Author Topic: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked  (Read 10105 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« on: February 17, 2014, 08:05:51 AM »
Still looking for a winner in the diabolically slippery
small material that EStar & Allene are reducing knot
tyers to tears with, I found a re-tucking of the
fisherman's knot (single!) that looks to have enough
bite of the tail to hold, and also shapes the S.Parts'
initial bend nicely?

Then, reviewing this knot, I sought to bring the
tails through the center region so to be compressed
between the drawn-together halves, and then, again,
"re-tucked" & nipped --it looks to be three good nips
on the tails, in this second knot, which is shown
only in the white cord, loosely tied.

--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2014, 03:14:27 PM »
   First thing first : As I have said maAany times, and recently to allene, the simple re-tucking of a simple well known knot should not be considered a "New" knot - otherwise we will have too many such "New" knots, which have nothing to add, conceptually, to the "parent" knots ( but have many things to add, perhaps disproportionally more, regarding the "parent" knot s slippage or strength ). I would nt had imagined I would have to point out this to Dan Lehman, though...
   Second, I am very glad that Dan Lehman publish pictures, either beautiful drawings like the ones he draws, or nice photos. It was about time !
   Third, I am glad that, either Dan Lehman reads my posts ( but forgets to refer to them - a minor detail ), or he is thinking along the lines I was thinking some time ago ( but that "ago" is, also, a minor detail ), and re-discovers the knots I had re-discovered - in KnotLand. For the exact time he had made his discoveries, he is careful to offer evidence ON the pictures  :) - but that is good, because afterwards he will not be able to claim that those knots pictured there are "ridiculous", or anything like that  :) :)...
   Fourth ( and that in the most minor detail of all, indeed ), it would not BITE anybody if he just spears a glance at those posts, and the pictures shown therein.

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4771.msg30982#msg30982
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4771.msg30987#msg30987
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4771.msg31002#msg31002
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 03:48:29 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2014, 03:48:19 PM »
   First thing first : As I have said maAany times, and recently to allene,
the simple re-tucking of a simple well known knot should not be considered a "New" knot
--otherwise we will have too many such "New" knots, which have nothing to add,
conceptually, to the "parent" knots ( but have many things to add,
perhaps disproportionally more, regarding the "parent" knot s slippage or strength ).
I would nt had imagined I would have to point out this to Dan Lehman, though...
Or that I do not share your opinion.
In fact, I look at "new" --at least in terms aligned
with distinguishing *knots* (a problematic term)--
as arising from any such clear change (and have
some feeling to include the more problematic aspect
of dressing/orientaiton, which varies in effect over
individual cases).  My position in this regard for
"distinguishing" knots is taken so as to try to put
judgement aside in favor of an objective measure.

In terms of substance, the issue isn't so simple:
small changes can have large effects, and might
not be obvious to make --there is a range (and
here we see the problem of marshaling judgement
were we to choose some other discriminating point).


Quote
Second, I am very glad that Dan Lehman publish pictures,
either beautiful drawings like the ones he draws, or nice photos. It was about time !
Thank you.  Sometimes drawing has an advantage
over fiddling-in-material in that the set-on-page marks
will not MOVE about when working on other parts!
(And the pencil/pen doesn't retain curvatures made
for prior illustrations needing to be resisted & unbent!)
 :D

Quote
Third, I am glad that, either Dan Lehman reads my posts ( but forgets to refer to them - a minor detail ),
or he is thinking along the lines I was thinking some time ago ( but that "ago" is, also, a minor detail ),
and re-discovers the knots I had re-discovered - in KnotLand.  From the exact time he has made his discoveries,
he is careful to offer evidence ON the pictures  :)
--but that is good, because afterwards he will not be able to claim
that those knots pictured there are "ridiculous", or anything like that  :) :)...
Oh, he could.  And now, in fact, he has the nagging
counterpoint that Doesn't that first re-tucking give no
more additional nip --nip in total, i.e.-- than some of
what we've seen slip rather miserably???!
--and feelings
of despair.  Sure, the S.Part delivers full force onto
the nipped tail, but we've got that already, yes, and
it failed --not enough real estate under pressure and
all, more nips, and sharper U-turns needed?

