Author Topic: Retucking the thief knot  (Read 17205 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2011, 02:01:10 PM »
the Figure 8 Bend (which I would consider the Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots).

   Unfortunately perhaps, there is not ONE "Figure 8 Bend", but plenty of them ! That is an "inflationary" defect of the "Gold Standard"... :)  See the most simple ones, with some  "8" ( or Pretzel) shaped interlocked overhand-knot bends, at (1). It would be nice if somebody will test and compare all those bends someday...

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2011, 05:00:15 AM »
the Figure 8 Bend (which I would consider the Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots).

   Unfortunately perhaps, there is not ONE "Figure 8 Bend", but plenty of them ! . . . 1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0

By Figure 8 Bend, I was referring to ABOK 1411.  Many of the bends you point to, although they may be interlocking figure 8 bends, are not ABOK 1411.  Although any of the few ABOK 1411 bends would serve admirably as a Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots, the two easiest to tie and identify in my estimation are the "perfect" forms1 of ABOK 1411.

DDK

1  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3618.msg20678#msg20678

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2011, 10:04:33 AM »
By Figure 8 Bend, I was referring to ABOK 1411. 
Although any of the few ABOK 1411 bends would ...

   ABoK 1411 is a fine, symmetric figure 8 bend, like so many others...I believe we should not restrict our knowledge to the study of the knots that happened to be published in the ABoK, should we ? This is not the IGABoKKT forum !  :) There is a tradition in the knot tying world, to refer to even the most simple knots, by their ABoK number, ( like the ABoK X overhand knot, for example... :)), and then  believe that those are the only knots possible, or worth knowing, or worth studying, or practical - or whatever false belief gets into our minds by the tendency we all have, as members of the human species and communities. to follow, repeat, parrot, etc.. I hope we will not continue to do the same mistake here.
   Now, which are those "few" (plural) ABoK 1411 bends you are referring to ?
This is not a knot.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2011, 02:27:40 PM »
Quote
There is a tradition in the knot tying world, to refer to even the most simple knots, by their ABoK number

This is at least the most comprehensive catalog for internationally identifying that we have to my knowledge. Great tool for communicating amongst those with access/ownership. So until we have better it is the best tool for the job. (Though member specific pictures/graphics can eliminate questions at times.)

But I disagree with the notion that this in any way limits the seeking of more and improved tangles. More so a fairly stable base.

SS
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 02:28:49 PM by SS369 »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2011, 04:29:55 PM »
Quote
xarax: There is a tradition in the knot tying world, to refer to even the most simple knots, by their ABoK number, ( like the ABoK X overhand knot, for example... :)),  
SS369: This is at least the most comprehensive catalog for internationally identifying


   I believe you have misunderstood what I have said. I was talking about the tendancy to refer to the most simple knots by their ABoK numbers. I  am sure you do not mention the ABoK number of the overhand knot, each time are refering to the overhand knot !
   There can be no question that ABoK will serve the purpose of identifying knots for a long time...UNLESS the IGKT members do something about it, and produce a better, up to date contemporary catalogue, with virtual reality pictures, computerized drawings, and all that  !  :)
   I believe that many people tend to believe that every non-decorative knot that is in the ABoK, is a "practical knot", and vice versa : that  "practical knots" are easy to identify, because they are in the ABoK. Nooope. Many not-decorative knots in the ABoK have only a theoretical or historical value, and many practical knots are not in the ABoK. So, ABoK des not solve the  "What is a "Practical knot" that should be posted in the "Practical knots" Forum "  question/problem, I am afraid.


« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 04:32:24 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2011, 04:54:05 PM »
Ahh, the challenges of communications. (Another topic for sure ;-)  )

I believe you understood the intent of my statement and of course there is no need to numerically call the most simple knot by a number, ABOK, or not, for the general purpose of our discussions. And yes I am assuming things here.

Till such time as we all talk in common code I suspect that the ABOK numbers will do nicely for those who have access to the tome.
Thank you for your many pictures that enhance our understanding. They help me quite a bit.

