Our Guild Mission

[SKellyog]

Thanks to squarerigger for bringing this issue into focus.

I am new member of the igkt. There are many areas about which I am a beginner (esp. ornamental and decorative knots).  But I recognized immediately that the message board itself seems perhaps too general (I mean this positively in the sense that differentiation of topics may not be easily accomplished and creating a new topic  may disperse the sense of community we have by logging on to the same thread (chit chat). I would like to suggest that the forum itself create a couple of more theads that could be used as resources.


The first additional thread would be concerned with cataloging knots, i.e., knot identification.  This being the web, all agreed upon knot names would have to either have a clear series of pictures that members or outsiders could refer to, or a link that pointed to the same. Additionally, non-English names should be included with the identification whenever they are known.  And disputed naming would be so noted.

Another thread might be concerned with knot and rope strength and member or contributor experiences using certain knots. Eg. I'm sure the trucker's hitches I've tied are secure, but if someone has a better method for tying off the hitch or experience with a particular type of cordage (that might give way or slacken), I would love to know...

Anyway, I just want to suggest that part of focusing the mission could occur on this site.

Best.

[squarerigger]

What a great idea SK!

I especially like the idea about having a part of the site about knots and their strength (particularly scholarly work) and about knot ID in a second part.  How about a third part for decorative knots, so as not to leave them out.  The remaining discussions could go on with Chit Chat.  That would alleviate the look and feel of the site - what do you think, Webmistress?  Could that be done?

Now, while I like the idea of doing that on the web-site, I still think that our Mission needs some clarification and action items at our AGM.  We still need to address this issue from a paper perspective, for the many hundreds of our members who do not use the Internet (I know it's hard to imagine that someone doesn't use it, but there it is!).  We also can gain a much wider perspective by looking carefully at how our Guild is structured to address this kind of issue in the future.  Here is a question for you all:

Can you name our Board Members, officers included (open to all, except of course for our Board members and officers)?  Can you do it without looking in KM?  Do you know what and where our By-Laws are?  Just asking....

Lindsey

[knudeNoggin]

 Medical professionals use knots recommended by IGKT and IGKT-PAB in operating theaters.  Courts are assisted by forensic experts from IGKT and IGKT-PAB (I can only assume all other branches are having similar success).

??!
I must have missed these recommendations for medical knots--where are they?
(Medical knotting I surmise is the practical knotting that has the most scientific treatment,
with publication in peer-reviewed journals & presentations at conferences.  Hmmm,
and it thus should be something Nautile can bring up and compare w/IGKT!)

Courts are assisted by IGKT experts?  Rather, some experts who have assisted courts
are IGKT members.  There is a difference.  Is there any active discussion of the methods
of forensic analysis for knotting?  (Courts have been accused of fostering "junk science",
and one might wonder at what knotting expertise has been seen there.)

The note "I can only assume that all other branches ..." speaks to this:  why can
you "only assume"??  Shouldn't you know? (!!)  How is this an IGKT and not
merely personal involvement, is the point.

Some time ago in the IGKT history there was a debate about establishing some sort
of educational, knot-knowledge certification program; where one would take some
kind of self-study and by-mail (?) examination in order to obtain credentials issued
by the IGKT ("chief knot tyer" or "loose end" maybe   ).  But that got as much
opposition as support, and dried up, but for the published record, and maybe more than
a few yet believers in some version of it.
And there was discussion about having a journal, to which a quite nasty (should not
have been published!) note of opposition came from one Richard Hopkins, decrying
advocates of the journal as pompous know-it-alls(!).  --a quite unflattering note.

So, there is quite some further progress to be made to achieve the charter.

*knudeNoggin*

[squarerigger]

Hi Knudenoggin,

Great post - thank you!  Having the actual proof is something different than having thought you have the proof!  The fact that some members are asked to give testimony (giving evidence is limited to scientists, law enforcement, expert witnesses, etc., about whom the courts here are very sticky) or have worked and been paid as an expert witness is, I agree, NOT necessarily a function of the IGKT but rather of the individual's own achievements, whilst also a member of the IGKT.

I would like to hear more opinions about the Journal - should it exist, should it be peer-reviewed (in which case how do we measure who are the peers?) and what should be the circulation?

As for the whole question of certification - that is in itself a can of worms, because we need then to know at least the following:
Who are the judges
What are their qualifications for judging?
Is this renewable or a lifetime decoration
In what areas of knotting speciality are the individuals judged
How many areas are there
Is there a fee involved
Is this worldwide
Are there age limits

The questions just keep coming and that I feel is a question for a whole different posting.  I am particularly glad that you are showing an interest in the Mission post and please keep the questions and comments coming in so that we have more material for the discussion in May at the AGM and possibly beyond.