Quote
Fourth ( and that in the most minor detail of all, indeed ),
it would not BITE anybody if he just spears a glance at those posts,
and the pictures shown therein.
Yes, you have presented similar knots, and I come
closest I suppose to the last of those which alone
is one with the components oriented as in the
fisherman's knot --but the exact structures differ.

Quote
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4771.msg30982#msg30982
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4771.msg30987#msg30987
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4771.msg31002#msg31002

Now, the genesis of my 2nd discovery (4th photo,
of white cord only) was the thinking What if the
tails are brought through the central part of the
knot --as with the
blood knot-- and turned
back to be tucked?
  This knot looks to have enough
stuff to hold --and also the mild S.Parts curvature?


Thanks,
--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2014, 04:18:22 PM »
In fact, I look at "new" ...as arising from any such clear change.
My position in this regard for "distinguishing" knots is taken so as to try to put judgement aside in favor of an objective measure.
...small changes can have large effects, and might not be obvious to make...

  OK. At least, do not name it with any other name than its "parent", given one : "Re-tucked Fisherman s knot, period". Just as Allene has tied the "Re-tucked alternative Carrick bend, period".
  It is very true, that even minor details, in such a simple mechanism, can generate major differences, regarding security and strength. Also, they can change the very geometry of the knot, the way it "folds" and becomes compact, considerably. However, conceptually, they are not so "New", as for example, the Zeppelin bend was, in relation to all the other bends where the first and main bights/U turns/curves of the Standing Parts are embracing each other.
   I believe that the Illusion ( M. B25)( lR-uL), was a new knot - although it is just the simplest possible Carrick mat, re-tucked. And that the "bowled -over" whatever, which belongs in the same family of knots as the Illusion, was a new knot, although it is member of a series of knots, based on the same pattern, which was already described in detail. However, the somewhat not-so-slim and not-so-pretty re-tucked version of it, was not a new knot - it was just the re-tucked - in the most simple way, through the central opening - of the "bowled-over" slimmer parent.
   Of course, what is "new" or not, makes such a infinitesimal ( = infinitely small ) difference to me... :)
 
  Oh, he could.  And now, in fact, he has the nagging counterpoint that.... --and feelings of despair. 

  That is the best thing you have ! Do NOT be over-confident, and do NOT stop questioning. Doubt is the mother of knowledge, and knowledge is the mother of doubt. Keep questioning every-thing - only question the things other people do just as much - not MORE - than what you do.

...the thinking What if the tails are brought through the central part of the knot --as with the blood knot-- and turned back to be tucked? This knot looks to have enough stuff to hold --and also the mild S.Parts curvature?

I can see this thinking illustrated, in the upper part of your very first picture. Find a proper name for this U-turn of the re-tucked tails.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 04:49:20 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2014, 05:24:17 PM »
In fact, I look at "new" ...as arising from any such clear change.
My position in this regard for "distinguishing" knots is taken so as to try to put judgement aside in favor of an objective measure.
...small changes can have large effects, and might not be obvious to make...

  OK. At least,
It is a decision to have deliberations of the kind
"This is *new*; but it is much like ... and adds little
to that --a trivial change that is possible for many
things, as we have seen elsewhere"

in contrast to (matching the above situation)
"We do not regard this as *new*, because [it is
much like ...]"
.
The first puts quite a range of values on *new*,
and the 2nd assumes that there is "quite some
value" on *new* and is careful to use the label
--which requires the judgement.  (I grew weary/
chary of working with judgement.)

