Author Topic: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.  (Read 21819 times)

Prajna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2008, 05:33:25 PM »
There, I think this is correct:

 fbn fcf gci hce icj edi fdg gdg hde idh jdp kde ldj dei eeg feg geg hee ieh jem kee lel bfc cfe dfg efg ffh gfh hfe ifl dgk egg fgl ggf ehk fhe ghl

The standing end is to the left (with the circle) the free end has an arrow.

I'll attach a picture. Sorry for the poor quality

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2008, 09:48:01 PM »
Hi Prajna,

I have modified your diagram slightly to show the alignment of the loop cords as they flow into the knot.  In your picture, the lower loop leg flows right to the back of the knot like this



I have a question though not relating to the knot, but to your use of the end and line symbols.  Why did you use the small loop to denote the SPart and the arrow to denote the WEnd?

Derek

Prajna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2008, 10:15:09 PM »
Oh, now I see how the symbols are used.  I selected to circle for the standing part because, intuitively, it feels like the standing part is fixed or pinned. Then I used the line arrows to indicate the way the rope flowed from there to the running end, or free end or working end, whichever terminology you like. :)

Probably I should have read the help file but you know what it is like :)

Just to check: this knot as illustrated is ABOK 1043?

I have enjoyed my foray back into knots and knotting. Thank you for your help and interest. In passing I also picked up a few very nice, new (to me) and useful knots. Thank you.

Namaste

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2008, 08:18:38 AM »
Hi Prajna,

Technically, no, it is not ABoK #1043, this is --



Notice the slight difference in alignment of the WEnd.

Your intuitive use of the symbols is interesting.  In an of board discussion, another knotter held the same view as you and we are pondering at the moment as to what symbols to use that are both intuitive and 'conventional'.

You speak as if you are travelling light and moving on again, I hope not, you have brought an interesting knot to the table and as you can see, we are not particularly thick on the ground in here and can do with new perspectives.

Derek

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2008, 12:04:42 PM »
By the way,

Take serious heed of Dan's warning about splay leg loading.  If the knot is not dressed and set or particularly if the SPart is not loaded, then forces pulling the legs apart will make the knot fold over itself and effectively end up like this.



The loop then just slips out leaving an inline '8'.  In slippery 3mm polyester braid, this happens really easily.

Derek

Prajna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2008, 02:44:07 PM »
Ahh yes, thank you Derek, I see the difference now. It is rather subtle and is dependant on how the knot is dressed rather than how it is tied particularly. Both seem excellent knots to me.  Is it possible to claim my variation as a new knot or did Ashley already anticipate it? :)

As to the collapse and loop loading issues: it requires that the knot is very loosely tied for the splay leg loading to collapse it. Who would use such a knot without dressing and setting it?  Nor would I use this knot for a purpose where there was a wide splay leg load, rather I would prefer a knot where the legs exited in line with the directions of load.  My use of this knot is as an end loop where the working end needs to be short and tidy - attaching a bow string, for instance, or as interlocked loops or in a packaging application with slipped half-hitches.

A suggestion with regard to the symbols: the SPart is what I am used to thinking of as the 'long end' of the rope and there is, in technical drawing, a convention of using a cut to indicate something long which has been shortened for the purpose of illustration. Perhaps a symbol like -//- would serve well and be intuitive for indicating that.  Then the arrow, or even an unadorned end would be fine for the WEnd. The software could recognise the WEnd by the fact that its tile is only connected on one side. I am not sure what the conventions are in the knotting world but you would know, I'm sure, if such an approach would conflict with them.

I could easily become deeply involved in this fascinating subject and I would be very pleased to help with the valuable work you are doing here but I am wary of diluting my energy with too many interests. I realise from previous experience how easy it is to become engrossed in such an interesting field. My particular emphasis is in teaching meditation and self-realisation and I am careful not to stray too far from that. I will, however, stop in here from time to time and offer what I can.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 02:47:49 PM by Prajna »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2008, 04:55:47 PM »
Hi Prajna,

Many years ago I was lucky enough to learn TM and know full well how meditation can change your life.

I often utilise the meditative state to contemplate issues which I cannot 'see' when my mind is cluttered.  I find it particularly valuable to 'float' through the knot as a matrix of forces, twists and levers to attempt to 'get to know' the knot.  It is a slow process and I can still only achieve understanding for the simplest of knots or portions of more complex knots.

If you have the opportunity, consider taking a simple structure 'in' with you and feel?  it.

Good points about the symbols.  There is a consensus starting to condense that the WEnd should be depicted as a simple whipped end, finishing in the  middle of the cell, indicating that it goes no further.  It is interesting that you note the software could distinguish the WEnd because it is connected only on one side - that is exactly how I programmed it, the WEnd is the only cell which has an exit face but no entry face.

Perhaps knots might come to augment your primary goal??

