Author Topic: A "new" knot, or not.  (Read 12520 times)

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2011, 12:39:22 AM »
I am glad you had no influence on Clifford Ashley.
And you "standing in my way" is no impedance if I were so motivated.

Let's Not hinder those who might contribute though. It would be a whole lot better to encourage and help.
I don't think that either the patent process (which isn't cheap) or the Ashley Book of Knots is filled with a huge selection of mostly useless items, hoping to one day become useful!  :D

Encouraging and helping entails getting people pointed in the right direction, not stuck in a mire where useful information is obfuscated and diluted.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1843
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2011, 01:15:52 AM »
Quote: "I don't think that either the patent process (which isn't cheap) or the Ashley Book of Knots is filled with a huge selection of mostly useless items, hoping to one day become useful!  Cheesy"

Investing time in tying knots is not cheap either (value of life), but we do it. I suspect that you've never perused the P.O. website. But, if you did you just might comment "Why did they even spend any money on that idea?"

You reckon Mr. Ashley thought "Wow, everyone is going to find the greater majority of the work I did useful." ? One day?"

Encourage away.


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2011, 02:44:25 AM »
...are you suggesting that new knots shouldn't be documented because it would be too difficult to decide if a new knot was useful?

   I believe that one main reason why new knots should be documented, is precisely  this : It is too difficult, indeed almost impossible, to tell, in advance, if a new knot will be proven, in the future, to be a useful, practical knot, or not. If not for anything else, but from the mere fact that, as often is emphasized by DL, a knot is but a material knotted. Who knows how the change of materials will change our view of a knot, transferring it from the "decorative" to the "practical" set, and vice versa. It has be done in the past, possibly, indeed probably, it will happen again.
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3828
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2011, 07:19:00 AM »
Quote:
???

Why aren't you using the quote function,
which nicely highlights quoted from commenting text?
This is annoying to distinguish it otherwise, esp. in this forum's
context where eveyone else is quote-ing --and then, whoops, surprise!

Quote
Investing time in tying knots is not cheap either (value of life), but we do it.

Do we?  I suspect that very few people have bothered with Xarax's
barrage of new knots, which are not so easily discerned, for starters,
and complex enough beyond that to get right, or what might seem
right though in different materials one might struggle to achieve
the posted image's shape.  Heck, it took me quite some time at
no small effort to drive home an understanding of Ashley's bend #1452,
which I find far simpler in formation, and well enough shown to be
valuable (if only equally so with other knots); one knot (or one small
set of knot versions)!

And precisely because of the number of them tossed out, and the
absence of any supposed good qualities, and in general their often
dubious nature : big, bulky, hard-to-tie are not winning qualities.
--much as Roo complains, but is met with whining in reply.

Quote
I think we should explore all knots and not be so quick to shut down the process because there may be some that are not immediately found useful.

"all knots" is an infinity; no matter your desires, you won't get to
even a <name_your_fraction> of them in your lifetime if you start
NOW and don't stop but for some sustenance.


Quote
I suspect that you've never perused the P.O. website.
But, if you did you just might comment "Why did they even spend any money on that idea?"

I've done better : sat and perused hard (paper, i.e.) files of patents;
yes, they can be quite a HOOT --and one wonders how they got patented,
in addition to your point!  (But, recall, Joe McNicholas got some "new" knot
of his patented --even though it was evidently not new, previously published.
There is no recall mechanism that is cheap, though.)


Quote
You reckon Mr. Ashley thought "Wow, everyone is going to find the greater majority of the work I did useful." ? One day?"

You read Ashley and see him just tossing out random-thought knots and
saying "Here, what about THIS, and THIS too, and this THREE, ... ?" ?!

Consider that the Ashley stopper is a good one, but seemingly quite unknown,
despite (or because?) being published in a big book of knots.  I still find this odd.


Quote
but "I" want to learn ANY new knot there is, or might be.

And yet "you" don't want to bother doing much testing or thinking about
the use/value of the knot --just toss it out and chide others for not doing
it all for you.  Learning a knot entails understanding its function, use.


Quote
For one thing, if there was a CoK and it contained both useful and dubious knots,
 people who think that they've discovered a new knot would have another place to check to see if it's been done before,
 and on finding it, can find out if it's any good.

