Author Topic: NOOB - I invented... now what?  (Read 71216 times)

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #75 on: November 03, 2009, 06:43:02 PM »
Forming the Gleipnir in hand, when it shall be passed over an object, like when closing a sack, can be done very quickly by first forming two round turns, then slide the upper round turn to the side and place it below the other, forming a clove hitch, and subsequently repeating this with the turn that now has become the upper one, which will form the Gleipnir. The method is nifty, because there's no reeving to be done, half hitces need not be formed, and there are two sequences that are just repeated; first one round turn, repeat, then slide apart to swap sides and repeat. Although limited in use, because it is done in hand, it is a quick and simple movement. Of course the method of grabbing the line with both hands a bit apart and twisting to form the half hitches, then passing one behind the other is the same thing.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 06:46:45 PM by Inkanyezi »
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/

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #76 on: November 03, 2009, 09:42:03 PM »
My rather humble opinion is that these musings around bowlines are wandering far from the subject at hand, the Gleipnir knot.

I am rather convinced that we have seen a first sighting even though there might be some former evidence somewhere about such a knot, but so far, it has not surfaced.

The knot is ingenious, and it lends itself to alterations that adapt it to various tasks. It has real world usage, and for its utter simplicity, it really merits recognition. i haven't however seen Gleipnir himself around for some time, I hope he might put it in KM and get his due credit for what that's worth.

I am really glad to have been around when the matter arose, and the Gleipnir is indeed a very nice addition to the tools at hand.

So I really want to thank Gleipnir, aka mr Dahm for sharing this,
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 11:26:50 PM by Inkanyezi »
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/

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #77 on: November 03, 2009, 10:24:24 PM »
My rather humble opinikon is that these musings around bowlines are wandering far from the subject at hand, the Gleipnir knot.

I am rather convinced that we have seen a first sighting even though there might be some former evidence somewhere about such a knot, but so far, it has not surfaced.

The knot is ingenious, and it lends itself to alterations that adapt it to various tasks. It has real world usage, and for its utter simplicity, it really merits recognition. i haven't however seen Gleipnir himself around for some time, I hope he might put it in KM and get his due credit for what that's worth.

I am really glad to have been arount when the matter arose, and the Gleipnir is indeed a very nice addition to the tools at hand.

So I really want to thank Gleipnir, aka mr Dahm for sharing this,

I agree with your comments  - as I commented back in post #18.  I also hope that Mr. Dahm presents an article on this knot to KM so that the wider IGKT membership gets the chance to learn about it.  So far every comment seems to support its newness and its value.

These latter posts are now moving on to cover the lateral issues of the structure / nature etc of this knot.  I hope that you can agree that they do not in any way damage or demean the comments that have gone before.

@ xarax

Yes I do hold you culpable for the misinformation that led Dan and myself astray.  Your terms involved "snip... have to shrink the one loop around the other snip..."  You made no mention of the 'B' end being included, nor any consideration for the fact that the 'A' and 'B' ends could have been of considerable length.  Indeed, you have ignored the fact that in post #18 I mentioned that this knot could be tied inline, in which case it could not have been transitioned.  Still, you did apologise for your lack of ability to communicate this procedure, so I have to accept the final limitation to be on the parts of the readers and not you and thankfully not Inkanyezi.

The well known method you refer to of using ABOK #529 is in fact using the slipped OH I was referring to.  It is strange that this method, being as you claim a "well known fact in the boating world" that I have not been shown the method before, and I am surprised at this because it is such a slick little method of creating the bowlines - why didn't anyone show me this way instead of the wrist twist or the rabbit tree methods ? ? ? ? Clearly I need to frequent the boating world a little more.

Derek

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #78 on: November 03, 2009, 11:14:42 PM »
Really OT here, but I'd confirm that the slipknot method is not widely known. I have however worked out my own way of doing it, and I have tought it to firefighters among others. (Situation: you have a rope that you shall tie to your comrade's belt, and you have gloves on, and it's pitch dark and smoke-filled.) And yes, in a way, I'm into boating.

