Author Topic: New Hitches  (Read 23954 times)

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
New Hitches
« on: July 15, 2009, 07:35:58 AM »
A Guild member from Hong Kong (y Chan) has aked that I post the pictures attached of 2 hitches which he wishes to claim as new knots. What does everyone think?

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2009, 08:10:01 AM »
Why are these knots "new"? Let your friend build a case for this claim, which can be defended...........

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2009, 09:02:54 AM »
Apologies, I have been meaning to update my profile to reflect that I am now the Guild Hon. Secretary. The post on behalf of Mr Chan was done in that capacity - he is based in Hong Kong and asked that I post on his behalf. In future I will be careful to distinguish between posts in my personal capacity and those as Secretary.

Barry

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2009, 11:22:59 AM »
Hi Barry,

The issue is not your position within the guild echelons, but the

Quote
2 hitches which [mr.Chan]  wishes to claim as new knots

What constitutes "new" ?
Why can mr. Chan claim these knots?
What makes him feel comfortable that they may not be yet recorded somewhere in the global knotting repositories?
Has he checked all available and accessible literature, or does he simply want the world to go look for him?
Suppose they are not yet recorded in all places we look, will the knots then belong to mr.Chan? Must we then pay for usage?

Sounds like a good deal, is this what IGKT offers?






DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2009, 01:54:34 PM »
Hi Barry,

Good to see you in the new role - keep up the good work.

The diagrams are an excellent example of someone taking a basic form and then progressing it into a number of enhanced forms by adding a tuck or feed to create the whole family.  I like particularly the whit of extending the 'C'love hitch to 'B'love and 'A'love hitches respectively (this process could make the basis for a good teaching project / exercise).

While there are a great many variations possible (as this exercise shows), so many people have twiddled cord, for so many years, it is inconceivable that any 'knot' will never have been tied before.  So in that respect, no knot is likely to be entirely 'New'.  However, I think in the spirit of this claim, the aspect is that it is 'Newly Published'.

To establish if a given knot has seen the 'light of printers ink' before, I understand that the Guild have set up a group to vet proposed 'New Knots' and that this group is chaired by Dan Lehman.  I do not think that it is the responsibility of a knots proposer to 'Prove' that a knot is previously unpublished - rather, it is arguably more the responsibility of the Guild to prove that it has been published - however, I do think that a new knots proposer should supply at least some support as to why the knot is worth any thought or attention - why should it be recognised? What value would there be in publishing it?  Who would want to know?

As to the 'Rights of Ownership' - should someone rediscover a potentially valuable (i.e. useful) new knot and have the Guild confirm that indeed, they could find no prior publication of that knot, then the 'owner' should at least have the right to name that knot and claim the accolade of being first to publish it.  Beyond that of course, no one 'owns' any knots in the sense of being able to restrict their use or charge for their use, and I hope if anyone ever tried to patent a knot, the Guild would stand up to defend the public ownership and freedom to use all and any knots.

Derek

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2009, 02:06:57 PM »
Derek,

Well said. Now we will only have to wait till Dan Lehman unbunks to get his verdict.

As for patented knots, check out http://www.patentsonline.com/ and query the site for 'KNOTS' .  Apparantly some structures have slipped the IGKT attention and even so, who is the "Guild" to stand up and defend the public ownership and freedom to use all and any knots? Can they? On which grounds?

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2009, 03:17:24 PM »
Thanks for your views so far.

I have had a look at the patentsonline website but all I found on a search were adverts for knot books and supplies.  As far as I am aware it is not possible to patent a knot though I don't know if anyone has tried (the cost of the patent would be prohibitive and then trying to enforce it largely impossible I would think unlike a patent fastening which is manufactured and then retailed).  Like many before him Mr Chan has devised what he sees as an unpublished pair of hitches - both of which are to my mind simple variations on existing knots which may be in common use somewhere but not necessarily in print (and it would be almost impossible to prove the negative given the sheer number of publications).

The Guild did have a new knot committee but as far as I know Dan Lehman is the only remaining member and I think he would regard the committee as defunct. Rather than resurrect such a committee the forum seems to me an ideal place to garner views (I would be particularly pleased if Dan were to contribute) and the Guild can then express a view on the knots concerned based on the opinions posted.  The Guild are not the arbiters of whether a knot is 'new' nor do they claim to be but if a knot appears to have value and is not generally known then the Guild should perhaps use some of its resources eg this website to bring it to the attention of Guild members as well as the public generally.

Barry

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2009, 04:54:51 PM »
A Guild member from Hong Kong (y Chan) has aked that I post the pictures attached of 2 hitches which he wishes to claim as new knots. What does everyone think?

