Author Topic: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend  (Read 29899 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2011, 03:58:08 PM »

  I have re-arranged the 36 pictures of this thread, so the interested reader can follow the presentation of the 6 "twisted" "falsely tied Hunter s bend" variations more easily. The labels of the pictures have also been changed a little, and some new pictures were added.
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2011, 01:56:37 PM »
It has been long my contention that a Square, Granny, Thief, Grief, Whatnot etc. should be shown as a family/class of lacings.  Their similarities shown that make them a class, and the slightly different properties that differentiate them from each other, and there by dictate different mechanical commands to the flow of forces in them.

Part of their relationship is described here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grief_knot  where they use the terms "trans" (opposing side) and "cis" (same side) to label the arrangements of the standing parts and working ends.  They use this nomenclature is chemistry as well where they describe the two possible configurations of the aromatic (carbon ring) structures.

DDK
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 02:05:22 PM by DDK »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2011, 11:33:43 AM »
xarax, where does this variation of the Rosendahl fit in?

I tried trawling through all of your photos but my eyes are growing weaker by the minute... in frustration, I took some photos of this bend for you.

Again, you might have already shown this structure but I am just getting lost in the sea of knots...which all appear to be Smithunters variations but couldn't find Rosendahl variations (but I am not very good at searching through this forum) :)

Mark

Edit: This variation can also be tied from #1408 as a starting base - and then untying one side and then re-threading so that the tail goes in the opposite direction to obtain the crucifix / Rosendahl form.
Edit: Forgot to add the other variation when I first tied these bends...new image now added.
I like this bend..its a variation of a Smithunter with a twisted/overlapped core. Seems very secure and stable...might even load test in comparison to ABoK #1415 and perhaps Rosendahl (also to test stability and security under loading).
Edit: The Smithunter variant with twisted/overlapped internal core seems remarkable compared to the original as described by Phil D Smith. The act of twisting/overlapping the tails makes the bend jam resistant.



« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 01:20:45 AM by agent_smith »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2011, 04:18:19 PM »
It has been long my contention that a Square, Granny, Thief, Grief, Whatnot etc. should be shown as a family/class of lacings.  Their similarities shown that make them a class, and the slightly different properties that differentiate them from each other, and there by dictate different mechanical commands to the flow of forces in them.

snip...

Rope itself would belong to a class/family of support devices that only resists/support on the unique inline axis, and only in the tension direction.  Other members of this class are chain, cable, webbing, mono-filament etc.

Hi TreeSpyder,  I feel the need to take exception with a couple of things you say in this post.

First up - from a 'Decoratives' standpoint, there can be no argument that the 'Square Knots' - RGGT/W can be laid out to show a fundamental similarity of structure.  However, this is the Practical Knots forum where the primary reference is the use of these structures as 'Force Machines', and when force is applied to these structures they fold into totally new 'load stable' (we hope) shapes.  In doing so, as we have seen with 1406 / 1407 / 1490, they are capable of creating or eliminating key functional knot structures such as the 'Positive Feedback, Negative Cog' (PFNC).  This function of 'Load Response' is a major part of the Practical Knotters game plan.

A grouping of knots that share( under load) the 'PFNC' functional structure - now that would be a 'Practical Knots' family, but the purely decorative unloaded 'Square Knots' is for me a family only in the decoratives weaves/mats sense.

Second, I have learnt a lot from you about knots as force machines, so I am surprised to read your claim that cordage (rope) is "a class of support device that only resists/support on the unique inline axis..."  -  if this were so, we would have no knots...

Of greatest importance to cord usage and knots is the fact that cordage also 'resists/supports/transmits' forces laterally through linear and/or rotational frictional contact, and by lateral compressive forces...  Consider round turns around a beam, after only a few turns, all of the linear tension has been shed by lateral frictional contact, or the collar of the bwl where a large part of the tension is transmitted by lateral compression...

Perhaps it is time that Practical Knotters start to formulate 'Families' of knots based on functional structures rather than the 'Pretty' mats or weaves we make as memory devices to produce our working load bearing knots.  The Carrick and the Myrtle are said to be members of the 'Carrick Family', yet following each knots structural refolding under load, these two knots bear no resemblance to the pretty mats they hail from and more importantly, they have almost nothing in common as Force Machines.

