International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: nufced on July 16, 2007, 04:56:47 AM
-
Some years ago, I created, what I thought, was a new knot. Knowing that this would be highly unlikely, I forgot about it and lost the description of how to tie it. Recently, I rediscovered the knot and, after careful searching the Internet and the four knot books that I had, found that I cannot see it anywhere. I am still not convinced that it is a "New" knot, but,
stranger things have happened.!!!.
My problem is this...How do I find out if it is indeed a new knot, without somebody stealing it.
It's a Catch 22 situation.
Can anyone advise me of a course of action that would, firstly, tell if it is a "New" knot or not, and if it is, how do I protect my rights of invention.?
The Handbook of Knots......Des Pawson
The Ultimate Ency. of Knots & Ropework......Geoffrey Budworth
Knots....Gordon Perry
The Ultimate Book of Knots.....Peter Owen.
-
"New" knots seem to be those that are not known to most people,
and are not found in common references; in this sense, at least,
I do not see why you should believe it is unlikely to have a new knot.
If you want to see if your discovery is "new" in this sense, then it would
be best to present it in this forum to the eyes of many who have seen
a lot of knots and can give you some idea of its "new"ness.
As for how you "protect your rights of invention," please tell us what
rights you think these might be? If you have documentation in the
form of a post to this forum, that is some mark of discovery for you.
And if somebody "steals" your knot, what do you think is going to happen?
That you might see it appear with another's claim of discovery?
Well, that could happen in any case.
In fact, I give you my secret: I have also discovered your "new" knot,
and am about to lay claim to it! I suggest you hurry up.
*knudeNoggin*
-
Hi Nufced,
Copyrighting any work of art is simple - you just say in a public place in writing that you are the artist who created this and then sit back and wait for the howls of protest or the howls of acclaim that may or may not follow. Couple of things of which to be aware:
1. It is highly unlikely (although not impossible) that anyone of the IGKT would "steal" a knot - they would be simply thrilled if it were a "new" invention and would want to know all about it and to give you due accord,
2. You are comparing your knot in only four books (albeit very good books for the most part) of hundreds of publications including magazines, periodicals, books, articles, DVDs and CDs where other knots have been published, not just in knot books but in sailing, caving, climbing, arborist, scouting (to name but a few) books and publications as well. Your comparison is really quite small at this time and you may want to look a lot further afield before making such a claim. A claim such as yours is what started the IGKT in the first place, when someone claimed to have invented a new knot, only to find it had been published years earlier,
3. The IGKT has an extensive library, highly experienced members and a plethora of people anxious to follow up on every claim of a "new" knot. Have you ever seen or heard of the book, Ashley's Book of KNots or The Encyclopedia of knots and Fancy Ropework by Graumont and Hensel? Those two books alone contain thousands of illustrations of a great many knots - you might do well to look in either or both of those,
4. Last, but by no means least (and I feel sure you will have plenty of other advisors shortly to your posting) you could submit your knot in a full description including the purpose, limitations and name, to the IGKT (write to the Hon. Secretary Dave Walker) who would be happy to determine the "newness" of your knot, pointing out whether or not it has appeared in any prior publication (which of course would mean it is not new). You would sign your letter to the IGKT and, in so doing, you would establish your right of bragging that it is indeed your knot that you have invented and it should be recognized as such. Perhaps then you could even write an article about it for a suitable magazine, thereby ensuring your name with the knot for posterity.
Lots of luck in your endeavours - I certainly wish you well with it and I look forward to hearing more about your knot.
SR ;D
-
Firstly, I would like to thank knudeNoggin and squarerigger for their prompt replies.
As this has been my first post...ever...please do not think that I am doubting the integrity or honesty of anyone on this site. I was just trying to elicit a response that could take me in the right direction.
You both have given me valuable information to consider.
As the knot concerned is, in my humble opinion, Simple, Symmetrical, Elegant and Practicable, I will take the documentation route and write to the Hon.Sec. of the IGKT.