I have a video of it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTApTsLIe1g (in Swedish). The slipknot method is first shown at about 50 seconds into it, and the surprise moment is at the end from about 2 min 33 sec.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 11:22:34 PM by Inkanyezi »
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/

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #79 on: November 04, 2009, 07:13:15 AM »
Just when I was going to leave this aggravation undisturbed, as XaraX continued
in denial and unrecognition, I found my/our own -- all of us -- oversights, and, so, ... ::

Well, well, wellllll.  <eureka>

Now --eureka--, I see at last that (1) XaraX is right (if not precise) (!!!)
and (2) there are a host of subtleties on the XaraX transformation(s)!
Details I think best wait for time & CAMERA (of pen-on-paper illustrations) for
full follow-up.  The factorial aspect is here:  multiple ways to twist the turNip,
and various ways to cross the ends through it.  I don't know if some combinations
with different path (twist-A, cross-C = twist-B, cross-D) get equal results yet,
but I think not, trying to think knot ('thinKnot').

whew.

I thought, for a moment, that my simple observation that the Gleipner can collapse to an Eskimo bowline could,
But **The** Gleipnir Binder cannot!  (This reduces to the Overhand, btw.)
The XaraX transformation on it produces my Quick-8.

Yet some Gleipnir version can !
You can check the submitted photo to confirm the first fact;
you --XaraX-- then will know how that differs from your version:
in the twist:  clockwise for G., anti-c. for G'<=XaraX=>Eskimo.
(Xarax's G. reduces to something looking like a Fig.10 (Stevedore) in one
or its symmetric forms; and if the ends crossed just differently there, it IS
this Fig.10.)

So, by page 6-7 we have "Gleipnir" binder(S), "TurNip" structure, and now
"XaraX" transformations of Gleipnirs.

There are versions that can be formed w/o ends; there are a couple ways to get
similar structures, e.g., via transformations of the Clove Hitch (one described by
me and later by Mike; and that one at the mid-way point, with Clove halves just
slid atop/below each other, so turNip is in proper away-from-object orientation;
and I think both such transformations exist for the Constrictor); and there are
other Gleipnir versions that reduce to a knot -- i.p., to an Overhand (and more?),
not to nothing.

XaraX transformations on these various knots can produce the Eskimo Bowline,
the Quick8, the half-nipped Q8, the Anglers Loop (!), and who knows what else.
(If you are not nuts when you start out playing with these --and trying to keep score--,
you soon enough will be!)

 ::)   :o   :-[   :P

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It might do well to see about purging many of the exercises in futility just
preceding this eureka post, as those serve no good purpose.

 - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote
... the higher elite of knots, equal in simplicity and beauty with the Zeppelin bend the
double eight bend, and the bowline ( perhaps I should add the constrictor, but nothing else I guess).
???
To explore this notion will go well Off-Topic, but I hardly see anything so
special about these knots -- perhaps esp. Rosendahl's Zeppelin, which has
a family of interlocked Overhands each worthy of any claim made for it,
or nearly so, depending on knot (i.p., Ashley's Bends #1452 & 1425).
And the Constrictor I think is hyped beyond merit.  I've yet to see it out
In The Wild, though I can accept that various crafts people employ it.

Quote
I also believe that I am one of the few persons [who] now ties his pants with the help of a Gleipnir,

May your necessities not be urgencies.   :D

--dl*
====

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #80 on: November 05, 2009, 07:07:15 AM »
Now and then, I peek through the Ashley Book or Knots, and just now I saw something familiar. Ashley might have been close to discovering the Gleipnir knot, although probably not fully appreciating the HH transforming into the TurNip. The contraption shown in ABoK #160 is closely related to the opened bowline in the third picture in post #64 in this thread.
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/

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #81 on: November 05, 2009, 08:36:21 AM »
While I'm at it, I couldn't help thinking out a possible improvement to the scheme of captain Mullins. Considering the importance of the TurNip and the similarity with the holding power of the bowline, if instead of taking the rabbit turn, a bight is passed up the hole, then the bight may be toggled to the SP, and the resultant knot will be a sibling of the bowline, with the same features for easy adjusting and casting off as the ABoK #160.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 08:37:43 AM by Inkanyezi »
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/

[Inkanyezi] gone

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
    • Pro three strand splice
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #82 on: November 05, 2009, 03:22:48 PM »
What I see in the Gleipnir as its essential charasteristic is the transition from a half hich into the round turn, which is stopped from further becoming undone by the very same force that holds it tight; the returning end, whether those are two loops around a bunch, or two splayed loops between two objects. The same principle is at work in ABoK #160, although it is not as secure, due to being loaded only from one side. In the Bowline (as well as its sibling shown above), the impediment from further untwisting is the bight that forms a collar around the standing part (or in the toggled variety, the toggle). Very little force is needed to hold the form, and the partially "capsized" bowline is in fact the form that a bowline will inevitably take under strain.  We are only so used to see it in the uncapsized form, that we regard this form as the "true" form of the bowline and its final form an anomality. But we see the bowline in real life so often having this "capsized" form, that the question has been raised whether it is done on purpose. The answer is simple; it's not done on purpose when making the knot. It is the inevitable result of using it.