I haven't done a literature search yet, but I think the search should focus on the "Blove".  The "Alove" rolls apart too easily under certain conditions.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2009, 05:13:47 PM »
I've been trying them both, and I found the Alove to slip by jerking repeatedly in the slick 4 mm polyester I tried it with. However the Blove shows no slip, but is virtually impossible to untie after loading it hard.
All images and text of mine published on the IGKT site is licensed according to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2009, 07:41:26 PM »
Barry,

I am not sure which turn you missed with patentsonline, but their patent 4711476, which Derek Smith already called "Just Plain Crazy" (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=946.0), on this forum October 21st 2007, is available for review at that site. Also 5573286 by Jacksonviller Chaim Rogisnki, D446161 by Ontario Gail Gordon, ... etc etc, show of patented knots, structures, knot tying devices and so forth. 

Not so good to see how much memory the authoritive body for consultative purposes, requested to do this kind of verification, possesses......

Derek,

I have given your suggestion about "proving" newness of knots some more thought. The only way to convince skeptics is rocksolid evidence, but for a claimer that would boil down to showing that the structure does not occur in the globally recorded literature. I agree that is quite a chore. Proving non-existance is typically a hard task. The alternative is that those who must be convinced, can refute the claim by means of a counter-example; i.e. come up with an earlier recording. This poses a, what shall I call it, .. challenge. How well is your knowledge organised and  can you come up with that counter example? This alternative route has a flaw. As long as no counter example has surfaced the claimer holds the right to pursue his claim and the damage is done. The world will believe a new Edward Hunter came to our planet, which is not the case. You seem to agree that the claimer should show that he/she has undertook some effort to search the main repositories, but how much is reasonable? I guess it will not be hard to keep IGKT busy for a long while with non-sense knot claims as soon as you let the claimer off the hook by taken the burden of proof upon yourself.

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2009, 07:58:22 PM »
Problem solved - the website is freepatentsonline.com (patentsonline is some sort of marketing outfiit). I'll have a look tomorrow when I have time but at first glance the US patent office seems to allow patents which I doubt would be accepted by the UK patent office.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2009, 11:09:43 PM »
The Guild did have a new knot committee but as far as I know Dan Lehman is the only remaining member and I think he would regard the committee as defunct. Rather than resurrect such a committee the forum seems to me an ideal place to garner views (I would be particularly pleased if Dan were to contribute) and the Guild can then express a view on the knots concerned based on the opinions posted.  The Guild are not the arbiters of whether a knot is 'new' nor do they claim to be but if a knot appears to have value and is not generally known then the Guild should perhaps use some of its resources eg this website to bring it to the attention of Guild members as well as the public generally.

Barry

Barry,
I quite concur in this, generally.  Seems reasonable, beneficial, to use this site
for putting such a question to broad view -- kind of like a ratchet:  whatever
good observations, responses come in should only move things forward; any
person keen to the particular task can simply pay extra attention and effort
on responding (as though they belonged to a special committee ...).  What
is made of it is yet left to the IGKT to decide (such as cataloguing into some
database which then can become our practical measure of "new").

Beware that much engagement of "new"ness runs some risk of encouraging
what is of oftentimes dubious value (making "new" for the sake of recognition
(and then that's about it for the cited knot-entity -- big whoop, eh?)).
(Consider e.g. Ashley's #1425 (not "a") bend to be new; it is even published,
and in a prominent, long-lived, oft'-cited book:  and yet, has even this quite decent
ends-joining knot gained favor?  (seeming strong, secure-when-slack, non-jamming)
How much enthusiasm can one have for a vast display of less-practially-viable
knots?  -- perhaps, with savvy indexing/fetching, the vastness can be surmounted,
and value can be cited & found where it exists; that's some good effort to do. )

The problem of using "published" as a measure is that so many things are not
published, and for good reason many other things will likely not ever be, or
only in some form --such as an IGKT "Catalogue"-- readily done w/o involvement
of traditional means of "publishing".  => recorded , then.  And IGKT seems
JUST the body to do this (as much as any other), conceptually.  (No awards per se.)

There are likely many knots that can be harvested from "the wild" qua "new",
and which then have the benefit of established practicality.  (There are some I've
seen, however, that are better left unharvested!  -- comical efforts at something,
falling short (short of desirable qualities).

-------------

Mr. Chan does a beautiful presentation, but with a couple of flaws:
1) the Clove's red-line finish needs to go Under vs. Over ...
 [edit:  in the topmost (1st page), not bottom, diagram]
 and
2) the "Alove"'s central crossings are not clearly diagrammed -- there is
definite ambiguity re whether the end passed Under BOTH or just one part
(I'm assuming the latter).
But, otherwise, this has the sort of thoroughness of an old C.Warner & P. vdGriend
hitches presentation, where many options were indicated, from a common start
-- a Hydra's view.