Lindsey

[squarerigger]

This message is to SKellyog and all who may want to answer the question of Board members' names, which question I posted in my reply:

PLEASE DO NOT post individuals names on this web-site (this is a very public forum and we should absolutely respect their privacy) but do enjoy yourself trying to find the information.  Let me know in private - only I will see it I promise!

Thank you for your cooperation

Lindsey

[squarerigger]

Hi one last time today Knudenoggin and then I'll be quiet until tomorrow,

Here is what you said at the end of your post:

So, there is quite some further progress to be made to achieve the charter.

In your post you addressed somewhat the idea of the scientific study of knotting.  What I did not see was a mention of the ways in which actual research could be undertaken or achieved by the IGKT - do you have some thoughts about that?  Should a separate Worldwide Scientific Branch be set up, seeking its own funding?  Should a University or Museum be approached in one or several countries?  Just how could this happen?

Also, do you have some thoughts about how an authoritative body could be established for consulting purposes - or should it be?  Would this body again be a separate Consulting Branch or would it be some separate body of people who are members but who only do that work or what?  We have 1100 members worldwide (maybe more or less) so there is quite a pool to pick from!

You are obviously a committed reader and writer to this forum and to your own, so how about it?  Could you share with us?

Lindsey

[Dan_Lehman]

...There are many areas about which I am a beginner (esp. ornamental and decorative knots).
But I recognized immediately that the message board itself seems perhaps too general ...
I would like to suggest that the forum itself create a couple of more theads that could be used as resources.

I think that what you mean is that the the current category Chit Chat should
be replaced with a couple (Decorative / Practical ?) more constrainted topics?
This could have the effect of giving a feel of denser information within each
such division (vs. being all in one pot).

The first additional thread would be concerned with cataloging knots, i.e., knot identification.

I'm surprised that to date I'm the first to point out that such a thread exists (though
now pushed beyond the latest page of threads, with accumulation of others).
It's a good, but tough issue.

Another thread might be concerned with knot and rope strength and member or contributor experiences using certain knots.

Here, too, is something I think is worth pursuing, at least to get a better understanding
of the limits of prediction for practical purposes (something to consider in setting
"safety factors").

Should a separate Worldwide Scientific Branch be set up, seeking its own funding?  Should a University or Museum be approached in one or several countries?  Just how could this happen?

Good questions.
Re the cataloguing & identification, it might be simplest that interested contributers
just post to an on-going Forum thread, with some kind of maintenance of a more
formal/organized set of files undertaken in the background (updates issued as
appropriate ...).  E.g., someone could take some publication (book, article), and report
the names/identification of knots given in it, and these would be recorded for the
particular knots as we specify them in some master file.
(One should beware that, as specification in documents is often ambiguous to what
detail we should find necessary, that many citations from books/etc. would be attached
to a few such knots as we define them.
So, after some period of seeking & recording, an entry for some particular knot could
have a series of sightings recorded for it.  I suppose it would be equally helpful
to have for each knot-name its set of referents (to see to what, e.g., "fisherman's
bend" has been applied--expected & unexpectetd).

From this, the IGKT Wise Ones might attempt to make some judgements, or perhaps
better, recommendations, about correct/desireable vs. wrong/undesireable
identification.  (A real case:  advise those in the arborist community to change from
calling the Scaffold knot (& like) a "Single Fisherman's Knot", given the denotation
of the latter name throughout history & other application areas.)

Such a compilation and periodic document (i.e., some set of recommendations
or at least citations of problems) should be of use to the knot tyers from various
application areas, who IMO typically lack a broad awareness of knots (and hence
can look at the Dbl. Fisherman's Knot and figure that the use of one Dble.Overhand
component in noose form to hitch to a device should be "Single Fish.", ignorant
of the conflict).
 

... how an authoritative body could be established for consulting purposes - or should it be?  Would this body again be a separate Consulting Branch or would it be some separate body of people who are members but who only do that work or what?

Let me suggest that re this aspect the IGKT might not be the right sort of entity
for engaging in any normal consultation?  --issues of corporate governance
and liability?

We have 1100 members worldwide (maybe more or less) so there is quite a pool to pick from!

It's a question of quality, not quantity (though 1100 is not a big sample).  Who of
various application areas who are evidently active knots people are IGKT members?

--dl*
====

[squarerigger]

Hi Dan,

Welcome to the discussion!  It is always encouraging to see people who are respected on any post, especially when it is not about knots, per se but about the way in which our organization perceives its own actions.