Derek

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2011, 05:48:52 PM »
where does this variation of the Rosendahl fit in?

   Oh, I would love to have been confronted with a question about "How"..." How would this variation fit in ? " Then, I would have had the opportunity to answer by the annoying, megalomaniac :  " With great difficulty !:)
   Mark, I have been studying your knot some hours now, and I have gone nowhere ! It looks like a variation of the Zeppelin bend indeed, because of the way the standing parts enter- and the tails exit - the knot s nub. However, it is not a "rope made hinge", meaning that its function is not depending upon the transverse position of the tails : the two main bights, the two first curves, are themselves crossed with each other, like what is happening in the case of all the other interlocked-overhand-knot bends, except the Zeppelin bend ! 
   Even If this was not enough, we have a variation of one of the most symmetric knots, that destroy this symmetry completely...The aspect of this bend is, to me, awkward, to say the least, in comparison to its, supposedly, parent knot, the Zeppelin bend. It is not the scale of the modification, it is the fact that the changes are disrupting the lines that we are used to follow by our sight of the Zeppelin bend, at exactly the most important areas.
   After some thought, I have reached to the conclusion that the obvious name "twisted Zeppelin bend" , would not  be a accurately descriptive name for this bend. I might be mistaken in this decision, of course. So, for the time being, I think of this knot as "mark s" bend"  :).
   I post two pictures of the "twice twisted Zeppelin bend", to facilitate an easy comparison. To my eyes, the two knots are, and look, very different, but I can not offer any persuasive explanations about this...Your knot is a very strange animal ! It has something of a domesticated pet that is lost in the wild, and turned into a something resembling its rough ancestors....
   ( I have no doubt the whole or parts of the structure of this simple interlocked-overhand-knots bend would be also present in some knots in the ABoK, but I do not think that this is of any importance.)
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2011, 05:54:09 PM »
    And here is an X version of "mark s bend" ( X : the tails cross each other before they exit the knot s nub )
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 05:56:05 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2011, 10:25:29 PM »
where does this variation of the Rosendahl fit in?
. . .  After some thought, I have reached to the conclusion that the obvious name "twisted Zeppelin bend" , would not  be a accurately descriptive name for this bend.  . . .

I would concur with xarax's conclusion.  This bend is, however, one of the first bends that one ties when trying to include interlocking in the Zeppelin, or, at least it was in my case.  This bend is a single interlocking of "b" and "q" loops (as are found in the Zeppelin, w/o interlocking).

As an example of the use of symmetry, it is clear to me (partly from my study of this bend) that the interlocking of the loops must occur minimally in pairs (and possibly in pairs of pairs) to maintain the central inversion symmetry found in the Zeppelin.  Any interlocking not occuring in pairs immediately disrupts this symmetry.  An example I have come across with these paired interlockings for the Zeppelin is the Thief Knot with its ends tucked through its central opening and depicted by xarax above.  This twice twisted Zeppelin actually has two pairs of interlocking.  If one examines the Thief Knot and positions the working ends slightly (roughly at right angles to the standing parts) you will readily see the "b" an "q" loops which make up the Zeppelin and the four (two pairs) crossings or interlockings.  So, the Thief Knot, which BTW has the same symmetry as the Zeppelin Bend is a good starting place for the interlocking of the Zeppelin Bend.

I hope this helps to answer the question of where this bend fits in, at least from a structural perspective.  Other comments about the twice twisted Zeppelin can be found here . . . http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3196.msg19098#msg19098

DDK

edit:  I will note that two consecutive crossings or interlockings can produce a single twist (with my usage of the term "twist").  Thus, four crossings produce two twists as is seen in the twice twisted Zeppelin Bend, and so, to my esteemed colleague xarax I would like to say in good fun  :P  
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 12:03:11 AM by DDK »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2011, 12:45:43 AM »
   I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to one question about all those "twisted" knots, that belong to the greater Zeppelin bend-, and Hunter s bend-, looking families of interlocked-overhand-knot bends : and, until, I have a plausible explanation, I will not rest my case. :)
   Wandering around Knotland, I have seen - without been able to anticipate something like this in advance - that the twistings of the standing parts of the Hunter-like bends generate very convoluted  knots, (1), while this is not happening in the case of the Zeppelin-like bends ( where we can meet only this strange but simple nevertheless animal, the "mark s bend").  It seems as there is little that can be modified within, or added on, a Zeppelin bend, while the Hunter s bend is more fertile to such acts, and it can even be transformed almost completely by them. (See 2, and attached pictures). I wonder, is it an indication that the very simple-symmetric knots / things are also crystallized / frozen in time, that they are they sterile to the transformations by evolution, ? In other words, is a certain, minimum "strangness in the proportion" absolutely nessesary, right from the beggining of the generation of a knot / thing ?

