International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Chit Chat => Topic started by: cuesta on August 15, 2007, 02:33:54 PM

Title: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on August 15, 2007, 02:33:54 PM
Hello, My Name is Oscar Cuesta. I was reading a book on knots by Gordon Perry, called "Knots" and he mentioned the International Guild of Knot Tyers (IGKT) and how they identify new knots. I have never seen the knot that I have come up with illustrated or described in other knot books. I have seen other double loops but none that appear to be this one. if you could be so kind as to examine the method of tying it , it's shape and its utility, I would be most grateful. In lieu of this knot not existing, I have termed it the Lyndy Knot (possibly presumptious). I have attached this document with the steps demonstrating how to tie it.

Thanks,

Oscar
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: squarerigger on August 15, 2007, 05:11:43 PM
Hi Oscar,

Many thanks for sending us details of your tentative new knot.  You have described making it very well - have you looked at any caving or climbing books about knots to find it there when you were looking in other knot books?  You have talked a little about its having two loops - do you see this as being a knot used for climbing or for construction work or for arborist work (tree-trimming)?  Having the two loops be adjustable seems like a good idea on the face of it.  Do you have any examples of when and where it might be used in such a way that you need to adjust it?  How secure does it need to be when it is adjusted?  Is there a limit to what size line it can be used with and is there any limit on what type of line i.e. does it slip when using polypropylene or nylon?

Looking forward to hearing more from you...

SR
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 16, 2007, 06:40:58 AM
I have never seen the knot that I have come up with illustrated or described in other knot books.
I have seen other double loops but none that appear to be this one.

Hello, Oscar!  I've not encountered the knot that you present, so at least I'll deem
it an ELFEK (Empircally Less Frequently Encountered Knot-structure).

Now, as to tying it:  your method suffers from requiring access to both (!) ends,
which you'll see aren't really needed (i.e., they could be e.g. each tied to some
object, miles away!)--the knot is "TIB" (Tiable In the Bight).

The knot can be seen as a Reverse Fig.9 2-eye loopknot, akin e.g. to the well-known
Bowline on the BIght (which is usually tied with what I jocularly call a "back-flip"
manuevre of taking a bight out around the entire knot).  Which is to say that one
can begin by making what you call "the two draped loops" and continue by
inserting the doubled bights (which needn't form a Cow/Girth hitch) through
the draped-wraps turns and then making the "back-flip" of the "single loop"
around the knot body.  --no need/use of ends, coming or going.

I don't think I'd trust the friction of the knot to keep the eyes from slipping,
if the "single loop" isn't snug to the knot body--though it probably will in
many situations (materials & forces).

And this general extension of loopknots is pretty much available to all extant
loopknots (and such extended knots are pretty well undisclosed, although
readily conceived--and so "new" ?!):  insert the (single) eye bight back into
the knot (partially) and do the back-flip, drawing out now two eyes.

Thanks for sharing this discovery!

--dl*
====
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on August 17, 2007, 01:30:37 AM
SR,

Thanks for your interest. Yes I have looked in a number of caving, climbing sources and knot encyclopedias to determine if this knot was present. My personal usage with this knot has been rather limited. I am still examining how it performs practically in applications for securing, binding and possibly scaling. I am keen to examine some of the points you have mentioned regarding the rope size and rope materials. I will let you know how I get on.

Dan,

Thankyou for your thoughts regarding the possibilities and methods of tying this particular knot. There is quite a lot of information here that is very interesting. I am so glad that you have taken the time to examine and pull it apart to give quite a comprehensive critique. I would be most interested to see what other people thought the practicalities and uses for such a knot would be.

Regards

Oscar
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on August 17, 2007, 02:25:14 PM
SR,Dan,

I would also like to submit a variant to the knot I posted yesterday which may also interest you. Please take a look at it and let me know what your thoughts are.
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: turks head 54 on August 22, 2007, 07:39:06 AM
I have seen the variants of the Lyndy knot used around here
and been trying to learn it.

             turks head 54
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: DerekSmith on August 22, 2007, 08:11:52 PM
Steady on Cuesta,

One knot at a time -- PLEASE -- especially one with as much enigmatic challenge as the Lyndy knot.

At first look, I thought -- who needs a loop knot that has to be tied using the ends, then I saw how easy it was to tie it in the bight so that made it potentially usable.

Then I thought -- hang on ! it's only a double slipped twisted OH knot, it should slip -- so why doesn't it?