  If only useful knots are documented, all dubious knots will seem like "new" knots to discoverers every time.

True, but there is a point of overwhelming consciousness in quantity
-- a sort of make-work for the cataloguers.  I think that, at least from
a practical level, one would want to filter out things that had no hint
of benefit (and even had some judged grounds for rejection).  Now,
by some means, one can probably indicate a good many knots by
a shorthand, and so cover the ground without much effort.


ABOK probably has a great many knots (clearly not "new") that are
unknown to those here saying they want to know all new knots;
and the question to ask is why aren't they going through ABOK
and exercising this expressed interest?

As for testing, when you consider the relevant factors that are
involved in that, you quite quickly arrive at a very costly process
to get meaningful results --for just a single knot or few,
not everything posited as "new",
so it won't be something you'll do.

--dl*
====

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2011, 04:25:15 PM »
I have come to appreciate that a CoK is only of any value if either the user has a massive photographic memory (gifted to very few of us) or the catalogue author has managed to develop a working means of indexing knots (something I have been working on for years, and thus far have failed to achieve in a workable format).  You only have to try to match a knot with ABoK to know what I mean...

@Xarax,  You make a good point that usefulness and/or usability are not the sole criteria for studying a knot.  Some of us like to study any cordage structure in order to better understand the field of knots.  You and I accord on this point - BUT - a) this is the 'Practical Knot' forum, and b) over of the 'Theory' forum is a very lonely place, because of all the billions of people on the world, only a tiny handful have any interest in anything beyond usefulness.  The 'Surrey Six' discussion is a great example of how limited interest in knots is, let alone interest beyond utility...

We have been given permission by Roo to 'go catalogue', but unless one of us makes it their life's goal to create the catalogue, then Roo is once again totally right - any attempt will soon fail - at least until we develop a means of fool proof indexing...

Derek


knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2011, 09:36:56 PM »
Quote: "Note that no one keeps a catalog of tens of thousands of useless mechanisms, just so someone can see if the useless mechanism they came up with yesterday is novel."

The Patent Office is such a place. But then the inventor thinks it is important and just might get someone to the moon or some such. Lots of attorneys getting thick checking these useful facts out for some creative people out there.

By federal statute (35 U.S.C. 101), a U.S. utility patent must be new AND useful.  Also, getting a patent is relatively super difficult compared to what's being proposed here.

The bar to getting a U.S. design patent is relatively low.  That's more comparable to what's being proposed here.  Note also that a U.S. design patent is generally considered to be substantially less prestigious than a U.S. utility patent.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1843
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2011, 09:49:53 PM »
I apologize for leading the thread astray. Though there are patents aplenty that I personally find wackier than the knot offerings I've seen here. Yes the patents have uses, obscure as they may be. So might the knots.

SS

Wed

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 313
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2011, 10:02:52 PM »
It's not like I want to keep the thread derailed. But I just can't let it slip. Patents original function was to protect an inventor/discoverer. Hard labour or high cost should not be invested in vain. But patent laws, such as they are used in many cases, are a mockery to it's intent. Here is one: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6368227

Luckily this one case was reexamined and then dismissed. But it is way too easy to file a worthless patent, and it is way too expensive to protect a promising idea. A lot of reexaminations are left out there, but who will pay for it?

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2011, 06:16:57 AM »
A patent grants to an inventor(s) the legal right to exclude others from capitalizing on his/her intellectual property within a defined period of time. Was then, 'Tis now.  
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 06:19:48 AM by alpineer »

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2011, 04:46:54 AM »
Hi Derek,

Welcome back to another exciting view of "new-ness" in knotting!  I think you MAY be correct about having a catalog of knots - it seems at first sight that it would be too difficult to analyze one's own knot by looking at a bunch of finished knots (a la ABOK) and trying to determine what you have.  However, if it is split up like organic chemistry then there could be less confusion, because the structures involved in making a knot could be the rings of carbon or the branches of ammonia or hydrogen or whatever.  There are some standard elements to knotting - a turn, a loop, a bight, a weave - such that a single shape could be made from a number of repeats of the essence of such knots (here I am using the generic term "knot" to include weaves, bends, splices, hitches, binders and others) and I think that such a catalog would be easier to understand.

