International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Knotting Concepts & Explorations => Topic started by: Kost_Greg on June 02, 2020, 02:45:36 PM

Title: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 02, 2020, 02:45:36 PM
I wasn't able to locate an Abok number for this structure, though it looks simple in its construction.

Besides a sharp turn at its right link, the two links are neatly interweaved, there are no overhands, plus it appears that it can handle multidirectional loading ( bi-axial, or tri-axial), with no observable jamming effects.

Maybe it resides somewhere in the forum archives?

It appears to me that Siriuso's Mocha crossing knot based, end of line, eyeknot, finds the way to Tibness, with an extra tuck, although here is depicted and tied in the middle of the rope.

Link:  https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6320.0 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6320.0)

I believe, i owe a TIB method of tying ...............
Title: Re: Yet, another midline loopknot
Post by: siriuso on June 02, 2020, 08:08:07 PM
Hi tsik_lestat

I tied it in this way.

yChan
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 03, 2020, 04:12:55 PM
Very nice Ychan, thanks a lot for your offering!

That's what i call a quick neat and tidy, TIB tying method! Though, i would draw attention at the last tucking, illustrated in your third image, as you have to be careful in order to achieve the desirable final dressing state, but your proper hand placement, subserves tying errors circumvention.

Although your images speak on their own, i believe i have to appose my own TIB method of tying, in a descriptive and illustrative way.

1. Form a crossing knot with a slightly twisted collar, as shown in first photo. The bight component of the crossing knot, will be the final eye, so it might be good in this phase, to adjust its size.

2. Form an S loop on the left link, that is, the one which is a direct continuation of crossing knot's bight component, and place it over the twisted crossing knot collar, overlaping it, as shown in second photo.

3. Pass the bight through this configuration, in the following order ~ over, under, under, over ~, as shown in third photo.

4. Dress and cinch the knot.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 03, 2020, 11:19:26 PM
These type of knot structures are interesting.
There is a simple elegance to the original offering from tsik_lestat in his other thread topic.
I think the toggle mechanism is interesting and opens new lines of experimentation and discovery.

Its hard to beat the original #1053 Butterfly for simplicity and effectiveness.
But, if simplicity can be retained (to an extent) - there is merit.
There is room in my Butterfly paper to include a toggled 'TLE' knot :)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 04, 2020, 05:15:25 PM
Its hard to beat the original #1053 Butterfly for simplicity and effectiveness.
But, if simplicity can be retained (to an extent) - there is merit.

That's true, it's even hard to beat EHL, even though they share the same left link (with EHL 2 midline, not the one you are illustrating).

Generally, in my view, it might be hard to devise a midline eye knot, under the strict frame of characteristics that you had  correctly advanced for the midline concept. It rules out many prospective TIB knot structures.

Link :https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6382.msg42997#msg42997 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6382.msg42997#msg42997)

I think the toggle mechanism is interesting and opens new lines of experimentation and discovery

These "toggled tri-axially loadable midline eye knots" (love the term :)), might be one of the new lines of exploration as you correctly point out, adding stability, security and jam resistance in the equation.

Speaking of toggle mechanisms, here is Xarax's variation, which somehow, smooths out right link's sharpness of the previous knot, by transposing its two lines in the core nub, as shown in the next two images.

To be continued with a TIB tying method.................
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: KC on June 04, 2020, 10:44:36 PM
With like B'fly as center node-deformity
i  look at SPart to SPart as 1 axis
>>of 2different line directions on that single axis.
.
Tri-axially loaded in vertical too?
Easier to see in horizontal with dip as tri-axial I think.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: alpineer on June 05, 2020, 05:52:09 AM
With like B'fly as center node-deformity
i  look at SPart to SPart as 1 axis
>>of 2different line directions on that single axis.
.
Tri-axially loaded in vertical too?
Easier to see in horizontal with dip as tri-axial I think.
"radial" rather than "axial" is the more accurate term I think.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 05, 2020, 03:40:38 PM
KC, i believe that with the term "tri-axial", we are refering to a state where load is applied to all three directions, that is, to all three endings of the midline knot (two ends/links and eye).

We might also refer to the feasibility of loading midline's eye, without observable jamming effects or radical geometry changes.

However, as Alpineer suggests, the term "radial", sounds more accurate, because if we load the eye of a midline eyeknot, its two ends can hardly remain collinear to one other, they will rather form an angle, therefore, the sense of perpendicularity to the horizontal axis of loading, ceases to exist.

Xarax had proposed an 120 degree versatile eyeknot, where its three endings are equally loaded, and this occurs if and only if they are forming an 120 degrees angle, one with the other.

Right after this equilibrium state, where the knot takes its final geometrical balanced state, there would be no drastic changes to its geometry, if the knot was to be reloaded again in a midline, or end of line configuration.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 12, 2020, 10:09:20 PM
However, as Alpineer suggests, the term "radial", sounds more accurate,
because if we load the eye of a midline eyeknot, its two ends can hardly remain collinear
to one other, they will rather form an angle, therefore, the sense of perpendicularity
to the horizontal axis of loading, ceases to exist.
"BI-axial" is the unwanted term, but as you note,
"tri-axial" is what one must get if all ends are loaded
(though one might quibble about insisting on the
*perfectly straight* end-2-end loading even where
there's a mere slight deflection).
Here, "radial" IMO is unhelpfully vague on number
of loading directions.  (to which net knots pose a
challenge on seeing any particular one, regarding
that precision implied above --they shift)


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: KC on June 13, 2020, 10:42:48 AM
Sorry, i really knew what you meant,
but am trying to smooth the lingo we use to proper geometry terms(self included);
that cross into and re-verify in other things, and more tangibly.
Not to be word picky, but to focus on force flow and correct imagery of what we are dealing with.
>>to see most clearly what is going on, so consistently, even extending to other things all around as nothing unique.
So, prefer to see a full 'axle', not just a half axle(of 1 side) for axises(sorry, tree folk tend not to use formal plural axes in writing..)
>>so axle, implies balance side to side to me; from other lessons all around this.
.
Most all my references are to force loaded, not tying mode prescriptions.
On a force line/column , i look for 1 linear direction from a source point
>>like gravity loaded weight ball that could/has capacity to fall to ground (like a positive charge)
For axis, i look for the Equal & Opposite resistance against delivered squarely on that same line, but opposing direction to constitute axis
>>an opposing column against, a complete force set that may stop/control movement
>>whereby force line is 1 sided and must move
2 directions of lines , but opposing on single column/line. 
>>But this single axis AND dimension, are not (as) side force stable tho..
.
Tri-axial to me is more like tripod support or 3 x 120degree increments  of rope support holding lower weight ball very well to position
>>as can now take some side force in the now non-Single  dimension support>>very critical change to note.
Whereby , B'fly loaded straight thru Starts, with eye pull across is against the main force axis of SParts.
But, a rose is a rose by any other name all the same;
>>except when try to take our 'lingo' and match to all else/other fields and lose connection/continuity and understanding
>>AND perhaps be more inviting, as more consistent to those other disciplines as well to join in this party/study.
As so like, i see 2 dim support/more side force stable constitution in 3 arcs on host as opposed to 1/mono or 2/linear arc 1 dimensional support lendings of not so stable against sideForce.
.
We tend to think in simpler straight line models of non-sideForce, non-radial forces
But the big joke on us is that in linear force persisting in 1 direction,
>>and randomly choosing another of the other 359 degree directions as choice against initial loading direction
>>only gives 1 in 359 chance of no sideForce/radial implications! (.0027 chance /pretty poor odds!)
>>doubles to 1 in 180 .005555.. chance if moving away from load/ruling out towards load as not support(half of 1%'r rule)
So, say again, that purely line defines more as a unique non-side force/non-radial
>>more so than sideForce/radials define as nonLinear , for they just exclude the single, unique line from all else
>>as linear support that we imagine/see most easily is much less than a 1%'r, as so unique vs. all others!
So, always look for the sideForce, as the magician's other hand that can fool
>>if is unique instance of inline, still ref w/Zer0 placeholder, as circumstance is so unique
>>not to make Ancient's mistake of empty/null non-numbers as Zer0
>>no telling what else they would have come up with if found Zer0 2 millenniums earlier!!
.
To my models, even if not PHYSICALLY/viewable as pure inline against load as physical axis
>>in passive/responding control against active loading imposed
>>the cosine lends a VIRTUAL/invisible force line against load to complete axis of 'competition' squarely against each other load/support.
As the load requires to not further displace against any other space; other than present/existing position
.
Once again, some of this perhaps small quibble chatter/matter of alignment to each other more easily so pivotally close to home
>>can make own 'deals'/lingo on our island; but not so much to big sea of all else around to expand understanding
>>and be more inviting as common language to chance passer bys to draw them in/stay longer as inherently more relevance.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 14, 2020, 02:07:15 PM
I am quite interested in these toggled tri-axially loadable eye knots that are TIB.
I have found a 'simple' tying method (simple enough for me...) - and I have also explored some corresponding 'bends'.