Then I tied it very slightly differently and it DID slip -- why?

I think I have worked out why, and this has given me a new insight into knot workings.  I will take some photos and post my thoughts in the next post.

KC, I think you will be interested in the workings of this little beauty.

As for uses -- an easy to tie adjusting loop knot in the bight, how about a tensioning adjuster for a trailer load, again, I will try to photo this use and then post it later.

Well done bringing us a real teaser of a knot, I am sure it will have many lessons yet to teach us.
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: Brian_Grimley on August 27, 2007, 09:42:00 PM
The Lyndy Knot, a note:

One form of Japanese tradition clothing, for men, is an open jacket. This jacket is held together by two cords. The two cords are knotted together.

In this particular example, one end of the two cords are joined together with a tassel. The free end of one cord is attached to the left side of the jacket and the free end of the other cord to the right side. The tassel is, obviously, in the middle. The "jacket knot" is tied with the two cords and has the same structure as the Lyndy Knot, with one difference. Your final tuck of the two ends so that, if the two loops are pulled, the single loop will not pull through, is not needed in the "jacket knot" and hence not used. 

If we look at the "jacket knot", worn on the jacket, one sees the round "rings" of the knot, the crossing parts are hidden against the chest. The double loops hang down and the tassel (your single loop) is pointing upward. The double loops are adjusted down so that only the tassel shows, i.e. no cord is visible above the "rings". The two ends of the "Lyndy Knot" are attached to the jacket - one to each side. I hope this "relative" of the Lyndy Knot is of interest to you.

Source: "Musubikata Zenshu" by Takeuchi, Motoyo, 1987, pg. 218. I can neither read nor speak Japanese so, unfortunately, I can not translate the name of the knot given by the author. I think that the title, "Musubikate Zenchu", can be freely and acceptably translated as "The Complete Book of Knots".   ;D
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on August 28, 2007, 12:34:39 AM
Brian,

Thanks for your investigation.
Would it be possible to scan or photocopy the page you refer to in your post please. I would really like to see the knot firstly and also see the knot in this particular application.
Who is the publisher of Musubikata Zenshu?, I suppose that it may be out of print. I have had a quick look on google to find out this info but there are no references to it.

Regards

Oscar
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: Brian_Grimley on August 28, 2007, 12:29:30 PM
Hi Oscar,

You are welcome. Here is the information about the book "Musubikata Zenshu" from the bookstore from which I purchased it: http://www.sasugabooks.com/product_info.php?products_id=26157 .

I won't publically post another's creative work that is not public domain or without permission. However, if you email me, I will return a .jpg of the page for your reference and to illustrate the book's contents.

Cheers - Brian.
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on August 29, 2007, 12:30:04 PM
Brian,

Thanks for your email with the details regarding the jacket knot. They are indeed very very similar. It's amazing that the two knots share so much in common. I have duplicated the knots and compared them and can see differences between them. Brian, I have also tied them left handed and right handed to see if indeed they reflect the same knot and I don't believe that they do. Having said that I think that it is the IGKT's call whether the Lyndy is the same as the jacket knot you have (amazingly so) referred to . It is not improbable that in the past , others have actually produced the same knot as the Lyndy. With all that said, Where to from here for this most enjoyable expedition?

Thanks

Oscar
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: Dan_Lehman on August 29, 2007, 07:21:19 PM
How about one of you guys with images of this Jacket knot posting SOMEthing that
others can see and assess--make your own (traced) sketch or tying of it and post
an image of that.  (Not that copying of published works' images is at all unseen in
some knot books!)

 :)
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on September 02, 2007, 11:33:19 AM
Dan,

I have photographed the steps to tie the Jacket knot as described in "Musubikata Zenshu" by Takeuchi, Motoyo, 1987 kindly provided by Brian Grimley.

Please take a look and let me know your thoughts regarding how they differ. If the images are not clear enough let me know.

Regards

Oscar

Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: Brian_Grimley on September 02, 2007, 09:32:40 PM
Hi cuesta,

Thank you for posting your instructions on tying the "jacket knot" from "Musubikata Zenshu".  The completed "Lyndy Knot" is a different knot than the "jacket knot". However, I think that when tying the "Lyndy Knot", if we stop at step 6 and dress and tighten the knot, the resulting knot is a mirror image of the "jacket knot". At that point, they are the same knot. Steps 7 & 8, of the "Lyndy Knot", make the "Lyndy Knot" a different knot from the "jacket knot".

