Author Topic: Knot Families  (Read 16859 times)

stebold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2010, 09:51:11 PM »
It will help to try to articulate your "family" criteria;
I've tried to explain it better in my latest groups list.  I'm following Geoffrey Budworth's convention in stressing similarities in construction and then going off and making crazy groups like the "Prusik Family."
It's possible to have an arsenal of knots for just about every practical application using only those that are based on the overhand knot structure.  Not the best knots necessarily, but a couple of dozen useful knots, nevertheless.  Another person may want to keep it simple and stick to the figure eight family.  The way I intend to use this grouping is to familiarize myself with each one in turn.  It just doesn't make sense to me to be presented with knots as if they were completely different from each other, to be memorized without regard to dozens of other knots with strong structural similarities. The grouping here listed seems pretty self-explanatory but I'm open to suggestions and critiques.

The Bowline<=>Ashley's Stopper relation is one of
topology, not of function nor of tying -- dynamically, in use,
opposite parts are loaded (and the Bowline has an eye/loop/bight).
A grouping system based on topology would be an interesting exercise for you, I'm sure, but a topic on it would probably belong in the Knot Theory section of the forum, since it would have little or no practical value.  Maybe there's already one there.  Ashley's Stopper is in the Overhand Knots family, for practical learning purposes. That's where Budworth put it, and I agree with that.

The Butterfly is an eye knot Tiable In-the Bight; the Prusik hitch is
a friction hitch to be tied around some object (usually rope).  It is
primarily by function that one sees likeness to the Rolling Hitch;
but there are "Prusiks" (so-named, similarly structured, i.e.) that
are much like versions of the Rolling H. (where tail & SPart are
parallel, as in Prusik/Cow, not Clove), where one "half" is a single
turn, and is on the near (to loading/SParts) end of the knot).
I'll be interested to learn more about these prusiks in the future.  Sounds like some could be assigned to both the "Prusik" and "Rolling Hitch" families.

The Highwayman's H. is a treacherous knot; you'll do well to revise is
such that the SPart-loaded bight surrounds the bight through which
the slip-/tail-bight is tucked as a toggle
-- this is a surer variation.
In the original, the loading can collapse the slip-bight, possibly spilling
or else locking (i.e., unable to be slipped free) the knot!
Thanks for that great info.

The "Frustrator" is a Constrictor with a twist, like you noted for Asher's Bottle Sling -- twist one of the loops.
This goes to show the value of grouping the Frustrator with the Constrictor.  Eventually, I would have seen that!  :)

Whoa, we've been here before:  by "fig.8" I mean exactly a Fig.8 -- not merely
something with an 8-ish figure (such as I think you can find in that Budworth
book for an Overhand knot at the start of the Tricorn (Ashley's #1029)).
You're saying the Overhand knot is only vaguely figure eightish?  Yes, it's definitely not a figure eight.  Why you say there is no figure eight involved in the Double Figure Eight Hitch, I don't understand.  They look like two perfectly healthy figure eights to me.

In your referenced binder, there is no knotted structure at all, until putting the ("8-ish"-laid) cordage around an object (as are Clove & Constrictor
non-knots w/o an object).
Yes, it's a natural law that all knots that can be untied without withdrawing an end can be tied in the bight.

On the other hand, if one accepted topological equality (of the
base structure), say, there are some rather Bowlinesque eye knots
that can come from a Fig.8 start, where the '8' is re-oriented into
the sort of turns of a Bowline.
I'll be interested to learn more about these eye knots in the future.  Sounds like some could be assigned to both the "Fig 8" and "Bowline" families.

So, there are families by all sorts of connections /perspectives !
There certainly are.

stebold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2010, 10:02:42 PM »
It's the very same stopper, upside down.  You wouldn't tie it that way usually.  Since your are placing your borders on your knot families so arbitrarily, you can hardly deny others the right to place the stopper in question in the same "family" (whatever that means with regard to knots) as the bowline.
Ashley's Stopper knot is a member of the "Overhand Knots" family because you make it with an overhand knot, and I've said from the beginning my criteria is knot construction, not topology.  There is nothing arbitrary about this.  You may charge me with being random and arbitrary in other selections, but I think you get the idea where I'm going in this topic. 