The toggle mechanism is (as far as I am aware) a new line of development in TIB tri-axially loadable eye knots...(notwithstanding the toggle mechanism in the 'Anglers loop' which is not tri-axially loadable.

Definitely will make an appearance in my paper on the Butterfly eye knot.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: siriuso on June 14, 2020, 09:13:11 PM
Mark,

I see that the corresponding bend is Bad Brother Bend.

yChan
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 15, 2020, 12:30:25 AM
I have found a 'simple' tying method (simple enough for me...) - and I have also explored some corresponding 'bends'.

Ychan's insight about your depicted corresponding bend's origin, is spot on.The appertaining eyeknot(s), is/are also quite interesting.

Link 1 : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6434.msg43694#msg43694 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6434.msg43694#msg43694)

Link 2 : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg31980#msg31980

Is there a chance, for your TIB tying method, to find its way to publicity, along with your other explored respective bends? Thanks!
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 15, 2020, 03:40:23 AM
Quote
Mark,

I see that the corresponding bend is Bad Brother Bend.

yChan

?

Not sure why you felt it necessary to direct that piece of information to me personally?
I merely added it to my images because I intend to add it to my paper on the Zeppelin bend as an example of a toggled bend (it certainly was not a claim of originality) and because it was a derivative of the TIB TLE knot from tsik_lestat (note the use of the word 'derivative' and not 'corresponding').

In any case, it isn't the 'corresponding bend' - for that to be a true statement, the tails would have to exit on the same side (not opposite sides).
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: siriuso on June 15, 2020, 11:19:18 AM
Hi Mark,

Sorry for your concern. I did not know you are presenting a draft or something else. Though it is clear that it is not a corresponding knot to the loop knot, I think it is always best to have their names captioned or attached.

yChan
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 15, 2020, 12:42:47 PM
Quote
Sorry for your concern
?
There is zero concern.
Think of it as more like a curiosity as to your motivations.

Quote
I did not know you are presenting a draft or something else
?
I wasn't.
Its a free world that we live in yChan.
I can post whatever I please, and whenever I please - provided it doesn't break forum rules.
The derived bend that drew your attention was simply thrown in by me as an after thought.
It came with no attached dialog and no accompanying information.
Any meaning that you attach to it is solely your own imagination.

And thats fine too - its a free world - you can imagine whatever pleases you.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 15, 2020, 02:13:46 PM
@Agent_smith

I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. I made a mistake, (apparently Ychan did it too), confusing the term "corresponding", with the term "derivative".

Moreover, the lack of a bend identifier, impeled me to hasten knot regognition, without seeing that indeed this toggled symmetrical 'bad brother' bend, can be derived from a toggled asymmetrical, inline, TIB, EHL, eyeknot, as illustrated in your image.

A mystery wafting this bend structure, is that many knotters have tied it, with their own hybrid methods, independently, (happened to me too), without knowing its existence, therefore after this fiddling, its pattern becomes in a sense, immediately/easily recognisable.

May i propose, Xarax's Hugo bend A, as a compact symmetrical, toggled, Zeppelin-like, bend/eyeknot structure as well.

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg31980#msg31980 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg31980#msg31980)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 16, 2020, 12:40:58 AM
Yes - the Hugo bend is another example of a knot that employs a toggle mechanism.
The 2 types of toggle mechanisms that seem to appear are:
1. Brace
2. Axle

And some knots employ a toggle mechanism as a critical support element; and when that toggle is removed it triggers total collapse.

In the case of the Anglers loop - removal of the toggle does not trigger total collapse.
The toggle therefore was not a critical support element.
The Anglers loop loses structural integrity when the toggle is removed but, it does not trigger total collapse (to the unknot).

The Hugo bend employs a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - when removed, it triggers total collapse.
The toggle acts as a brace. Its interesting because it is based on the integration of 2 Crossing hitches (so is the 'Carrick bend' - however the Crossing hitches are inter-linked and there is no 'toggle').

In the Zeppelin bend, the toggle is employed as an 'axle', and it is a critical support element.
When the toggle is removed, the Zeppelin bend collapses.

The so called 'EHL' employs a toggle mechanism as a brace. It is a critical support element (removal of the toggle triggers total collapse).
I think I am a fanboy of the 'EHL' - but wish it had a more fitting name!

Anyhow, this is all very interesting.
This whole idea of a toggle mechanism is opening up new lines of thought and how some knots are jam proof, or jam resistant.
The Zeppelin bend is jam proof (no jamming - even up to its MBS yield point).

I'd like to see some serious testing of the so called 'EHL' - to investigate if it is jam proof or only jam resistant.
The EHL needs testing along different axes...ie bi-axially as a through load from SPart-to-SPart but also eye loading.

It would be interesting to test a hypothesis that knots that employ a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - are jam proof?
I know that if the toggle functions as an axle (per Zeppelin bend) it = jam proof.
But what if the toggle functions as a brace - does that also = jam proof (or not)?
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: KC on June 16, 2020, 10:03:29 AM
Yes - the Hugo bend is another example of a knot that employs a toggle mechanism.
The 2 types of toggle mechanisms that seem to appear are:
1. Brace   2. Axle
And some knots employ a toggle mechanism as a critical support element; and when that toggle is removed it triggers total collapse.
.
.
.
It would be interesting to test a hypothesis that knots that employ a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - are jam proof?
I know that if the toggle functions as an axle (per Zeppelin bend) it = jam proof.
But what if the toggle functions as a brace - does that also = jam proof (or not)?