The "Lyndy Knot" sure is interesting!!! - Brian.
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: DerekSmith on September 04, 2007, 09:55:53 AM

In this particular example, one end of the two cords are joined together with a tassel. The free end of one cord is attached to the left side of the jacket and the free end of the other cord to the right side.

Hi Brian,

Serious credit for having tracked this one down, and yes please, if you would be so kind as to email me the jpg I would appreciate it.

However, as ever, I have a problem of understanding which hopefully you can clarify for me.

In your description quoted above, the jacket sides are fixed together by two cords which are in turn joined by a tassel.  Two ends joined to the jacket and two ends joined together in the tassel -- i.e. no free ends.

If this is indeed the case, then the jacket sides are already joined and presumably the 'Jacket Knot' is used to shorten the cords and hold the jacket sides closed.  But again, if the sides are already joined and there are no ends, then it is not possible to tie the knot as Oscar shows in the images posted into reply #12 because step 4 requires the ends (and there are none) to be passed through the loop ??

So which bits have I misunderstood?

Are the ends (i.e. the non tassel ends) indeed free, in which case -- what is the purpose of the tassel and the knot if the cord is yet to be joined to the sides of the jacket?

If however the ends are 'fixed' to the jacket, and they have been more or less permanently joined by the central tassel, then the jacket will have to be put on by passing it over the head with the front loosely open, then the 'Jacket Knot' will need to be tied in the bight and its function will be to hold the two sides of the jacket closed.  Could this assumption be correct?

Essentially, the Lindy knot is (and without seeing the details, I must presume that the Jacket knot is likewise) a slipped double strand overhand knot 'with a twist'.  A slipped double strand overhand would be very easy to tie in the jacket situation -- simply grasp the tassel in one hand and slide the other hand along the two cords to the jacket to pull the two jacket sides together and forming a doubled strand of cord.  Then tie an overhand knot near to the jacket and slip the tassel end as a slipped loop back through the knot for easy untying (by pulling on the tassel).  It is an equally simple step to convert from the simple slipped double strand overhand to the more decorative jacket knot.  Make the double strand slipped overhand, but before tightening the knot, make a twist in the overhand loop and pass the slipped loop through this twist.  When well dressed in a hansom cord this simple slip fastener has an aesthetic beauty to it, which I could imagine would be well acceptable to the style conscious traditional Japanese, whilst retaining the practicality of ease of adjustment  of jacket tightness.

Another question springs to mind though -- why on earth join the two cords at the tassel?  Joining the cords makes the wearer have to step into the jacket or put it on over the head.  By contrast, leaving them separate with a tassel on the end of each, allows the coat to be put on over the shoulders, yet still allows the 'Jacket knot' to be used to close the jacket by holding the two tassels as if they were one.

From my studies so far, there are four dressings of the Lindy Knot (which can of course be tied in the bight, just as the jacket knot) -- The full slipped version, this I believe would be used for the Jacket Knot -- Two partial slipping versions, these offer Lindy Knot functionality in good friction cord -- and one one-directional good gripping knot, this offers the 'USP' of the Lindy Knot i.e. an adjustable double loop knot that does not slip.

While I do not hold that creating a knot (i.e. tying it) by different methods creates a different knot, nor do I hold that using a knot for different purposes makes it a different knot, I do hold that dressing a knot differently can (and often does) make it a different knot.  On that premise, there are four versions of the Lindy Knot, one of which may well be the Jacket knot.  Unfortunately, these variations are buried within the core of the knot and it is almost impossible to identify them unless you can loosen and study the detailed internal structure.

Although Oscar has not stipulated the dressing that gives this special feature, his method of tying 'usually' leads to this dressing form (although it can also lead to either of the two middling gripping forms which would not be noticed in reasonable friction cord).  Also, in his initial description he claims the functionality of 'adjustable non slip loops'.  I think it would be reasonable to credit Oscar with the non slipping variant, while leaving the easily slipping 'Jacket Knot' variant to a much earlier provenance.
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on September 04, 2007, 12:41:37 PM
Brian, Derek,

I am most curious to understand Derek's findings regarding the 4 dressings of the knot. Can you elaborate regarding how you came about distinguishing such differing characteristics in the knot? Was it by adjusting the pressure to tighten the knot or other adjustments or materials? Would it be possible to display your findings by way of photos or drawings.

