Author Topic: New Hitches  (Read 23955 times)

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2009, 12:05:52 PM »
typos..grr, the Alove is given as #12 in the KM061 paper.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2009, 06:21:54 PM »
typos..grr, the Alove is given as #12 in the KM061 paper.
([edit] works better than a follow-up post, if used promptly (= prior to replies/quotes).)

Thank you for indexing to the relevant KM article.
Clearly km61:38#12 is not  the Alove.  We aren't looking for inverting,
flipping, recasting things for equality.  And only by first re-dressing and then
loading end vice S.Part does the Alove become #12.

Rather, Alove equals a variation on #3 or #8; knot  km:61#8 isn't illustrated.
The Alove differs from #3/#8 by taking the end under another turn of the knot.
(Again, under loading esp. with larger diameter objects there might be nothing
much beyond an apparent nip here.)

--dl*
====

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2009, 08:47:11 PM »
Dan Lehman wrote:

Quote
Clearly km61:38#12 is not the Alove.  We aren't looking for inverting, flipping, recasting things for equality.


I am less definite than you are. You have no definition for what constitutes "equality". Now you must come with a follow-up post. Better had you [edit]ted promptly :).

Let us take this further: what justifies a knotclaim? Clearly any claim is now justified because natural operations on structures are not to be taken into account by your proposition, or has your way of assessing already reached the level of "formalized/repeatable process" to steer free of these submerged rocks ?.  If so it would be interesting to read it, as it should be published and freely accessible to the world. With this state of affairs Mr.Chan can claim that he is the first person in the world to submit a pdf on how to tie an "Alove Structure". Nobody else will ever be able to submit "the same pdf", hence every claim is unique by default. This approach clearly does not resolve the newness issue.




trade use only

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2009, 09:02:05 PM »
Hope I stand to be corrected here - is there an error in Mr Chan's 1st diagram, 1st page - in that the Clove Hitch's Red line should break as it goes *under* the "on the diagonal" "cross-over" part of the basis start of the Clove Hitch - as shown in grey???

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2009, 09:52:45 PM »
TradeUseOnly, you're replying w/o reading -- that point is raised, above (you're right).

Dan Lehman wrote:

Quote
Clearly km61:38#12 is not the Alove.  We aren't looking for inverting, flipping, recasting things for equality.

 You have no definition for what constitutes "equality".
And to think, we've operated for so long like this, without great trouble.
A natural understanding serves well enough here.
"natural operations" to get from knot A to knot B pretty much show their
difference; were they the same, one would not need to operate .
But there are some good problems around seemingly easy boundaries,
and even where boundaries might not have been noticed, maybe.
Equality is a good tough challenge (which might have to settle
on practical, fuzzy, haphazard boundaries  -- as biological classifications
have had some revisions upon later reflection).

Quote
With this state of affairs Mr.Chan can claim that he is the first person in the world to submit a pdf on how to tie an "Alove Structure". Nobody else will ever be able to submit "the same pdf", hence every claim is unique by default.
We are judging *knots*, not pdfs or other documentation.  I'm pretty sure that
neither Mr.Chan nor any other person will make a claim on a format of presentation.

----------

Quote
... A cold shower awaits him, as the Alove ... will show up, sooner or later in a prior publication. Then, what?

We can only guess.  -- or if not showing up ..., then what, as well?!
There are some known cases to consider.  I "invented" SmitHunter's Bend,
and discovered the IGKT in a roundabout way by that "claim", seeing the knot
audaciously displayed on the cover of The Morrow Guide to Knots which
cited the London Times article, which mentioned Geoffrey Budworth.  And then
Edward Hunter himself learned of Phil Smith's published invention of the
knot that has been named for EH, which PS called "Rigger's Bend".  Perhaps
yet some thousand apes will bang out a pdf detailing an older history of this
knot!  What an interesting thought (they would've done so by now, but for
their long-known efforts at Shakespeare).
Well, Edward's surfacing of the knot got the IGKT formed, semi-directly.
Phil's doesn't seem to have had much effect, although his book went into
a few printings, so presumably reached some thousands of somebodies.
And mine just got me all tied up in various tangles, such as this.