In Ashley's sketch of the half hitches in the standing part of #160, he has acknowledged the orientation of the half hitches. It is evident that he in part draws what he can see with his eyes. The actual setup is different from what we can expect of modern rope, which is probably not as stiff as those ropes that captain Mullins was using.

But the riddle that the Gleipnir has resolved is the one of the half hitch/TurNip transition. When a coil is hung with a half hitch around a bight at the top or around the coil itself, and in the sheepshank, as well as in the bowline, the half hitch will form the TurNip, and it can save a bit of headache for the boatsman that might think of a capsized bowline as something gone wrong. It's not wrong at all, that's exactly what a bowline looks like. The Gleipnir helped us to understand how tittle force is needed to hold the TurNip from collapsing. We may observe that principle at work in one of our most well-known knots as well.  

And if only Ashley or Mullins had thought of treating the other end of the rope in the same way, they might have come across the evident, that only one HH is needed if both ends are passed through it. But they did not, probably because the Mullins variety served its purpose.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 03:45:26 PM by Inkanyezi »
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/

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #83 on: November 05, 2009, 08:01:15 PM »
What I see in the Gleipnir as its essential charasteristic is the transition from a half hich into the round turn, ...

I'm stuck on how/whether/what ... of this distinction between half-hitch & (round) turn
-- as well on the whole mess of "(round) turn(s)":  180, 360, 540 degrees ... .
In e.g. what I call the "Reverse Groundline Hitch", which is common in commercial
fishing knotting for intermittently locking a spiral wrapping of things together (e.g.,
some clump of netting at its edge, two sides of netting, netting to a headline, or
two lines), there is the ditinct locking-down-upon-itself aspect, able to be seen in
a single structure, one end nipped and untensioned beyond, the other being loaded;
in this Rev.GlH use, both ends are in some stable low tension, leading fore/aft to
other such structures.  Whereas in the Bowline, the arguably like structure is loaded
significantly coming & going, and not really so much nipping itself (in contrast to
the Sheet Bend, NB!).

Quote
and the partially "capsized" bowline is in fact the form that a bowline will inevitably take under strain.  We are only so used to see it in the uncapsized form, that we regard this form as the "true" form of the bowline and its final form an anomality. But we see the bowline in real life so often having this "capsized" form, that the question has been raised whether it is done on purpose. The answer is simple; it's not done on purpose when making the knot. It is the inevitable result of using it.

Here I disagree -- at least at all points beyond "partially".  You previously presented
an image/photo of what you labeled "capsized":  that is markedly different from
my photos of (truly) capsized knots, where many folks won't be able to identify
the knot (and it can be confirmed by them as "new"!) -- where the HH=>turn=>
... spiral.  And these I do NOT see as inevitable (testing of the knot will prove this),
but as results of having a relatively loose collar which enables that much distortion
of the knot's nipping loop.  One could see a problem of *man* working with big,
stiff, rope, unable to adequately set the knot and then the huge loads for which
such rope is intended working this capsizing; but in the cases I've seen, although
rope & loads might be large, the material actually is rather pliant, not all so elastic,
and I believe can be tied with a snugness denying the deformation seen.
(Look at many sailing/yachting images:  there is often a HUGE amount of looseness
in the bowline's collar!)  Why, I can tie shock cord --super deformably elastic stuff--
and see it behave.  (And, as I've mused before, the end-on-outside bowline better
resists the capsizing; at one point I thought that if indeed the "Dutch navy" had
this form in favor, it might be why -- but I think all that Dutch business is myth.)

Quote
In Ashley's sketch of the half hitches in the standing part of #160, he has acknowledged the orientation of the half hitches. It is evident that he in part draws what he can see with his eyes. The actual setup is different from what we can expect of modern rope, which is probably not as stiff as those ropes that captain Mullins was using.

Indeed.  And the load is relatively slight.  One can think of various ways to have
met this rope problem ; I immediately wonder "Why not just a bowline?"
-- or the toggled one you show, easily re-made w/new bight and toggle reinserted
for the move-release-backup-reattach sequence Ashley suggests.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Incidentally, I still find the Gleipnir to be way deficient in effecting lock:  again,
that the bending of each loaded end's transmission of force to the nipping loop
must go around 4 edges (of squared bundles) renders getting a decent nip in
this way fruitless.  Dang, I'm about to load some books-bound thus with dead
weights to show it!  Recall that in my prior musing with this structure some
years ago, I didn't see adequate nip around smooth PVC pipe with flexible
soft (common) nylon solid braid cord (I saw it as a locking Clove hitch).