Derek

Derek

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2008, 06:56:06 PM »
Hi Prajna, Derek,

I think we should start a new forum section called "Transcendental Knotting".
I believe that we all go there at times as we contemplate the the structures and for me while tying some of the more decorative knots.
It's good stuff.
Scott

Prajna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2008, 03:27:28 PM »
Oh dear, it seems I have diverted this thread considerably, from the Canadian 8, through ABOK 1043, somehow to meditation.

The aspect of flying through a knot is called contemplation rather than meditation. Contemplation always has an object, meditation has only a subject. That is not to say there is anything wrong with contemplation, as you have noted, it is quite a different state than 'thinking about' a knot. It requires concentration (a very important skill in developing meditation) and observation rather than thinking (also a critical aspect of meditation) but meditation involves no mind activity at all, just still and silent awareness.

Nor does TM involve meditation - the practices taught in TM also involve the mind and it is not possible to achieve 'no mind' (meditation) when mind is being used in the practice. Having said that there are benefits from the practice of TM to. Just be aware that there are many things that are marketed as meditation that are not.

It seems that whatever fields I have worked in a knowledge of knots has always played a part. Soon I will be meeting up with some meditation students whom I have been teaching on the internet.  We will have a weekend meditation retreat out in nature... camping :) What better place to find applications for knots :) An opportunity to put some of my favourite newly acquired knots to work.

My intuition regarding the WEnd in FCB is exactly in accord with you - finishing in the middle of the cell. What do you think of the idea of depicting a cut on the SPart? Then there is not the confusion with the arrows used to indicate a bight and the test for the SPart need only look at the type of tile rather than having to distinguish it by its useage.

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2008, 05:48:08 PM »
Derek,

I also "intuitively" felt that the arrow icon was the Working End, and the circle end was the Standing Part.  It would be interesting to see how it looks to depict a cut in the Working End, in addition to the suggestions in the "Another Step Forward" thread.

By the way, just curious why you use multiple arrows in a drawing?  Does that represent something that I'm not "getting"?

Dave

Prajna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2008, 05:52:21 PM »
The cut (-//-) was proposed for the SPart, Dave. The suggestion is that the WEnd is represented by a short length of rope finishing before the end of the tile.  The arrows indicate a bight that forms a loop.

DaveRoot

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • The Most Useful Rope Knots....
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2008, 06:06:00 PM »
LOL!  Thanks for pointing that out, I did indeed mean to say that I'd like to see how a "cut" looks in the Standing Part in FCB!   ;D

Concerning a bight that forms a loop, I prefer using a different color.  This makes the loop stand out visually, and for me it's more intuitive than using two arrows.  I realize that FCB currently makes assumptions and calculations based on the colors, but I find it helpful to represent different sections of the knot in different colors.

Now that I think about it, since the diagrams are very "open" by nature (sometimes with lots of apparent bights), there is an advantage to having a standard representation for the loop(s).  Possibly for other common parts of a knot as well.  Hmmm....  Not sure that I would prefer two arrows to represent a loop, since it's not intuitive and the arrow icon already has a meaning, but I could live with it.

Dave

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2008, 07:17:59 PM »
To All, with apologies to the post author for the hijack.

I hope that everyone is taking FCB as the development of a tool which is 'Work in Progress' as it would potentially deny the future of FCB if we were to think of anything about it as cast in stone. 

So far, through use, thought and discussion the utility had gone through a number of significant jumps in functionality but I am certain there is still so much further for it to go.  Organic, or evolutionary growth like this is often inefficient and frequently restricted by that which has been laid down before, but most folk need something to work with in order to stimulate their imaginations to better things.  And so it has been with FCB.

It started, even before the Windows utility, as a simple pencil and paper system to create a cypher string which could be reliably and easily communicated so that the recipient could faithfully recreate the diagram made by the 'sender'.

The first Windows program attempt was literally a simple 'Paintbox'.  It allowed the user to select a small gif tile and then paint it anywhere in a grid of squares.  The grid squares were 'lettered' and the gif tiles each had a unique letter, so it was a simple process to build the cypher with each placing of a new gif tile. The utility could also work the other way around, in that if you pasted in a cypher string into the cypher box, the utility could paint the right gif tiles into the right squares to recreate the drawing.  It was a cypher creator and decoder first and a drawing utility second.

At that time Frank Brown was using an expensive CAD program to create his knot diagrams.  Very powerful, quite a steep learning curve and priced well out of most peoples range.  However, a couple of additions, like different coloured cords and the ability to move the diagrams around and Frank found that the little utility was in fact far easier and quicker to use than the professional CAD software.  The cypher tool was starting to become a drawing tool and with the addition of Save and Load facilities, the cypher side was almost irrelevant, because it really did not matter how the utility remembered the diagram, all you had to do was 'Load the File'.