Quote
And that the "bowled -over" whatever, which belongs in the same family of knots as the Illusion, was a new knot, although it is member of a series of knots, based on the same pattern, which was already described in detail. However, the somewhat not-so-slim and not-so-pretty re-tucked version of it, was not a new knot - it was just the re-tucked - in the most simple way, through the central opening - of the "bowled-over" slimmer parent.
The "bowled over" aspect is a change that can
be applied in general to some set of knots; it was
devised expressly to try to increase the nipping
got in the (base knots') interlocked bights by
changing them to interlocked --or, in the case
of the zeppelin, adjacent/cooperating-- loops.
There was a design goal, not some random "fiddling"
--as I am wont to do (almost irresistibly).  And the
tucking through the center was similarly per design
of using that hoped-for concentration of nip for
security, and bulking up the compressed material
for strength of the compressors.  And I find it darn
amazing that it slips!!!  (--slips in that devilish
thin HMPE, anyway; thicker line might bring some
resistance to bending that would factor in more?)


Quote
Of course, what is "new" or not, makes such a infinitesimal ( = infinitely small ) difference to me... :)
There might be some new mechanism that would
be less small, I should think --such as you remarked
to the use of material geometry/nature for making
the "beer knot" (in innertube-knotting thread).


Quote
--and feelings of despair. 

  That is the best thing you have !
Do NOT be over-confident, and do NOT stop questioning.
Doubt is the mother of knowledge, and knowledge is the mother of doubt.
But at some point one must arise and tie one's
shoes on and take steps!  It is a problematic
conundrum : how one can go in doubt --a matter
of balance.

Quote
...the thinking What if the tails are brought through the central part of the knot --as with the blood knot-- and turned back to be tucked? This knot looks to have enough stuff to hold --and also the mild S.Parts curvature?

I can see this thinking illustrated,
in the upper part of your very first picture.
Find a proper name for this U-turn of the re-tucked tails.
[ref. the drawing seen behind white cord,
 not the red-&-black knot uppermost-left]
I thought that I might need to address the *background*
of my presented images.  That is simply a revised blood
knot
in which the tails bypass each other and the
chance of tucking out in the center of the knot
--oh, an illustration of the proper orientation for
this knot (the WWWeb echoing so much the "out-coil"
form, which in rope will likely stain uncapsized...)--
to continue a pace to tuck separately, later.  And thus
there are now two, single-diameter intrusions, made
nearer the knot's entry points where the S.Part has
fullest force (doesn't seem to loose much force in
HMPE, though, does it!).

.:. Eh, more a matter of showing an alternative,
than moving towards a helpful solution, I <despair>.

But my final/4th image shows the thinking, and not
the blood knot.  It occurs to me that the pressure
to *close* a pull-together knot (components of ends
A & B being hauled together) should be constant
for however many tucks through the column of
force?  --and not diminished by the number?
And so maybe this is a way to gain security,
whereas tucking repeatedly at ONE point will
see diminished nip per strand (though perhaps
with again overall).

... some ideas are welling up ...


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 05:46:03 PM by Dan_Lehman »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2014, 07:43:39 PM »
   I believe we must not pay any attention to the "new"-ness. Only let us try to have as few names as possible - because, at the end, all knots are different from each other, AND all knots are manifestations/variations of THE "knot"-ness - a thing as next to "nothing"-ness as we are, and every-thing else !  :) :)
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 07:52:22 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2014, 07:59:24 PM »
  The "bowled over" aspect is a change that can be applied in general to some set of knots; it was devised expressly to try to increase the nipping got in the (base knots') interlocked bights by changing them to interlocked loops.
  There was a design goal, not some random "fiddling"...
  And the tucking through the center was similarly per design of using that hoped-for concentration of nip for security, and bulking up the compressed material for strength of the compressors.

   I truly hope ( but I can not be sure, judging from past experiences...)
that you do not imply that I have tied the family of knots
based on the re-tucked most simple Carrick mat, by some "random"
"fiddling" ( as the so-called "roo" said ).
 ...
Why do you insist on such truncated reading/quoting
to suit a need to go off base for an agenda of vendetta?
I wrote, quite plainly --and hardly so "blah-blah" as can
be calculated by words count--
Quote
There was a design goal, not some random "fiddling"
--as I am wont to do (almost irresistibly).
What part of "I" --which, fyi, is not "U"-- don't you get?