Thanks again for your help and I will send you both details of my knot as soon as I have confirmation (of it's "newness", or not) from the Secretary.
(This may take awhile, mail can take a long time from Australia.)
-
A) the 2 previous repliers would probably give you the thumbs up or down on 'newness' just as quickly/honestly and broad coverage wise as you'll find.
B) The 'inventor' of the (Jason) Blake's Hitch for safe, productive tree climbing/service; wanted to copyright(?) his knot; and then charge others for using it (or so some legend has it). The friction hitch worked very well compared to the Tautline, mainly used at the time in the money making tree services. It was used and he didn't make out on his lil'enterprise. It still carries his name though; as about the highest honor given in these matters. Epilogue: The knot was not new; was already known as a Pro-Grip i believe according to 1 Dan Lehman.
Knots and their uses used to be part of secrecy in societies and 'union-ship'; many here are dedicated to pulling back the wizard's curtain; and showing all in a more open source context.
-
Ha, it could've come to pass--what knudeNoggin said (joked):
that the knot was already known, by someone, who might get
to press first! I've seen nufced's discovery, and thought
it looked mighty familiar and reached back from my seat to
take hold of the very (well, nearly so) knot I'd tied about a
couple months ago. (Maybe the knot muse zapped both
of us with the inspiration, and I am just very much slower
at manifesting it? :D ).
Nufced states that he was seeking to tie SmitHunter's bend
in the middle of a line (an interesting sort of challenge),
and this led him to his discovery--which though is a bit
shy of the original challenge. Btw, that challenge can be
met (well, what one ties isn't the bend per se but rather
a double-eyed knot that entails the bend, so to speak).
The general tactic can be used to tie a doublEyed Rosendahl's
or Ashley's bend, for that matter. I've done Ashley's #1408 &
#1452, as a way to redress the Butterfly's vulnerability to
jamming.
As for "Blake's knot", I dub that (note spelling) "Proh-Grip",
for "Prohaska", who first published it ca. 1983/9?--anyway,
well prior to Jason's disclosure (indeed, Heinz re-published
it, in an English-language newsletter Nylon Highway, ca. 1990.
Trying to collect royalties or something for a knot's use strikes
me as quite a challenge.
--dl*
====
-
Some years ago, I created, what I thought, was a new knot. Knowing that this would be highly unlikely, I forgot about it and lost the description of how to tie it. Recently, I rediscovered the knot and, after careful searching the Internet and the four knot books that I had, found that I cannot see it anywhere. I am still not convinced that it is a "New" knot, but,
stranger things have happened.!!!.
My problem is this...How do I find out if it is indeed a new knot, without somebody stealing it.
It's a Catch 22 situation.
Can anyone advise me of a course of action that would, firstly, tell if it is a "New" knot or not, and if it is, how do I protect my rights of invention.?
The Handbook of Knots......Des Pawson
The Ultimate Ency. of Knots & Ropework......Geoffrey Budworth
Knots....Gordon Perry
The Ultimate Book of Knots.....Peter Owen.
Hi Nufced,
What 'Rights of Invention' would you like to protect?
Generally, the most sought after 'Right of Invention' is the somewhat tenuous right to name the knot. However, If you do not promote your new knot and get it into mainstream use, then chances are someone else will also discover your knot, give it a new name and set it into general use -- from which point it will bear the name they gave it, even though you might have recorded a prior invention/discovery. Without promotion and use, a new knot is nothing more than a drawing and a sample in someones knot book -- in truth, a knot only takes life when it is put to use and as its creator, rather than 'Rights of Invention', you more rightly have a 'Responsibility of Parenthood' over your new creation.
By now, as the proud parent, you might be considering promoting your little creation through the various forums which cover potential uses for the knot. You might consider producing an article extolling it virtues and the various ways of tying it to the most prestigious knotting magazine in the world -- Knotting Matters. Then of course, you will need to start using it in a number of applications and reporting back to the potential users the pros and cons of those applications.
I wish you a happy parenthood.