Then there was Bob Thrun's invention of Rosendahl's knot; when he learned
of its prior existence/invention/use, he probably was impressed that it had
allegedly done such serious duty, confirming his admiration for it; and he
likely wondered how it then managed to drop out of knowledge!?  (I, too,
wonder at the U.S.Navy not having some bunch of documentation of how
to properly secure by this special knot the zeppelin mooring lines; and how
it was that a commander came to know the knot and enforce its use in a
conservative organization!?!!)

--dl*
====

ps:  (Belated) congrats to J.Knoop for his 30th post, reaching "Full Member" status,
 if not to some a "Full of it" Member !  :D   (maybe more:   ;D :D ;)   :)  )

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2009, 08:26:58 AM »
Dan Lehman wrote:

Quote
Quote from: J.Knoop on July 16, 2009, 08:47:11 PM
Dan Lehman wrote:
[quote
Clearly km61:38#12 is not the Alove.  We aren't looking for inverting, flipping, recasting things for equality.

You have no definition for what constitutes "equality".
[\quote]
And to think, we've operated for so long like this, without great trouble.
A natural understanding serves well enough here.

Meaning you are just having great fun playing this game, but nothing serious, I presume? (Italicized "great" is mine)

I beg to differ on your point of view that if a transformation is required the structures are different. Depending on the type of transformation they may not be intrinsically different, and that alone has caused tremendous nomenclatural confusion. If you cannot unambiguously identify a structure, after you have allowed it to be tangled to a complexity baffling your wildest dreams, then what hope do you have for classification?  An Overhand with a fancy complex twist in its belly still represents an Overhand Knot Structure. So, where are your limits for "permitted additional tangling"? Can we call such a process "complexifying a structure"?  Note that structural complexification is something different from tying method, the latter leads you there (the process rather than the product).

If you allow a tying method as "something" new, then knotter's paradise has just been blown to smithereens. There are infinitely more tying methods than structures. Structures are not tamed, tying methods go completely rampant. If two tying methods lead to a similar structure, are they identical? If you are nodding, then consider the case of the Capstan Knot where there are at least 4 appearances, each in a different stage of structural complexification, going by different names in ABOK and EKFR, totally unlinked. What is, off the top of my head, #1055-1056? A Capstan on the Bight, or something else? (I will verify this reference later for completeness sake.)

I will conclude that you have no definition for equality and this leaves the door open for any stupid knot claim.


Quote
We are judging *knots*, not pdfs or other documentation.  I'm pretty sure that
neither Mr.Chan nor any other person will make a claim on a format of presentation.

Not judging pdf's? I think you missed the point, dear Dan. The point is the format of representation. Mr.Chan's pdf is, what it is, mr.Chan's ambiguous pdf, with an Alove tying method claim for which IGKT is on the verge of issueing a Certificate of Newness (CON). This whole thread so far has been about the confusion bellowing from that pdf. You just, in fact, scorned TradeUseOnly on that issue :).  Aside from that, it is totally unclear which criteria are to be applied to assess the claim and hence anybody can claim anything. Mr.Chan's pdf represents his ideas on 2 (and some more) hitches. If you take that as your starting point then you are off on a slippery tangent plane. It is not clear what the case is; is IGKT as self-appointed body for consultative purposes issuing the CON on what that pdf represents? And what exactly is that? The structure? The tying methods? And what is that CON worth if those issues remain unresolved? I am inclined to propose that we call the CON-issue process: conning, but will not :).

You hold that people will not make a claim on a format of presentation. I have not personally met mr.Chan, he conveys his ideas by means of ..... right! It seems that you must shape up this act of acknowledging "new knots", as it is full of holes. There is no classification, there is no defintion for equality, there are unclear criteria, the process is left in the dark,.... All in all it strikes me as not more than an unbased "professional judgement". Nothing wrong with that provided you have the professional basis, in some way, to back your judgement.