Now to Dan - it appears to me that you are correct, at least in part, when you say that the knot should have some function established also.  Maybe such a function is yet to be discovered however, and who better to discover it than someone like yourself who can find the use or not for just about anything we see here in knotting.  You seem always to try the knots presented and then, after some initial frustration, state that the knot has no apparent use (not apparent yet or to you, anyway) and therefore should not be considered.  How about defining what you consider is "useful"?  That might help 'weed out' some knots that you have yet to define a use for, wouldn't it?

Roo - why do you think that a catalog of 'useful' knots would be small?  Is that not a rather subjective statement?  Useful to whom?  As for Dan above, useful is something that one could put in a descriptive form, just to see how 'useful' such a description or definition might be, don't you think?  OK, this IS the Practical Knots section of the forum, but that should not prevent practical solutions instead of practical dissolution.

For all, maybe we can collectively come up with a way to move forward instead of keep on coming up with reasons for not moving forward.  If there is a reason why you think we should not move forward, why not come up with a way in which we CAN move forward?  Admittedly we need the negative to balance the positive, but I have not seen very much positive thinking herein.

SR

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2011, 08:26:18 AM »
Whatever system is used to catalogue knots the primary requirement is to be able to find a knot or knots and the secret to that is subdivision into classifications eg loop, noose, hitch etc. With that goes a brief description and suggested uses and characteristics but make no mistake this is a huge undertaking. By way of example a couple of years ago I found a stray flower in the back garden. It took around 15 minutes of searching the internet to find a photo just by looking for a flower, yellow, looks like a thistle, is about 3 ft tall (turned out to be a Romanian Basket Flower which I had never heard of but is now flourishing). If you record simple information about something then the combination of characteristics will narrow the search to looking at a few photos - computers do make this a lot easier than searching eg ABOK. But I'm afraid I do not believe that the resources are presently available to make this worthwhile starting. I hope to be proved wrong.

Barry

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2011, 04:25:03 PM »

Roo - why do you think that a catalog of 'useful' knots would be small?  Is that not a rather subjective statement?  Useful to whom?
I said it would be much, much smaller than a catalog of all possible rope tangles.  Even a catalog of 1000 semi-useful knots is going to be smaller than a catalog of 100,000 possible tangles.

I don't care who the knot in question is useful to, but they better at least be willing to say why it is useful to them, yes?

Quote
  Admittedly we need the negative to balance the positive, but I have not seen very much positive thinking herein.
I believe I've offered a positive solution earlier:
Quote from: roo
I would think it would be easier and quicker to first see if the knot in question has good properties, and then search through a much, much smaller catalog of good knots.
Now, that is positive, time-saving, solution.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #27 on: June 14, 2011, 04:43:42 PM »
.  Here is an example:

XARAX: Hey everyone!  I worked on a bunch of ideas that I think are cool.  I took pictures of them to show you all.  What do you think?
Everyone else: This is a catastrophe!! A CATASTROPHE!!!  
Someone else:  What a jerk!
Roo:  It's just a watered-down versatackle!
Dan Lehman:
That this 3rd image presented a dangerous knot
which was not Z, thereby Note that what the knot
was, or how it was dangerous, except that
<<it was not Z.>>
The issue so far as to warn unwary-readers of a
danger, (As readers would only risk this making
back'n'forth half-hitches, as said in my previous post.
Vis a vis Xarax's barrage of new knots potato qua potato
(say, but numbering parts 1, 2, 3, ... <end>),
is met with whining in reply. Arborists imply the
sense described above....  what knot it in fact is (to
judge it dangerous). (And...) the (true) X cannot, indeed.

While your dishonest ad-hominem attack might have made you feel good, what you describe simply has not happened.

Xarax has presented knots, and people have offered serious critiques on rare occasion, but no one has called it a "CATASTROPHE", nor has anyone called Xarax a jerk merely for offering photos.

What has happened though is when Xarax is asked about the practical nature of his knots posted in the Practical Knot Forum, he evades the question and gets defensive.