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2010, 01:21:27 AM »
Ashley's Stopper knot is a member of the "Overhand Knots" family because you make it with an overhand knot, and I've said from the beginning my criteria is knot construction, not topology.  There is nothing arbitrary about this.  You may charge me with being random and arbitrary in other selections, but I think you get the idea where I'm going in this topic.

But you have been arbitrary, at least in regard to what
you have seen as "figure 8" structures:  as I remarked above,
the Fig.8 knot is a knot that withstands loading on both
ends (and is sometimes accidentally tied by anglers, casting
-- "the wind knot"); you have likened that "McLoughlin knot"
and the "Dble.Fig.8 hitch" to it although these knots do not
contain a proper "Fig.8" structure, but only looks-like-an-'8'
shapes; so, too, then, that "Tricorn" eye knot in Budworth's books.
[edit to add...:]
If that "Dbl.Fig.8" qualifies as a "fig.8" family member, then one
should include the single version of it -- viz., the Clove hitcth !
Perhaps this makes my point clearer about the "fig.8"ness issue?

Quote
You're saying the Overhand knot is only vaguely figure eightish?  Yes, it's definitely not a figure eight.
Why you say there is no figure eight involved in the Double Figure Eight Hitch, I don't understand.
They look like two perfectly healthy figure eights to me.

Quote from: Dan_Lehman
In your referenced binder, there is no knotted structure at all, until putting the ("8-ish"-laid) cordage around an object (as are Clove & Constrictor
non-knots w/o an object).
Yes, it's a natural law that all knots that can be untied without withdrawing an end can be tied in the bight.

Well, look:  a Fig. 8 canNOT be tied without ends -- period.
If you tie with a bight (as is often done for the eye knot), yes, one
hasn't used ends, but has used the doubled rope as a single one and its
bight-end as an "end".  That binder "hitch" has no proper Fig.8 in it,
just the 8-like Overhand form base of the "Tricorn" isn't a Fig.8.  But
you're including one and not the other.  (I'm assuming that your Budworth
book shows the "Tricorn" eye knot.)

Also, you seemed to think about taking vectors of like tying
methods, which is an idea worth trying in teaching knots; but this
would suggest something at least sometimes different than having
a common knot structure:  e.g., those so-called "Dragon" eye knots
are very like --in one tying method-- the venerable Angler's/Perfection
Loop
, with this latter simply knot entailing the simple twist of a bight
as was  done for Asher's Prusik variation for a bottle (does this
help, in that case, btw?).  So, there, one has a knot w/Overhand
among others w/o, but justifiably grouped for a common tying method.

-- there are many inter-relations that can be found.

 :)
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 03:37:57 PM by Dan_Lehman »

stebold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2010, 11:35:15 PM »
But you have been arbitrary, at least in regard to what
you have seen as "figure 8" structures:  as I remarked above,
the Fig.8 knot is a knot that withstands loading on both
ends (and is sometimes accidentally tied by anglers, casting
-- "the wind knot");

It doesn't really convince me to say the Dble.Fig.8 hitch does not belong in the Fig 8 family because it's a configuration that can't be loaded on both ends.  That doesn't matter as far as tying the binder, only in applying it.  But this hitch really isn't intended to be loaded on both ends, anyway.  

... you have likened that "McLoughlin knot"
and the "Dble.Fig.8 hitch" to it although these knots do not
contain a proper "Fig.8" structure, but only looks-like-an-'8'
shapes; so, too, then, that "Tricorn" eye knot in Budworth's books.
 
Here I go being obtuse and arbitrary in your eyes, but a figure 8 never appears in the Tricorn Loop.  A bight is pulled out of an overhand knot, at which point it resembles a figure 8 like a hippo resembles a horse.  The McLoughlin knot is completely different in that the working end wraps around in a nice figure 8.  When you say "Figure 8 knot," are you talking about the Figure of Eight Noose, or what?  Do you regard the Figure of Eight Noose as being a true figure 8 knot?  In both the Figure of Eight Noose and the McLoughlin the figure 8 passes over and under the standing end.
Seems to me the Tricorn belongs in the Overhand Knots family (Budworth thinks so, too) and the McLoughlin belongs in the Figure Eight family along with the Figure of Eight Noose it so closely resembles in tying.  Yes, of course the McLoughlin is a fixed eyeknot.  I was all wet in that topic, never should have commented on it in the first place.