The stories about the SmithHunterLehman and the Rosendahl Bends are very illustrative. If the SmithHunter debacle, Lehman had no publication to back-up his claim, led to IGKT, then not much has been learnt. There was a lot of fuss and misinformation about Edward Hunter's Bend, this leads to IGKT, a "correction" surfaces, creditting Phil Smith (1982), but shedding some peculiar light on the sensational splash, spotlighting the guild originators' competences. Now Geoffrey Budworth in Philip Howard's Times article of October 6th 1978, already carefully added that Hunter's Bend may have slipped from mainstream knot knowledge. However, that aspect was left silent and the guild enjoyed the "free advertisement". Smart? It is indicative of motives. On the one hand you claim to be serious about knots, yet on the other hand you exploit the media by letting them blow up the lorey stories, believing it will benefit you. Well, it does not. If you do not have the management of your knowledge in place, you must be prepared to eat humble pie, i.e. lose face at times.  This will happen as soon as Mr.Chan is hailed by IGKT as new-knot contributor. It is not Murphy's Law in action but preventable dumbness, as history has a tendency to repeat itself.


Thanks for the congrats. Within the month of JustJuly :).



 

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2009, 10:16:14 AM »
This is a personal contribution. I don't think that the term "new knot" is at all helpful. There is in fact no such thing which can be proved to be a new knot since we just don't know what every person on every continent has ever done with a piece of rope, twine etc. Nor does it matter. I am keen to see that knot knowledge is brought to light - if we use "discovered" then perhaps we are nearer the mark. Livingstone discovered Victoria Falls - they had been there for millenia. But he got the credit as a great Victorian explorer notwithstanding that local people had been well aware of his so-called discovery. So it is with knotting.  To give credit to a person I think that a practical knot has to fulfil certain criteria - the following are a first stab:

1.  It must be useful.

2. It must be reasonably strong and secure (I am not going to define reasonable here but if a knot slips easily then it probably fails to satisfy criterion 1. anyway).

3. If it has been published before there it is reasonable to expect that the discoverer would not have been aware of the publication - in other words a simple Internet search would not have helped, some detailed research would have to have been undertaken requiring a level of dedication beyond the average "knotter".

4. Notwithstanding prior publication the discoverer has shown a commendable interest in knotting and has genuinely attempted to further our knowledge and skills.

OK some of these are subjective. This is not about claiming a "First" but  encouraging an interest in knots - and seeking to ensure that those who are trying to find something new do at least basic homework before claiming "newness". If people feel discouraged because of an academic argument about when is a knot new or dismissed because in some obscure pamphlet in 1903 somebody drew the same thing then they and others will fast lose interest. And yet these obscure knotting works (or at least their knots) should be brought to general attention and if takes a rediscovery to stimulate research to do that then I am all for it. But credit where it's due to Mr Chan - it takes some courage to stand up in the face of experts and say "look what I've discovered" knowing that you could be publicly shot down in flames for your trouble!!

Barry

PS Mr Chan has sent me some corretced drawings which I will post when I have reduced the file size.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2009, 05:31:32 PM »
I will conclude that you have no definition for equality and this leaves the door open for any stupid knot claim.
:D
May we take this speculation to imply that you believe that if
we do have such a definition that "knot claims" are not stupid?!
That would be quite something!  ;)

Quote
Meaning you are just having great fun playing this game, but nothing serious, I presume?
Actually, it ranges from fun to tedious, with the failure to fully suffer
the tedium evident in omission of checking (i.e., having internalized)
the aforementioned KM CW/PvdG exposition of snug- & noose-hitches.