Here is an interesting case, also, of the effect of dressing / positioning
of parts
on the knot -- topologically (simply, so, here), these are the same
structure (given my assumption re Alove's form, noted in (2), i.e.).
Note that this problem of knots discrimination is arguably tough, even defeating,
for some notational representations!  (I have never gotten into such things.)

I can say that, yes, Alove has been tied, more or less:  I have used the alternation
of French Whipping's Half-hitches with Overhands, liking the way an Overhand
more pulls down on the HH feed into it, and then the HH more jams beneath
the Overhand's feed -- although I admit that the former behavior is not quite
so readily tight as should be ideal.  (A HH into the next makes a Clove and in
this the "crossing part" goes over two parts, so "feeds" readily over the
succeeding HH (across & down-bearing) whereas an Overhand's end must
come UP from the pinch the crossing part bears upon it (up-over-down);
but this coming up seems to too easily resist the crossing part's pressure
(making me wish for a Dbl.Oh = Strangle, but that is not a readily formed
& tightened structure for whipping -- more working than is good (though possible)).

But this use in whipping is not quite the sort of hitch structure that Chan
presents (call mine more a "binder-hitch"  -- while it has some tension on its
ends (like a mid-line hitch), it is really likely to endure w/o such, and brings its
ends into the knot at particular angles befitting a binder, along the object).

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: July 16, 2009, 12:51:51 AM by Dan_Lehman »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2009, 11:47:26 PM »

2) the "Alove"'s central crossings are not clearly diagrammed -- there is
definite ambiguity re whether the end passed Under BOTH or just one part
(I'm assuming the latter).

I assumed the former, but you're right, the diagram doesn't settle the issue.  Maybe Chan or Sweeny could tell us.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2009, 12:49:14 AM »

2) the "Alove"'s central crossings are not clearly diagrammed -- there is
definite ambiguity re whether the end passed Under BOTH or just one part
(I'm assuming the latter).


I assumed the former {end is tucked beneath both parts}, but you're right, the diagram doesn't settle the issue.

Although on reflection, I think that you have the better claim
-- for the other possibility does tickle that so-alike-but-for... aspect,
which I think would've struck Chan as needing careful explication;
that he did no such thing suggests that he thought the difference
was pretty obvious, and that can only really be if the end is tucked
under BOTH parts, as you at first perceived.

This then makes the hitch a sort of odd variant to the Fisherman's/Anchor Bend,
and somewhat suspect on holding as the diameter of the object increases
relative to the cordage, as the crossing part is what must nip the end
but it is pulled away from the object by the S.Part.  (And it allows still
some variance per dressing as one can then push the crossing part away
from S.Part entry --i.p., to the away side--, to better nip the end.)
(And it suggests a rather comical prior claimant to the thoughtfully
exploring Chan:  that poor fellow who simply botched the Anchor Bend!)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And this confusion puts nicely one little problematic aspect of "prior
publishing":  let's assume that Chan meant <whichever> ONE of our
two possibilities; has he --by ambiguous presentation to us-- published
here both?  (Or, were his presentation that of a 3rd party, who was
clueless about knots --hence the mucking up image--, has Chan in fact
himself done anything?!!)

Fortune does not hang in the balance -- these knots won't support that.
 :D

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: July 16, 2009, 12:57:43 AM by Dan_Lehman »

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2009, 08:45:48 AM »
The Blove tying method is given as #1 in that Warner & van de Griend (1998) article Dan Lehman refers to [KM61, p37].

The Alove tying method , as given by mr.Chan, exhibits ambiguity and leads to 2 distinct structures. Assuming the working end passes under one part, then the Alove equals the Blove, as the tying methods lead to the same structure (slightly different illustrated cases). However, if we allow the assumption-line-of-approach to grow rank, then
  • Close scrutiny of the big diagrams on pp1+2 of mr.Chan's document appear to suggest that the working end passes under both parts.
  • The Picketline Hitch and Groundline Hitch confusion creeps in. Both structures are equated here.

If the working end passes under both parts and one is allowed to revert tying methods, mirror, shuffle and collapse the structures, like in the Picketline and Groundline Hitch Controversy, then the Blove has also been illustrated in the aforementioned KM061-paper as #12. Let me know if you cannot reproduce that transformation and I will post the details.

In any case what is "new" about the Alove? If I correctly understand Dan Lehman's monologue, then he shies away from using "prior publication" as a benchmark and there is no IGKT structure catalogue to back up the results of this knot query. Where does all of this leave mr.Chan? I guess he believes to have submitted something previously not known and got official (?) credits for that. A cold shower awaits him, as the Alove (by his tying method and in his symmetry format) will show up, sooner or later in a prior publication. Then, what?

Joop Knoop.