Author Topic: Are those practical knots, or not ?  (Read 7951 times)

Hrungnir

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 169
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2011, 06:40:22 PM »
  Let me say that the secific knot is more secure, and/or is more strong than the bowline. Would you use it becuse I am saying so ? No, of course not.
If you claim that your knot has some advantages compared to the knots I'm using, then it will catch my interest. I might not use it just because you said so, but I will try the knot to see if it is as good as you claim it to be ;) Secure, quick, simple to tie and untie, then you do have a replacement for the Bowline - and that will motivate me indeed to try your knot.

Quote
Would you ask the same question to Ashley, if he was alive, as the questions you asked me about the knots in this thread, that I have copied from his lost-and-found diary ? I doubt it.
It doesn't matter who is presenting the knot. When learning a new knot, I always ask myself what benefits does this knot have, where and how I am going to use it. Can I think of any practical problems where this knot will make a good solution? If it isn't clear, I would ask Ashley the same question as I asked you.

If you take a look at the Overhand loop, Figure Eight Loop, Bowline, Eskimo Bowline and Zeppelin loop, they are all end loops. But each knot has different strengths and weaknesses, which will make each knot more suitable for certain tasks than others. Examples: A bowline is a good working knot, because it's fast and easy to tie and untie. Figure eight is a good knot where security is important, because the knot is both secure and easy to control. The eskimo bowline is a good option if the loop is going to be stretched wide.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2011, 02:18:33 AM »
If you claim that your knot has some advantages compared to the knots I'm using, then it will catch my interest.


   All knots have advantages and disadvantages compared to others. Also, the specific material, and the specific knot tyer, can make a difference. I can not caim that a specific knot has only advantages compared to any other knot. If you do not tie the knot by yourself, with your hands and your material, and if you do not repeat this tying a sufficient number of times, you can not know if it would have been interesting for you. or not.
   Traveler, there are no paths. Paths are made by walking.
   Knot tyer, there are no interesting or not-interesting knots that you have not tied. Knots are made and evaluated by tying.

 

 a replacement for the Bowline ...


   There will never be a replacement  the bowline - or the overhand knot !  :) That does not mean that we should not be interested in any other end-of-line loop !
This is not a knot.

Hrungnir

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 169
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2011, 04:58:39 PM »
All knots have advantages and disadvantages compared to others.
Every good knot has advantages compared to others ;) I just want you to point some of them out when presenting a new knot. :)
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 05:01:14 PM by Hrungnir »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2011, 06:30:26 PM »
I just want you to point some of them out when presenting a new knot. :)

   My dear Hrungrir, you show me the Himalayas, the Everest and the K2, and you tell me to climb on higher peaks, or not climb at all...  :)
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2011, 09:41:31 PM »
Assuming that you mean the "Theory of Practical Knots" forum,
do you believe that the end-of-line loops shown in this thread should be posted there ?
If yes, why ? Please elaborate a little more on this,
because I believe that a "new" knot that is simple enough - and not a decorative one-
AND it is meant to be / could eventually be, a practical knot, should be posted
in the Practical Knots forum.

The difference / divide here is that you are focusing on the
*knot* as something maybe to be used (and hence "practical"),
but in the contentious issue re defining "bowlines" the point
is to deliberate over definitions , and not practicality per se.
And definitions/conceptions do have some sense, theory-like, of
able-to-be-tested=ness, in that one can try applying & working with
such conceptions --human-imposed divisions/groupings-- and see
how well they do.  E.g., does omitting a specification for some
"proper collar" --like omitting Euclid's axiom re parallel lines intersecting--
result in a grouping that is unhelpful (too inclusive, not selective?).

Of the images above, of particular *theoretical* interest IMO is the
120deg-angled <what_knot_is_this?!!> orientaiton of the (Eskimo/no?) bowline :

to me, that is a paradigm case to consider in how one conceives of
"loop (eye) knot".  For one might (maybe should) think of it as
a knot of a single PoFM (piece of flexible material) with two *limbs*
opposing 1 *limb* and the 4th free (= untensioned) --in distinction
from a "net-knot", where all *limbs* are tensioned (but, angles...?).
Actually, the "single PoFM" is perhaps a bad conception --it implies
knowledge outside of the image frame presented !  (where one sees
only one termination (the untensioned tail), and is left to presume/guess
(or, by some other definitional plan, maybe specify *knot* per loading)
what limbs connect to what.  Which leads to the interesting question
undermining one commonplace/natural sense of "loop knots" --that
they in fact contain a "loop" (eye) : perhaps that is only some
possible condition of a knot structure which should be said to be
of TWO PoFM --we can trace TWO connections of *limb* to *limb*
in our *knot*-image frame; we can discuss what possibilities exist
for outer connections, or maybe that is beyond the immediate
conceptional needs?

So we can / should question whether a knot so loaded at 120deg
angles IS a (proper?) "eye knot"; our canonical eyeknot form might
require effectively aligned axes of tension for two legs opposing
(in tension) a "SPart".