SS

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2011, 05:04:55 PM »
Till such time as we all talk in common code

  The issue, my dear SS369, is if we, at the IGKT forum, will try do something about a common code, or catalogue, or something, or not ! Are we going to leave people that know much less than required, to fill the Wikipedia articles, for example, or not ? Let us try to make a modest start, by experimentally presenting a bakers dozen knots, with the contribution of the so able knot tiers present and available here.
This is not a knot.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2011, 05:41:18 PM »
Hmmm, seems like I've seen this topic before here.  ;)
Maybe a re-thread is in order.

SS

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2011, 05:41:55 PM »
By Figure 8 Bend, I was referring to ABOK 1411.  
Although any of the few ABOK 1411 bends would ...

   ABoK 1411 is a fine, symmetric figure 8 bend, like so many others...I believe we should not restrict our knowledge to the study of the knots that happened to be published in the ABoK, should we ? This is not the IGABoKKT forum !  :) There is a tradition in the knot tying world, to refer to even the most simple knots, by their ABoK number, ( like the ABoK X overhand knot, for example... :)), and then  believe that those are the only knots possible, or worth knowing, or worth studying, or practical - or whatever false belief gets into our minds by the tendency we all have, as members of the human species and communities. to follow, repeat, parrot, etc.. I hope we will not continue to do the same mistake here.
   Now, which are those "few" (plural) ABoK 1411 bends you are referring to ?

First, my apologies for interjecting something on-topic, just kidding. :D

To the question of which bends am I referring to, I think either of the so-called "weak" or "strong" forms1 of ABOK 1411 would serve equally well as a Gold Standard for retucked Thief Knots as I mentioned earlier.  The use of a Gold Standard helps our study of knots by giving us something to compare with new knots.  We then can ask questions like, "Why are the new knots better or worse in regard to some property?"  I think this process was nicely illustrated in my findings on your A3 knot (see reply#15 in this thread).  Of course, the choice of the Standard depends on whether one is interested in the practical nature or theoretical nature of the knot.  For example, the Grief Knot is one of the Gold Standards for positive cogging.

DDK

1  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3618.msg20678#msg20678   edit: repaired link
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 05:46:59 PM by DDK »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2011, 06:25:37 PM »
  I am in favour of the Gold or the Platinum standard, instead of the worthless US dollar standard, but I think I know why !  :) With the figure 8 bends, I do not.
  There are 5 more knots at (1) , (besides the A3), 16 knots at (2),( besides the so-called "perfect" A form), 4 knots at (3), the 2 88 bends, and who knows how many more I have missed....DDK, you have much work to do , before you persuade us for your Gold or Platinum Standards !  :)
   Believe me, I am a knot tier most eager to accept a test-proven, true Gold Standard of the fig 8 bends, because I know the substantial savings in our knot toolbox space it will halp us to achieve ! I suffer from this proliferation/inflation of the possibly usefull practical knots as much as anybody - and probably even more, because of my age and poor memory. 

1)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3611.0
2)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2198.0
3)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 06:34:44 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2011, 04:09:25 PM »
  I am in favour of the Gold or the Platinum standard, instead of the worthless US dollar standard, but I think I know why !  :) With the figure 8 bends, I do not.
  There are 5 more knots at (1) , (besides the A3), 16 knots at (2),( besides the so-called "perfect" A form), 4 knots at (3), the 2 88 bends, and who knows how many more I have missed....DDK, you have much work to do , before you persuade us for your Gold or Platinum Standards !  :)
   Believe me, I am a knot tier most eager to accept a test-proven, true Gold Standard of the fig 8 bends, because I know the substantial savings in our knot toolbox space it will halp us to achieve ! I suffer from this proliferation/inflation of the possibly usefull practical knots as much as anybody - and probably even more, because of my age and poor memory. 

1)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3611.0
2)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2198.0
3)  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0

It is clear to me that the two of us have completely different understandings of the concept of Gold Standard; so, I have gone to wikipedia for help in finding some common ground or terms to bridge the communication gap.