One way I'm seeking to redress this deliver-tension-to-TurNip problem is to
figure ways to set the wraps relatively snug AND THEN load ends to capsize
into the initially straight part the TurNip, which naturally tightens that part,
effects the lock, and can be further loaded a bit -- though of course there
is little hope in many cases of getting that load around the 4 corners to
the TurNip (conceivably, those edges might not want much pressure).
I see that this deliver-force... problem is aggravated by binding to a
convex surface, as the ends will press inwards on the TurNip and add
a point of frictive resistance for force to overcome in tightening it.


The Gleipnir can be locked by Simple knot (as though closing a Reef knot),
or by making a Slip-knot in one end with the other nipped by it, snug to
the TurNip.  In many cases, for any duration, I'd not trust the TurNip
to keep tension -- bit by bit, there can be some pressure on the ends
to come out; there is no turn in them to resist.  -- varieties of circumstance.

--dl*
====

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #84 on: November 06, 2009, 06:56:40 AM »
Okay, here are XaraX'd Gleipnirs in the four main versions.
"The" G. is upper-left; Xarax's version is lower-right,
switching both the twist AND the end-tucks.  The X-t(G.)
aka "Quick8" is a nice-seeming eye knot (adjustable until
loaded); it can be further secured (and maybe strengthened)
by tucking the end down between the eye legs right where
they enter the Fig.8.

The upper-right Gleipnir version is one that can be tied in
the bight (TIB) from a Clove hitch start, having the two
halves sort of step around each other.  And the inverted
TurNip'd Clove version is this, too, viewed outwards from
the bound area; note that the XaraX transformation of this
is not the same, as the moved loop is going the other way.

Beyond what you see here come the same structures but with
doubled TurNips, inverted TurNips (these same images representing
the underside of the binding, i.e.), and who knows what
further.  Maybe those are left as frustrations (er, "exercises")
for the reader!


--dl*
====

SpitfireTriple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Seek Truth
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #85 on: March 10, 2010, 10:47:23 PM »
Well here we are 6 months later and we still aren't sure what to call this knot.

I understand the founding of the IGKT was inspired, at least partially, by the (as it turned out re-) discovery of the Hunter's Bend.  The Hunter's Bend is a beautiful thing, but it doesn't really do anything any better than half a dozen existing knots - the Zeppelin Bend probably being the closest.  If one knot that is neither new nor unique can help found an international guild, then what should we expect from something as special as Mr Dahm's creation?

Yet here we are with Mr Dahm's more beautiful(?), more useful, and UNIQUE knot.  And after a flurry of initial excitement (and some less enthusiastic responses) we have let it .. go to sleep.

If we still think this is as important and significant a knot as we (okay not me, I wasn't around then) did 6 months ago, then what are we going to do about it?  Could I request that someone with some authority contacts Gleipnir/Mr Dahm?  It will need to be on his personal email address, a forum PM will be no good as he does not seem to frequent these pages any more.

Could we ask him what he wants to call his invention?

We have variations on:
"Floating Constrictor Knot"
"Concave Constrictor Knot"
Dahm Floating Constrictor
Gleipnir
Dahm knot
OneGoodTurn
TurNip
TurNip Twist
ShepherdShank
RoundShank
DahmShank

And just for the hell of it I'll chuck in "Wolfshank" I think it would be more meaningful and more memorable to more people than "Gleipnir".  The IGKT is here to spread the word; it should resist the temptation to indulge itself in the telling of in-jokes.  I concede, for the cognoscenti, Gleipnir is colourful.

I can't resist posting this from the wiki article:

Gleipnir
In Norse mythology, Gleipnir (Old Norse "open one") is the binding that holds the mighty wolf Fenrir
Even though it is as thin as a silken ribbon, it is stronger than any iron chain. It was forged by the dwarves in their underground realm of Svart?lfaheim, and made of six ingredients:

    * The sound of a cat's footfall
    * The beard of a woman
    * The roots of a mountain
    * The sinews of a bear
    * The breath of a fish
    * The spittle of a bird


Marvellous!

And could we ask Mr Dahm to tell us a little bit about himself?