The acronym USP, what do you mean by that?

Thanks for all your interest

Oscar


Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: DerekSmith on September 07, 2007, 02:37:14 PM
Sorry Oscar,

I really should not use TLA's (three letter acronyms).

USP is a marketing term -- Unique Sales Point -- it is also an acronym that is starting to take on a meaning all of its own, vis "that which is special about the subject".

As for the dressings.  Your knot really tickled my interest, because, after discovering that it was simply a double cord slipped overhand with a twist, I realised that quite simply it should not be capable of doing what it was doing -- a slipped overhand should slip -- yet this little beastie had a definite ratchet built into it.

I first became interested in the mechanisms involved in knots gripping or slipping after having been introduced to the infamous Grief Knot AKA the Whatknot -- see roo-two's excellent site for details http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/reefknot.html (http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/reefknot.html)  The Whatknot can either lock solid, or at the twist of the ends, it can flow like rope through a pulley.  From this knot, I discovered that components within a knot can act either as a ratchet or as a cog, the ratchet locks movement while the cog encourages it.  Tie this lovely example of knot mechanics for yourself and watch how one dressing sets the knot up with ratchets, while the alternative dressing creates two lovely cogs which run freely against one another.

When I come across a new knot, my first two exercises are usually to slacken out the knot in order to see the internal structures it contains, then to progressively 'deconstruct' it to seek alternative ways to tie it.  Doing this you immediately see that the 'Lyndy' is based on a slipped overhand with an additional twist.  This offered a simple way of tying the Lyndy 'in line'.  The trouble was, that when I tied the Lyndy this way it did exactly what a slipped overhand should do -- IT SLIPPED.  There must have been something special about the way you had tied it that I had missed which was conferring its ability to grip.

The Lyndy is 'in essence', four cores running parallel through the heart of the knot, surrounded by four gripping turns.  On one side of the knot, two of the cores emerge as the two load lines and the other two connect to the 'adjuster' loop.  On the opposite side of the knot, two of the cores connect to one of the load loops, the other two to the other load loop.  Dressing the knot allows the connections of one side to the other to be varied and which is connected to what makes all the difference in functionality.  Only two of the cores pass right through the knot connecting the adjuster loop to one side of each of the two load loops.  The other two cores are fixed to the knot and cannot slide under load.  When loaded, the four outer wraps are tensioned and squeeze the central cores and increases the friction between the cores and the wraps and between the cores themselves.

Consider for a moment the situation with only one of the cores being able to slide.

(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/A%20core.jpg)

In this diagram, the grey ring represents the external wraps under load squeezing the four cores together.  If B,C and D are fixed to the knot and cannot slide and 'A' is the only core that is free to slide, then you will see that it is firmly gripped on all three sides by surfaces that do not move.  The surface contact of 'A' with the other cores and the ring is about 3.5 diameters and the Lyndy is about 4 diameters long, so we have a working frictional area of ca 14 diameters square.  If 'A' and 'C' are connected to a load loop holding say 100 lb, then 50lb would be transfered by 'C' into the knot and 50lb would be applied to 'A' which works out to about 3.5lb tension per square diameter of contact area.  If the intrinsic friction of the cord system is high enough it might not slip, but in most nylon braids it will slip easily.

In the case of the doubled slipped overhand (with a twist), there are two load loops, consider A-C is one loop and B-D is the other.

(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/AB%20core.jpg)

This time the load is shared across all four cords with A and B holding 50lb between them.  The frictional contact area has gone up so the tension on the contact surface has come down to about 2.5lb per square dia.  It should grip better than the single core -- but! A and B are effectively joined by the 'cogging' surface marked in green.  Because they are different cords, A and B will rarely be the same length, so the load will often be biased more onto one than the other.  If this causes one of the cords to be loaded above its slipping point, then some of its motion transfers a force into the B cord, inducing it to slip as well.  The two cord surfaces 'cog' one with the other to create a mutual inducement to move.  Despite the increase in frictional contact area, this knot is highly prone to slipping.

Now consider the 'resistant' Lyndy format.

(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/AD%20core.jpg)

In this configuration the adjuster loop is connected to cores A and D, with the load loops as before on A/C and B/D.