Quote
I beg to differ on your point of view that if a transformation is required the structures are different.
But this is a quite natural understanding.  In the Alove assertion (by you), something akin
to Ashley's #1682 (Buoy Rope H.) is supposed to equal a sort of oddball Fisherman's Bend
-- and that simply fails a reasonable person test of equality.  And I don't care to have
this evaluation couched in some kind of strict terms, such as might (in topology)
equate the oft'-relied-upon Fig.8 eyeknot with No-Knot (as any Tied-In-Bight (TIB) knot is).
For those lacking the KM source, one might say that km61:38#12 is to the Strangle as is
Ashley's #1674 is to the Constrictor:  the end passed OVER the crossing part into the final tuck.

Quote
Depending on the type of transformation they may not be intrinsically different,
and that alone has caused tremendous nomenclatural confusion. If you cannot unambiguously
identify a structure, after you have allowed it to be tangled to a complexity baffling your
wildest dreams, then what hope do you have for classification?
As noted above, it is my understanding that biological classifications such
as in ornithology are not so immutable; that upon reflection (re-thinking)
and new information sometimes thoughts about distinct species change.
(And we might agree that there need not be even "complexity ..." to such
extent to make classification a difficult task:  some simple issues can be much
more than surmised when you look into them trying to nail them down!)

Quote
An Overhand with a fancy complex twist in its belly still represents an Overhand Knot Structure.
If this "complex twist" amounts to some TIB knot, then it is different;
otherwise, it sounds artificial beyond worth of consideration.

Quote
If you allow a tying method as "something" new, then knotter's paradise has just been blown to smithereens.
 There are infinitely more tying methods than structures.
But our counting all of one infinity will be no longer than counting several.
A new tying method is certainly worthy of recognition (i.e., knowing), as has been
best demonstrated in recent memory perhaps here in the presentation of a new
method to tie the Butterfly mid-line eyeknot by Alpineer.  This knowledge has already
seeped out to some rockclimbers, where it received appreciation!  -- and all still
lacking any CON or even fame & fortune ("even"!).

Quote
If two tying methods lead to a[n identical] structure, are they identical?
No, the methods are distinct, as the words indicate.  -- with some obvious importance in
the case where forming a TIB knot renders it impossible (by TIB, i.e.) to tie through an
enclosed (i.e. ring) structure; rockclimbers (and associated disciplines SAR, caving, &
canyoneering, at least) refer to distinct knots "Fig.8 follow-through" & "Fig.8 on a bight".
-- even to the point of making separate tests of knot strength !!!  (It would never occur
to me to believe that the test device would discern a tying method, unless one carefully
explained why it could be so (e.g., that one method introduces torsion, or that by one
method a different dressing/setting typically occurs) !!  (Cf. Dave Richards's kernmantle
testing, on-line (and cited in this forum), and Jim Frank's CMC Rope Rescue Manual
for such distinct testings (differences well within the range of "noise" -- 1-2% pt.s).)

Quote
...consider the case of the Capstan Knot where there are at least 4 appearances,
each in a different stage of structural {complication}, going by different names in ABOK and EKFR,
totally unlinked. What is, off the top of my head, #1055-1056? A Capstan on the Bight,
or something else? (I will verify this reference later for completeness sake.)
Ashley's two images/numbers show two , distinct knots.  EKFR is itself amazing
unlinked , so I don't much bother with it as other than a hodgepodge collection
most appallingly unintelligently done -- and surviving the decades in publication!

A common problematic classification case is the venerable Bowline, which can, in one
fell swoop it seems, go from a  typically illustrated (perhaps loosely set) marriage of
a Half-hitch-like "loop"/turn and a bight, to -- as tension rises -- a non-HH round turn
loop & bight, to -- greater tension, maybe "shock" loading -- a spiral and bight,
and then that is more or less a sort of Pile Hitch noose!  I do not consider the extremes
of this transformation to be "equal", but clearly they can result from the one tying
method after some force-induced transformation.  I suspect a test device will show
differences (if not in ultimate strength, in where break occurs, et cetera).

Quote
... anybody can claim anything.
Yep, and reap a big So what?! -- claims may come & go (and never cross
paths with the IGKT, for that matter).

