Author Topic: A New Binding Knot?  (Read 12431 times)

InTension

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2015, 01:16:56 PM »
   The so-called "modern movement", this "utilitarian"/"functionalistic" ideology, in architecture, produced b o x e s - cheap boxes. I lost so many years of my life in the bottom of this dark pit, and I know. Do not listen what the "modern movement" was saying ( better : preaching ), just LOOK what it had built - how it had destroyed the cities, and transformed humans into subway rats.

I'm sorry, I thought you were equating the design principle of "Form follows function" with the Modern Movement. Louis Sullivan who coined the phrase was Frank Lloyd Wright's mentor. I've never heard anyone liken Fallingwater to "architecture, produced b o x e s - cheap boxes." I think you'd enjoy reading "Kindergarten Chats".

To pass, through the same side of a hole, the end of one line coming from the east. and then the end of one line coming from the west, is "generally faster to perform"(sic) than to pass the same ends, of the same lines, through the same hole, from different sides... :) :)

As stated in the original post:
Several Ways to Tie the Draw Knot  ...
Tied Around a Bundle: The Draw Knot can easily be tied around a bundle. To do so, form a loose clove hitch around the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Push the loose clove hitch up close to the base of the thumb and index finger so they can open wide. Lead one of the free ends around the bundle and take hold of that end with the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Run the other free end in the opposite direction around the bundle and again take hold of that line with the thumb and index finger of your non-dominant hand. Pull both running lines out through the clove hitch and work the clove hitch closed around the lines. Then pull the exterior running lines to tighten the bind as desired.

That way the 'pull through operation' is only performed once.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2015, 03:43:25 PM by InTension »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2015, 01:32:33 PM »
   I thought you were equating the design principle of "Form follows function" with the Modern Movement.

   I do. From Wikipedia :

 " Common themes of modern architecture includes :
  - the notion that "Form follows function", a dictum originally expressed by Frank Lloyd Wright's early mentor Louis Sullivan, meaning that the result of design should derive directly from its purpose
  - materials at 90 degrees to each other [ = boxes ]
  - use of industrially-produced materials; adoption of the machine aesthetic. "

  (  The only result of a "design" of a practical knot which derives directly from its "purpose", indeed, is the unknotted straight line ! )
This is not a knot.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2015, 01:46:56 PM »
  That way the 'pull through operation' is only performed once.

   Noope ! To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other. If the binder is under tension, the friction will not allow the nub to be freely "floating" in mid air. In both cases, in the case of the symmetric as well as the asymmetric Clove-hitch based Gleipnir, at some point you have to pull each end independently from the other. The initial set up, of the loose knot, does not mean a thing. In fact, it is harder to try to tighten the binder while you are holding both ends ( which, in the asymmetric case, stem out of the same hole ) with your one hand, and the whole nub with the other, than to pull both ends towards opposite directions, holding each one with a different hand, and not hold the nub at all.
   In practice, you always have to take the slack, and equalize the tension, of two wraps, because, due to friction with the surface of the hitched/bound object(s), they do not behave as the line of a two-pulley simple machine, as one may think. The lines of each wrap are "communicating" theoretically, but not actually...
   You still keep being silent about the advantage of the symmetric variation ; it may be a viable short-term tactics :), but, in the end, it will not change the fact that, in the asymmetric variation, you can not increase the friction forces between the two tail Ends by twisting them around each other... The two ends are not securing each other, they depend only in the constricting action of the surrounding Clove hitch to immobilize them - which may be enough, or not...
« Last Edit: September 07, 2015, 01:51:06 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

InTension

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2015, 04:23:30 PM »
   I thought you were equating the design principle of "Form follows function" with the Modern Movement.

   I do. From Wikipedia :

 " Common themes of modern architecture includes :
  - the notion that "Form follows function", a dictum originally expressed by Frank Lloyd Wright's early mentor Louis Sullivan, meaning that the result of design should derive directly from its purpose ?"
 

Fallingwater illustrates how "form follows function" was meant to be applied.
What the Modern Movement did with the expression is a whole other story.

  That way the 'pull through operation' is only performed once.