[edit to add...:]
If that "Dbl.Fig.8" qualifies as a "fig.8" family member, then one
should include the single version of it -- viz., the Clove hitcth !
Perhaps this makes my point clearer about the "fig.8"ness issue?

That is a good point.  I'll purge the the Double Figure 8 hitch from the Figure Eight family, since it's really just a more thoroughly wrapped Clove Hitch.  Don't you have to make calls like this in ANY knot classification system?  Knots are messy things.

Well, look:  a Fig. 8 canNOT be tied without ends -- period.
If you tie with a bight (as is often done for the eye knot), yes, one
hasn't used ends, but has used the doubled rope as a single one and its
bight-end as an "end".  That binder "hitch" has no proper Fig.8 in it,
just the 8-like Overhand form base of the "Tricorn" isn't a Fig.8.  But
you're including one and not the other.  (I'm assuming that your Budworth
book shows the "Tricorn" eye knot.)

Yes, the Tricorn Loop is in the Overhand Knots section of the Budworth book, right where it belongs.  I'm removing the Dbl.Fig.8 from the Figure Eight family, for what you probably consider the wrong reason, and adding the McLoughlin.  Sorry, but I guess at this point I still don't see the full significance of your objections.

Also, you seemed to think about taking vectors of like tying methods, which is an idea worth trying in teaching knots;

That is the point of this topic.

...but this would suggest something at least sometimes different than having
a common knot structure:  e.g., those so-called "Dragon" eye knots
are very like --in one tying method-- the venerable Angler's/Perfection
Loop
, with this latter simply knot entailing the simple twist of a bight
as was  done for Asher's Prusik variation for a bottle (does this
help, in that case, btw?).  So, there, one has a knot w/Overhand
among others w/o, but justifiably grouped for a common tying method.

"Justifiably grouped for a common tying method."  Good to hear that you do see a coherent system in this.  Not sure what you meant about Asher's Bottle Sling, it got a little muddy there.  Thanks, Dan.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 12:51:51 AM by stebold »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2010, 06:08:32 AM »
But you have been arbitrary, at least in regard to what
you have seen as "figure 8" structures:  as I remarked above,
the Fig.8 knot is a knot that withstands loading on both
ends (and is sometimes accidentally tied by anglers, casting
-- "the wind knot");

It doesn't really convince me to say the Dble.Fig.8 hitch does not belong in the Fig 8 family because it's a configuration that can't be loaded on both ends.
...


... you have likened that "McLoughlin knot"
and the "Dble.Fig.8 hitch" to it although these knots do not
contain a proper "Fig.8" structure, but only looks-like-an-'8'
shapes; so, too, then, that "Tricorn" eye knot in Budworth's books.
 
Here I go being obtuse and arbitrary in your eyes, but a figure 8 never appears in the Tricorn Loop.
...

Well, look:  a Fig. 8 canNOT be tied without ends -- period.
...  Sorry, but I guess at this point I still don't see the full significance of your objections.

I'm dismayed that so many words have gotten so little understanding;
I'll try once more.
A "Fig.8" is a stopper knot, single strand, shown in my Budworth which
I think might be a differently titled duplicate of yours (on mine's p.54, fyi)
as "Figure of Eight Knot".  Plain and simple.  It has a shape, here, and
particular crossings.  And some knots you have included under the Fig.8
family differ in their crossings; they do not have this presumed component
knot in them.  Which would seem to be a problem in your desire to ease
understanding of (tying) knots by common structures -- to have to use
different sorta-like structures and know all the different crossings,
instead of building on the common on.

If you like the silhouette and take whatever crossings might come with
that, then that's something more "fig.8-ish/ -like".  At step #2 for Budworth's
tying the Tricorn, you have the fig.8-ish silhouette just as you have with
the stopper.