 :o


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2014, 08:45:37 PM »
   To return to a relevant discussion, there is something in this particular Re-tucked Fisherman s knot that may pose a problem, regarding slippage. As you have mentioned elsewhere (1), describing the rationale that had lead you to the "bowled-over" whatever, the orientation of the tails should better not coincide with the orientations of the other segments of lines that are adjacent to them - so the slippage of the one will not trigger the slippage of the others.
  In this bend, I see that the tail ends are adjacent to the same link s Standing parts and the other link s tails, which have the same orientation as theirs - or am I mistaken in this ?

(1)
...altering the particular comings'n'goings / directions to try to avoid *sympathetic* pulling on adjacent parts that would aid their movement to slip.
...one part has potential "assist" in such adjacency, but the tails go opposite this.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 09:11:26 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2014, 05:28:26 AM »
[I refer below to the knot shown in my/OP's 4th
 image (lone knot, in white braided cord).]

Although this variation on the OP's knot doesn't
remove aspects of "sympathetic" movement,
it does add what I hope (dare one hope?) to be
a suitably significant compression of the tails
--a 3rd nip to the OP's 2-- to get the darn stuff
to STAY PUT!  <argh>
To recognize its combination of aspects from known
knots, I'll name this the "fisherman's blood knot",
although since that's such a cool-sounding name
I reserve right to swap it out if this knot's another
dud.

In the photos of the exploded, tied-in-cord knot,
accompanying red & black cords highlight the
adjacent S.Parts of the knot; the images are
of opposite sides.  The S.Parts are pulled wide
to reveal the action of the tails when they curve
back to be tucked in a sort of embrace through
the center en route to the now, 3rd exit tuck.


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 04:27:10 PM by Dan_Lehman »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2014, 05:01:06 PM »
  Tie a loose single Fisherman s knot, where the two sliding halves have not yet "kissed" each other. In between the nubs of the two overhand knots, the two lines run parallel to each other, around a central opening. Drive the two tails into this central opening, hook them together, and then re-tuck them back, though the overhand knots they belong. You would have tied one the Fisherman s hooked / blooded knots Dan Lehman presents in this thread.
   Of course, there are many ways you can do this thing : 1. The two overhand knots can be tied as a pair of overhand or underhand knots, or as one overhand knot and one underhand knot. 2. Before they reach the area of the central opening, where they will be hooked together, the tails can go "over" or "under" ( i.e., pass from the one or from the other side of ) the Standing parts of their parent overhand knots. 3. They can enter into the area framed by this opening, from its one or its other side. 4. To form the hook which will be hooked to the other tail s hook  :), each tail can make its U turn in two ways. 5. To enter into and then exit from their parent overhand knot, they can be driven through the one or the other side of it. 6. This 6 is a real six ! :). They may penetrate their parent overhand knot, through any of the 6 ( six ) possible available openings. Normally, a Pretzel-like overhand knot ( like the ones we have here due to the fact that their tails leave the nub towards the same directions their Standing ends enter into it ) has 3 openings. However, the line of the other link that penetrates this Pretzel-shaped overhand knot may divide each of the 3 openings by two, so we may have 6, in total, openings. The tail of each overhand knot can be re-tucked through any of them.
  Let us count : 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 6 = 32 x 6 = 192, as we may remember from our school days !  :)
  I suppose Dan Lehman will finish his homework, and will tell us which one of those variations he prefers. Personally, although I have NOT tied and tried all of them, I like the more symmetric ones - because I do not believe we have to stick to the "better" way we tie an ordinary Fisherman s knot, as the parent overhand knots do not "kiss" each other directly any more, to have to pay attention to the way of the contact of their rims. Also, we better choose the slimmer ones, because an advantage of the Fisherman s knot which should better retained, in the degree it was possible, in this Fisherman s hooked and blooded knot, is its small cross section.
  Let us keep our fisherman s tools ( fingers, hooks, whatever ) crossed, this nice, conceptually simple and easy to tie end-to-end knot will hold this deep-sea monster material !
   