   Noope ! To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other. If the binder is under tension, the friction will not allow the nub to be freely "floating" in mid air. In both cases, in the case of the symmetric as well as the asymmetric Clove-hitch based Gleipnir, at some point you have to pull each end independently from the other.

"To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other."
Really? !!!

Background:
- The Draw Knot is designed for binding bundles; it was not intended to be used as a winch for lifting heavy objects. (If it can serve that purpose, great!)
- The Draw Knot is designed to be tied in soft braided nylon (the cheap stuff, as shown in my original pictures).

   "The nature of materials influences the texture of the finished product." -- Frank Lloyd Wright

The Draw Knot closes evenly around a bundle when you smoothly increase the pull on the two emerging ends.

It works on the same mechanical principle as the 'centering ruler trick': Support a ruler with one finger from each hand, starting with the fingers far apart. If you evenly slide the fingers together you are guaranteed to end up with the fingers next to each other at the center of the ruler. This works because of the dynamic rebalancing of fictional forces. The longer the proportion of the ruler extends beyond the support finger on one side, the less weight is supported by the opposing finger. Reducing the weight reduces the frictional force making it easier for the finger further from the center to slide towards the center.

The Draw Knot works the same way. When one coil becomes tighter than the other, the slack in the looser coil allows it to slide through the nub. So the coils contract evenly when their free ends are pulled smoothly apart. You may recall that I called it the Draw Knot "to emphasize how smoothly it draws-up."

Maybe the nub of the Draw Knot (tied in soft braided nylon) 'squeezes down firmly' on the lines running though it, rather than applying a 'hard bite' like the Gleipnir, and this makes it draws up differently. Maybe it's (also) a difference in the magnitudes of tension being applied.

By the way: What you refer to as the 'structure of the knot', I refer to as the 'design of the knot'.

   You still keep being silent about the advantage of the symmetric variation

The Draw Knot shares some functional features in common with the symmetrical Clove-hitch Gleipnir. I am focusing on the more useful properties of the Draw Knot that distinguish it from other knots. I'm sure the symmetrical Clove-hitch Gleipnir has some advantages over the Draw Knot. I have not disputed your points on that matter.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2015, 04:40:56 PM by InTension »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2015, 08:14:52 PM »
  "To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other."
   Really? !!!

  " Really..." 
  You have not understood what I said, you have not understood that you have not understood, and now you feel so "vindicated" that you start replying by "polite" one-word sentences. Evidently, IMO, you have not much experience in tying and trying Gleipnir-like binders.
  The nub of the knot may be freely "floating" in mid-air, but the lines of the wraps are not. They are both in contact, in at least four ( but perhaps in many more ) differently tensioned segments of the line with the surface of the bound object(s), which are not "communicating" freely ( because friction absorbs tension, and does not allow the tensile forces to run freely along the whole line ) : when you pull one end, the whole system does not re-adjust itself, and the different tensions along all those differently tensioned segments of the two wraps do not became equal automatically, as you may wish, or believe, or wish to believe...:)  Pulling both ends, the one after the other, each one as much as it is required to correct the imbalances, you can manage to get a more evenly tensioned wraps - although the perfect equilibrium is only possible when the four bound parts are four freely rotating pulleys ! :)  Now, if you want a binder where one whole wrap ( or one or more segments of one wrap ) is and remains much less tensioned than the others, then you are right : Just pull ONE whatever end, and watch what amusing things are happening... :)   
   ( Next time, if you do not understand what I try to say, in my poor English, you better use question marks, and avoid the exclamation marks. If you start replying in this "clever" way ( " Really ? ! ! !" (sic) ), I will leave you alone, to enjoy the glory... ) 

 " The Draw Knot is designed..." 
   It is not - as I had mentioned before, practical knots are not "designed" for some particular purpose - they just do what it happens they can do, when they are tied on a particular material. The more they can do, and the more materials they can be tied on, the better. What indirect, strange, convoluted path the "designer" of a practical knot had followed, to reach something which may work, does not matter. The "designer" of the Gleipnir thought that he was tying a better Constrictor ! He tied the great Gleionir, ( which means : he met the great Gleipnir, while he was wandering back and forth in the KnotLand, the land of all knots ), which Gleinir can do whatever it can do, not what we wish it to do - with only minor "improvements", offered by all those variations. 
  " It works on the same mechanical principle as the..."   Clove-hitch based Gleipnir - Yes, I know... :)
  " The Draw Knot works the same way as the... "  Clove-hitch based Gleipnir. Indeed ! :)

This is not a knot.