--dl*
====

stebold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2010, 09:31:53 PM »
Ok Dan, I get you.  I think. 
A true figure 8 knot must be able to withstand loading on both ends, it can't be a knot that can be tied in the bight, and there can't be over and under crossings.  Using this criteria would make it easier to understand figure 8 knots before moving on to false figure eights, such as the Figure Eight Noose. 
Well sure, there wouldn't be much left to put in a true Figure 8 group - the stopper knot and the loop, not much else.  I'd be interested to hear what other knots would qualify.

If I don't do it that way, then to be consistent, I have to include knots such as the Tricorn Loop in the Figure 8 family because at least the silhouette of a figure 8 appears in the formation of that knot. 
Well... hippos and horses both have four legs and a tail, but they're vastly different creatures.    In order to avoid the charge of being inconsistent I suppose I could write down rules, such as "Pulling out a bight to make something vaguely figure eightish does not qualify a knot for the Figure 8 family," and "Over and under crossings of the working end are acceptable," but who would really care?

I think most people would agree the McLoughlin is a figure 8 knot and the Tricorn Loop isn't.  By "most people" I mean novices such as myself.  I'm not trying for purity and there will always be different opinions on grouping schemes.
Thanks.   :)




stebold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2010, 10:04:24 PM »
The Overhand Knot Family
   - Hitches, bends, loops, nooses, and stoppers in overhand knot style  
   Overhand knot
    Reef Knot
   Overhand Loop
   Simple Noose
   Double Overhand Noose
   Double Overhand knot
   Ashley's Stopper Knot
   Tricorn Loop
   Strangle Knot  
   Angler's knot
   Fisherman's knot
   Fisherman's Bend
   Hunter's Bend
   Zeppelin Bend
   Tape Knot
   Round Turn and Two Half-Hitches

The Figure Eight Family
   - Hitches, bends, loops, nooses, and stoppers in figure eight style    
   Figure of eight knot    
   Figure of eight noose  
   Figure of eight hitch  
   Figure of eight loop  
   The McLoughlin loop
   Figure of eight becket hitch  
   Sliding figure of eight bend  
   Figure of eight bend  
   Figure of eight twin loops  
   Figure of eight triple loops  
   Figure of eight coil  

                 Overhand Knot                  < equivalent to >             Figure 8 Knot
                 Overhand Stopper                                                      Figure 8 Stopper
                 Simple Noose                                                             Figure 8 Noose
                 Overhand Loop                                                           Figure 8 Loop
                 Rigger's Bend                                                            Figure 8 Bend
                 Fisherman's Knot                                                       Sliding Figure 8 Bend
                 Wrapped and Reef-Knotted Coil                                   Figure 8 Coil
                 Round Turn and Two Half-Hitches                                Figure 8 Hitch


The Prusik Family
  Prusik knot
  Asher's Bottle Sling  
  Alpine Butterfly knot  
  Ring hitch  

The Bowline Family
  - Fixed loops, variations on the overrated "King of Knots"
   Bowline  
   Double bowline
  Triple Bowline
  Twin bowline bend  
   Water bowline    
   Bowline in the bight    
   Eskimo bowline  

The Rolling Hitch Family
  - Binders, multiple-turn post hitches  
   Rolling hitch
   Clove hitch  
   Ossel hitch  
   Constrictor knot  
   Double constrictor knot  
   Strangle knot    
   Transom knot
   Frustrator knot
   Snuggle hitch  
   Double figure of eight hitch
   Highwayman's hitch    
   Boom hitch  

The Dragon Family
  - Dave Root's favorite, recommended at the layhands.com site
   Dragon
   Double Dragon
   Double Double Dragon
   Triple Double Dragon
   Slipped Double Dragon

    





« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 10:17:47 PM by stebold »

SpitfireTriple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Seek Truth
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2010, 12:17:30 PM »
My grouping system isn't completely clean, of course, but what knot classification system could be?  My little project may sound silly and full of holes to veteran knotters, but it still makes sense to me.  In grouping, I'm looking mostly at knot construction and also, but to a much lesser degree, the end result (appearance and function).
I find your project of great interest, because I started thinking along similar lines when I first started getting properly interested in knots (after I bought Geoffrey Budworth's excellent Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots & Ropework)

The more knots I learned, the more I saw similarities between them. To help my learning, I started to try to put them into "categories".  My conscious thinking while doing this was that putting knots into categories would help me learn/understand them better.  Maybe my conscious brain wasn't the real driver here, maybe it's just an innate human tendency to try to look for pattern. Sometimes, it works, as when Mendeleyev constructed his periodic table of the elements.  But sometimes the search for pattern might lead us astray, or at the very least down a blind alley.