But is not same axle/pin/toggle/bitt in Rigger's high tension jam?
>>just with more direct, interlaced focus of the trapping?
>>rather than the side by side 'hooks' of  Zepp.
.
i think of Rigger's harder locked/coupled box cars on same track as direct/inline unconverted force
>>Zepp more of side by side tracks, couplers bound together sideways/after force conversion as less direct.
Both would be continuous torque direction if BE's fused together as one
>>B'fly has direct , interlaced , 'coupling' of 'hooks' of Rigger's, but side relief/open side not in Rigger's
AND if BE's/eye fused as one,
>>present more of an anti-jam counter-torque of off host crossings/ Backhand Turn as exemplified in basics of  Muenter/Cow etc.
.
Those are direct pressures on axle/pin/toggle (toggle so appropriate as is in circuits: on or off /1 or 0)
Then there is more of a 'chained'  series of same dependency, only buffered.
>>more of a main toggle/axle/pin who's position is more simply stabilized w/less force by next slip pin/axle/toggle
>>besides slipped daisy chain, perhaps most classically (now) shown simply as:
(http://mytreelessons.com/images/tumble-hitch-strong-stable-quick-release-wiki.png)
as better rep than Highwayman's to same utility/task.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 16, 2020, 10:38:58 PM
As usual, this is now morphing into an entirely different and vastly more complex subject area.

I am not a moderator and I dont speak for the IGKT but, it does seem that a new thread topic should be started if discussion is to continue to probe into the complexities of knots that employ a toggle mechanism which is a critical support element and also is an effective axle or brace to confer jam resistance.
(#1425A does not have an effective toggle axle - obviously - since it jams).

...

Somewhat more in line with the original knot that was presented by tsik_lestat, i would sincerely like to see some load testing on this to probe its level of jam resistance along different axes.
Maybe Alan Lee is still active as usual (and safe and healthy without the damn Corona virus)?
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on July 09, 2020, 05:30:30 PM
Here is, another midline eyeknot, which appears that it can be loaded from Spart to Spart (through loaded). Note, in third image, how the two links embrace one other, subserving this bi-axial loading without jamming incidents, yielding to a stable and secure construction.

The eye loading profile appears to be immune to jamming too.

I have a TIB tying method, which will follow later, but any suggestions are welcome.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on April 11, 2021, 04:55:54 PM
This is a very simple inline eyeknot. It is constructed by forming a flipped Z loop, passing then the right line in between the loop, setting the size of the bight at the same time, as the final eye (first image).

The next step is to pass the bight through the loop, over its continuation line (second image).

Loading the knot from all three directions, induces no observable distortion, or jamming.

The collar, is very easy to bend, athough it is part of an overhand based complex link.

i haven't found a reference yet for this seemingly stable design structure, but it's too soon for claims of originality.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on April 13, 2021, 12:39:11 AM
Interesting presentation at reply #21.
Thanks for your continuing efforts.
However, I am of the view that it may distort under heavy load.
I like the 'right' side of the structure - the eye leg executes a more gentle turn around 2 rope diameters.
The 'left' side is a different matter - the eye leg executes a sharp turn around only 1 rope diameter.
The 'under' - 'over' (opposing) nature of the 'collars' tends to contribute to distortion under heavy loading.

If there was a way to improve the 'left' side - that would be interesting.

I also wonder if it is possible to create the ultimate BTL (Bi-axially Through Loadable) mid-line eye knot that is also TIB?
Imagine a structure that is based on a Zeppelin-like core?
Challenge accepted?
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on April 13, 2021, 12:33:23 PM
Thank you agent_smith

Quote
However, I am of the view that it may distort under heavy load.

I guess you are refering to BTL profile, but you have to dress it smartly, by gradually cinching all three endings, in order to cease nub distortion and hasten the balance state. I believe the TL profile("tugboat loadings", SPart 1 = > eye, SPart 2 = > eye), barely leave a `tortured` nub.

I think of the harness 1050, as a super basic inline structure, and am trying to build on its core to produce more stable results. However, whatever transformation i subjected  to the previously presented inline configuration, i was not able to pick up any correlation with some known knot (some inline knots are harness derivatives), but with a Xarax Samisen bowline.

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4883.0 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4883.0)

I'm afraid, it is not possible to completely diminish the nub distortion of an inline TIB knot structure, because of both links asymmetry.

Xarax had given prominence to this concept by stating that " there can be no symmetrical TIB midline loop".

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5440.msg36783#msg36783 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5440.msg36783#msg36783)

What we can do, is try to approximate this supposed " pseudo symmetry", in order to keep the distortion to a bare minimum level.

Of great importance, would also be the validity of EEL (either end loadable), CL or RL (cross loadable or ring loadable) qualities, with the feasibility of  a solid EL (eye loadable) , BTL (bi-axially through loadable) profiles that correspond to a midline knot accordingly.

Having said that, i only know so far just two knots which somehow come close to such an optimal response when loaded, the 1053 butterfly and the cask knot (EHL).

Quote
I also wonder if it is possible to create the ultimate BTL (Bi-axially Through Loadable) mid-line eye knot that is also TIB?
Imagine a structure that is based on a Zeppelin-like core?
Challenge accepted?

This is a tough challenge, but i wouldn't bet against the existence of  such a knot structure! Maybe, our minds are not prepared for it yet!! :)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: alanleeknots on April 14, 2021, 09:44:48 AM
 Recently I have had a quick test on tsik_lestat's Simple line and Xarax's Re-harnessed Harness
     loop, both of them jam, for tsik_lestat loop one side has a twist collar Angler's loop,
     and Xarax's loop has overhand knot.
     My loop here is compact and stable. On the white standing part side don't have overhand knot,
     but it acts like overhand knot and it's jam too.  謝謝 alanleeknots.   
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on April 14, 2021, 03:56:20 PM
Hi Alan, many thanks for your midline offering, as well as for the TIB tying method. It appears to be a very strong inline knot, certainly more stable than mine, and i wonder how i 've missed it (i shall explain later on).

What's going on with the inlines jamming? I thought (hoped) that my angler's component collar would survive. :)

I do have a proposition for Xarax's reharnessed harness, which overrides the overhand, maybe for an upcoming thread, where i could organize most of harness derivatives.

Now, performing some TIB transformation maneuvers, including some consecutive collar flips at your structure, i have arrived at an equivalent bowline topology i had tied in the past.

I believe, it was its midline variation, that was  presented here......

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6909.msg45707#msg45707 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6909.msg45707#msg45707)

Pretty much the same knot (midline/mirror).
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on April 18, 2021, 03:00:58 PM
My offering appears to be an improvement on the original #1053 Butterfly.
The eye legs turn around 3 rope diameters.

It is TIB.

I didn't post this as a claim of originality in new knots - because it is likely that the legendary Xarax has already tied it.

Would be good to get some load tests to confirm stability and jam resistance.

Note: Jam resistance should ideally be tested across different loading profiles:
[ ] bi-axial through loading
[ ] eye loading (both axial directions)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: alanleeknots on April 19, 2021, 05:09:12 AM
 Have a few tests on these two loops here, looking good to me, 
 will do more test then I can tell you.
 How to tie Midline Loop (B) please see this link. 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxS6_NT0lac   謝謝 alanleeknots.
 

Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on April 19, 2021, 12:03:05 PM
@agent smith

Thanks for this variation, it certainly looks original to me, i guess it remains to be seen!

Although its topology, as well as its tying method, denotes the knot of origin, i can confirm this correlation through transformation, where your inline offering, can be simplified to take the final conventional butterfly form.