InTension

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2015, 10:03:15 PM »
  "To adjust the size of the binder, you have to pull the ends one by one, the one after the other."
   Really? !!!

  " Really..." 
  You have not understood what I said, you have not understood that you have not understood, and now you feel so "vindicated" that you start replying by "polite" one-word sentences.

The one word response was just meant as a transition into the entire section of text that followed your quote. That section needed a fair amout of set-up (background), so in retrospect I can see why you thought I was being flippant.

Evidently, IMO, you have not much experience in tying and trying Gleipnir-like binders.
  The nub of the knot may be freely "floating" in mid-air, but the lines of the wraps are not. They are both in contact, in at least four ( but perhaps in many more ) differently tensioned segments of the line with the surface of the bound object(s), which are not "communicating" freely ( because friction absorbs tension, and does not allow the tensile forces to run freely along the whole line ) : when you pull one end, the whole system does not re-adjust itself, and the different tensions along all those differently tensioned segments of the two wraps do not became equal automatically, as you may wish, or believe, or wish to believe...:)  Pulling both ends, the one after the other, each one as much as it is required to correct the imbalances, you can manage to get a more evenly tensioned wraps - although the perfect equilibrium is only possible when the four bound parts are four freely rotating pulleys ! :)  Now, if you want a binder where one whole wrap ( or one or more segments of one wrap ) is and remains much less tensioned than the others, then you are right : Just pull ONE whatever end, and watch what amusing things are happening... :)

I have only tied a few simple cases of the Gleipnir binders. I've noticed that even when tied in soft braided nylon, they tend not to draw up as smoothly as the Draw Knot. A bit more sequential adjustment of the individual lines is required.

I bow to you for having vastly more experience tying Gleipnir binders.
However, I do not understand why you're not seeing the same behavior with the Draw Knot that I am. Perhaps I am tying more slippery cords over more slippery objects. Perhaps I'm focusing on taking out the slack in the binder and then just adding enough tension to the coils to hold the bind together. Once the knot is 'engaged' additional outward forces from the bundle further tighten the closing nub. Your analysis of how tension & friction interact within the bind makes sense to me. My best guess is that you and I are looking at the knots under different operating conditions in terms of friction encountered and tension applied. Things tend to operate differently along different portions of a system's 'response curve'.

A related possibility is that you & I have different expectations as to how this kind of knot should operate, and that is causing us to judge its behavior differently. But our expectations can also lead us to operate the knots under different conditions, and that just takes us back to end of the preceding paragraph.

One other possibility:
Now, if you want a binder where one whole wrap ( or one or more segments of one wrap ) is and remains much less tensioned than the others, then you are right : Just pull ONE whatever end, and watch what amusing things are happening... :)

When using slipperier cords the threshold at which the differentially tensioned lines will slip out is reduced, so the incremental slippage is smaller. This combined with the stability of the clove nub may be allowing the binder to 'fail soft': to let up a bit without loosing the structural integrity of the bind. (There, I used your term.) ;) And please remember that I'm always pulling the two ends apart at the same time.

" The Draw Knot is designed..." 
   It is not - as I had mentioned before, practical knots are not "designed" for some particular purpose - they just do what it happens they can do, when they are tied on a particular material.

These kinds of disagreements frequently flare up between people with different backgrounds and different ways of thinking about things (e.g., different 'technical' or 'philosophical' frameworks). I've found that the best thing to do about it is to point out that they are arguing about 'semantics' (how we use words to get the point across) while both parties understand the real conceptual content under discussion and can reach a level of consensus in spite of their semantic differences.