Quote
And what is that CON worth if those issues remain unresolved? I am inclined to propose
that we call the CON-issue process: conning, but will not :).
If ... , or if not -- either way.  The fanciful process does appeal just on the sense
of seeing what it actually might amount to!   ???   :)

Quote
All in all it strikes me as not more than an unbased "professional judgement".  Nothing wrong
with that provided you have the professional basis, in some way, to back your judgement.
The result matches the significance, I'd say.  (Though CONning someone just to
measure the significance tickles my fancy:  maybe a counter-IGKT would arise in
protest to the silly CON upon realization of non-newness.  and ... knotting religions.)

(I'll put a reply to Sweeney separately, I think, though of course it relates.)

--dl*
====

postscript

Quote
Thanks for the congrats. Within the month of JustJuly  :) 

You're welcome.  And I l ::) k forward to see if you regard this as an august forum.

 ;D




Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2009, 06:28:45 PM »
I don't think that the term "new knot" is at all helpful. There is in fact no such thing
which can be proved to be a new knot since we just don't know what every person
on every continent has ever done with a piece of rope, twine etc. Nor does it matter.
I am in much agreement, here, but perhaps with slightly differing expression.
For starters, I DO believe that there are newly discovered knots -- albeit perhaps
with no way to prove the newness.  E.g., I don't see a whole lot of inventiveness
in knotting even today, and believe that without going too far back in history
that one enters a world with such lesser options of knottable media that some
knots such as have become necessary to secure the fine, slick & strong angling
lines simply wouldn't have been tied -- they'd even be impracticable.
But I don't expect to make much of this belief.

Otherwise, I say let us define "new" (and maybe use another word) to mean
"not in >>our<< record" -- not even, you see, pretending to know the world,
but only our so-far knowledge of the world, what we've collected.  Should we
somehow come up with a practical way to organize such information, then
the check for "new"ness is not so hard.  (Problematic issues such as were
just discussed above will occur, but, hey, it gives the gray cells exercise.)

As I mentioned previously, I see some risk at some people taking on as a
challenge racking up tallies of how many additions to our set they can make
-- king of the discovers.  It might be that in some cases we simply reply with
some kind of verbal sigh to indicate "enough" and that the cataloguing work
for those discoveries exceeds our perceived merit in them.  Best, though, is
that no one takes such a course.

Quote
To give credit to a person ...
... one can be precisely literal:  <this knot> was brought to our attention on <date>
by <person>.  That expresses precise conditions regarding our knowledge and the
fact of submittal, without any assertion about things beyond that.  If information is
maintained per knot (as it comes), possibly it will later be noted that some knot was
subsequently learned to have been in use (presently or historically).
SOME help in distinction --which so far hasn't been mentioned here-- can come from
noting in what material(s) the knot occurs.  (For knot "inventors", this usually amounts
to some convenient cord --witness Derek's favored fine polyester cord, which has colored
his view on some structures-- , and as such maybe is less helpful than learning of some
in-practice knot in materials seeing regular application.)

Quote
I think that a practical knot has to fulfil certain criteria - the following are a first stab:
1.  It must be useful.
A practical knot must be practical, essentially.  For discoveries rather than inventions
--as we might distinguish for Victoria Falls vs. printing press-- , one will have the use
cited.  (And thereby one might have a clue to where to look for other occurrences,
and to what competition the new knot has.)

Quote
2. It must be reasonably strong and secure
This puts more burden on us/et al. than is necessary.  The Offset Ring Bend (Ashley's #1410,
preferably neatly dressed though!) is one that many feel fails this criterion;
but it is de rigueur for an abseil-ropes-joining knot in rockclimbing (not without
much, repeated debate).  A practical knot serves a purpose; that purpose might
require neither strength nor security (don't ask me for an example of latter,
but some simple things might get flimsy-temporary solutions -- and if it solves,
so be it).

