Author Topic: Knot terminology  (Read 6960 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Knot terminology
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2015, 02:35:59 AM »
   So, it seems there is a consensus for multiples of 180 degrees, i.e, when the ends are parallel to each other ( half turn, single turn, round turn, double turn ). The problem arises if we further add/subtract 90 degrees, i.e, when the ends are perpendicular to each other - and in all intermediate positions.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2015, 02:36:36 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1874
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Knot terminology
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2015, 02:26:49 AM »
I also am starting to find the abruptness and clipped responses somewhat distasteful. I am unclear what the source of the irritation is.
I'm clear and concise out of respect for the time of others and to give others the chance to respond before I go on.  It should not be construed as irritation.







« Last Edit: March 23, 2015, 03:08:35 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4056
Re: Knot terminology
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2015, 08:58:44 PM »
I see only discussion and opinion - I dont see universal consensus.
//
 I still don't see anything approaching concrete evidenced-based universal agreement.
I only see debate and opinion.
You're asking for a lot!   ::)

Roo presents "bight" in one of the definitions, which leads
to some seemingly consistent terms "turn" & "round turn",
but whereas I think you'll be able to find tying instructions
that say "make a (round) turn ...", you'll find NOTHING that
says "make a bight around ..." --"bight" isn't used in
such circumstances (and is used in "tied in the bight" (TIB)
which doesn't really fit with anything we're talking about here)!

On a similar idea, I think, I've pushed for enumerating the
series "grapevine", "dbl. grapevine", ... vice "...overhand" JUST
to have the visible number of *wraps*/"turns"? match the
verbal cue "double" or whichever --an overhand knot lacking
any such "overwrap" (my term), and so "double overhand" gives
a verbal two-count to a structure with just one visible turn (but
two tucks-of-end(s), one might counter).  Similarly for "strangle
knot"
and then multiples of that.

One could see that a specification to "make a full turn around ..."
was aiming to close the loop with 360deg, but necessarily, being part
of tying to a spar, say, led to 540deg with returning the working end
to further tie off --i.e., the thought is closure, regardless of how much
wrapping beyond that one goes (up to making an obvious repetition).
In such a nomenclature, "turn" would be 180deg, "round turn" or
maybe "full turn" would be 540deg (hey, if exactly 540, you're just
parallel and separate from the other end --need to go 540+ for the
convergence!), as the context would imply the ultimate "U" turing
of the end for subsequent working.

.:. I'd be leery of trying to put much importance on this nomenclature,
but, still, building a consistent and usable nomenclature should be good,
if it doesn't entail much *spitting into the wind* of common parlance.
(And consider that "loops" in common parlance --and in much knotting
chatter-- are what might be strictly called "bights", as an example of
a heavily "overloaded" term; to which I have used "eyeknots", variously
as one/two words vice "loop knots" in hopes of clarity.)


--dl*
====

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Knot terminology
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2015, 09:43:30 PM »
"round turn" or maybe "full turn" would be 540deg  (hey, if exactly 540, you're just parallel and separate from the other end --need to go 540+ for the convergence!

   That is why I had proposed the limit of 630 degrees ( 540 + 90 ), which is an easily recognisable form ( the two ends are perpendicular to each other, and 90 degrees is an easily recognizable angle ).  After this, I think we are approaching the two whole/full turns = one double turn.   
This is not a knot.