On a separate note, did you invent this knot, as in design its creation to utilise specific knot elements and attributes (see for example the KC Hitch on this forum), or did you discover it as in its creation came about as a consequence of twiddling or playing with knot manipulations (see 'from the pocket of DerekSmith'). Then again, did you re-engineer a discovered knot to remove faults and enhance it to include advantages. If you indeed invented or re-engineered it, then I would seriously like to read the process you went through during its creation.
So come on Nufced -- give your creation wings and let the world injoy it.
Derek
-
On a separate note, did you invent this knot, as in design its creation to utilise specific knot elements
and attributes (see for example the KC Hitch on this forum), or did you discover it as in its creation
came about as a consequence of twiddling or playing with knot manipulations (see 'from the pocket of DerekSmith').
Then again, did you re-engineer a discovered knot to remove faults and enhance it to include advantages.
If you indeed invented or re-engineered it, then I would seriously like to read the process you went through during its creation.
Okay, so we now know it's not your monitor that kept you from reading
Nufced states that he was seeking to tie SmitHunter's bend in the middle of a line (an interesting sort of challenge),
and this led him to his discovery --which though is a bit shy of the original challenge. Btw, that challenge can be
met (well, what one ties isn't the bend per se but rather a double-eyed knot that entails the bend, so to speak).
... but then what?
Although in a way his path doesn't lie completely in any of your categories, does it?!
He had a goal, if not quite design, in mind --instantiating the SmitHunter's bend in the bight--;
but that isn't quite striving for "specific knot elements," to my mind (though one might expect
to inherit those of the goal knot --except that in the bight one clearly isn't joining ends).
What might emerge by some hidden magic out of the pocket (or otherwise just found)
can become refined by some realization of merit in the structure. E.g., in the brief research
into History & Science of Knots, I saw a sketch (in another chapter) of an Inuit (stopper?)
knot, and realized a potential for a stopper knot with an Ashley's stopper-like working face,
but with greater bulk behind and hence greater strength (presumably) and resistance to
deformation/capsizing/pulling-through. --wasn't so much by design but serrendipity, though
after the initial encounter some designing refining came into play. (And so now another
bit of play-rope lies tied up and NA for me until that knot gets recorded in ink on paper.
#20070719h23:54)
--dl*
====
ps: I find that using for H&S text above the intro symbols [ i ] [ u ] (spaced here to deny effect)
that if I close with only the end symbol for the first (here, [ i ]) --i.e., [ / i ]--, I close BOTH the
italics & underlining!? (I'd gotten a hint of this when I inadvertently used both closures in
the order begun (i u ... /i /u) instead of the reverse order (inside-out: i u ... /u /i ): in this
case, I saw the '[ / u ]' exposed, and so moved it before the i-closure, even though the end
of the underlining had been effected. .:. So, at least in for these two, a shorthand exists. Hmmm!
[7/23 edit for line-length balance and "a"=>"an"]
-
Greetings all.
May a newly registered person put a question to this thread from several years ago?
Recently I have been spending more time studying knot-tying, and like the originator of this thread, thought I might have developed a knot that has not previously appeared in print.
But seeing that Ashley's goes into the thousands, it's clearly necessary to do more "homework" before leaping to that conclusion.
Are there any updates to the references we should check since 2007 - Ashley's and the Encyclopedia by Graumont and Hensel? Perhaps any automated search engines for this purpose?
Many thanks.
Tom D
-
Hello Tom and welcome.
We have a board here in the Forum to present "new" knots. Please feel free to present your discovery there, hopefully with a picture or so, written description of the tying (or pictures!) and if there is a specific use you have for it.
As a collective of enthusiasts and some experts, we should be able to put you on the path to some enlightenment.
Looking forward to your offering.
SS
-
But seeing that Ashley's goes into the thousands, ...
Ashley is far less knotty than this : his #'d illustrations
go to #3854, but these are repetitious (of knots), not
always about knots, and not always about the sorts of
"knots" most curious discoverers have in mind!
So, as SS369 encourages, your best bet is to present your
knot here, and learn if anyone has come across it, or what
it resembles.
:)