The addition of cord colours created a problem with using gif tiles because it meant that for just two colours we would need four gif tiles representing the possible variations of over red, under blue etc and for three cord we were going to have to increase the pallet from just two crossing tiles to eight.  That led to the first big change in the utility, instead of painting a gif into a square, the utility actually drew the cord in the square.  The tile pallet on the left became just an indicator of what would be drawn in the square.

A number of drawing enhancements followed such as the ability to move the drawing around the grid, flip hand, auto load etc. and the utility was progressing to becoming a more usable drawing tool.  It was however, no more than that - it just drew lines and curves in squares.  Apart from a little logic to make sure a crossing used the right under cord colour, it was nothing more than a tool for drawing lines in squares - it knew nothing of the meanings of the tiles or of the knot which was diagrammed.  The fields to enter the knot name, additional information and the Overs Index, were just text fields and held whatever the user typed in them.

When the Overs Index was first created, the biggest criticism of it was that it was simply too complicated for the 'man in the street' to be able to work it out and sure enough, no one was filling in the OI for knots diagrams they were creating.  To give the utility the power to calculate the OI itself, it needed two things - first was a 'map' for every tile which declared which face was connected to which and the second was to know where to 'Start'.  This was easy because the WEnd tiles were the only ones to have only one connected face. 

So I put together a function which waited until a WEnd tile had been painted, then it started to trace out the cord, moving out the 'out' face into the neighbouring 'in' face, through the neighbour and out its 'out' face using the tile map to guide the progress.  The colour of the tile was completely ignored in favour of following legitimate face connections.  This continued until the function met a cell with no content when it stopped.  I then had the complete path of the cord and could use it to identify all the crossings in sequence (later to be called the Binary Index).  I could then apply the rules to count the overs index and post the result automatically into the Overs Index field.

Version 4.2 was a big step forward because it built in the facility to take the Binary Signature and use it to look up that signature in the Knot Library Wiki.  However, these tools seem to be a bit ahead of their time, because today all the comments seem to be focused on the utility purely as a drawing tool with requests for drag, drop, copy, paste, undo, zoom, etc. and the shape and use of the various tile images.  This is clearly where the next development work should be concentrated.

There is a growing consensus that the WEnd would be more understandably depicted as an end which has only one face connection and should probably be depicted as a stump end inside the cell.

The use of arrows is much less clearly resolved.

It was used in early versions to indicate the rope continuing to the SPart, it might also be taken to indicate the direction of the load.  Later, it was also used to indicate the long arms of a large loop ( as distinct from a small bight equivalent to a TIB WEnd).  The loop arrows were shown pointing into the knot to distinguish loop ends from the SPart, but perhaps they should be used pointing out of the knot to follow the implication that they indicate the load direction and then close the two lines to show this to be a connected loop rather than two unconnected lines.  As far as analysing the knot is concerned, the arrows are no different to simple straight lines, they just connect one face with another and can be used anywhere to indicate flow, force, continuation etc. whatever the user wants.

Apart from indicating loop legs, do we need an arrow at all?  The SPart can simply be indicated as a full line and if the knot does not have an SPart, then it can be indicated using a WEnd on both ends??  I feel that we need some symbol to indicate 'and the rest of the rope' be it an arrow, a cut line or a line with ellipsis, but then this could be used anywhere to indicate that this section is extended.

Working on the premise that we should concentrate on making the utility a more competent drawing tool first and an analysis tool second, then perhaps it is time to consider a rethink to the way the cord line is drawn and to consider the idea of dropping the 'tile painting' approach in favour of simply 'connecting the dots'.  For example, it is possible to consider a method where the user picks a colour then simply clicks on the wall faces that the line is required to pass through, then the utility draws the line shape necessary to connect the two clicked points (in the same cell).  This then immediately begs the question of why restrict drawing to just the four square faces, why not allow the corners to be clicked as well, giving us access to diagonal lines and wall to corner bends as well as corner to corner curves?

This would take us from the possible six connection options we have with face to face connection right up to 20 possible connections.



The FCB42 connections are in red and the FCB5 additional connections are in black.

We would have to develop a totally new way of showing a crossing and would probably have to have the facility of moving the cord up and down in layers in order to facilitate the crossing function - a lot of work - is it worth while?

Derek


Prajna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Canadian eight or two loops figure eight.
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2008, 11:15:22 PM »
If you are thinking of changing the interface perhaps it might work to choose to begin with the SPart or WEnd, then click the tiles to trace the knot from that point.  If you click on the previous tile you put down then it 'backspaces' to that tile. If you get to a crossing point you click the nearest tile edge if the rope is going under the existing rope or the furthest edge if it is going over. With such a system the program could calculate the cypher, OI and signature progressively as the knot was drawn.

Thank you for such a splendid utility.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 11:36:02 PM by Prajna »