And all such interesting, challenging deliberations are to my mind
welcome under a title "theory", but that can be amended in some
way ("philosophy" I think might be more apt) and maybe it is best
that "Computing" be separated, to be a forum rich in coded ways
to knotting practical or decorative.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Certainly the knot shown (or, one of the possibilities of the shown
structure, AND at such angles!) is practical; it can be seen in the
lobster-pot bridles of some commercial fisherman --who prefer to
tie what we might tend to call an "Eskimo bowline" between two
short circular slings.  (I just came across one photographer's photo
of such pots in Maine, USA !)  The slings --with end-2-end joints of
fisherman knots,  so far as I can tell (the usual)-- are girth-hitched
to the pot corners, and one (likely a bit longer) ties a sheet bend
with the "tail" used to attach the "snood"/"gangion" line to,
hence loading all (twin?) *limbs* --which is six strands of rope
(2 qua bight making "proper collar", 2 qua a single unit to tie
through this collar and be loaded on their (2) bight end).


--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2011, 10:35:23 PM »
   Thank you Dan Lehman,

the point is to deliberate over definitions , and not practicality per se.

   Yes, but to provide an indication/"proof" that a certain definition of the bowline is correct, I have tied many other loops, where there were only some essential elements of THE bowline present, or where some essential elements were missing. Those loops were practical knots, and the indication/"proof" that an ellement is essential or not, or that an essential element is needed/indispesible or not, was provided on grounds of practicality. Only a practical loop could prove or dispove somethingabout the parent knot, THE bowline, so practicality was sought, and examined, and used, and explored. This involvment of practicality in the course of the definition discussion is another reason this thread should remain in the "practical Knots" section.
 
-it implies knowledge outside of the image frame presented ! 

   I think that the local symmetry of this special - but "middle", not "limit"- case of the 120-degrees-loaded-3-limbs knot - where we can not see the global configuration, i.e. we are not allowed to look ouside the image frame - is the most importand thing, that should decide if the common bowline and the eskimo bowline should be placed within the same category, or not. But not as eye loops ! As midline bends, because that is the only thing we are allowed to use, the local characteristics. We do not see the eye! So, we first decide about the midline bend, and then we extend our knowledge aquired there to the loop that uses this bend as a base.
  That is a general method : Local symmetries ought to decide what is the essential element, so local symmetries are more basic. Global symmetries can not exist without the local ones , so they are only secondary. One can debate this, of course... :)

   Certainly the knot shown (or, one of the possibilities of the shown structure, AND at such angles!) is practical; it can be seen in the lobster-pot bridles of some commercial fisherman --who prefer to tie what we might tend to call an "Eskimo bowline" between two
short circular slings.  (I just came across one photographer's photo of such pots in Maine, USA !) 

   Thank you ! Yet another reason, and a hard one !, the thread containing this knot should stay in the "Practical Knots" section! You didnt tell this to the "voters" before they cast their "vote"/opinion !
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2011, 05:25:30 AM »
   Thank you Dan Lehman,

the point is to deliberate over definitions , and not practicality per se.

   Yes, but to provide an indication/"proof" that a certain definition of the bowline is correct,
...This involvment of practicality in the course of the definition discussion is another reason
 this thread should remain in the "practical Knots" section.

Not at all : the thrust, the point, is definitional (and your way
of including/excluding was, after all, but one of the ideas for
classification that were advanced (and more might await our
finding)).

Quote
-it implies knowledge outside of the image frame presented ! 

   I think that the local symmetry of this special - but "middle", not "limit"- case of the 120-degrees-loaded-3-limbs knot - where we can not see the global configuration, i.e. we are not allowed to look ouside the image frame - is the most importand thing, that should decide if the common bowline and the eskimo bowline should be placed within the same category, or not. But not as eye loops ! As midline bends, because that is the only thing we are allowed to use, the local characteristics. We do not see the eye! So, we first decide about the midline bend, and then we extend our knowledge aquired there to the loop that uses this bend as a base.
  That is a general method : Local symmetries ought to decide what is the essential element, so local symmetries are more basic. Global symmetries can not exist without the local ones , so they are only secondary. One can debate this, of course... :)

I disagree with this (at my current point of inchoate thinking).
At issue is What is a *knot*? --and I submit that when one
makes such changes in loading one changes the *knot*.  But this,
again, goes right back to this fundamental question.  How many
pages did Russell & Whitehead expend on *simple* arithmetic?

The very physical aspects of the knotted structure change
with the angles, with the loading, and so on; so I don't
accept at this time that such manipulations of knots will
show essential properties.

Quote
   Certainly the knot shown (or, one of the possibilities of the shown structure, AND at such angles!) is practical; it can be seen in the lobster-pot bridles of some commercial fisherman --who prefer to tie what we might tend to call an "Eskimo bowline" between two
short circular slings.  (I just came across one photographer's photo of such pots in Maine, USA !) 