"In medicine and statistics, gold standard test refers to a diagnostic test or benchmark that is the best available under reasonable conditions. It does not have to be necessarily the best possible test for the condition in absolute terms. For example, in medicine, dealing with conditions that require an autopsy to have a perfect diagnosis, the gold standard test is normally less accurate than the autopsy. Other times, gold standard is used to refer to the most accurate test possible without restrictions. The word is therefore ambiguous and its meaning should be deduced from the context in which it appears."1

My usage of the term Gold Standard was along the lines of a diagnostic test or benchmark that is the best currently known and available under reasonable conditions.  Of course, a benchmark can be replaced at any point in which a new benchmark is found to be superior.  This happens all the time in research and development.  In addition, when one enters a completely new area of research, the first item one picks up is the Gold Standard (usually its reign as the Gold Standard is short-lived, but, not always).  In my experience, the existence of a Gold Standard never implies that all research and development should cease and, in fact, most R&D depends quite heavily on the existence of Gold Standards.

It is my understanding that the ABOK 1411 "perfect" forms have been extensively used (each use a test of sorts) and certainly qualify as Gold Standards for retucked Thief Knots used in practical applications.  I have examined a few other retucked Thief Knots and found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends mentioned (in my estimation, your mileage may vary).

DDK

1  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard_(test)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2011, 05:56:20 PM »
The word is therefore ambiguous and its meaning should be deduced from the context in which it appears."

    Your mistake is just that ! You do not accept either  the one or the other meaning, but wish to step on both:) If you have just said : "The so-called "perfect" form is not but a benchmark, with the use of which we are accustomed to compare the other fig. 8 bends, but we do not know if this form is indeed the most perfect one, or the most secure one, because, for the time being, we do not have any theory that can indicates this, and we have not done any detailed experiments that can validate this theory." , if you have said that, I would not have said a f... word more, believe me ! However, you did not, because you shift positions all the time. You confuse the method, the tool, with a certain desirable final result. I, too, wish to prove that this form, or any other form, is "the" perfect, and "the" more secure, and the best of all, but I do not confuse my desires with reality. I do not want to cite your phrases, where this ambiguous stance is portraited, but just listen to yourself at your previous post :
"I have ... found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends. "

   You speak of superior and inferior bends, not of superior and inferior benchmarks ! And you do not examine ALL the different fig.8 bends I have repeatedly shown and asked to from you...Make up your mind, please !  :)
   I can not but accept the A form as the benchmark, of course, because that is the most/only(?) known form of the many fig.8 bends, and because it is used in climbing more often than any other bend. However, this does not mean that I will make the mistake you do, and persuade myself that this form is the most "perfect", or that is the most "safe", the one that has "the largest area of rope-to-rope contact", the one "less distorted", and all those erroneous things you were driven to suppose, by the force of will, not the force of reason. I wish the same you do, and perhaps MORE than you do, but I a not going to tinker some half-baked "proofs", or make some easy experiments with some of the many different fig. 8 bends. We want extensive and exhaustive laboratory tests, that can be published and can be replicated, before we can claim something so important, that has to do with the security of the most used climbing bend !
   I also have to admit that, concluding from your stance till now, I believe you can not be objective on this subject, even if you try...You have jumped into conclusions far too easy and too early, you have defended your position from many sides - which is a proof that one side would not be enough...I admire your persistence, but not your scientific objectivity :)
   Let us acept the methodology and the accurancy of the knot tests presented in this article as our Gold Standard, regarding the climbing knots, in general, and the various friction hitches, in particular.
http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/14_Report_hitches_PBavaresco.pdf
Are you telling me that you
Quote from: DDKlink=topic=3611.msg20782#msg20782date=1316531365
... have examined a few other re tucked Thief Knots and found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends
in accordance to this Gold Standard ?  :) 

   My dear DDK, we know very few things about physical knots, ( if any), that can be said that is really "known", with the meaning natural sciences endow to this word. The ignorance and confusion that surrounds the figure 8 bends, is perhaps the best example of this sad fact. We can only make things worse, if we insist/pretend that we know something more than we really do. 

« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 06:03:44 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2011, 06:43:10 PM »
The word is therefore ambiguous and its meaning should be deduced from the context in which it appears."

 . . . If you have just said : "The so-called "perfect" form is not but a benchmark, with the use of which we are accustomed to compare the other fig. 8 bends,  . . .

