Author Topic: Retraced ABoK#582 stopper as an eyeknot.  (Read 4425 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Retraced ABoK#582 stopper as an eyeknot.
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:22:46 PM »
   This is, obviously, a quite bulky knot, although the particular dressing that I have chosen makes it appear a little slimmer than it is. When we try to dress our knots in a "proper" way, we often have to choose : Do we prefer a compact, least-voluminous-possible, neat nub, or a spatially extended bulky one, where the lines are tracing wide curves ? Also, does it make sense to chose a simple knot because it can be tied very easily, and then dress it in a complex way ? This TIB eyeknot is a most simple and easy one to tie-with-a-bight, but, in order to dress it in the shown compact symmetric form, it requires considerably more attention and time.
   As we have seen in the case of the retraced fig.8 loop, all those retraced stoppers can be dressed in many ways - because we can twist the pair of adjacent and parallel lines running within their nub one or more times, at one or more areas of the knot. The dressing shown in the attached pictures generated the most compact nub I could find, but I might well have missed an even more compact, or a more interesting one.
   When we leave the minimal simplicity of the overhand loop which jams so badly, we can retuck the "base" double line overhand knot once more, and tie a fig.9 based eyeknot, for example. I believe that by retucking it twice, as in ABoK#582, we can tie slightly more convoluted eyeknots, but much more symmetric, regarding the distribution of the material around the axis of loading.
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3764
Re: Retraced ABoK#582 stopper as an eyeknot.
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2013, 05:24:15 AM »
In addition to the myriad dressings --and what X.
presents above isn't quite what I'd first to : the
orientation of the twin parts deviates from my
inclinations at the initial turn of the S.Part(s)--,
there is the question of which end is S.Part,
which is tail?!

To my thinking, the full tracing of the base knot
is beyond what is needed for a decent eye knot.
Thus, I presented the "abbreviated" version of
this "traced stopper" at (post #63)
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12798#msg12798

and then showed some further "TIB" (and other)
versions --expressly to put in a 2nd collar around
the S.Part-- here (post #7):
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24574#msg24574

Frankly, I'll prefer the eyeknots derivative
to (Ashley's) #1425 for practical purposes.


--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Retraced ABoK#582 stopper as an eyeknot.
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2013, 12:44:39 PM »
there is the question of which end is S.Part, which is tail?!

  This eyeknot advantage is that it can be tied very easily and quickly as TIB, but as TIB tied with-a-bight entirely, from the start to the finish - with the same easiness and quickness one ties the  ABoK#582 symmetric "stopper". So, when one holds the two legs of the bight in his palm, and with it he traces the ABoK#582 "stopper" ( first by forming a double=two-line overhand knot, then by retucking this overhand knot twice), he would not pay much attention to which is the short leg ( the Tail end) and which is the long leg ( the Standing end ) of this bight ! Anyway, see which first turn is wider, and call the continuation of the line arriving there the Standing end.
   Again, the essential advantage ( and the motive that leads to it...) of this eyeknot is not its Zeppelin-like character ( that should have been expected, as the Zeppelin bend nothing else than an abbreviated  :) retraced ABoK#582 stopper ), but its TIB character, in general, and its tiable-with-a-bight character, in particular. If we are not going to not tie it with-a-bight, there is no reason ( other than the aesthetics of the thing ) to go to something beyond the simpler, single collar-around-the-Standing-end abbreviated form you had presented, of course - and I think that there is no reason to go as far as there, either ! We have so many secure, much simpler TIB eyeknots, that are PET ( bowline-like ), too. As for a pseudo-Zeppelin eyeknot, I still prefer the bulky but harmonious ones I had presented at (1) and (2)...

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24546#msg24546
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg28458#msg28458

   To my thinking, the full tracing of the base knot is beyond what is needed for a decent eye knot.

   Obviously - but my point was that even a more complex / convoluted knot, which contains parts not much needed for its security or strength, might nevertheless be more practical - in the sense that it can be tied more easily and quickly. This bulky eyeknot contains much practical redundant parts, that is true, but it is conceptually simpler than the materially simpler / abbreviated form you had presented - and I claim it can be tied in a simpler way, by the easier and quicker TWB method ( it is tiable-with-a-bight )

...some further "TIB"... version[s ]-- expressly to put in a 2nd collar around the S.Part -- here (post #7):
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24574#msg24574

   This TIB and PET Zeppelin-like eyeknot is nice, but, unfortunately, it is not very stable. The last ( before / ante the eye) "yellow" bight of the Standing part does not remain in the shown helical 3D shape when the knot is loaded, and it is straightened out more than we would had wished ...

3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095.msg24590#msg24590
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 01:26:46 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.