapsible collar is this Fig.8 w/a bit more material).
(with heavy sustained loading)
Note: This is in EN892 certified climbing ropes.
How much (and how likely is that force in-use?).
However, in through loading from SPart-to-SPart - #1053 is jam resistant.
Which leaves 3-way loading,
as in the case of the "Y-hang" anchoring.
(which with the asymmetric and variously dressable
knot points to four or more cases <sigh>).
One can produce a *twin-eye* version of both
Ashley's #1452 & 1408, which are amply bulky
as one might suspect (from "twin-eye"), but
which don't jam and probably boost strength,
= are kinder to the rope. (but weakening to the
'biner for using the two diameters inside it)
--dl*
====
-
In knot-"topological" sense, every TIB knot is equivalent
(to the non-knot).
That's all very well but if we omit the tucking of their eye bights in these TIB knots, their nubs can be transformed in different geometrical forms. Well, in a "geometrical sense", beyond some parent inherited properties, i have the impression that they respond in a different manner, when subjected to various loading events. Observe the transformation of butterflie's overhand nipping component, to a simple loop, in enhaut's OP structure, for which i estimate that it will shift jamming thresholds to higher loading zones.
The so-called "Mobius tresse" is simply one of the corresponding eye knots of #1053 Butterfly.
All of the corresponding eye knots to #1053 have been tied before.
I had also shown the corresponding eye knots in my Zeppelin bend paper.
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (download at #5 in the table - refer to page 15).
The name 'Mobius tresse' is therefore not appropriate in my view.
I would also point out that this particular corresponding form (as you have presented) of #1053 is TIB! (that might arouse Xarax's interest)!
Other corresponding forms of #1053 are not TIB (refer to my Zeppelin bend paper).
I had almost forgotten those non-TIB, end of line, loading profiles of the alpine butterfly (second and third illustration on page 15), depicted in another remarkable paper of yours, titled Knot bio zeppelin bend! Thanks for pointing them out, although they don't fit in this equation due to their non-tibness.
Note, that i was only referring to your fourth depiction on page 15 and its two variant dressing states, as well as to their relation with your first depiction of 1053 midline butterfly on the same page.
To the best of my knowledge, it was Mobius who firstly introduced this Alpine's knotting scheme, derived directly from the midline form, thus, from your first illustration on page 15. Xarax had weighed in with his comments and his own tresse, but for some reason his posts are misssing. Note that Luca ,had also shown the structure, highlighting its relation to bull hitch.
Link https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5315.msg35235#msg35235 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5315.msg35235#msg35235)
However, i don't stand strongly by this creation's origin, because i understand your rigorousness and your impulsion for absolute correctness/accuracy in such matters.
What matters most in my opinion, is that with a soft rope and some obvious maneuvers, one can alternate between various geometrical profiles, midline or end of line, and analyze the resultant, in-between structures, starting from, or ending to Enhaut's paradigm.
-
per tsik_lestat:
Thanks for pointing them out, although they don't fit in this equation due to their non-tibness.
? Actually, one of the corresponding eye knots is TIB (refer attached extract from my Zeppelin bend paper)
To the best of my knowledge, it was Mobius who firstly introduced this Alpine's knotting scheme, derived directly from the midline form, thus, your first illustration on page 15. Xarax had weighed in with his comments and his own tresse, but for some reason his posts are misssing. Note that Luca ,had also shown the structure, highlighting its relation to bull hitch.
Any link to Mobius is dubious at best... It has been known for some time that bends have corresponding eye knots.
We also know that Brion Toss had published what he described as the "Strait bend" in his book "The Complete Riggers Apprentice" (1998). The 'Strait bend' is non other than the #1053 derived Butterfly bend.
And unknown to Brion Toss; Phil Smith had already published the 'Butterfly bend" in his books "Knots for Mountaineering" in 1953 (at illustration #28). Furthermore, his infamous "Riggers bend" was a direct derivation of the Butterfly bend (at illustration #29).