You have chosen to enhance butterfly's core by adding some extra coils to one of its links, rather than retucking to add some extra collars.

I like the tidy, smart, dressing with the parallel lines within the nub. In my view, stability wouldn't be a problem, as i consider this structure as super stable, but it's left to be seen, if this nub interference, whilst it does not considerably appear to disturb butterfly's pseudo symmetry characteristics, does affect the jam resistance of the various profile loadings.

I suppose Alan would give it a go to find out.

@Alan Lee

Quote
Have a few tests on these two loops here, looking good to me,
 will do more test then I can tell you.

I should really hope you do, because Midline A's jamming profile had concerned me too.

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6841.msg45557#msg45557 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6841.msg45557#msg45557)

I have not fiddled with the Beta version yet, but hopefully i will.


Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: DerekSmith on May 03, 2021, 07:33:43 PM
An observation on terminology and an apology for the tangential (pun intended) distortion.

A bend is a single or monoaxial structure - the force line has a single axis.

If an Alpine Butterfly loop is tied such as to excuse a portion of the cord, then it is effectively a bend and therefore also a monoaxial structure.

However, the moment the loop is loaded the structure transforms into a triaxial  structure, although still in a single two dimensional plane.

Then of course, if the loop becomes ring loaded the structure immediately switches into a quadaxial state in three dimensions,

Finally, if the load becomes dynamic, the fourth dimension of time comes into play, our brains turn to mush and we declare - 'Well, it's complicated'...

Derek

PS tsik - lovely tying method, but overall, I think I prefer the Alpine loop because I can tie it in my sleep and it works.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on May 22, 2021, 02:49:00 PM
Thanks Derek, speaking of polyaxial structures, i have this configuration, which i'm not sure if it has been recorded before.

In my view, this is an inline variation of the bowline on a bight, which is super easy to tie with a bight., while it can be loaded from all four directions, or in various loading combinations.

I am trying to figure out which is the best loading profile, which, IMO, should rather involve at least primary eye loading, or rightmost SPart loading (first image) for a more stable knot response.

It requires good cinching (as all knots) to function properly. The secondary eye might be shrinked.

I wonder if there is a practical aspect at this knot.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on May 24, 2021, 09:20:05 PM
The corresponding Eskimo bowline on a bight, tied as previously, also features a decent way of tying in the middle of the rope, with a super easy "with a bight", TIB tying method as well.

The SParts are now exiting the nub in axial alignment, an ideal topology for a good BTL profile.

The structure appears that it can be loaded from all four endings, or in various loading combinations.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on May 25, 2021, 12:31:17 AM
Thanks tsik_lestat,

With regard to your presentation at reply #30...

This structure isn't 'BTL' (bi-axially through loadable).
However, it is TIB (very nice).

In a BTL loading profile, it is unstable.

Also, in the purported BTL profile, it isn't a Bowline (no nipping loop).
However, as a soft shackle (loading from eye-to-eye), it does have a nipping loop and is stable.
In my view, if this was presented as a soft shackle, it is deserving of the title of a type of 'Bowline'.

It is unfortunate that it isn't BTL (as proposed in your image notation) - if it was, this would have been quite remarkable.

EDIT NOTE:
If you shrink what you have labelled the 'secondary eye' - it then becomes a BTL eye knot.
But, in doing so, I think you lose any purported advantages - and does not compete with #1053 Butterfly.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on May 25, 2021, 01:08:56 AM
Hello tsik_lestat,

With regard to your presentation at reply #31...

This structure is 'BTL' (bi-axially through loadable) - so that's nice :)
It is also TIB (again, very nice).

Structurally, it is analogous to #1431 Sheet bend (not an 'Eskimo / anti Bowline').

In terms of eye loading, only one of eyes can be loaded in both axial directions (with respect to an SPart).
I'll refer to this particular eye as the secondary eye (which structurally functions as a 'tail').

The primary eye is not loadable in both axial directions...however it appears to stable when loadable in one axial direction only.

...

Having made these comments in good faith, this presentation is very interesting - and I think you are on to something here.
It would be good if more work can be done to improve eye loading stability (in both axial directions).

I am also of the view that it isn't deserving of the title 'Eskimo Bowline' - which in fact suggests an 'anti' type of 'Bowline'.
As stated, it is structurally similar to a #1431 Sheet bend.

Edit note:
I hope there is a way to boost eye loading stability - without sacrificing simplicity (and TIB status)!
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on May 25, 2021, 01:58:59 AM
I just noticed this post from Derek Smith:

Given the status of this thread within 'Knotting concepts and explorations' category - I thought it might be worth exploring these concepts a step further.
All given in good faith and with respectful language...

Quote
A bend is a single or monoaxial structure - the force line has a single axis.
And one could also state that a 'bend' is an end-to-end joining knot where both SParts are in axial alignment and 180 degrees opposed.

Quote
If an Alpine Butterfly loop is tied such as to excuse a portion of the cord, then it is effectively a bend and therefore also a monoaxial structure.
Although in reality, the eye of a #1053 Butterfly still remains (it exists) - when the Butterfly is subjected to a BTL loading profile (bi-axially through loaded) - the eye is isolated from load.
In order to re-classify as a 'bend' - there must (by definition) be a unification of 2 ends.
Since #1053 Butterfly does not have a unification of 2 ends, it remains an eye knot (not a 'bend').
However, there is a correspondence between a 'bend' and an eye knot.
All bends have 4 corresponding eye knots (within a chiral orientation).
Harry Asher may have been first to publish the relationship between a bend and its corresponding eye knot(s)..although he didn't explore the conceptual framework fully. For example, he didn't illustrate or provide clear examples of all the possible corresponding eye knots (of which there are 4) for any given bend. At page 81 he illustrates merely one eye knot derived from his 'Corrick bend'. It astonishes me that he didn't focus on the #1053 derived Butterfly bend and then illustrate each of the 4 possible eye knots. Had he done so, his work would have been significantly improved and, it might have led him to the discovery of the remarkable 'Mobius Butterfly'. Furthermore, it also astonishes me that he didn't illustrate each of the 4 possible eye knots derived from #1431 Sheet bend (which would also have provided opportunities to explore and discuss the 'anti-Bowlines' - which some identify as Cossack/Kalmyk loops).

Quote
However, the moment the loop is loaded the structure transforms into a triaxial  structure, although still in a single two dimensional plane.
I am of the view that this comment is factually incorrect.
I am not attempting to start an argument with Derek - rather - it is a point of clarification.
If the eye of a #1053 Butterfly is loaded, it is possible for only one (1) SPart to be subjected to load.
Eye loading direction must be defined - and it will be either in the 'S' direction or the 'Z' direction.
It is perfectly possible and indeed nominal to anchor one SPart (ie anchor one end of a rope) and then load the eye of the Butterfly. The opposite SPart (ie opposite end of the rope) can be unloaded (ie free of tension force).

It is possible to subject #1053 Butterfly to a tri-axial loading profile.
Indeed, rope access technicians routinely employ #1053 Butterfly in their anchor systems.
In such employment, the eye of the Butterfly is enlarged (lengthened) substantially - and attached to a fixed anchor point. Both SParts are also loaded (one SPart is also attached to a fixed anchor point and the other end becomes the abseil line).