As for my own fictitious reply of the imaginary knot being a watered-down versatackle, I could imagine that being a true and non-negative analogy for some system. ;)

Your post has been reported as a personal attack, although I doubt anything will happen.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 05:09:56 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2011, 05:25:43 PM »
Quote
no one has called it a "CATASTROPHE", nor has anyone called Xarax a jerk merely for offering photos.

It's called parody.  It's neither dishonest or ad hominem.

Quote
Your post has been reported as a personal attack, although I doubt anything will happen.

YOU reported this as a personal attack.  Saying it in the passive voice doesn't really forgive you.  
This isn't a personal attack on anyone.  That's why nothing will happen.


So if I gave an "example" of your behavior, and went on to describe you as a rapist, you wouldn't call that a personal attack or dishonest?

I would, even if I later called it a "parody" of your behavior instead of an "example".
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 05:27:25 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3828
Re: A "new" knot, or not.
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2011, 08:45:07 PM »
I have come to appreciate that a CoK is only of any value if [it has] a working means of indexing knots ... .
You only have to try to match a knot with ABoK to know what I mean...
//
... until we develop a means of fool-proof indexing...

I concur in the need for an efficient means to index the CoK,
but not in the difficulty (if not impossibility) of that.  I don't
think that ABOK is all so well organized, to be seen as some
failed effort.  An indexing might be one that offers multiple ways
to find some structure, where one might fail at first yet then succeed.
At least in dealing with some reasonable collection of structures,
it should be possible to get through them even with some rather
*clumsy* verbal guidance --the collection being not THAT big.
Which is to admit that this is not an ideal solution, just one
that can suffice to do a certain job.

Quote
@Xarax,  You make a good point that usefulness and/or usability are not the sole criteria for studying a knot.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that this is quite Xarax's written point, above:
rather, that usefulness IS important, but not always easily recognized.
But I accept the point made irrespective of by-whom : there is some
benefit to exploring the universe of knotted structures.  But there
a cost of effort in doing so, and some might well choose to apply
what limited effort they have to things that have some apparent
promise of use --from among an infinite universe of possibilities!

Quote
- BUT - a) this is the 'Practical Knot' forum, and
 b) over [at] the 'Theory' forum is a very lonely place,
 because of all the billions of people on the world,
 only a tiny handful have any interest in anything beyond usefulness.

I'll buy in to A & B, and point out that some indeed do have an
interest, and B should be ameliorated by getting theses sorts of
discussions posted there!  And the resistance to that seems to be
that X. DOES claim utility as essentail and so want to claim that
by posting here (an insistence on *potentially practical*, i.e.);
he should feel no concession to that position in expounding under
the Theoretical heading.  (And, to Xarax, anticipating some
challenge to whether "theoretical" aptly describes such explorations,
recall chess & "theoretical novelty".)

Now to Dan - ...  How about defining what you consider is "useful"?
That might help 'weed out' some knots that you have yet to define a use for, wouldn't it?

Okay, "useful" might be presumed in taking some known solutions to what
Pieter van de Griend calls "rope problems" (tasks in which cordage plays a role)
and responding to some critique of them ("... , but the result is a knot that
is difficult to <untie, tie efficiently, ... >"), present this *new* knot as
redressing the perceived failings.  E.g., Xarax's "B Bend" is a variation on
ABOK #1459, from which he moved to a variation that is an extension
what CLDay calls "twin bowlines" (AKS #57, ABOK #1454),
the loops being closer together so that the tails are readily run through
the opposing knot-halves; this extension could be presented with some
note of its supposed benefits.  In this vein, I recommended that the
tails go through both turNips both as a closer match to the cited
eye-knot cognate, as well as likely improving security & strength.


Quote
If there is a reason why you think we should not move forward,
why not come up with a way in which we CAN move forward?

Note that some aspect of the resistance is the particular forum of
presentation.  The exploration of knotted structures --especially
if put into some ordered form-- is challenging.  It can be helpful
to move thinking beyond the usual, and to better solutions to
rope problems (even of known materials, not depending upon
some future development).  The knot universe is vast, though, so
we need order & some way to keep our efforts able to achieve
meaningful understanding; the mere presentation of *new* knots
is less than what can be done.


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 05:35:32 AM by Dan_Lehman »