And we also have Harry Asher who described the correspondence between bends and eye knots in his book "The Alternative Knot Book" - published in 1989 (from page 81). At page 82, he also mentions the Butterfly bend...
We also know that Ashley published the Butterfly eye knot in TIB form at illustration #1053 - published 1944. But, the existence of this knot was already known to Linesman - where it appears in an earlier publication from AA Burger (1914) - where it is identified as a 'Linemans rider'.
The point of all this is that time and again, people rediscover knots.
Originality is very hard to pinpoint.
But...it is true that Xarax was a key player in the hunt for TIB knots - particularly TIB Bowlines.
EDIT NOTE:
Xarax has contacted me to clarify the so-called 'Mobius loop'.
It is nevertheless a corresponding eye knot from #1053 derived butterfly bend.
There are several corresponding eye knots...6 if you take into account chirality.
What Xarax is pointing out is the uniqueness of the dressing state - which is very compacted - and the loading direction.
The original eye legs of #1053 Butterfly are now morphed into SParts.
Xarax believes that Mobius was the first to propose the concept of EEL (either end loadable).
And so in this particular corresponding Butterfly eye knot - it can be loaded on either SPart - without disrupting its stability or security.
As for resistance to jamming - I have no idea...
I would prefer to describe it as a 'mobius dressing' - rather than a mobius loop.
So...it is [a] corresponding eye knot from #1053 derived Butterfly bend - that has a mobius dressing state.
-
@tsik_lestat
Hi,
You took the time to provide me with excellent photos plus a step-by-step recipes. So I had to put it to test and I succeed in achieving the 3 steps!
A very humbling experience who gave me an insight of your level of mastery in knot tying.
I spend almost an hour on the first step, another one to comprehend the " alternate the crossing of the eye" part.
I put it to rest, and the following afternoon I was ready for the tricky part.
The " pull the two ends in opposite directions " part was at first hard to grasp. It lacked the spatial direction component vis-?-vis the nub.
I found the right way to go and all went well, at the end of this process the #1053 appeared true to form.
I have never been that happy tying an alpine butterfly.
So thank you, I have learned a lot from this treasure hunt.
In the future I will put more "space-time" and care in the handling of any structure, I came across.
jr.
ps @agent_smith
Do you find some originality in the knot proposed in this post?
-
per enhaut:
ps @agent_smith
Do you find some originality in the knot proposed in this post?
I have not seen this particular variation of a Myrtle Bowline before.
Originality is difficult to prove. There have been several notable embarrassments in history (eg Butterfly eye knot, Riggers bend to name just 2).
If Xarax doesn't make a claim, and Dan Lehman doesn't make a claim that might improve your odds!
At the time I wrote my Bowlines paper - it wasn't brought to my attention.
If a few other key players remain silent - that might be a promising indicator :)
It can be a little fiddly to dress and cinch tight... but, once accomplished it does appear to be secure and stable.
Also appears to be resistant to circumferential loading (hoop stress).
It also has 3 rope diameters inside the nipping loop.
The remarkable characteristic of this structure is that there are no sharp turns!
There aren't many good examples of this feature - the 'Lee Zep Bowline' being a good example.
Everywhere you look - the rope turns around at least 2 rope diameters.
Having 3 rope diameters inside the nipping loop and the advantage of no sharp turns (ie around a single rope diameter) all add up to a very nice creation!
Someone should put this to a jam test - maximally load it and see if it remains jam resistant.
I'm willing to bet that it remains jam resistant right up to its MBS yield point (in human rated cordage...eg EN564, EN1891, EN892).
-
@ agent_smith
Thanks for the feedback.
About the dressing;
Having put to test the method brought by tsik_lestat I had to dress it over and over and found out that the key point is to emphasize the x pattern form with the nipping loop and the last segment of the WE passing through same nipping loop.