Let's see - you are probably right that such a thread exists, but SKellyog was suggesting that whole new areas of the forum (other chat areas) be generated for discussions of what I referred to as the three types - viz.:  general chat and then (1) scientific concerns having to do with strength (not specific as to type of strength), durability, type of cord, effects of contaminants including twists and hockles (otherwise and also known as kinks) etc., etc., (2) usefulness and application of knots of one type or another (is the bowline really best at what it is used to do, is the overhand knot really worthwhile being disregarded or are there some places it excels, etc., etc.) and then a third area titled decorative knots, so that we could bring together the people who have those interests in each area instead of doing what you have identified as being a common problem (although you didn't say as much) that it is perhaps difficult to find the thread you want to join in with.  It would seem to me that this would warrant another chat area - a total of six, including the present three, not just another thread (which might get lost) within the chit chat area.

Your sense of how the cataloguing and identification would go - do you have a specific set of knotbooks (or rigging books or sailing books or safety books or camping books, etc.) in mind or do you think we should start arbitrarily with ABOK for instance, or should we somehow use a list derived by the "committee"?  Organization IS important, as is definition, but we also need to be able to retrieve the information - I would really appreciate your putting together a suggested organization.

You may be right that the IGKT is not sufficiently separate from the "authority" to be impartial.  I think that a separate body of people would be better (so they would have to be paid, of course) than volunteers, and they would need to be given a very defined set of definitions and instructions (all put together first by the IGKT or a separate committee) and then given a scheduled time by which the work is to be complete.  A difficult and very long-term project.  How about a quicker win for the team?  Get a group of IGKT members to put together a suggested method for consulting and then get Requests for Proposals (RFPs) out to interested parties?  Perhaps a university group of anthropology Master's students might find this interesting?

Lastly, your point about the 1100 members is somewhat on target and somewhat off.  You suggest that it is a question of quality.  I think that, for people to firstly admit themselves interested in knots, and then to pay for that privilege year after year, speaks of quality.  There are varying degrees of ability among those people, but they are all of quality.  I spoke of quantiity because the simple numbers of such a self-picked group entitle a person to think that these are people with an already dedicated, interested knowledge area, and they will have a real commitment to see this succeed.  Float an idea first, before we deny it from view.  If it dies, it can be put aside for the time being.  If it lives on, it was worth it.

When this Guild was first suggested nearly 25 years ago, it was not idly set up as a hobbyist group, and some lofty goals were set into the Mission Statement.  In countries around the world, the dedication to the art, craft and science is amazing, from what little I have seen (I've only been here for 9 years now, and I am just getting started).  So let's give ourselves a shot in the arm and really build for the future of our craft among young people and among the people who now hold the best way of getting it started on the next 25 years - our existing members!

Thank you Dan - you are very valuable in bringing some sensible ideas and valid comments to this discussion!

Lindsey

[KC]

All good ideas; i'd like to see lots of strides made in understanding knot tying mechanics of strength and security; as well as rope power increases by inline/ pulley pulls and non-inline/leveraged line sweating a'la Toss.

Thanx Squarerigger for bringing this forward, and Dan L. too, as well as that  knudeNoggin person!

[squarerigger]

Thanks for your posting KC,

Knot-tying mechanics eh?  I guess that is a long way from auto mechanics, isn't it?  Pardon my levity - just cannot resist sometimes ...  These items definitely would come into that part of the science of knotting, its study and practice.  It could also be part of the research into all aspects of knotting, so it seems like we must be on the right track already, if you are a member and have a need for this information.

I have a question for you - if you were the IGKT person responsible for answering this question, where would you start?  Would you want to be able to give answers right now or be prepared to wait, while an answer was sought by your action committee?  What would you expect if you were the person who asked this question?  Would you want them (IGKT) to give you an answer that is correct, based on a rough guess from experience or would you want something worked out like an engineer might do?  Rigging 101 or Rigging 601?

Would you want to be able to turn to a recommended book?  A recommended person or corporation?  Would you want to be able to take some training, however that might be offered (in class, by internet, mailings, etc.), or do you want a quick and dirty answer?  Is this (IGKT) really the right forum for your question?  How secure would you feel in the answer?

Your question is very good at raising issues that are definitely germane to our current discussion.  Our very existence is something that we need to exercise some care with, so as not to expose our Members to unreasonable expectations or risks.  Thanks again, and please do let us know what your thoughts are to the areas discussed above.

Lindsey

[DerekSmith]

Squarerigger and Nautile,

Rarely have I read such clarity of perception and structured determination to promote a worthy topic out beyond the closed ranks of the converted.  Bravo gentlemen, I support your innitiative and offer my direct support.