Such information, assuming he is happy to provide it, will be helpful to whoever first incorporates Mr Dahm's knot into a book.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 07:04:50 PM by SpitfireTriple »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #86 on: March 11, 2010, 01:16:40 PM »
Quote
Gleipnir (Old Norse "open one") is the binding that holds the mighty wolf Fenrir
Even though it is as thin as a silken ribbon, it is stronger than any iron chain.

Since it was brought to us, I have used it regularly and teach it whenever I have the opportunity. And when I do, I call it The Gleipnir ( I pronounce it glipe-ner ).

Although it is a strange name, now you have brought the Norse definition to us, I can see that it is the perfect name for a knot which so easily embodies the most simple principles of effective binding.

Your point Spitfire is well made that the Guild should not let this opportunity simply fade away - but there you have come full face onto the problem - just what is 'The Guild' ?

Is it you and I and the folks of this Forum? surely not ?
Is it all the members dotted around the world?  Possibly, but how would they collectively ever 'do' anything?
In essence, when it comes down to matters like formally recognising an important 'new' knot, 'The Guild' is embodied in our Council.

Recently, Barry (Hon. Sec.) said to me that the Guild has the Council that it deserves - "as volunteers are like frost in warm sunshine - they disappear as you watch".  As a consequence, 'The Guild' is in essence no more than one or two seriously overworked individuals with virtually no support from the rest of us.  Without support a little more substantial than the proverbial 'frost in sunshine', what should we expect other than Forum excitement followed by obscurity as the next interesting challenge floats onto the Forum ? ? ?  We on the Forum, don't actually 'DO' anything despite all our noise and input, and despite all of the substance here on the Forum, behind us there is very little 'substance' in the real world (not wishing to demean any of the work our Council puts in).

If we want more to happen, then we here on the Forum need to be offering real physical support to our Council to get things happening.

A few months ago, I put in a proposal to the Council that they award a new knot certificate for the 'Hurley Hitch'.  Lindsey has asked that I write an article for KM and I offered to produce a Certificate to award to the Hurley brothers and to their Scout troupe.  This still leaves Barry with the task of signing and presenting the certificate, but it has taken as much of the work off him as possible.

Personally, I believe that we should make as big an issue about the Gleipnir as possible - but for that to happen WE must be prepared to do the physical legwork to make it happen.  Barry et. al. can formalise it for us, but they cannot supply the time and effort to make it happen.

Who on here wants to make it happen?  How can you make it happen without waiting for 'the Council' to do it for you ?  What help can you offer to Barry to recognise what many of us think is a great knot ?

Or would we rather watch the 'frost in the sunshine'?

Derek

SpitfireTriple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Seek Truth
"Like frost in warm sunshine"
« Reply #87 on: March 11, 2010, 04:17:52 PM »
It is a lovely story isn't it?

We could, if we chose, exploit the story in a carefully-written press release.   We could obtain a lot of free publicity for the IGKT and for knotting generally by making use of it.  Newspapers are always looking for little stories to fill their pages.  This new knot would be perfect - it's simple, novel, and if we made use of the word Gleipnir it has a nice little story behind it too.  All we need is for Mr Dahm to be handsome, and his photo and the knot's would be in every other Sunday paper worldwide.  Are you handsome Mr Dahm?

I have four concerns about Gleipnir though.

1.  The word Gleipnir will not be memorable outside the confines of the IGKT. And we really, really should think beyond our immediate membership if we are to fulfill our mission as spreaders of knotting knowledge.

2.  And would the knot really be of any use tying up a giant wolf?!  I know this sounds silly, but if the knot isn't suited for such a purpose, we have to ask whether we should be using the name Gleipnir. Okay, okay, I'm splitting hairs.

3.  As for pronunciation, Derek says Glipe-ner, Inkanyezi says

GLEIPNIR gets my vote. (How do you pronounce it?)
The accent in Norwegian or Swedish is difficult to acquire, but if you think its vowels somewhat similar to the English word "sailing", you might get the hang of it. If you can also stress the first syllable, you get it right.
Glape-neer

Though Inkanyezi then muddies the waters with
There are alternative pronunciations, you need not necessarily stress the first syllable.
And I suspect most people familiar with neither German nor Norwegian might say Gleep-neer

So, Gleipnir has a great story behind it, but do we really want to launch a new knot with a name we know in advance will be pronounced so many different ways?  We really should think about things like this.  Conversely, maybe a point of the differing pronunciations could be made in the press release - you say tomato ?