1)  I strongly suggest to the interested reader, to tie the knot in (2), and see how unexpectedly and miraculously a Hunter-like bend can collapse, compactify and be transformed to something completely different !
2)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19189#msg19189  
     http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19190#msg19190
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 12:55:48 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2011, 06:03:49 AM »
xarax, where does this variation of the Rosendahl fit in?

   Well, I still do not agree that "Mark s bend" must be called a "Zeppelin variation" at all, for the reasons outlined in Reply#19.
   However, we can make it fit in a greater scheme, indeed. We have just to retuck all the possible variations of the general Reef-family-of-knots "base". Doing this, we will meet the Hunter s bend, the Mark s bend, and two other bends as well.
   The different possible "bases" of the Reef family of knots are 8, of which 4 can be retucked in a Hunter s bend - like way ( with divergent tails : tails retucked through the central opening, and pointing to opposite directions ), and 4 can be retucked in an Ashley s bend - like way ( with convergent tails : tails retucked through the central opening, and pointing to the same direction ). In this thread, I post pictures of the 4 bends with divergent tails, one of which is the Hunter s bend, and one the Mark s bend.
   See the attached pictures for the 4 (out of the 8 possible )"bases", those which can be retucked in a way that the tails exit the knot s nub pointing to opposite directions. Then, proceed to the next two posts, where I present the "top and "bottom" pictures of those 4 bends.
 
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2011, 06:06:24 AM »
   Pictures of those 4 bends.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 03:18:13 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2011, 06:08:55 AM »
   Pictures of those 4 bends.
This is not a knot.

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2011, 02:43:49 PM »
EDIT...added images to my post #17.

This ones for you xarax!

Forgot about these in my rush to study Bowlines...too many images on camera and computer...files going astray.

Mark

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2011, 03:31:25 PM »
This ones for you xarax!

   Thank you, Mark,
   I have already edited my relevant labels of the pictures.  :)  So, we have the Hunter s bend, the Mark s A bend, the Mark s B bend, and the fourth, still unnamed, but also very interesting bend.
   I do not associate your two knots with the Zeppelin bend, as they have crossed first standing part bights/curves. The way the standing parts enter the knot s nub - from the same or the opposite side of the knot - is of secondary only importance. We should not name the knots based upon this merely pictorial characteristic. These bends have in common that they are retucked knots on the various Reef family of knots "bases", and they are retucked in a way that the tails are divergent, and not convergent, in relation to the centre of the knots. ( So these knots have somethibg in common with the Hunter s bend, because their first bights are crossed, and because their tails exit the knot s nub just like the way they do at the Hunter s bend)
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 03:34:18 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2011, 03:45:43 PM »
xarax, where does this variation of the Rosendahl fit in?

   Well, I still do not agree that "Mark s bend" must be called a "Zeppelin variation" at all, for the reasons outlined in Reply#19.

Yes, I also still agree with xarax's position.  The single interlocking totally disrupts the Zeppelin-like symmetry as I mentioned previously and which for me is of notable importance.  IMO and as discussed in numerous posts of others, rather small changes in the structure of overhand bends result in large differences in their behavior.  -- DDK

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Twisting the standing parts of the falsely tied Hunter s bend
« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2011, 11:27:00 PM »
    I have now named this fourth ( probably unnamed till now) bend that belongs to this series, as the "Shakehands -X bend", because that is what it reallly is : A Shakehands interlocked-overhand-knots bend ( ABoK#1031, as a bend), where the tails are not crossed (  X : crossed, so  -X : not crossed) as they pass through the central opening. ( In this sense, the Shakehands bend is the X version of the retucked  B2b "base", one of the 8 different Reef-family-of-knots bases.)
(See pictures of this bend, with this label)
   Any reference/suggestion for a given/better name is welcomed
This is not a knot.