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 05:07:01 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2014, 03:42:54 AM »
   The great advantage of such a hooked and blooded Fisherman s knot, is not that that the tails make two additional sharp U turns - it is that the second U turns, the hooked ones, take place in the space in between the two nubs, so they do not increase the cross area of the knot. Regarding this, what Mr Lehman has just tied "is not so stupid". The two sliding halves press the two embraced bights from both sides, so, as the pressure increases, the friction forces in between them increase, too.
   The centrally positioned heavy interlocking of the two tails seemed "a mess"(sic) to some people - who would have eaten their hat by now. However, the most interesting thing in this knot, in comparison to similar sliding / interpenetrating bends (1),  is that, in a sense, it is three knots in line- so its total cross section is not larger than the cross section of each one of them.
   
   The Fisherman knot is a bend made by two inter-penetrating overhand knots. It is not the only such knot possible. At the attached pictures, see another one, and a retucked variation of it.

   It's what I call "pull-together" structure : each end ties to the opposite some knot, and then they are pulled together to lock.  Your first variation fits this, but then with re-tucking and whatever the mess (!) is in the 2nd post you've gone away from this notion into some heavy interlocking.

The fisherman's knot is also compact and nicely resistant to abrasion, the way it doesn't have protuberances that isolate some part to abuse.  Looking for other knots with this likeness to the f.k. should turn up the blood knot, and ...  !?


   A problem with all those bends with crossed tails, in that they can seldom be side-symmetric - and be able to be inspected as easily as the side-symmetric bends can be. ( One other reason I like side symmetric bends is that they require one, and one only, picture, of their one side.  :) ) The bends shown in the attached pictures are side symmetric - and they, too, belong to the same quite broad class of Fisherman s hooked bends, as explained in the previous post.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4203.msg25704#msg25704

 
« Last Edit: February 19, 2014, 03:45:54 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2014, 04:11:54 AM »
  Although this bend is very convoluted, indeed, and looks very complex, it is tied very easily - and, what is a great advantage, too, it is conceptually simple, so the knot itself is easy to understand, learn and remember. Also, it is tied very easily - provided we do not want to have very short tails. The Standing Parts are long and convoluted, so, to remove the slack, dress and pre-tighten the knot, we have to pull the Tails, too. It also helps ( as it happens with many convoluted and elongated bends ), if, during the pre-tightening, we push the two overhand knots against each other, to make the knot as compact as possible.
  It is reasonable, from the many variations of this class of bends, to first tie the simpler ones, see if they hold on Dyneema, and add additional twists only if we see that the simpler variations do not hold. And we should not forget that, whatever we add, we have to retain the small cross section of the "parent" Fisherman s knot, otherwise the most important advantage of this class of bends would evaporate.
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Variations of the Fisherman s knot
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2014, 01:56:44 PM »
   Variations of the Fisherman s knot by Robert Chisnall, as shown in Knotting Matters 3
This is not a knot.

James Petersen

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2014, 11:54:50 AM »
I don't know if you are including offset bends in your search, but I have recently been playing with the Life Knot (I suggested this some time ago as an alternative to the EDK -- http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4411.msg28635#msg28635 -- with 108 kg. dyneema fishing line. In my very limited tests, the knot has at most slipped slightly before jamming, at which point it holds until line failure. The EDK in the same line runs like a yellow-bellied coward. ::) I have not had the opportunity to experiment with larger diameter dyneema cords/ropes, but in other materials I have never had any issues untying it.

--JP

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: For HMPE : Fisherman's knot, re-tucked
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2014, 02:33:30 PM »
   I do not like "offset" bends, but I believe this is only a vice of me, which can not be explained...  :) . If the bend can withstand heavy pulling when tied on HMPE, I guess it would be fine !
   One can expect that this bend would be very secure, because, in a sense, it is "based" on ABoK#1821, a very tight simple hitch/knot ! (1)
   I wonder if it "works" very differently than the Sliding Cows bend presented at (2). So, if you plan to TEST your knot  :), please, compare it with the SC bend... We may learn something. 

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3944
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4787
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 02:34:04 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.