I kept looking for an overall pattern, a collection of families, perhaps, or a 2-dimensional grid.  But the harder I tried, the more I found that putting knots into categories was often more confusing than it was useful.  The more knots I leaned, the more links I perceived between knots.  But the relationships between knots did not point consistently in the same direction.  A given knot could often be seen as belonging to two entirely(?) different "families", depending on which knots within those families it was being compared with.

Eventually, I gave up trying to force knots into single, clearly defined categories.  Instead, I allowed myself only to make comparisons between individual knots.  This resulted in a much messier relationship structure, but at least there were no contradictions.  In mathematics, of which knotting is arguably a branch (there we go, getting into trouble trying to relate things to each other!) a single contradiction is enough to demolish an entire theory.

I concluded that, whilst it is an interesting, illuminating, and useful exercise to compare knots with other knots, it is impossible to try and force them successfully into strict families.  

I should end by conceding that it is possible that I gave up too easily, and that you will succeed where I "failed".  But I don't think this is the case.  I further concede that even if it is ultimately not possible to defensibly categorise knots in the way you suggest, the exercise of trying to do so might be both enjoyable and stimulating.

Edit:  And if you enjoy your project, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you stop doing it.  And I say that not just because it's none of my business how you choose to spend your time!  Sometimes, the search for pattern can lead to new and unexpected ideas and creations.  I once found in a university library a book about rotary piston engines, of all things ("Rotary Piston Machines"?).  Sample page, PDF It categorised different engine variants into families.  Whilst some variants could be argued to sit half-way (or elsewhere) between families, I remember reading that the process of putting known variants into families revealed "holes" in the families.  These "holes" then nudged the mind to invent new variants, previously unknown, to fill the holes.  I daresay the same idea could be valid in knotting, though knots are better and more widely understood than rotary engines, which will make it less likely that you will find new knots to fill any holes.  Don't let that stop you trying though!  Edit 2 And of course you might be more interested in categorisation than in creation.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 03:01:32 PM by SpitfireTriple »

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2010, 09:48:27 AM »
I have to admit that this assigning of knots to families does nothing for me - it is perhaps too introspective for my taste. Nothing wrong with doing it of course it's just that I fail to see much value. What I would like to see is a categorisation of knots by their practical uses rather than their type or design. Whenever I talk to members of the public their focus almost invariably begins "how do I" (unless they were a scout or in the navy etc).  Ashley shows occupational knots and although it's rather dated nowadays it is the first place I would direct anyone new to knotting - to gain an understanding of why as much as how. Decorative knotting fits in this grouping as well - sennits have many practical uses for example. Is it worth a new thread I wonder?

Barry

SpitfireTriple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Seek Truth
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2010, 10:19:21 AM »
It's interesting that some of us are interested in categorising
some in comparing
some in collating
some in creating
some in criticising
some in decorating
some just in doing/tying
etc.

Okay, most of us are interested in more than one of the above, but is has to be a good thing that different people have different interests. It makes for a richer knotting world for all of us.


PS I myself wouldn't dream of directing a newbie to Ashley.  But there we go, each to his own!
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 10:23:34 AM by SpitfireTriple »

stebold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2010, 10:50:08 PM »
Thanks for the excellent and thoughtful reply recounting your own knot pattern-searching, Spitfire; there is definitely an innate human tendency to look for patterns.
You were being much more strict in your categorization than I am.

 A given knot could often be seen as belonging to two entirely(?) different "families", depending on which knots within those families it was being compared with .... in mathematics, of which knotting is arguably a branch ... a single contradiction is enough to demolish an entire theory ... it is impossible to try and force them successfully into strict families.  

As I said earlier, I got no problem with family duplication.  If you learn a knot in the Figure 8 family and later on see that same knot in the Rolling Hitch family, then so be it.  Mathematical perfection is the furthest thing from my mind.