Quote
3. If it has been published before there it is reasonable to expect that the discoverer
 would not have been aware of the publication
I'm unsure of what you're saying here, but it seems to be that somehow a submittal
would get some kind of recognition even if the knot were known?  Frankly, if somebody's
4-yr-old sat down w/o any guidance and took a hank of cord and with a few whoops of
"knoop, knoop!" managed to tie a bowline, I'd give that kid a slice of watermelon!!
-- more accomplishment than arcane fiddling of twisty complexificationage-izing of
something royally obscure, fer sure.  Beyond saying a sort of thank you for your
contribution
, I don't see any great commitment for the IGKT to make.  We can
set about putting illustration to the universe of knots, perhaps, and note things that
add to this.  And beyond that, yes, we should feel free to get more excited/pleased
and responsive to something regarded at quite useful or novel.  (I, e.g., have a quite
novel tape bend; soon I hope to learn by strength-testing whether it might also be
useful.)

Quote
4. Notwithstanding prior publication the discoverer has shown a commendable
 interest in knotting and has genuinely attempted to further our knowledge and skills.
This very point came up before, with Derek on the other side of my less complimentary
suggestion that such a hypothesized submittal showed a serious lack of research!
 (Obviously, not if the knot's obscure.)  But to avoid much issue here, avoid much
daring in the reception; yes, some thanks of this sort if fine.  -- but I do chide myself
on forgetting the KM hitches exposition.)  And the submittal might show an interesting
path to the well-known knot, just a further rounding out of knotting information.
(I have found myself "inventing" the same *new* knot I previously invented years
ago; but then I sometimes remark at the different paths that led me to it.  fluff of a sort)

And, as noted, Alpineer's new tying method for the Butterfly (let's say that his was
a "new" knot submittal, and we confirmed the knot's being (well) known) is a quite
useful addition to knots knowledge:  it makes it easy to tie the knot with an eye
sized as desired.

Quote
This is not about claiming a "First" but  encouraging an interest in knots
 - and seeking to ensure that those who are trying to find something new do at least
basic homework before claiming "newness".
Partly I think it will help to find that valuable information about knots, rather than
I-invented-this submittals, get good reaction will encourage others to look for
things of practical value that are missing from this envisioned IGKT catalogue,
which we can note in big letters right up front will miss most of the infinity it could
cover!  We can even point out the ease of making "new" and how little helpful this
can be, vs. the reporting of in-use and obviously non-new but not-yet-recognized
knots, which is a good gain to knots knowledge.
E.g., what if we were to learn that some fishers regularly used bowlines in nylon
monofilament fishline, expecting them to capsize as described above (prior msg.)
and form a PileHitch noose-hitch, for some shock-absorbing effect?!  -- nothing
really "new" on the knots, but a quite unknown use & behavior!

Quote
But credit where it's due to Mr Chan - it takes some courage to stand up in the face of experts
and say "look what I've discovered" knowing that you could be publicly shot down in flames for your trouble!!
Too much drama is given all this.  And this aspect too is hoped to be avoided
by a rather matter-of-fact handling of "new"ness as an expanding of a particular
(viz., IGKT's) knot set.  Making that set comprehensible is a hard task.  I tend to
like 2-dimensional presentations, but interlinkings of knots is multi-dimensional.

Pieter van de Griend in one of his self-published books set out a neat table
showing how Clove/Strangle/Constrictor structures (each of various formations
where they had multiple turns, nb) could be expanded, with a notation for
citing particular ones.  Projection from this beginning could take you as far
as is practical in any direction.  It might be that the "Catalogue" is built up
in part by a collection of such presentations.  (I have halfway begun a
similar sort of thing for "bowlines", to redress the so-far limited knowledge
in that area (and do away with the How Many Bowlines?  counting,
which to my mind is more nominal than actual in scope.)

And here we should be careful to realize that even the simple presentation of
some knot doesn't imply that we really know it -- a simple example being
that one might not realize that some knot is TIB (KM#19-20 in fact contain
articles about a bowlinesque eyeknot that initially wasn't shown to be TIB,
but than that tying method was revealed).