In this case, I have a problem with the way you use the word 'structure' and you have a problem with the way I use the word 'design', but so long as we can get over the hurdle of understanding what the other person really means, then we can proceed in having a fruitful conversation.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2015, 10:09:56 PM by InTension »

InTension

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #36 on: September 07, 2015, 11:29:40 PM »
  The nub of the knot may be freely "floating" in mid-air, but the lines of the wraps are not. They are both in contact, in at least four ( but perhaps in many more ) differently tensioned segments of the line with the surface of the bound object(s), which are not "communicating" freely ( because friction absorbs tension, and does not allow the tensile forces to run freely along the whole line ) : when you pull one end, the whole system does not re-adjust itself, and the different tensions along all those differently tensioned segments of the two wraps do not became equal automatically, as you may wish, or believe, or wish to believe...:)  Pulling both ends, the one after the other, each one as much as it is required to correct the imbalances, you can manage to get a more evenly tensioned wraps - although the perfect equilibrium is only possible when the four bound parts are four freely rotating pulleys ! :)  Now, if you want a binder where one whole wrap ( or one or more segments of one wrap ) is and remains much less tensioned than the others, then you are right : Just pull ONE whatever end, and watch what amusing things are happening... :)   

Other factors include the springiness of the cord and the compressive springiness of the bundle.

InTension

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2015, 12:20:50 AM »
  The nub of the knot may be freely "floating" in mid-air, but the lines of the wraps are not. They are both in contact, in at least four ( but perhaps in many more ) differently tensioned segments of the line with the surface of the bound object(s), which are not "communicating" freely ( because friction absorbs tension, and does not allow the tensile forces to run freely along the whole line ) : when you pull one end, the whole system does not re-adjust itself, and the different tensions along all those differently tensioned segments of the two wraps do not became equal automatically, as you may wish, or believe, or wish to believe...:)  Pulling both ends, the one after the other, each one as much as it is required to correct the imbalances, you can manage to get a more evenly tensioned wraps - although the perfect equilibrium is only possible when the four bound parts are four freely rotating pulleys ! :)

All of the (2-3) elements of the bundles I've been tying have rounded cross sections (more like pulleys).
Is that why I'm not having to individually adjust the tension in the lines?

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2015, 12:31:03 AM »
   
   I've noticed that even when tied in soft braided nylon, they tend not to draw up as smoothly as the Draw Knot. A bit more sequential adjustment of the individual lines is required.

    The same thing happens in all Gleipnir-like binders. It simply has to do with the fact those binders use both wraps the way they use them, to utilize the offered mechanical advantage. The situation is different in the "handcuff-like" binders :
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4821.msg31429#msg31429
    So, there is no difference between the symmetric and the asymmetric Clove-hitch based binder you show - I have not seen any such difference, and I do not see the reason there should be any.

   
   Perhaps I am tying more slippery cords over more slippery objects. .

   No, I use some quite slippery caving/canyoning ropes, wrapped around the sleek PVC tubes shown in my pictures The only reason I can imagine, which may, I repeat, may cause some difference, is that I always use stiff, thick ropes ( 9-12.5mm ), not small size cords.

   
...different expectations as to how this kind of knot should operate,
...operate the knots under different conditions,

   From the very first moment I saw the Gleipnir, I knew that, if we want to use one, only, nub ( i.e., without just adding a second Glepnir, as the author of the original Glepnir had suggested ), we should always use the friction between the two ends, by twisting them around each other into their surrounding nipping structure, in order to get a more secure knot, able to withstand a stronger pull. That is why a two- or even three-turns Gleipnir makes sense : the double or triple nipping loop is much longer, forms a longer "nipping tube", so the two Tail Ends have more/enough room to complete a turn around each other. Many people who just "watch" how knots are tied, but who do not tie them a sufficiently large number of times, do not have, to this day ( after 6 = six years ! ) understood the great difference in the holding power between a Gleipnir with "crossed" / twisted / embraced Tail Ends, and the "original" Gleipnir. 
   The Gleipnir-like binders can withstand more tension than it is believed/expected by the "average" knot user. However, when the most "popular" web site on knots does not even include the Gleipnir in the 337 (!) knots it "animates" :), we should not be surprized by this lack of understanding.
   THAT is the reason I had never tied the asymmetric Clove-hitch-based Gleipnir binder you show in this thread, although I had tied and tried both the symmetric versions many times. Since the two ends, when they enter-into and exit-from the same side of the nipping Clove hitch, can not be dressed in an "elbow" configuration, and even if we manage to twist them around each other, this twist is not stable, and it does not remain intact during the later tensioning, I had dismissed the asymmetric case right beforehand. 