Three things have happened.  First, the frictional density has dropped still further to 1.7lb per square diameter.  Second, there are no 'cogging' surfaces to induce sympathetic movement and third, the two load loops are connected up 'opposite handed'.  Any slippage in the A/C loop will tend the rotate the load anticlockwise, feeding the force of this movement into the fixed 'B' leg of the other loop, while any slippage in the B/D loop rotates the load clockwise and this time the fixed 'C' leg resists the load.  This is 'ratcheting' where one part of the knot takes up and resists movement in another part.  Although in extremely low friction cord this knot will still slip, in 'normal' braids it easily holds to breaking strain.  The only 'tell' that you have tied this variant is the presence of one of the fixed cords entering the top of the knot between the two adjuster loop lines.  The 'tell' is shown in red in this image.

(http://knotbox1.pbwiki.com/f/Lyndy%20tell.jpg)

As this post is now quite large, I will cover the two intermediate variants in a new post.
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: DerekSmith on September 07, 2007, 06:39:58 PM
In the previous post, I touched on the fact that knot performance may depend upon the configuration of the cords external to the knot itself.  This again opens the discussion that a knot may not end at the obvious boundaries of its structure and the ratchet effect of the two opposing loops is one such example.  We do not have a term for this concept of the whole interacting construct (or if we do then hopefully someone will educate me) but when the function of the knot depends on the dressing of the 'external' components (in this case, the loops) then we really need some way to recognise the 'extended' knot and have some terminology for such an entity.

In the case of the slip resistant Lyndy (shall we call it the A/D variant), the ratchet was effective without any deliberate dressing of the external load loops, because their connection to the cores A/B and C/D naturally conferred the counter rotating 'ratchet' effect.

In the two intermediary gripping variants, the intermediate effects has are achieved by 'dressing' one of the loops to generate the ratchet or cogging effects.

In the slipped overhand example above (let's call it the A/B variant), the cogging effect is present in the external loops in that any turning moment induced in the load through one cord slipping was passed directly to the other loop which further induced slippage.  If however one of the loops is twisted half a turn, then as slippage of A and B happens, one cord tends to turn the load clockwise, while the other tends to turn it anticlockwise.  The friction of the cords around the load and even against one another works as a ratchet to counteract the force causing the slippage and so a greater force is necessary to make this variant slip.  One half turn in one of the load loops is all it takes to make the slipped overhand variant behave much more like an intermediate A/D variant.

Finally, the ratchet effect working naturally in the A/D variant can be converted to a cogging effect by allowing a half turn to be incorporated into one of the load loops.  So for example if the A/B loop is twisted half a  turn and then the 'A' cord slips slightly, it allows the load to rotate clockwise and immediately transfers this load into the 'D' slipping cord.  This cogging effect in the working loops can weaken a previously strong grip of the A/D variant into an intermediate strength 'knot'.

Happy knotting.
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: DerekSmith on September 11, 2007, 01:56:29 PM
Oscar,

You may be interested in some initial work I have done on the comparative strength of the Lyndy loop.

I have only compared it with four other loop knots at the moment -- Overhand Loopknot, Constrictor Loopknot, Bowline and Fig 8.

Guess what -- IT BEAT THEM ALL.

I was particularly surprised that it beat the Fig. 8 which had sat at the top of the list until I put it up against the Lyndy.

The testing protocol is not formalised yet, but at the moment I have to say congratulations for bringing us a simple, easy to tie, adjustable double loop knot that seems to be stronger than the Figure 8.

Well done.

Derek
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on September 12, 2007, 12:58:59 AM
Derek,

Thanks for your explainations regarding your findings in regard to the variants of the Lyndy knot. Your descriptions regarding knot dynamics have provided me with a much deeper appreciation of knotting in general. I have found your observations quite informative and surprising, I am surprised that it has brought about such interest and also pleasantly surprised that your comparative tests have shown the knot has such strength. Derek, you mentioned that you have a protocol in place for testing knot strength, When you formalise it, I would be interested to know more. Thanks for sharing this information with me and I'm glad that it has tweaked your interest.

Regards

Oscar
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: Dan_Lehman on September 12, 2007, 06:36:05 PM
four other loop knots at the moment -- Overhand Loopknot, Constrictor Loopknot, Bowline and Fig 8.
And once again we get to wonder what exact knots these names denote.
(I think that C.L. has an Ashley number, #1045.)  Given that, as noted previously,
the Lyndy LK is a reverse Fig.9, that it might have some strong test results is to
be expected.  And then, the geometries at test time.
And the break points (stitch thread through the cord to calibrate it, if risk of
affecting strength w/Sharpie marker is to be avoided)!?