Quote
Then of course, if the loop becomes ring loaded the structure immediately switches into a quadaxial state in three dimensions,
Depends on precisely what you mean by the term 'ring loading' of the eye (which you term a 'loop').

In the ordinary English dictionary meaning of the word 'ring' - this is something of a round or circular geometry.
It is possible that when you choose to use the term 'ring loading' of a an eye - you actually mean a transverse loading profile?
However, even if the descriptor 'transverse loading' of the eye was advanced - a direction would still need to be specified.
For example, the eye of a Butterfly knot could be subject to a transverse loading profile in axial alignment with the SParts.
In contrast, it is also possible to apply a transverse load to the eye in a perpendicular direction with respect to the SParts.
Indeed, I could go a step further...and apply a circumferential load to the eye (ie hoop stress).

The Mobius Butterfly (1 of the 4 corresponding eye knots of the Butterfly bend) is remarkable due to the range of loading profiles that the eye can sustain.
Vertical rescue teams and rope access technicians can subject the eye of a Mobius Butterfly to a circumferential loading profile (eg in floating anchor points).
One could advance an argument that 'ring' loading is in fact circumferential loading.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on May 28, 2021, 02:34:26 PM
Thank you agent_smith, it was a rather rushed estimation of BTL's profile stability for the structure presented at reply#30. You are very right, i should have loaded it much more to trace this vulnerability.

Nonetheless, if we had induced secondary eye loading somehow, as you correctly propose, as a soft shackle, we would have come closer to a more stable, bowline-like response.

I really can't think of a pure BTL application, besides the loading of an analogous monoaxial bend structure, or the isolation of a damaged rope section.

I do appreciate the attached photo, which demonstrates the use of a tri-axially loadable midline eyeknot, as part of an anchor system.

The second structure at reply#31, is certainly an improvement for the BTL profile stability, and indeed it's analogous with #1431 sheet bend.

Quote
In terms of eye loading, only one of eyes can be loaded in both axial directions (with respect to an SPart).
I'll refer to this particular eye as the secondary eye (which structurally functions as a 'tail').

The primary eye is not loadable in both axial directions...however it appears to stable when loadable in one axial direction only.

I am sure you mean, the axial direction, where the Spart is a direct continuation of the collar. I mostly agree, it appears that the previous vulnerability problem, now passes to the eye loading level ( with respect to the leftmost Spart  and the primary eye), which i think is resolved by loading the secondary eye simoultaneously.

The corresponding bend, also appears to feature similarities with #1492 strap bend?
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on May 30, 2021, 01:50:58 PM
The structure at reply#34, posted by agent_smith, gives me an idea of developing a figure eight based inline knot, which i haven't done so far, as part of a two eyeknot (in-line/end of line), eight-based, anchor system.

I believe it's legitimate to form an inline, eight like topology, as shown in the attached images, that can be tri-axially loaded through this anchor scheme, in conjuction with the eight based, end of line, pseudo bowline.

This stable and secure configuration, mostly focuses on the ease of untying.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 03, 2021, 01:17:05 AM

Quote
A bend is a single or monoaxial structure - the force line has a single axis.
And one could also state that a 'bend' is an end-to-end joining knot where both SParts are in axial alignment and 180 degrees opposed.

Quote
If an Alpine Butterfly loop is tied such as to excuse a portion of the cord, then it is effectively a bend and therefore also a monoaxial structure.
Although in reality, the eye of a #1053 Butterfly still remains (it exists) - when the Butterfly is subjected to a BTL loading profile (bi-axially through loaded) - the eye is isolated from load.
Irrespective of some closed "eye",
unloaded it is, and, well, it's not a loading factor;
so how are you making this, nevertheless,
BIaxial --when, in "through loading", there
is but this "through" axis loaded?

Quote
In order to re-classify as a 'bend' - there must (by definition) be a unification of 2 ends.
Since #1053 Butterfly does not have a unification of 2 ends, it remains an eye knot (not a 'bend').
Not by my definitions, beginning with some "tangle".
There, and eye knot might lack an eye --because I'm
looking only at the "loading profile" that puts (canonical)
End-1 vs. End-2 + End-A (which I don't look out beyond
their *endness* to assess connection.  --a view that in
practical conditions runs into trouble vis-a-vis actual
loading (something that can obtain even WITH and eye,
but typically to a minor degree, brought about w/friction
such that eye-leg loading is imbalanced).
--which is to say that the above is a formal way of seeing
things, to look just at a "nub" and its "ends" only insofar
as they depart the nub (and might be loaded).
 (not sure to what benefit this formality reaches, yet!).

As for "bend", since that word has rich enough historical
nautical meanings of making fast and e.g of "bending sails...",
I do not any longer follow Ashley's push to a new definition,
and will use "ends joint" and maybe just "joint" --to rid another
possible "E" initial in our terms (End / Eye / Either ...)!

Quote
However, there is a correspondence between a 'bend' and an eye knot.
All bends have 4 corresponding eye knots (within a chiral orientation).
What four do you see for butterfly knot put in my
notation of End-1 vs. End-A w/eye legs End-2 & End-B?
The traditional one is End-1 vs. End-2 + A, B unloaded.
If asymmetric, really we need to add End-A vs. End-B + 1,
2 unloaded.  (If symmetric, one gets a duplicate here.)
Now, the butterfly already departs from this trad.
notion, by having (in reference to joint 1-v-A),
End-1 vs. Ends 2 + B (poor End-A going from full
loading to zero!).  So, you then replicate this for
End-A (and this is an asymmetric knot), and ... four?
And not taking the joint's tails (2 & B) into having a
turn at eye-knotting? (which would beget a 2nd foursome).
This could/should be put out for the full exploration of
the *tangle*, perhaps; or at least the possibility noted
in some way, as some relation --it exists, after all
(not necessarily in a practical way, though).

I suppose one can see your four-counting making
better sense to be derived from a "bend joint"
--as you keep one or other of the initial SParts--;
mine (getting 2 x four) for a *tangle*, which is
available to all loading profiles.

As for eye-to-joint correspondence, there are other
possible relations, as I've shown :: where one ties
one joint SPart to a SPart that is the pair of legs of
a bight (which becomes the eye), and figures out
which bight end to fuse with the SPart's piece's
other end (the End-2).


Quote
It astonishes me that he didn't focus on ... ,
it might have led him to the discovery of ...
Guilty!  But "it might have led ..." can keep one from
eating dinner, getting to bed, going to the knot one
PLANNED to illustrate --so as to liberate a tied-up play rope--
but instead of that small forward step of documentation one
now has taken two steps backwards w/further *new* knots.
(Recently, on seeing a likeness in one knot-form/tangle to
another, which I'd found amenable to "fore<->aft'ing", an
operation on eye knots where one fuses end + tail and cuts
the eye to be their replacements,
I moaned "oh, no, not all that to do for this one, too!"
((Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"But Marvin, there's a whole new life opening up in front of you," said Zaphod.
"Oh no, not another one!," came the reply.
))

Quote
It is possible to subject #1053 Butterfly to a tri-axial loading profile.
Some math wizards who addressed this term came to
the conclusion that it is, rather BI-axial; I'm happier
with some note of *three*, and maybe thus "3-way".
Be that as it may, the abused term carries the intended
sense to the not-too-educated masses!   ;D

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 03, 2021, 06:57:56 AM
Replying to Dan's post will likely cause the original topic to drift further away...