 
   When using slipperier cords the threshold at which the differentially tensioned lines will slip out is reduced,
   Of course - but what will happen when the bound object(s) have sharp edges, as it often happens ? Even very slippery cords, when tensioned hard, do not slide easily around sharp corners.

   
     
   I have a problem with the way you use the word "structure", and you have a problem with the way I use the word "design",
   
   I do not use the word "structure" in any particular way, because I have designed and built things ( apartment buildings ) which have not, to this day, fell down  :), and I know. My point was, simply, that "structure" is different from "form", as you said, or from "shape", or "pattern", or "geometry", or whatever word you use for something visible, that does not take into account the interaction between the materials and the various forces, which determines how a thing "works", why it does not fall down = why a knot does not fall apart.
   Now, the "design" of objects is a very object-depended procedure. It is a different thing to design a boat ( I use this example on purpose, because there is a well-know description of the boat design as a "spiral" which. although very simplistic, nevertheless is interesting ), and a different thing to design a chair, or a bottle. The amount of resemblance of what the designer had in mind as a "purpose" or "form" for this object, before he concludes his design, and what the final object itself does, or how it looks, varies a lot. I only have this to say : In practical knots, there is no such resemblance whatsoever ! :) On the contrary, when one happens to find a practical knot that works, he is surprized by its looks, and even more by how it works and he may need some time before he understands why, on Earth, this knot works, while the knot he initially had in his mind does not ! So this is how I judge the greatness of a knot : Does it surprizes me ? The greater the knot, the bigger the surprize !  :)
    Am I surprized by the knot you show in this thread ? Nooope. Why ? Because I "see" the structure of a Gleipnir-like binder ( and I already know that a Gleipnir works, and how it works ), and I do not "see" anything else. Is it a "new" knot ? To me, although I had never seen it or tied it, it is not. To other knot tyers, using more strict criteria ( if it was published, in exactly this form, previously, etc ), may be. However, personally I do not care about "novelties", especially when they are skin-deep, i.e., novelties of one form/shape of one knot. I am interested about things, "old" or "new", that can teach something about the structure of knots, so someday we will become able to understand ALL knots. Does this knot "work" ? Of course it does - but as knot tyers ( and not knot-users, consumers of knots, advertisers of knots, sellers of knots, etc. ), I believe we are beyond the point when we were just interested in anything that works - perhaps because we know that any convoluted enough knot ''works" ?   

   
   Is that why I'm not having to individually adjust the tension in the lines?

   If I remember correctly, the author of the Gleipnir used the original, single-nipping-loop-based binder to tie furniture he moved with his truck - and furniture ( at least not the "biomorphically" designed ones :) :) ) has sharp corners.
   If the binder has not reached its limit, the difference in tension between segments of wraps or the wraps themselves may not matter much - but I do not like "structures" :) where we do not have the most even distribution of forces possible : I imagine that, this way, we somehow help the future failure to be "focused" on one part of the whole, and that makes its job easier. 
« Last Edit: September 08, 2015, 12:41:46 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

InTension

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2015, 04:06:55 AM »
I use some quite slippery caving/canyoning ropes, wrapped around the sleek PVC tubes shown in my pictures The only reason I can imagine, which may, I repeat, may cause some difference, is that I always use stiff, thick ropes ( 9-12.5mm ), not small size cords.

Good to know.