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 01:12:21 AM by Dan_Lehman »

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2009, 07:35:06 PM »
Well well Dan, in the game of poking fun with words? Your recent post is one brilliant sample of the category if-we-cannot-convince-then-we-shall-confuse. But let's have a try at unravelling your string of words.

The definition of equality is required if you want to make sense out of the obvious question: do we already know about this thing in our set of collected objects? Will having such understanding close the door to any stupid knot claim? No, of course it will not, but that is not the issue. You want to be able to make a statement about whether or not a specific object is known to mankind. You, as the Chair of New Knot Claim Assessments, should posses and publish a standard for the comparison of knot structures. That you do not have it, have no clue how to establish one, merely muddle along and try to cover up by confusing the readers of this post is not very elegant. To say the least. What is so difficult about starting something like a list of well-known structures, their known deformations and a way to systematically search the list for any structure of which you wish to ascertain whether or not it belongs to your collected knowledge? Elementary and wrought with abundant scope for error, yes, but it is a process which can be repeated by anybody who wants to know whether some poor structure has been recorded. The notation which has been explored on this forum for a while now may serve as a first try at producing such a list of structures in normalised format. Link it to a file with attributes such as ABOK and/or EKFR reference and you will have covered, say 95% of all possible future knot claims.

On transformations it looks like we will have to agree that we shall differ long after my mortal soul is still smoldering in KnotHell. If you exclude a natural phenomenon such as kinking and twisting to obscure the nature of the structure you are investigating, then you have just landed yourself a pack of unnecessary work. I think, I understand what your problem may be: explaining to the claimant that the submitted structure is transformable to something which appears completely different from what has been submitted. But, yes, that is speculation on my part as I cannot read your mind. As a full-of-it member of this forum, I shall not speculate what if I could......:).

Quote
A common problematic classification case is the venerable Bowline, which can, in one
fell swoop it seems, go from a  typically illustrated (perhaps loosely set) marriage of
a Half-hitch-like "loop"/turn and a bight, to -- as tension rises -- a non-HH round turn
loop & bight, to -- greater tension, maybe "shock" loading -- a spiral and bight,
and then that is more or less a sort of Pile Hitch noose!  I do not consider the extremes
of this transformation to be "equal", but clearly they can result from the one tying
method after some force-induced transformation.  I suspect a test device will show
differences (if not in ultimate strength, in where break occurs, et cetera).

Yes, this is a fair point. Where does the tying method stop and the transformation begin? When a knot is properly packed before loading, its geometry will usually enable it to function as devised. The case where a Bowline capsizes into a Pile Hitch Noose immediately implies that the structure at the heart of the Bowline and the Pile Hitch Noose must equate. For most knotters that will be a bridge too far.

On two distinct tying methods leading to the same knot. It is well-known that certain tying methods (or materials) introduce more torque than others, but lead to the same structure. If you tie a Bowline on the Bight (#1075) in tape by methods 1080-1082 you introduce torque which may not escape while the structure is dressed and put to work. If you tie #1075 close to either end of your tape, using the bitter end as working part, you will allow superfluous torque to exit the structure during its manufacture. In the Bowline On the Bight case this is not much of problem, but for structures like the Capstan it is; causing its structure to become recorded as distinct entities, which they clearly are not. The configuration pulls up differently, but the structure remains the same.

All of these problems are about structure recognition. Humans record the structure as it appears, as they encounter it, then they are puzzled when certain structures are identical after all. But, as Chair of the Knot Claims Assessment, that should not keep you busy.

 
Joop Knoop.


J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2009, 08:26:10 PM »
Barry,

The term "new knot" is useless, but somehow this thread got named "New Hitches", so the discussion is about newness. Personally I view knots as structures which exist a priori. There is nothing "new" about them as they have been out there awaiting discovery all along. I believe Dick Chisholm had a KM article on that Platonian view of knots once and Charles Warner mentions this view in his book. However, part of the problem is that people see knots in a competitive manner. Consider EKFR: we have 3668 knots! Overshouted by ABOK's dustwrapper and raised to 3800. There clearly is some magic to knots, numbers and newness. There are guys out there on the internet claiming to know "250 knots of the top of their head", or past IGKT presidents boasting they know 200 and "perhaps some more if they may peek in their books". What kind of education will help if IGKT does not eradicate such pathological thinking at the root?