Well, I have just said that, didn't I by pointing out that I have been using that definition of Gold Standard which is: a benchmark? 

but we do not know if this form is indeed the most perfect one, or the most secure one, because, for the time being, we do not have any theory that can indicates this, and we have not done any detailed experiments that can validate this theory."[/i] , if you have said that, I would not have said a f... word more, believe me ! . . .

This is implicitly understood as is the use of the label "perfect", thus the reason it is mostly used with quotation marks.  None are making the claim that I am aware of that this bend is truly perfect.  Your insistence that none other than yourself realize the obvious that there is more to learn and things that are not known appears unfounded to me.

However, you did not, because you shift positions all the time. You confuse the method, the tool, with a certain desirable final result. I, too, wish to prove that this form, or any other form, is "the" perfect, and "the" more secure, and the best of all, but I do not confuse my desires with reality. I do not want to cite your phrases, where this ambiguous stance is portraited, but just listen to yourself at your previous post :
"I have ... found them to be inferior to the ABOK 1411 bends. "

   You speak of superior and inferior bends, not of superior and inferior benchmarks ! And you do not examine ALL the different fig.8 bends I have repeatedly shown and asked to from you...Make up your mind, please !  :)


I'm not sure of your point, but, to be clear, the bends I have examined are both inferior in practical applications as bends and as benchmarks/Gold Standards when compared to the "perfect" forms of ABOK 1411.

   I can not but accept the A form as the benchmark, of course, because that is the most/only(?) known form of the many fig.8 bends, and because it is used in climbing more often than any other bend.

Great, I think we have found some common ground.

However, this does not mean that I will make the mistake you do, and persuade myself that this form is the most "perfect",

Again, none are making the claim that I am aware of that this bend is truly perfect.  The concept that there might be better bends yet to be found or things yet to learn is not nearly as difficult to understand as you believe it to be.  I think this is obvious to most people and that they implicitly understand this to be the case.

DDK

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2011, 07:34:04 PM »
Your insistence that none other than yourself realize the obvious that there is more to learn and things that are not known appears unfounded to me.

   You have not realized the obvious, that there were all those different knots and dressings of knots that are fig..8 bends, have you ?
   You have not tied and taken pictures of and published all those obviously different knots and dressings of the many different fig.8 bends, have you ?
   It appears to me that your insistence  that "I" pretend I know, as well as your insistence that "you" pretend you know, is unfounded.  :)

   I'm not sure of your point, but, to be clear, the bends I have examined are both inferior in practical applications as bends and as benchmarks/Gold Standards

   That was my point. You change the way you mean this term, "Gold Standard", according to your latest position, which you shift all the time. Is the A form the Golden Standard according to the first meaning you state, or according to the second ? Is the A bend the perfect, best, least distorted, having the greatest contact area, etc., knot, of all the other fig.8 bends, or not  ? ( No "clear" answer, till now...) Is it only a benchmark, that helps us compare the different knots, and we can not say that this knot is also the perfect, best, least distorted, having the greatest contact area, etc., of all the other fig.8 bends ? ( No "clear" answer, till now...) "As benchmarks and as bends..." (sic)  Why you would have needed the one, if you could prove the other ?  Do you believe that being half-right in both, makes you be absolutely-right in any one of them ? Wrong belief ! It seems to me that you have not made your mind, and you try to defend both fronts, because you fear/know you are losing at both ! Not a wise strategy, to my view.  :)

The concept that there might be better bends yet to be found... is not nearly as difficult to understand ... I think this is obvious to most people and that they implicitly understand this to be the case.

   I, too, have though this should be the case... However, you seem to be an exception. You do not want to learn the bends that have already be found, and shown to you, repeatedly. What is so difficult for you, and why it is so difficult, it is difficult for me to understand, indeed.  :) I think that it is obvious to most people that I have shown 27 or so fig.8 bends, that you have examined - after much delay- only one of them - the A3- and yet you claim a number of things about all theose fig.8 bends, that you can not prove. 
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 07:48:05 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

DDK

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Retucking the thief knot
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2011, 09:03:18 PM »
Oddly enough, all of my posts make "perfect" sense if one exchanges the term "benchmark" for "Gold Standard" at every occurrence.  Lucky for me, I guess.     :o