Author Topic: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough  (Read 7721 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« on: July 01, 2010, 09:27:18 PM »
0
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 02:52:26 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2010, 09:55:08 PM »
I tried the first one.  It jammed like the I-405 in Los Angeles.  >:(

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2010, 01:06:21 AM »
I took one look at the file "Loop(front).JPG" and immediately thought to myself, "This is a very attractive knot."

Then, I made the loop. A report follows:

Likes

- The knot's appearance and size
- The quickness and ease of tying
- The knot's ability to compress
- The knot's ability to be decompressed

Dislikes

- Having the tail going into the loop

For the second making, I made the knot to verify that I got it right the first time.

For the third making, I determined whether the tail could be easily repositioned: It can, and not only are you left with it coming beautifully out of the side of the knot, but you're left with an easier means of decompression. However, the knot dresses and appears different (when you tighten it by pulling on the loop).

Instead of crossing the working end over itself, simply run it parallel to itself, so that it goes, and stays, out of the loop.

I like it. Whatcha gonna call it?

JCS
« Last Edit: July 02, 2010, 01:15:30 AM by jcsampson »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2010, 02:50:04 PM »
so the use of two overhand knots seems like a waste of rope material and a redundant complexity.
After reading about your various comments on this in various places, I would have thought you'd want to get rid of the first overhand knot... where it'd actually make a difference in ease of tying.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2010, 10:56:41 PM »
Quote from: xarax
". . . there is nothing more dangerous than a knot tied on a loose end of a rope . . . except women, of course. . . ."

How about a woman holding a rope that has a knot tied on the loose end of it? That sounds pretty dangerous to me.

For the second presented loop, shouldn't "L(b)C(f)C(a)L(b)" be "L(b)C(f)C(c)L(b)" instead? (This might be a transatlantic translation problem with respect to "clockwise and counter-clockwise, and clockwise and anti-clockwise.")

By the way, do you notice that the Bowstring Loop (a.k.a. Honda Knot) structure is inherent to the two loops thus far presented?

JCS

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2010, 11:00:28 PM »
As I have said, it is not the methods of tying that bother me most in the case of loops tied with the help of two overhand knots, but the use of complex interlocking and redundant quantity of rope material, now that we have a simpler task to accomplish ( i.e., we have fewer tails to secure ).    

Some perspective:  A Zeppelin Loop uses virtually the same amount of rope diameters as a Double Bowline (about 34 diameters each).  The Zeppelin Loop is significantly more secure than the Double Bowline.  The Zeppelin Loop is easier to adjust than the Double Bowline.

Get poetic or philosophical all you wish, but the proof is in the pudding.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2010, 11:26:33 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2010, 11:28:46 PM »
Quote from: roo
"The Zeppelin Loop is easier to adjust than the Double Bowline."

The Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch is easier to adjust than the Zeppelin Loop. ;D

Quote
"Get poetic or philosophical all you wish, but the proof is in the pudding."

Sorry, roo, I just couldn't resist.  :D

JCS

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2010, 11:42:36 PM »
Quote from: roo
"The Zeppelin Loop is easier to adjust than the Double Bowline."

The Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch is easier to adjust than the Zeppelin Loop. ;D
Uh.  OK.  The size of the loop may be easier to adjust, assuming it stays put during hard load, but adjusting the length of the free end is going to take you forever and a day with that huge tangle. 

Quote
Sorry, roo, I just couldn't resist.  :D
Tell me about it.  You're like a broken record with this Fixed-Derived-Multiple-Coil-Hitch-Loop-Gripper-Variable-Construct stuff.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2010, 12:24:03 AM »
I did not compare the Zeppelin Loop with the Double bowline
I know.  I did.  I did it to show you that a two overhand knot loop (Zeppelin Loop) was accomplishing a lot with a little despite your earlier complaints of excessive rope usage.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 12:24:37 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2010, 01:34:12 AM »
Then, the Zeppeln bend accomplish a lot more with even less! That is my whole point ! The Zeppeln Loop is condemned to remain hidden under its mother bend s skirts... :) It is only fair to be a distant second choice...
Does it?  The knot form uses the same amount of rope.   

Loops tend to be at least a little more secure that their parent bend, but you seem to see this as a waste.  Maybe it's time to start comparing loops to other loops.  Apples to apples.  Then you can get a more solid idea of how rope is being used.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2010, 01:41:58 AM »
By the way, I had to cut my rope when I jammed one of your loops.  So, I won't be fully testing any knots you present, unless someone here can figure out a way not to jam it up.  :-\
It would be nice if people would do some serious testing of the knots they present before posting them as if they are the finished product.  I have to remind myself to incrementally load up these proposed knots, so when jamming occurs, I have a better chance of eventually getting them out.

My condolences to your rope and your fingers.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2010, 02:27:58 AM »
OK, I now see that L(b)C(f)C(a)L(b) is correct because going counter-clockwise--at least in this case--leads to the same result as going clockwise. The photo you presented appears to show the working end going clockwise, which is why I've been thinking clockwise. . . .

It appears that L(b)C(f)C(a)L(b) leaves out the crossing of the working end under itself. Is L(b)C(f)C(a)L(b) meant only to describe the working end's relationship to the Overhand?

The Bowstring's structure being inherent to your presented loops owes itself to your taking the working end through the overhand in the L(b) manner, before taking it to its remaining destinations.

JCS
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 02:31:12 AM by jcsampson »

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2010, 04:35:27 AM »
Your loops should be compared to all knots, including jamming knots such as the Figure Eight Loop, Overhand Loop, Perfection Loop, Double Dragon, etc.  
By the way, I had to cut my rope when I jammed one of your loops.  So, I won't be fully testing any knots you present, unless someone here can figure out a way not to jam it up.  :-\

   Had you "fully tested" "the Figure Eight Loop, Overhand Loop, Perfection Loop, Double Dragon, etc.",before "somebody here can figure out a way not to jam it up "?  :) Because you say that they are "jamming knots" too, as other people "here" say that the Ashley bend and the Hunter bend are jamming knots. Jamming seems to be a quite subjective quality of knots...Knots that are "jamming knots" for you and roo, are K-not 4 me...my dear Knot4u. :)


I think you may be taking what I said a bit too personal.  There is a time and place for having a knot that jams.  Your loops are definitely in the jamming category.  Accept that.  Wouldn't you want to advise people correctly?  What if you have someone new to knot tying and the person ties your knot to haul something?  Would you yell at them about how it's their fault that your knot jammed up?  Such an experience might scare that person away from wanting to know anything more about knots.  (By the way, I'm relatively new, but I'm already hooked.)

The good thing is that your knot is in good company.  When I want a knot that's permanent and that nobody should ever adjust, then I'll probably go for a jamming knot, like the Figure 8 or Overhand.  How does your knot compare to other jamming knots?  I don't know.  Let's see, but I'll be experimenting with trash rope or someone else's rope.

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2010, 06:19:36 PM »
Quote from: xarax
"I would be glad if you join me in this effort."

I'm starting to understand your "[methods] [through] the madness."

Quote
". . . let us keep walking!"

Lead the way!

JCS

jcsampson

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
  • Major Proponent of the Fixed-Gripper Constructs
Re: Loops : One overhand knot is ( more than ) enough
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2010, 02:15:46 AM »
It's C(f)C(a)H(f), right?

Alternatively, it's C(f)C(c)H(f), right?

This one holds very nicely. It can be adequately decompressed using the thumbs in the middle of the knot as a pivot, while pulling the bottom collar down with the fingers towards the standing part.

JCS