Trying to be brief and to the point:

Quote
how are you making this, nevertheless,
BIaxial --when, in "through loading", there
is but this "through" axis loaded?
Because I think 'BTL' is making it clearer - ie, BTL = Bi-axial Though Loading
Load propagates through the knot core in a straight line (from SPart-to-SPart)

Quote
Not by my definitions
? Curious...
#1053 Butterfly does not involve a unification of 2 separate ropes (a rope join) - the knot is formed from one rope (and is TIB)
However, #1053 derived Butterfly bend does have a unification of 2 ropes (ie, an 'end-to-end' join)
This concept seems simple enough to grasp.

Quote
What four do you see for butterfly knot
See attached image...

Quote
I suppose one can see your four-counting making
better sense to be derived from a "bend joint"
This statement seems to contradict your previous statement?

Quote
Quote

    It is possible to subject #1053 Butterfly to a tri-axial loading profile.

Some math wizards who addressed this term came to
the conclusion that it is, rather BI-axial; I'm happier
with some note of *three*, and maybe thus "3-way".
Be that as it may, the abused term

Tri-axial is a natural extension of Bi-axial.
I don't see that as an 'abuse' of terms.
Rope access operators routinely subject #1053 Butterfly to a 'tri-axial' loading profile (see image below).
Similar concept with #1085 Double F8 (aka 'bunny ears') - which also is routinely tri-axially loaded.

EDIT NOTE:
Obviously, there are varying degrees of separation between each 'leg' in a 'tri-axial' loading profile.
[ ] if 60 degree 'included angle', then 150 degrees between both legs
[ ] if 120 degree 'included angle', then symmetric 120 separation between all 3 legs. This would be an interesting angle to load test.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: KC on June 03, 2021, 07:08:24 AM
We can use some binding knots(by description) to hitch(as a utility) Constrictor, Ground Line , Bag.
So, less relevance in name game of hitch/bend etc.
There is a naming convention, then also how used too.
The force patterns in Constrictor, Ground Line , Bag CHANGE if same setup used as Hitch or Round Binding utility
>>per external input linear force imposed to controlling arcs or internal radial force swell instead imposed against same controlling arcs
There is how we visually reference to tie, then how we load framework given as sometimes separate items.
Hitch, Bend etc. classically seem applied to unloaded forms, as point of communication.
In actual usage, look at it all as piping, that terminates at a node deformity (hitch) or continues thru node deformity(bend)
>>  from clean, inline form of no deforming nodes just linear connection thru.
>>Over Hand knot in single line is just deformity like kinked link in chain; weakens w/o other utility in trade; just a bad deal/trade-off!,
ALSO, a simplest, single Turn single end loaded HH termination is meant to be a 1 Dimensional pull across host ONLY,
BUT, more complex/dual loaded ends HH as a lengthwise pull continuation is more a 2Dimensional usage across host, and then along it too.
.
Naming by visual reference for communication of cold forming; but usually not hot forging into rigidity against loading by usage generally.
So we say Clove is 2 HHs as mnemonic guide, but 1st crossing serves lesser over greater force: Crossed Turn
then 2nd crossing of Bitter End does serve greater over lesser to more Nip, but not a strong hitch pressure as 1st crossing trestles the crossing over a more rigid SPart than Bitter End, so 2 factors of less than normal hitch pressure: trestle and then by neighboring more rigid ropePart together for less pressure to nip/secure Bitter End.  BUT, visually to direct, we oversimplify past correct force imagery to saying 2 HHs.
.
Both functions(terminate and couple both) found under 1 of the simplest knot form names HH( 1st knot chapter_21#1602 right angle pull) as a single terminating form.
>>and then HH(1st knot lengthwise pulls next chapter__22#1733 and strategy dominating form in single loaded leg forms) as a pre-fix to other termination or coupling like placed before Timber etc. in simplest lessons ABoK shows.
>>then Fig.8(_21#1666) Hitch style of take the long way home evolution of HH, evolves to Marl(ine)#3115 pre-fix
Just as can show HH termination from input/stop to dual loaded sides of back to back HH termination functions to same center point and have a HH termination form, same is true of fig.8 termination to Marl continuation as a double sided version.
Pull 1 leg of certain form is a Cow, both legs is a Girth.  Clove force patterns not so clearly defined(errant like HH.
Should watch force pattern that rope pattern is just a support structure to control against that force, but depends on how force ported thru.  Host geometry important for geometry/shape it lends to rope form when forged rigid/loaded.
Should always note if force pattern of 1 or both ends noted, just as with Over Hand as stopper or errant 'bent link' in chain of no other function.
Bend function to me is more complex form of simpler Hitch termination, Just as HH simpler termination or dual ends loaded continuation, and as simpler Fig.8 or more complex Marl pre-fixxing.
.
So to continue a line of force from 2 segments, can hitch/terminate each to opposing side of same host/chain
>> OR leave out the 3rd party and take each other as hosts as a Bend, but still can be viewed as pull either end and trace that domain of competing force to then test other end the same way, to divide the continuation back to 2 terminations on shared host chain/themselves.
.
As applies to BFly.
This again here to me is all a structural geometry and
0Dimension is a point, dot; w/o equal & opposite  end point  >> so can not be a complete force pair.
1Dimension is a line  ,axis; w/   equal & opposing end points >> simplest force representation.
SPart to SPart on BFly is 1 single axis of competing points, each headed to displace in opposing directions along the same axis.
.
BFly Eye can mainly be pulled either along this single axis, or load to shear across this axis for another axis in normal use
3 lines from center can be pulled, 4 if cut eye open.
Simplest dimension of axis reigns until it's until Achille's Heel of cross axis, that defines 2nd dimension's range makes compound situation, until the cross axis of 90 bearing across both dims at once, forms more complex situation of 3 dimensional forces.
.
Triaxial may be better term if all 3 points pulled 60degrees from each other AND equally loaded like inverse tripod.
>>Other wise would think would mostly see as a single MAJOR loaded axis of equally loaded points with a lesser shearing across pull if expressing some force across 90 from that main axis reign.
>>Even a Y yoke shape of 1end + eye pulling against other end would have 2 concerted to shared centerline pulls against a larger i think, maintaining single axis framework(Trucker's).
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 03, 2021, 09:57:48 PM
Quote
how are you making this, nevertheless,
BIaxial --when, in "through loading", there
is but this "through" axis loaded?
Because I think 'BTL' is making it clearer - ie, BTL = Bi-axial Though Loading
Load propagates through the knot core in a straight line (from SPart-to-SPart)
... and that's a SINGLE --not "bi"-- axis, yes!?

Quote
Quote
Not by my definitions
? Curious...
#1053 Butterfly does not involve a unification of 2 separate ropes (a rope join) - the knot is formed from one rope (and is TIB)
However, #1053 derived Butterfly bend does have a unification of 2 ropes (ie, an 'end-to-end' join)
This concept seems simple enough to grasp.
Again, in seeing knots as arising from tangles,
I put a cookie-cutter ring around the knot ("nub")
and count all parts leading out of this as "ends";
so, a "joint" is a knot of 2 pieces of material,
canonically 1-2 & A-B, where 1 is loaded opposing A
and 2/B are unloaded (and an eye knot of this tangle
includes 1 -vs- 2+A, and so on).
(And the joined parts need not be --cookie cutter blinds
lifted-- separate lines, as you know.)
.:.  It's a formality, working from *tangles*.