Your Livingstone sample is a good example of how things should work with knots. There are people out there in the big world who are aware of the existance (and usage) of specific structures, but their tacit knowledge is not shared. It is not recorded, not accessible unless you belong to their incrowd and for most of the world: it plainly never existed. How then are we to know that a knot is "new"? We cannot. Livingstone got the Victoria Falls on the map and that is exactly how it should work for our subject: map the universe of knots, educate anybody interested to learn about them, do the right things and then start doing those things the right way. Effectively the goal should be education, propagation of correct, verifiable, useful knowledge. The efficiency must be derived from how that is brought to the people wanting to know more about knots.




Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2009, 04:49:25 AM »
The definition of equality is required if you want to make sense out of the obvious question
... That you do not have it, ...
I think it's more that I don't have your definition of equality,
or even of knot -- which latter case has all sorts of ramifications,
and, naturally, bears on equality for different notions of knot.
The U.S. Supreme Court has had its problems in dealing with pornography
-- whatever that must be.  And at one point attempted defining it based upon
"whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, ..."
would so deem something pornographic.  That didn't work well there, but the
same approach with practical knots I think works well enough.  You  want
to include twists & transformations, as though such things are clearly deigned
by some Knot God(s) to be necessary elements in equality ; but I don not,
not for the knot of consideration here -- a tangle with generally indicated
geometry and a particular loading.

In the Alove =?= km61:38#12 question, one can remove the object hitched to
and find them both what I'll call "Fig.9" knots (the half-turn-less-than-Stevedore form)
of opposite handedness, and opposite loading for that form.  Now, the Fig.9 can
be transformed into a couple of stable, symmetric forms, and then of course can
be reversed in loading (you just *reverse steps* taken to reach symmetry but on
the other side, so to speak).  But so what?  By a common-sense judgement,
they are distinct knots.

Quote
I understand what your problem may be: explaining to the claimant that the submitted structure is transformable to something which appears completely different from what has been submitted.
Oh, no, that's not my problem, as it's not something I'd even think to do
(any more than testing the Fig.8 Follow-Through and Fig.8-on-a-bight eyeknots as distinct).
Or, I could see mentioning it as a curiosity, but not as at all relevant in "new"ness.
Quote
The case where a Bowline capsizes into a Pile Hitch Noose immediately implies that the structure at the heart of the Bowline and the Pile Hitch Noose must equate. For most knotters that will be a bridge too far.
Well, we can regard this as a way of speaking, and of an aspect not relevant
to the knot equality issue of concern.  -- that a knot, then, is some
structure in a particular geometric form, capable of holding knottable
material in tension, with a particular loading.

Quote
The configuration pulls up differently, but the structure remains the same.
And the behavior, in practice, on a test device, on cyclical loading and abrasion ... ?
Keep your notion of equality for structures; there is a different one for knots .
insofar as such practical, common-understanding entities go.

--dl*
====

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2009, 07:10:26 AM »
Note that this new knot debate has been in KM037 as early  as 1991 starring the "Sonne Knot" [KM037;pp11-16]. On the one hand too bad Pieter van de Griend did not know that Elizabeth Little had it in her Logbook Notes throughout Life (New York 1889).  On the other hand just as well.

Dan Lehman has a problem with different definitions and cannot make a choice? Dan, whatever way you go, you will end up needing both a classification and a process to determine equivalence across your classified objects. Frankly I do not give a a hoot whether you agree with my ideas/definitions or not, but so far I see you are left empty-handed.

Joop Knoop.

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2009, 02:11:17 PM »
Mr Chan's latest pictures attached.

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2009, 07:21:18 PM »
There appears to be an inconsistency with the Alove drawing1 top right p1 and left under on p2 wrt to the other Alove Hitches.