I think Barry's idea of a thread concerning the practical uses of knots would be well worthwhile.  You might try to make it clear up front that the thread isn't about the relative merits of one knot over another, only what their functions are.

Regarding the value of creating knot families, it's still kind of amazing to me that there are so many equivalents between the Figure 8 and Overhand Knot families, such as the Fisherman's Knot and the Sliding Figure 8 Bend.  Someone who claims to know knots should be able to join lines "figure 8 style" or "overhand knot style."  I think it's more time efficient and yes, illuminating, to practice knots this way, and I would like a book using these divisions that emphasizes similarities that the reader won't be aware of unless he takes up knotting as a hobby. 
It might be self-evident to the majority on this forum that, as Dan pointed out, a Frustrator knot is a Constrictor "with a twist," but it certainly wasn't to me. 
Since there are so many variations on such a major knot as the bowline, why not group them, call them a family, and ponder the differences between them?

"Hey wait a minute, is my memory playing tricks on me or have I already seen this knot?" 
Thumb through 80 pages searching....
"Why, yes, there it is, with a slight difference...  Tuck the working end this way and you have the well-known Z-Knot.  Tuck it this other way and you have the X-hitch." 
Geez, I'd rather the author didn't present them as if they had nothing in common.  This is what I'm getting at.

stebold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Knot Families
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2010, 11:13:45 PM »
The Overhand Knot Family
  - Hitches, bends, loops, nooses, and stoppers in overhand knot style  
   Overhand knot
    Reef Knot
   Overhand Loop
   Simple Noose
   Double Overhand Noose
   Ashley's Stopper Knot
   Tricorn Loop
   Strangle Knot  
   Angler's knot
   Fisherman's knot
   Fisherman's Bend
   Hunter's Bend
   Zeppelin Bend
   Tape Knot
   Round Turn and Two Half-Hitches

The Figure Eight Family
  - Hitches, bends, loops, nooses, and stoppers in figure eight style    
   Figure of eight knot    
   Figure of eight noose  
   Figure of eight hitch  
   Figure of eight loop  
   The McLoughlin loop
   Figure of eight becket hitch  
   Sliding figure of eight bend  
   Figure of eight bend  
   Figure of eight twin loops  
   Figure of eight triple loops  
   Figure of eight coil  

                 Overhand Knot                  < equivalent to >             Figure 8 Knot
                 Overhand Stopper                                                      Figure 8 Stopper

                 Simple Noose                                                             Figure 8 Noose
                                                                                                   ("Best for the Purpose")

                 Overhand Loop                                                           Figure 8 Loop
                    (jams in rope)

                 Zeppelin Bend                                                            Figure 8 Bend
                                                                                                   ("bulky and bothersome")

                 Fisherman's Knot                                                       Sliding Figure 8 Bend
                    (streamlined bend)                                                     (good for even large rope, easier to untie than the Fisherman's Knot)

                 Round Turn and Two Half-Hitches                                Figure 8 Hitch
                                                                                                   (sliding loop)

                 Wrapped and Reef-Knotted Coil                                   Figure 8 Coil
                    (transportation with other paraphernalia)                       (quick to secure and hang up)



The Bowline Family
 - Fixed loops, variations on the overrated "King of Knots"
   Bowline  
   Double bowline
  Triple Bowline
  Twin bowline bend  
   Water bowline    
   Bowline in the bight    
   Eskimo bowline  

The Rolling Hitch Family
 - Binders, multiple-turn post hitches  
   Rolling hitch
   Clove hitch  
   Ossel hitch  
   Constrictor knot    
   Strangle knot    
   Transom knot
   Frustrator knot
   Snuggle hitch  
   Boa hitch
   Boom hitch  

The Rolling Loop Family
  Prusik knot
  Asher's Bottle Sling   
  Alpine Butterfly knot 
  Ring hitch 

The Friction Hitch Family
  Prusik knot
  Klemheist knot
  Bachmann knot
  Blake's Hitch

The Dragon Family
 - recommended at the layhands.com site
   Dragon
   Double Dragon
   Double Double Dragon
   Triple Double Dragon
   Slipped Double Dragon
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 11:16:22 PM by stebold »