 :)
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: DerekSmith on September 13, 2007, 03:41:54 PM
four other loop knots at the moment -- Overhand Loopknot, Constrictor Loopknot, Bowline and Fig 8.
And once again we get to wonder what exact knots these names denote.
(I think that C.L. has an Ashley number, #1045.)
 :)

Well said Dan, I think you have voiced the outstanding issue behind all testing to date vis -- what does the name denote.

Re the Constrictor Loop.  I do not believe the variant I use is depicted or described in Ashley.  The nearest is #409, the Poacher knot which is based on a single strangle or the #1120, the Scaffold which is based on the double strangle.  In the test I used the #1120 variant, but tied iwith the end slipped and not the line slipped as #409 and #1120 are.  The end is then finished with a gooseneck around the working line.

I prefer this loopknot to the Bwl because it is easily adjustable but once set it is self holding.  I have yet to see it fail with the ease of the Bwl. but this cursory testing does indicate that it could be weaker.  On balance, I still prefer a weaker knot that stays closed to a stronger one which is prone to undo itself.
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on September 14, 2007, 02:19:13 PM
Derek,

I had a look at your post regarding your rig to deconstruct knots after the results you mentioned. Could you post what specifications you would test for. I am looking at what fields one could put into a database to record such findings.

By the way , I am going to post another knot which could be useful and looks good as well. I will start a new post for that one following this entry

Regards

Oscar
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: DerekSmith on September 15, 2007, 08:31:49 AM
Hi Oscar,

I am about to post an outline protocol which hopefully will attract debate and go through the process of peer improvement.

I will then attempt to implement it and post the results to see if the protocol should be further refined.

Hopefully, by then we will have established if the Guild will agree to fund and supply reference test cord.

The results will feature diagrams and photographic images which will pose a challenge for your database.  Ideally, the database should be accessible via web pages -- is this what you had in mind or were you planning a private database?

I look forward to your input and your new knot.
Derek
Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: cuesta on September 16, 2007, 02:28:38 PM
Derek,

What i propose to do is put together a SQL server database to link up and reference knot encyclopedias, journals and other collections into a central server which is accessible on the web.
What i have gathered about the knotting world is that it is made up of collections and disparate references that contain knots. It also appears that there is a lack of concensus regarding what knot names mean. There does not appear to be a central resource to collate and reference known knots which can list a knot, related knots, existing provenance, nomenclature , articles, abok or other reference materials, pictures and links on the web. My day time occupation involves the planning and design of databases and I can put together without too much effort the structure that we would need to start such a repository that users can contribute to. I suppose you could look at knots in a similar way to the nameing and classification of organisms. Genus phylum , choradata etc. Obviously I don't propose to know how to classify knots , however, others with more of an idea should contribute their thoughts regarding this. All I can do is make relationships work on a database.

I have already started to lay out the tables and fields needed in the database to establish nice straight forward relationships. That is why I would like to look at your list of parameters to include it into the structure.

I am building this on a SQL server I have at my disposal. When i get to the point of being able to share the data, I will either set up a server myself or if the IGKT has a hosting ISP, then it can be set up there. I would then create the scripts and ftp them to the site.
Anyway, thats the jist of what i intend to do. I think this would be quite a large undertaking and I will need quite a bit of input and guidance on what would be acceptable and necessary to make it successful. The real challenge will be getting the data into the database, but it's early days yet. I am sure that others have thought of putting together something like this and I would be interested to know what they have done, where they have come unstuck and if any datasets currently exist to import them into a common datasource.

Regards,

Oscar


P.S
I think discussion regarding a database should commence on another posting ....



Title: Re: Knot I have made requiring identification
Post by: DerekSmith on September 16, 2007, 04:12:04 PM
Wow,

I am so glad you came across this forum, there are many opportunities ahead of you -- I hope your love of knots can tie you to the tasks.

I agree, a new thread is wholly appropriate, I look forward to posting on it.

In the meantime, have you come across the igkt.pbwiki.com site.  A few of us have been working on it to collect together knotting information.  It is a database of sorts in so far as the whole wiki can be searched and anything can be linked as required -- it is a very ad hoc database without any formal structure.  I would appreciate your thoughts on it.

Derek