From the very first moment I saw the Gleipnir, I knew that, if we want to use one, only, nub ( i.e., without just adding a second Glepnir, as the author of the original Glepnir had suggested ), we should always use the friction between the two ends, by twisting them around each other into their surrounding nipping structure, in order to get a more secure knot, able to withstand a stronger pull. That is why a two- or even three-turns Gleipnir makes sense : the double or triple nipping loop is much longer, forms a longer "nipping tube", so the two Tail Ends have more/enough room to complete a turn around each other. Many people who just "watch" how knots are tied, but who do not tie them a sufficiently large number of times, do not have, to this day ( after 6 = six years ! ) understood the great difference in the holding power between a Gleipnir with "crossed" / twisted / embraced Tail Ends, and the "original" Gleipnir.

So, you twist the two ends around each other INSIDE of the nipping structure, to make the knot more secure?
? Elegant, I must say. Does that make it harder to intentionally loosen the binding?

My strategy is simpler (& cruder). Once drawn up, the Draw Knot holds the bundle together without having to apply further tension on the tail ends. This makes it easily tie the tail ends about themselves or about either side of the nib, if greater security is desired.

The Gleipnir-like binders can withstand more tension than it is believed/expected by the "average" knot user. However, when the most "popular" web site on knots does not even include the Gleipnir in the 337 (!) knots it "animates" :), we should not be surprized by this lack of understanding.

The Gleipnir harnesses a powerful principle for securing binds.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid people don't trust knots that they don't think they understand.

   I do not use the word "structure" in any particular way, because I have designed and built things ( apartment buildings ) which have not, to this day, fell down  :), and I know. My point was, simply, that "structure" is different from "form", as you said, or from "shape", or "pattern", or "geometry", or whatever word you use for something visible, that does not take into account the interaction between the materials and the various forces, which determines how a thing "works", why it does not fall down = why a knot does not fall apart.
   Now, the "design" of objects is a very object-depended procedure. It is a different thing to design a boat ( I use this example on purpose, because there is a well-know description of the boat design as a "spiral" which. although very simplistic, nevertheless is interesting ), and a different thing to design a chair, or a bottle. The amount of resemblance of what the designer had in mind as a "purpose" or "form" for this object, before he concludes his design, and what the final object itself does, or how it looks, varies a lot. I only have this to say : In practical knots, there is no such resemblance whatsoever ! :) On the contrary, when one happens to find a practical knot that works, he is surprized by its looks, and even more by how it works and he may need some time before he understands why, on Earth, this knot works, while the knot he initially had in his mind does not ! So this is how I judge the greatness of a knot : Does it surprizes me ? The greater the knot, the bigger the surprize !  :)

I can see that your terminology is self-consistent and I can appreciate your 'philosophy'. I have a different way of talking about 'the way things work'. For me a design is simply an element within a 'design space'. I uncover designs by exploring the space. When I say 'I designed a knot to fulfill a purpose' it means that I explored the design space of knots, seeking knots with certain desired qualities, rather than searching haphazardly. My 'philosophy' is not as knot-centric as yours.

    Am I surprized by the knot you show in this thread ? Nooope. Why ? Because I "see" the structure of a Gleipnir-like binder ( and I already know that a Gleipnir works, and how it works ), and I do not "see" anything else. Is it a "new" knot ? To me, although I had never seen it or tied it, it is not. To other knot tyers, using more strict criteria ( if it was published, in exactly this form, previously, etc ), may be. However, personally I do not care about "novelties", especially when they are skin-deep, i.e., novelties of one form/shape of one knot. I am interested about things, "old" or "new", that can teach something about the structure of knots, so someday we will become able to understand ALL knots. Does this knot "work" ? Of course it does - but as knot tyers ( and not knot-users, consumers of knots, advertisers of knots, sellers of knots, etc. ), I believe we are beyond the point when we were just interested in anything that works - perhaps because we know that any convoluted enough knot ''works" ?   
...
   If the binder has not reached its limit, the difference in tension between segments of wraps or the wraps themselves may not matter much - but I do not like "structures" :) where we do not have the most even distribution of forces possible : I imagine that, this way, we somehow help the future failure to be "focused" on one part of the whole, and that makes its job easier.