4.  Similarly, every time the word Gleipnir is spoken to a non-Norse audience, it will need to be spelled.  This is a weakness.  AEBE, we would do better to chose a word that has only to be spoken for the listener to know how it is spelled.

Despite all the above, I still like Gleipnir, if only for the story!

Before we rush to crown Gleipnir though, let's look again at the alternatives

Dan's OneGoodTurn and TurNip are both simple, great fun, and pack in a lot of how-to-tie-the-knot meaning - which helps the name and hence the knot to be memorable.
My variant, TurNip Twist has a nice bit of alliteration, and reminds the user that they will need to put a twist in the rope.
Alpineer's ShepherdShank also has alliteration, and is close to SheepShank, which will make it easier to remember, the knots being similar.  Sort of.  We might need to -ahem- invent a story about shepherds using the knot to carry bundles of firewood.  Anyone know a tame shepherd..?
Alpineer's RoundShank is less strong, I feel
NB Alpineer later decides he's not so keen on ShepherdShank !
re: Knot's Naming
ShepherdShank> sullies knot's reputation by association with SheepShank
TurNip> kills knot's use outright by association with a vegetable not liked by many
GLEIPNIR gets my vote. (How do you pronounce it?)
An alternative to ShepherdShank would be Wolfshank
Derek's Grabber or Load-Lock are short and punchy names.  But is there a risk that they are too generic?
Floating Constrictor describes what the knot does. That could be the day-to-day name, the "official" name could be the Dahm Floating Constrictor - though I note that very few knots are named after their inventor, even those whose inventor is known.  Ashley might be an exception.

I understand to an extent, Derek when you say  
there is nothing Constrictoresque about this baby at all,
The knot might not resemble, say, a Boa Constrictor, or a "single" Constrictor, or a Double Constrictor.  But Constrictor surely describes function rather than form?  I recognise that a constrictor normally needs something solid for the knot to sit against, such a thing is not present with the Gleipnir~.  But don't we get round that by prefixing Constrictor with Floating?

This really should be published in KM, and for my money you should be in line for some form of recognition from the Guild for bringing this little beauty to light.  I am interested in how you 'found' / 'created' it.  Would you be interested in sharing the details with us?  Are you a member of the IGKT and would you be interested in creating an article for KM?  But first of all - what about a proper name for it please.

I have tried to present as many pros and cons of the various names as I can, in order that Mr Dahm has a good overview of the implications of his various possible choices.  Of course, there's nothing to prevent him coming up with something entirely different from any of the above.
If we want more to happen, then we here on the Forum need to be offering real physical support to our Council to get things happening.
I offer to liaise with Mr Dahm (in a week or so, to give people time to see this and comment if they wish).  Assuming everyone's happy, I offer to work with Mr Dahm (and maybe you Derek? and maybe Inkanyezi and others who have been so positive?) to draft some form of Press Release to go to the council for approval before whacking it out to the biggest newspaper list we can find.

This knot has been kicking around for long enough now.  Let's move things along.  Unless anyone objects, I will email Mr Dahm in, say, a week's time with a link (not that he will need it) to this thread.  Then, hopefully, he can give the definite name, and we can move towards getting it out into the world.

So, speak now or forever hold your peace !

Thanks for the kind words.  IF it does turn out that this is a new knot, then I guess I will need to give serious thought to the naming issue.  As some of the early responses noticed, my command of knot terminology is somewhat limited.  I would appreciate any assistance on offer.
Over to you Mr Dahm?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 07:12:05 PM by SpitfireTriple »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1855
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #88 on: March 12, 2010, 12:27:47 AM »

Personally, I believe that we should make as big an issue about the Gleipnir as possible ...  

I really don't get this.  The tensioning mechanism in question does a substandard job of applying tension.  And in its original form, is quite rope-length inefficient in applying that substandard tension.  And it has to have open air to do what little it does.  And it falls apart if the rope load is distributed funny unless it is backed up.

I am left to think that you'd be willing to drain your bank account to put up billboards advertising a mechanism just for its relative simplicity.  
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


SpitfireTriple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Seek Truth
Re: NOOB - I invented... now what?
« Reply #89 on: March 12, 2010, 10:55:55 AM »
Okay, that's one bit of feed-back.  Thank you Roo. Let's have some more from other people.

Oh, one thing Roo, I'm not suggesting the IGKT spend any money on billboards.  Sending an email to a list of newspaper editors costs nothing but time.  And i don't mind giving my time on this.