Author Topic: Is this a new stopper?  (Read 3382 times)

Lexando

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
Is this a new stopper?
« on: February 19, 2014, 06:04:57 PM »
I had some problems with the double overhand stopper failing when used with mono-filament nylon for an alternative way of stringing a classical guitar - see http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4726.0

I determined that the failure was caused by bending stress and that the solution would be to increase the diameter of the core around which the string was bent.

The standard double overhand, albeit in less than ideal form on account of the stiffness of the strings, worked well for all of the thicker strings of the guitar but broke instantly in the case of the smallest E string when it was brought up to the correct tension.

Adding a loop, i.e. doubling the thickness of the core, allowed the knot to survive for a day or two so I experimented with a way of adding four cores and came up with the knot illustrated in the attached photos.

With my limited knowledge, I could not find a way of making the stopper compact but this is not critical for the application in question so I was prepared to accept loops and came up with this stopper having the following properties:

a) It works! It's been on the guitar now for four weeks.

b) It's easy to tie. It hardly needs to be set and settles in quite nicely simple from being formed.

c) It looks nice. It finishes with a pleasing 3-leaf clover appearance :D

Lastly, although one might expect it to fall apart when tied with soft rope, it actually seems to hold together reasonably well.

I seriously doubt that I've invented a new knot but I don't know to go about identifying it.

Looking forward to your feedback...

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3772
Re: Is this a new stopper?
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2014, 07:12:15 AM »
Well, I seriously doubt that anyone's thought
to claim this knot, which in a way is awkward
to classify with its trio of loose loops protuding
(as they contribute diameters to the bending).

Good job, then!

Speaking of guitars:
www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1986.353.1
(Of which a site proclaiming itself "guitaraficionado"
referred to the "mahogany side" --egadz!)

And, of ROSEWOOD !!  --voila : http://www.staffordguitar.com/images/hauser08back.jpg

 ;)

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Is this a new stopper?
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2014, 12:56:35 PM »
Nice,

A hybrid of a slipped OH preceded by s short length of KC hitch garter lacing (braid).

I think what you have managed to do is shed the load around six diameters of cord before actually tying off the knot.

Well done, a nice example of knotting principles.

Derek

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Is this a new stopper?
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2014, 02:15:06 PM »
   There are NO new stoppers !  :)
   If you cut anywhere any of the 7 closed knots with 7 crossings, the 21 with 8, the 49 with 9, or the 165 with 10 crossings, and you pull the two ends, you get a new stopper...
   Make a copy of the table at (1), take a piece of string, and start tying new stoppers ! If you then slip any of them, as you did with the one you have already tied, you will be able to double the number of new stoppers you would had tied, by one stroke - of the scissors, the guitar, or the harp that seduces all of us to tie new knots... :) :)

  1. http://katlas.math.toronto.edu/wiki/The_Rolfsen_Knot_Table
     
This is not a knot.

Lexando

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
Re: Is this a new stopper?
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2014, 04:34:32 PM »
Dan & Derek, thanks for your comments - started my day extra positive ;D

Now, xarax...

I take your point - and I was certainly wondering why there were so few named stoppers - but I have some thoughts:

Surely, such a reductionist approach leads to the inevitable conclusion that there must be one master knot/principle from which all others can be derived. However, I'm not clever enough to find this useful and I know I could not have created the stopper I needed using the method you describe.

Aren't variations of knots given different names for no better reason than that it's useful to do so? The double overhand, for example, isn't dismissed as a single with an extra twist but is instead distinguished because it has important properties that the former doesn't possess.

I needed a stopper for a specific situation and could not find one that was explicitly established.

I know that a simpler knot failed and I doubt that a more complex knot has anything to contribute (or even if it can be tied using the material in question).

What do you think?

My colleagues want to erect a giant bronze statue of me holding a guitar in one hand and the knot in the other.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Is this a new stopper?
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2014, 05:53:18 PM »
...such a reductionist approach leads to the inevitable conclusion that there must be one master knot/principle from which all others can be derived.

  At the end, the physics is the same, so yes, there should be a law of physics / physical knots from which all others can be derived. However, as it often happens, nature loves to hide, and when it reveals herself, it does it by instalments : it takes off her veils one by one, and in slow motion. So, we can only have partial laws, covering one aspect of nature at a time.
   The "method I describe" :) is not a method at all : What I have said means that :
1. There are many ways to skin a cat. Regarding the required role the stopper has been assigned, there are many different stoppers that can deliver.
2. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the particular stopper does its job, it is OK - but that is something one should test by trial and error - it is not something we can know beforehand. Moreover, as there are dozens of dozens of stoppers that can play the same role, we would like to find the simplest, or the simpler ones of them. If you claim that you have tied and tried all simple possible stoppers, and you have found that this one is the simplest one capable to hold, on this material, that would be something important, indeed. We do not need something more complex ! - but we do need to know if this is the simplest possible solution. " Gentlemen, here is the catalogue of all the possible stoppers, offered to us by the mathematicians. I have tied and tried all of them, and I have loaded them as they should be loaded, to vibrate at the lower and the higher pitch of any chordophone - and here are the data of their security and strength, after x number of times they were knocked or punctured. As you can see, this knot, underlined with my girl-friend s lipstick, is the best, so I name it < name of the girl friend >, or whatever
   You do not give a name to any whale in the ocean. You name Moby Dick, if it is a special whale, which has a special feature other whales do not. Variations of knots are given different names for many reasons, the last one being the usefulness of this baptism ! Most names are not even wrong : they are silly, misleading, pompous, obscure, etc - because, most of the time, names do not pop up from the characteristics of the knots, but of the characteristics of the knot tyers.  :)
   If we had a classification scheme of the knots, that would correspond to some of the most important characteristics of the knots themselves ( like the periodic table of elements, for example ), the names would reveal those characteristics, and they would be useful, indeed. You would know which knot element could bond to which, and the strengths of the bond they form, for example.
   You state the example of the "double overhand", which is a fine example of a misleading name ! WHAT does this name describe, beyond the mere topology of the knot, which plays a minimum role in practical knots ?  And why, for KnotGod s sake, does the "Strangle" hitch have another name ? Why does the Fisherman s knot is said to be tied with two sliding interpenetrating single, double, etc., overhand knots, and not with pairs of overhand and underhand knots ? I have never met the name " Double underhand knot" - possibly because all things in the Universe are like clocks, and turn towards the same direction !  :) :)

   Perhaps you could make the strings of the giant statue of yours be able to vibrate by the current of air, like an Aeolian harp, and the whole hollow statue work as a means to amplify the sound...  :) :) (2)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_harp
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kithara

« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 08:08:12 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
Re: Is this a new stopper?
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2014, 06:57:34 PM »
Quote
  At the end, the physics is the same, so yes, there should be a law of physics / physical knots from which all others can be derived.

String theory.  :) :) :)
Couldn't resist.
I'll remove it in a while.

SS

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
Re: Is this a new stopper?
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2014, 07:02:45 PM »
Since there is some harping going on,  ;) , I thought I would present two pictures of harp strings tied inside the sound chamber.

SS