   Thank you ! Yet another reason, and a hard one !, the thread containing this knot should stay in the "Practical Knots" section! You didnt tell this to the "voters" before they cast their "vote"/opinion !

 >:(

I think that you're serious here?!
*I* told no one ANYthing; nor did I have anything
to do with there BEING a vote; I merely voted --once,
(not being from Chicago), unweighted by anything.

--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2011, 11:51:15 AM »
: the thrust, the point, is definitional (and your way of including/excluding was, after all, but one of the ideas for classification

   OK ! I will put it differently, to make it less easy for you ! Let us say we just want to talk about a knot, that some believe it is a Practical knot, and some not. Talking about this knot, and trying to prove their point,  some use ideas that they think they reveals its practicality, some use ideas that explore its structure, and some use ideas that have to do with its function. Nobody is talking about a specific application, or use of this knot, may be because they do not care about it, or may be because they have not yet discovered the already published article in another site, where an application or use for this knot is explicitly stated.
    Where are we going to put this thread ? Are we going to solve this problem by counting our opinions ? What is an outcome that we should respect ? A 1-0 outcome would be decisive ? A 563-562 one ?

The very physical aspects of the knotted structure change with the angles, with the loading, and so on; so I don't accept at this time that such manipulations of knots will show essential properties.

   My first point is that symmetry, if it exist, reveals something that is most fundamental : there is some physical truth behind each symmetry ( May be you already know that there is a general theorem in physics about this fact )
   My second point is that local symmetries are more fundamental than global ones. If you see a symmetry in one small area of a knot, this is a more important fact than a symmetry in a larger area. Local properties help us explore the real essence of a physical object more than global properties. This is what people have done to this day to the physical objects they want to understand, with great success. They brake the object into pieces, and they examine those pieces !

   You didn't tell this to the "voters" before they cast their "vote"/opinion !
I think that you're serious here?!
*I* told no one ANYthing;  I merely voted

   I mean that something that a participant knows, might not be yet known to the others. They will learn it later, in the course of the discussion. What are we going to do then ? Are we going to move a thread back and forth, as the informed and knowledgeable participant reveals its information and knowledge one by one ?  :)

« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 11:57:25 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2011, 04:40:14 PM »
: the thrust, the point, is definitional (and your way of including/excluding was, after all, but one of the ideas for classification

   OK ! I will put it differently, ... .
Let us say we just want to talk about a knot, that some believe it is a Practical knot, and some not.
Talking about this knot, and trying to prove their point,  some use ideas ...

This is not the case it issue : we were tasked to make a classification
of knots, given the *seed* of the bowline --which is a conceptual task.
It was not a task to determine whether such knot was "practical" (we accept that it is).


--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2011, 06:47:21 PM »
a conceptual task.

   A work on a conceptual task about a practical knot, should belong to a thread that states, explicitly, that is about Practical knots ! Do you want a division of the Practical knots section into one "Applications/Uses of the Practical Knots" sub-section, and into one "Concepts of the Practical Knots" sub-section ? I will agree with this division. In the second sub-section, we could agree to move most, if not al,l of the threads that now are in the so-erroneously-called "Knot Theory" section, and some of the threads that are now in the "Practical Knots" section, and would be misplaced if they are in the "Applications/Uses of the Practical Knots" sub-section.
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2011, 08:45:01 AM »
. . .      I was not driven to those knots by randomly tying bowlines ! I had thought that if, somehow, we manage to discover a complex TIB nipping loop, tied on the standing part of an end-of-line loop, that happens to be more stable than the common bowline nipping loop, we could use IT as our nipping loop, so that the "proper" collar will now serve almost exclusively the purpose to secure the tail - and not to stabilize this nipping loop. A collar that has only one main purpose, and is loaded accordingly, is probably better / more effectively used in this purpose. Its strength is not "wasted" in the purpose of stabilizing the nipping loop, a task that this new, more stable nipping loop might achieve by its own.
   Does this strategy has a point ? . . .

In the original post I see comments about trying to discover, about trying to improve or change knot structures, about knot mechanics and the relation of structure to performance, and questioning about the effectiveness of a particular knot mechanics strategy.  To my way of thinking, there is little doubt that this thread belongs in the Knot Theory board.  This topic might generate additional discussion and information appropriate to spin off as a new thread in the Practical Knot board, but, the original post is poorly placed in my opinion.
     
DDK

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Are those practical knots, or not ?
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2011, 11:45:10 AM »
   I have repeated some testing of the double crossed-coils bowline presented earlier, in the "theoretical" :) discussion about the bowline (1). It seems to me that this bowline is much safer than the common bowline, as regards any tendancy of the later to collapse when tied on certain materials, and under heavy loading.
  I have now tested this double, crossed coils nipping loop in the case of the midspan bend (2) Its greater stability proved to be beneficial in that case, too.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg19951#msg19951
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3020.msg20613#msg20613
This is not a knot.