Quote
Quote
Some math wizards who addressed this term came to
the conclusion that it is, rather BI-axial; I'm happier
with some note of *three*, and maybe thus "3-way".
Be that as it may, the abused term

Tri-axial is a natural extension of Bi-axial.
I don't see that as an 'abuse' of terms.
The abuse is in treating the situation as being
"triaxial" as you do --they insist that this 3-way
loading springs from 2 axes, not 3.

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 04, 2021, 12:13:32 AM
I am not a moderator but...

I am of the view that further discussion about loading profiles should be directed to a new and separate topic post.
This thread has drifted too far from the content/subject of the original poster (tsik_lestat).

I see some aspects of loading profiles as conceptual (and developing) - rather like knotting terms (eg 'eye' versus 'loop') - and always open to interpretation.
For me, I find it easier to conceptualize mid line eye knot loading in terms of axial, biaxial and traxial. But, probably best for another topic thread elsewhere...
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: DDK on June 04, 2021, 06:38:12 AM
A TIB Ashley's Bend (1452) Double Loop

As shown in its "Dressed" state below, this is only one of a number of possibilities for producing axially symmetric TIB Double Loops from the Ashley's Bend.  As an example, conceptually, the working ends of the bend can be extended and made to follow ("railroad track") their respective ropes back toward their respective standing parts to various degrees prior to being "fused".  If we are producing axially symmetric TIB Double Loops, the "fusing" of the working ends will always be at the axis of symmetry.  As shown in the "Loose" state below, this point of "fusing" is at the red marker.  The Ashley's Bend can be recovered from this Double Loop by removing that section of rope in this Double Loop between the two blue markers and which passes through the middle point (red marker) located on the axis of symmetry, see the "Loose" state below.  In this example, the working ends/double loops are tucked akin to ABoK 1406. 

Alternatively, as noted by others, one can start with two bights of the same rope and tie any bend, all of which will be TIB Double Loops.  Or, one could start with two ropes each of which has a loop as its working end and tie any bend.  This is not unlike the "slipping" of a knot where one uses a loop instead of the working end for the final tuck.  Once the completely "slipped" bend has been tied, the working ends can be fused (conceptually) to finish the TIB structure.  The advantage of starting with two ropes and two loops is that the weaving of the working ends may be modified to investigate different TIB structures.  One can also use one loop and one working end to tie a bend and produce a single loop, some of which may produce asymmetric TIB structures.

As a guide for the "fusing" process, for axially symmetric bends like The Ashley's, Carrick, etc. the axis of symmetry is void of rope.  Their symmetric TIB Double Loops will have just one point of rope on this axis, that is, the point of "fusing".  For bends with central inversion symmetry like the Thief, Zeppelin, etc., their center point is void of rope.  Their symmetric Double Loops will be "fused" at this center point. 
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 04, 2021, 08:32:54 AM
Thanks DDK,
Very interesting new line of thinking.

Am now applying the concept to a TIB Zeppelin (I previously had simply tied the Zeppelin bend with bights).
When applying DDK's concept to the Zeppelin...the residual rope segment existing between the bights needs to be resolved in a simple and efficient way... (ahhh..think I've solved it!).

I wonder if Xarax is right now launching into a new line of new discoveries?

EDIT NOTE:
Hopefully Xarax is asleep in Greece and I beat him to tying and presenting this TIB Zeppelin?

See image...  :) :)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 04, 2021, 09:54:28 AM
Thank you all gentlemen for your valuable feedback and contributions as well.

Agent_smith, i am also dying to see a  TIB Zeppelin like structure, tied in the way DDK is advancing, and i am working in that field too.

I have also tied a similar structure  like the one you have attached, (after DDK's post) but is it going to jam if loaded from the bights? I'll have to give it some thought about the best loading profile.Maybe, you could provide a loose state? Thanks.

DDK, perfect quality photos.

Right now, it's 12:00 noon in greece, i doubt, if Xarax is asleep... Beware!!! :) :)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: DDK on June 04, 2021, 01:35:30 PM
@agent_smith

Nicely done.

Central Inversion Symmetry bends are my favorites.  I notice with some of these TIB Double Loops that the two loops "communicate" fairly easily as there is not much friction on the rope section that joins them.  I guess a salesman would call that a "feature".   ;)  The Thief Knot has a nice solution with seemingly less "communication".



 
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: DDK on June 04, 2021, 01:49:28 PM
@tsik_lestat

Thank You.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: agent_smith on June 04, 2021, 04:44:25 PM
Just received from Master Xarax - via special instantaneous courier from Greece:

Quote
I like the general way DDK describes his method ? because I like methods, I guess !
This reminds me of a few other instances, where we had discussed something like that in the Forum.
1. Starting from a stopper, any stopper, and doubling the line ( i.e., following it with a second line, or just turning back the tail(s), and re-tracing the nub ), we can arrive at a symmetric bend ?based?, in a way, on this stopper ? and vice versa, of course. I have noticed that this procedure might had led to the Zeppelin bend in the first place. DDK now notices that something similar can lead, from a symmetric bend, any symmetric bend, to a double loop ?based? on this bend.
2. Replying to a solution to the midline-to-midline bend problem, offered by knot4u, I had noticed that : ?Due to their high symmetry, many of the TIB single or double loops are very interesting knots, and they can be used as bases for loops and bends, as you have noticed.?

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3020.msg21724#msg21724
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3020.msg21727#msg21727

DDK now reminds us that the exact opposite is also true.

Also this link: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3020.msg21737#msg21737


...

And so it seems Xarax had been exploring these concepts at least as far back as 2012.
However, it seems he didn't figure out and present the TIB mid-line Zeppelin?
Although it is interesting, I find that it has a large footprint and isn't easy to tie (even after tying it multiple times, I still have to fiddle and think and fiddle...).
I don't think these type of knot structures will gain widespread popularity - and will likely remain in the realm of knotting enthusiasts!
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on June 04, 2021, 06:53:56 PM
A TIB Ashley's Bend (1452) Double Loop
IMO, this is better used qua "twin eyes",
the point being that if an eye is loaded in isolation,
it can collapse-contract the unloaded collar; but
with both eyes loaded (as one), that that collars
the then-effective SPart will not extend so much
and deny the other eye from doing so.
 [edit 2021-07-12]
The red text is confused.
What I mean to say is that with loading the two
eyes together then the eye pulling on the collar
of the UNloaded end/through-SPart
will not be able to pull down & tighten the collar
of this unloaded end/SPart --the security of the
other eye, whose SPart is loaded now, will inhibit
the extension of the twin eye.
[end edit]


Yes, this is a neat way to doing such multi-eye
knots from some of our familiar ends joints.
(In a somewhat similar manner, one can form
single-eye knots from #1408, ..., but getting
an asymmetric knot (one side d/double, the
other single, collar(s)).


Thanks,
--dl*
====
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 05, 2021, 10:38:37 AM
Indeed, Xarax and Dan_Lehman, had already shown through their constructive debates, that they had a firm grip on this double loop generator concept, advanced by DDK.

Relative quote by Xarax and Dan_Lehman.....