I am a 'hobby knotter' (there is not much call for knots in the laboratory) and am not at present a member of the IGKT.  When I first came across the IGKT website, I was not unduly impressed, nor convinced that the Guild had much for me.  I hung around the forum, but, because of its failure to include images, again I learned little from the discussions between skilled knotters who's descriptions frequently went way over my head.

And then came this post.  Yes, to those within the IGKT all may seem on track, but to an outsider, there is virtually no attraction to join in.  The site and its content are not 'sticky' and there is virtually nothing to attract newbies into the hobby.  It was good to read that the Mission of the IGKT actually encompasses the aspects I intrinsically feel that it should include.

So, in an attempt to start to turn desire into reality I have started a Wiki which will allow anyone to contribute to any of the mission objectives in a flexible and unfettered manner.

To all:-

To view the Wiki, go to http://igkt.pbwiki.com you can read any of the content already entered as a starting point.  If you would like to then add or edit content yourselves, simply log in.  Enter your name, email address and the password which is igkt

Give it a try and let me know if you think this is a tool which can be used to promote the Guild Mission.

Any questions just drop me an email

Derek Smith

[squarerigger]

Hello Derek,

Thanks so much for your comments.  I see that you have also responded to some other posts and that you have set up a Wiki page that is arranged so as to gather and disseminate information about knots.  Your commitment to the Wiki system is to be applauded.  I also encourage fellow knotters to examine the Wiki system for themselves and ask how this may help them in their own search for valid information.  I feel that, at ANY time that you are looking at a system on ANY web-based information (including this site), you should check for supporting or corroborating information, else that system or that information must be treated with a little caution - not that it is necessarily wrong or suspect, but that information, wherever it derives, must always be accorded the authenticity of its author(s), with sufficient basis for acceptance.  You all have likely heard the adage "I found it on the web, so it must be true"?  That adage applies to any system of information, so please use good judgment.

Derek, you have set up a very interesting place where people can enjoy themselves by posting their information in, as you say, an unfettered manner.  I am looking forward to seeing what people post there!

Looking at the Long Ashley Bend, as you call it, #1452 in ABOK, from your puzzles on the Wiki page, it is not only different in appearance than #1452, it has been tied such that the tucked ends (or what should be tucked ends) appear to be the standing parts tucked - at least that is what I have seen when I tried to recreate the knot shown on your Wiki page and then untied it to remove the ends.  My description requires more explanation - why don't you ask others for their explanation here on another thread?  You are sure to get some interesting replies.

Thanks again Derek - I wish you joy of your efforts and I shall watch with interest.

Lindsey

[DerekSmith]

Hi Lindsey,

Thanks for the comments, I hope others find the Wiki to be useful, particularly the facility to upload pictures for discussion.

Re the puzzling dressing of Ashley #1452, I will create a new post as you suggest and upload images of its dressing to the Wiki.

[KC]

Fantastic!  i have a small sight, that Dan and KnudeKnoggin have helped on.  It is mainly for tree worx; but that encompasses biology, knots, rigging and yes mechanics.

Here are a few Lynx, table of contents at bottom of each page:



Knot Links Page

Bowline to SheetBend Commonalities/Mechanics Comparisons


Tree Climber's Friction Hitch Commonalities/ Mechanics comparisons

2HandingPower




And, yes i believe that knot mechanics is appropriate; and am glad that somehow we here have settled together at this time; perhaps to allow the IGKT to give more leadership in these things.

i think that if you make a 180 degree bend around a pulley and anchor 1 end, while pulling on the other; you get 2x effort - friction at the said bend.  Inside a knot, i think the same mechanics are relative.  So in studying strung rigging, we can have a microscopic view of what happensi inside the tiny microcosm of a knot!  For, they are powered by the same forces, even use the same materials of ropes and bends.  i think that only inline/linear with no friction or impact gives same force; but a bend of any kind takes a longer route to do the same work; so alters the amount of distance to carry the same load; and voila we have leveraged forces.  Just like a lever takes a longer route of input motion, than the output motion to give more power.  For only force can overcome distance; so anytime the distance is not inline and altered on one sode of the balanced formulae of equals and opposites, thereby; commands that force be altered on the opposite side of the balance!

Orrrrrrrrr something like that!

P. S. Luv that this site allows Flash animations; many don't!

[Willeke]

For those of you who wonder what that 2handing power thing is (like I did), click on the click point and you see moving pictures.
If you do not, maybe you need to allow pop-ups for this site.

Thanks for sharing KC.

Willeke