Author Topic: Improved Englishman s knot (B)  (Read 4716 times)

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« on: August 10, 2015, 12:44:27 PM »
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 07:56:09 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2015, 02:43:33 PM »
Very similar also to an ABoK 1022.

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2015, 03:17:44 PM »
xarax:
Quote
  No, the nub of ABoK#1022 is identical to the nub of ABoK#1039 - the two overhand knots ( or the two underhand knots - because, in those two knots, they are both overhand or both underhand ) "kiss" each other the same way. The knot shown in this thread is different than the ABoK#1039, so it can not be less different = more similar ( or even "very similar"(sic) :) ) than the AB0K#1022. Not only the topology, but also the geometry ( the dressing ), are different - but this ( how "different" or not from ABoK#1039 and ABoK#1022 it is ) is probably the least interesting thing in this knot !

Fair enough, but what it's topologically identical to (in the, not involving the loop sense, not the trivial un-knot sense) is the ABoK 1021, a knot that I quite like.  In fact I like it better than yours at least in so far as it is a fixed loop from either direction where yours is not.  Your knot may look symmetric, but it certainly does not behave symmetrically. As I've stated before though,  I prefer the 1021 with the locking knot wrapped the other way.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:38:33 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2015, 03:40:15 PM »
In response to xarax's unqualified statement that 1021 is not an inline loop:

It's not says who? If you dress it well I'd like to see it how you're going to make it fail inline.  In fact it's an any ends/legs loadable fixed loop.  On the other hand your knot is definitely not fixed loop in both directions.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 05:37:35 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2015, 03:57:30 PM »
xarax:
Quote
Me - and until you manage to learn more about knots ( which, as you are evidently still very young, I have no doubt you will, if you keep tying and trying, and not pretending and showing up ), I advise you to listen to what I say ! If you don't care to listen, that's your business . :)

This from the guy who claimed to be looking for a symmetric TIB loop and came up with one that is fixed one way and a slip noose the other.  haha.

Update: It became clear from further discussion that this condescending post was about following xarax's language and saying yes sensei along the way.  He pretends to not understand what an inline 1021 is because in his mind an 1021 pulled inline becomes a different knot, one which apparently is not described by "inline 1021" even though it is created by taking a 1021, and loading it inline (so go figure). A young grasshopper must bow to the sensei's teachings and instead say "the knot formed when the 1021 is transformed by loading it inline."  or should be derided for knowing nothing about knots.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 03:54:51 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2015, 04:01:20 PM »
xarax:
Quote
Not an in-line loop either. Do not confuse inline loops with TIB end-of-line loops which may be EEL ( either end loadable ).
  There are a few knots which are both ( The Linfit loop, by O.Nutall, for example ). Their ends can point to one or to opposite directions, and yet they can bear load, without their nubs become disfigured / be transformed to something else. If we do not care about such a transformation, the Butterfly loop is fine, because now we know the beautiful form it takes when it is loaded as an EEL end-of-line loop ( the Mobius loop ).

You are seriously back to calling people wrong (and being condescending toward them) because they don't agree with your arbitrary definition of a knot or fail to acknowledge the boundaries of it when making any and every point.  Gee.. my knot looks (slightly, not much if dressed well) different when loaded end to end.  Your knot slips one way and is fixed the other yet you call it symmetric.  What a joke.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:40:38 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2015, 04:15:51 PM »
I don't have the quote from xarax that goes here because he deleted this one first, being as it was a completely arrogant condescending off the wall tirade, I guess he didn't want others to see what justified this response:

Seriously, the off your meds thing is childish, but it's like jeckle and hide with you so it's got to be something. Only you can know what.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:43:23 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2015, 04:25:19 PM »
xarax:
Quote
Tex:
Quote
    Your knot slips one way and is fixed the other yet you call it symmetric.  What a joke.


   Do you know what an "adjective" is ?
   The word "symmetric" is used as an adjective of the noun "inline/TIB loop". Read the very first sentence, again.
   It is not a symmetric whatever loop, it is an inline loop, which is somehow symmetric - because there can be no symmetric inline/TIB ( single ) loops !

again, I'm missing some of his tirade and accusations here before this response:

go on...
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:51:10 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2015, 12:06:43 AM »
xarax:
Quote
I hope I will, trying to understand how the known "old" knots work, and even tie some "new" ones. However, I can not say the same to you. Destroying other people s threads, and trying to ridicule their knots, will not get you anywhere - and I have to remind you that there are no ladies in this Forum, so any "fitness indicator" behaviour is probably just a waste of time... :)

xarax in exactly which post, does it look to you like I FIRST set out to "destroy" your thread?  Let's disentangle my responses to your absurd reactions from this claim that I had an agenda to come here and destroy your thread.  Which post is it?
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:51:58 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2015, 08:31:28 AM »
Quote
P.S. My theory about the ABoK#1021 is that, if one insists to use it as an inline loop, he should tie the half hitch ( which collars the pair of the eyelegs "lower" than the overhand knot ) the other way - it seems that variation is a more balanced/stable knot.

Except your theory is my theory that I already alluded to in this thread and that I spelled out explicitly on my thread on the topic:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5358.msg35645#msg35645

and have referred to many times as my 1021 "variant".

me:
Quote
I'm kind of preferring the way where the two ends come out of the lower half hitch the same way.  It seems more compact and stable against deformation in end-to-end loading.

So I guess on that we agree.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 08:37:54 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2015, 08:38:04 AM »
regarding xarax's claims the 1021 will elongate forever when end to end loaded only:

Oh and I know very well where it will stop.  It will stop when the upward pull on that collar from the tail through the upward going coil balances the downward push on that collar created by the tail pinching between the collar and the loop legs.   That happens once it's slid out enough to create enough slack in the loop legs.  That's where the deformation stops, and stop it does.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:53:31 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2015, 08:41:42 AM »
Other quotes missing.. but it was claimed that I was making my knot out to be a better inline loop than his:

I never said it was a better end to end loaded loop than yours.  The deformation is obvious.  You said though it is NOT an inline loop and proceeded to condescending derision.  I think at best that claim requires testing.  It certainly is one for light loading.  I strongly suspect it may hold much better than it taunts one to possibly believe.  I can't really imagine why that turn would continue to draw in rope while you tug harder and harder on it. It doesn't make any sense, and in fact if it's dressed up tighter to start with, it draws in less to start with too (because the nipping further plays into the balance).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 11:55:51 AM by Tex »

Tex

  • Guest
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2015, 01:48:25 PM »
Indeed I see you tied the loop before, not that you mentioned any such theory about it .  You tied it both ways with no statement of preference for either in in-line context or any other (maybe I missed it still?).

So do you consider the trucker's hitch as an in-line usage?  Are you saying indeed you did consider this to be an inline knot, after all that derision for me calling it that?  Or you are saying that you had not commented on this variation in the context of inline knots?

I'm happy to see and acknowledge the history and might have noticed your link the first time if not for your other absurdities.

Should we continue all posts in triplicate?  You've gone completely off your rocker this time.

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1970
Re: Improved Englishman s knot (B)
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2015, 02:00:25 PM »
Continuation of off topic replies will result in a ban.

SS