Quote
Quote from: Dan_Lehman on February 12, 2012, 05:15:14 AM

    One can, e.g., elaborate on Ashley #1408 & 1425 (and more) schemas, out of the *middle*, for interesting "twin-eye" knots --as I envision them (where the two eyes are roughly adjacent and used qua one, so to get assured behavior when loaded in either direction (as contrast w/e.g. the butterfly's asymmetry)).


That is something very interesting, which had not crossed my mind till now...We tie a symmetric bend - any symmetric bend - with a double line. Then, we connect the two lines/tails of each link, to make two bights. Then we connect one standing end of the one link to one standing end of the other link. We thus end up with a TIB double loop. ( Equivalently, we can also make the two loops in the reverse way, by connecting the two lines/standing parts of each link, and then form the TIB knot by connecting one line-tail of the one link to one line-tail of the other link.)
Ouaou...Many new possibilities emerge...I knew that the double midline loop chapter would be quite long...

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3783.msg22136#msg22136 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3783.msg22136#msg22136)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on June 06, 2021, 05:05:17 PM
Getting back in the single loop inline concept, i'd like to include a TIB tying method of the midline, eight-like knot at reply#36, as i'm highly satisfied with its very stable, jam proof, BTL profile.

Things might be tricky with the eye loading profile,  especially with respect to the crossing knot Spart continuation, but it works properly when tri-axially loaded in anchor applications.(loading from the other Spart appears to be a more stable approach).

1. Form a crossing knot and a reversed S loop. The loop will be the final eye so it's good in this stage to adjust its size (first image).

2. Pass the rightmost SPart loop continuation under the crossing knot (second image).

3. Pass the loop (bight) through the crossing knot and under its continuation, in particular over, under, over, under (third image).

4. If you load the knot from the SParts, it will rather reshape to take the form of the fourth image, which is more preferable to me. I think the corresponding asymmetrical bend, will work too.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on December 28, 2021, 04:51:56 PM
What is the relation between first image secure bowlines?

The answer is not so obvious, because besides their cowboy-like, bight structure orientation, there seems to be no other geometrical resemblance at their core nubs.

The leftmost one is a larkshead based, janus-like TIB bowline, with parallel SP, tug end orientation, while the other one secures the tug end by placing it side by side with the on-going eye leg, under the SPart (non TIB).

The answer is that they both point to the same inline knot, as shown in the next three images.


In a topological sense, one has to work the TIB bowline variant in order to transform it in the depicted inline configuration, while the other non-TIB  bowline knot, is just another loading profile of this very midline structure.

It was its ultimate extend of stability in every loading direction, that made me include this inline knot in this demonstration, comparable to, dare i say, that of the butterfly knot.

However, there is a disguised overhand lying there at the complex link, which is rather expected to affect its jam resistance, especially in the eye loading direction profiles.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: alanleeknots on March 30, 2022, 12:35:59 PM
Hi All,
          I have two loops here, may be ok I hope, just don't have time try to find a way to tie it with the bright yet.
       
          Have a look at Greg's knots, I suggest we should give a 180 degrees twist on the bright and let it side in
          in the right place, hopefully it can improve it little more this way.
         
          Hope we have a peaceful world, and God bless us. Thanks.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: alanleeknots on March 31, 2022, 11:08:13 AM
 
        Two more loops here, I think is fine too.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Dan_Lehman on March 31, 2022, 08:49:24 PM
Just tried one of them, and indeed it looks "fine"
--Tugboat BWL-ish SPart curves, and staying
easily loosenable.
Nice!

 ;)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: alanleeknots on April 01, 2022, 02:11:29 PM
   
 Hi All,
          I have a few more very interesting midline loop variations here.
          I think it is another step closer to what I am dreaming of.
          There is a lot to do here. I will do it a little bit at a time. Try again tomorrow.

          Dan, Thanks you very much for replying and glad you like it.
          Thanks.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on April 01, 2022, 07:58:55 PM
Hello Alan, i do welcome your valuable contributions!!!

Indeed, it appears that the knotting scheme {overhand/figure eight + crossing knot} can be synthesized in multiple ways to form various  TIB profiles, tied in the middle of the line (or tugboat style knots because you leave a short tail).

I' m calling to mind that the overhand or the figure eight, are in the  form of (crossing knot + nipping turn).

I used to tie them with parallel eye legs, but i do like your dressing too. SParts ,do not appear to have an axial alignment, but the BTL loading, is a bit more stable that way.

Having tested only the end of line structures, even from the figure eight/overhand component side, i'm confident to claim that i wasn't able to induce any jamming. Hopefully, the same stands for the inlines too.

Having tied all of your variations, i'd  like to add a very easy " in the end", tying method, for those familiar with knots like flash bowline or single dragon.

One can tie those knots in a slipped form (first capture SP, then feed a bight through the crossing knot), passing then the working end down through, or up through this very  bight, without disturbing the tibness, in order to form either an overhand or a figure eight or an unknot component.

Best loading option for me, is to keep both Sparts under tension, and load the eye too, in other words tri-axial loading.
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: alanleeknots on April 04, 2022, 12:36:46 PM
          Hi Greg,
                      Thanks for replying. Here is how I tie these knots. I think it is easy to tie and easy to inspect too.
                      Thanks        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibCawU1N9h4&t=116s&ab_channel=alanleeknots
                                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VX67PU362c&t=114s&ab_channel=alanleeknots
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on April 04, 2022, 06:05:32 PM
Thanks Alan, these links are just fine.Quite  easy to follow through and inspect TIB tyings methods, illustrating distinctly the TIB route.

I was kind of sceptic about the angler's variation loading it from the angler's overhand side, and indeed, it was quite difficult to loosen the knot, as expected.

In my opinion, the continuations of both collars should be under continual tension when the knot is loaded, for best performance, and the best way to achieve this, is through the end of line profiles (the Sparts change into eye legs).

I strongly recommend, knot enthusiasts, to re -examine/evaluate the attached structures, for their functionality.

My personal test data, show that they are jam proof right up to their MBS yield point, resistant to cyclic loading/slack shaking, with an adequate level of security.

1. https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6961.msg46034#msg46034 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6961.msg46034#msg46034)

2. https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6622.msg44093#msg44093 (https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6622.msg44093#msg44093)
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: alanleeknots on April 06, 2022, 12:15:15 PM
 Hi, Greg,
              I have another midline loop here, may be ok, have not a test on it yet.
              You had tie many of these type of loops, just to be sure, so I check on your knot on my channel.
              a surprise!!! surprise !!! I find you Tugboat midline loop. Wow, very interesting scenarios.
              Amazing this Tugboat and Anger also can turn into more midline loop variations too.
              The add-on Overhand knots are good too, I assume it can hander a lot of weight,
              I know it will work, because I had tie Overhand knot with this situation, and it can hander more weight.
              Thanks.
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws1WDnvOHVg&ab_channel=alanleeknots
Title: Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
Post by: Kost_Greg on April 07, 2022, 01:44:00 PM
Quote
I have another midline loop here, may be ok, have not a test on it yet.

This is a very good knot Alan, i don't think i have seen it before.

I'm refering to your first image of your previous reply#59, where the knot is shown in loose, front and back view.

I see it as a retucked version of Abok #1054 farmer's loop. One has to remove the "around the eye legs" collar to find the correspondance.

No overhand is embedded into the structure, due to the retucking function, which appears to improve the knot stability (compared to farmer's). It surely worths investigating the jamming profile.