Well said. Again, my emphasis would be different, but you're very clear about your own approach, far more than most people, and probably more than I am about my own approach.

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2015, 05:19:19 AM »
   
   you twist the two ends around each other INSIDE of the nipping structure, to make the knot more secure ?
   Does that make it harder to intentionally loosen the binding ?
   I keep saying ( and repeating ) this from my very first reply ( #2 ), but you do not listen :
   
The two ends of a Gleipnir-like binder / tight hitch should better be "crossed" = twisted around each other, in an "elbow" configuration ( ABoK#35 ).
   If you had read the posts I had referred to, and had looked at the pictures there, you would had understood what I mean right from the beginning...
   Read also :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2981.msg17791#msg17791
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4763.msg34664#msg34664
   The Clove hitch, in general, when tied around compressible+elastic material, can "close" around itself more tightly than we need/want - the crossing/twisting/embracing of the Tail Ends is not what should concern us in this knot. Same thing happens with the Girth hitch ( used in the Double Ring knot ), but to a lesser degree :
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4347.msg27233#msg27233
   
   Once drawn up, the Draw Knot holds the bundle together without having to apply further tension on the tail ends.
   In practice, all binders will need re-adjustment from time to time, because, with dynamic loadings, and the movement of the bound objects inside the bundle, they will either "swallow" a part of their free ends, however small, or they will become more loose than they were initially, right after the initial pre-tensioning. You can solve the former problem ( by further securing the knot with additional half hitches ), but not the later.

   
   For me a design is simply an element within a 'design space'. I uncover designs by exploring the space. When I say "I designed a knot to fulfill a purpose", it means that I explored the design space of knots, seeking knots with certain desired qualities, rather than searching haphazardly.
   You underestimate the fact that the "design space" in infinite ! :)  There can be no such thing as a systematic/exhaustive exploration of a ( limited ) area, which your scheme implies. The number of even those very simple knots we use for practical purposes, is very big. People tie knots for thousands of years now, and the Gleipnir, a most simple knot, was discovered 6, only, years ago... Why ? Because the "design space" of knots is larger that we believe.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2015, 10:21:30 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

InTension

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2015, 11:19:37 PM »
   
The two ends of a Gleipnir-like binder / tight hitch should better be "crossed" = twisted around each other, in an "elbow" configuration ( ABoK#35 ).
   If you had read the posts I had referred to, and had looked at the pictures there, you would had understood what I mean right from the beginning...

I read your post and glanced at the pictures. I admit, at that time I wasn't concerned with your technique for making symmetrical Glepnirs more secure, since it did not apply to the Draw Knot. And since the Draw Knot has many (admittedly less elegant) ways to secure it, I considered it a secondary feature.

I thought that you were simply criticizing the Draw Knot for the limited way it was secured, which I did not dispute. I did not appreciated that you were also telling me that although you were aware of the possibility of asymmetrical Glepnirs, the inability to secure them in your preferred way was the reason why you never actually tied the asymmetric Clove-hitch-based Gleipnir binder. By avoiding it you missed the opportunity to study its physical form, to examine its secondary features.

I think I see a higher-level pattern here. People tend to focus on certain features that they consider most important and neglect other 'secondary' factors.

You concentrated on knots that emphasize your preferred feature set, which includes building in an integral way of securing the knot. I concentrated more on the knot's user interface (not surprising since user interface development is my profession). 

(My turn to criticize)  I find that your way of twisting the ends around each other inside the clove hitch "nipping tube" a bit challenging. I'm not confidant that I can do it 'to spec', to meet all the criteria an expert would expects to see with a symmetrical Clove-hitch Gleipnir. I also suspect that the inner turn makes the need for careful sequential adjustment even more critical, but I may be mistaken (since I'm not sure I'm doing it right). It seems to me that adding the internal twist increases the integrity of the bind at the expense of making the user interface more complex. -- There are always tradeoffs.

   For me a design is simply an element within a 'design space'. I uncover designs by exploring the space. When I say "I designed a knot to fulfill a purpose", it means that I explored the design space of knots, seeking knots with certain desired qualities, rather than searching haphazardly.
   You underestimate the fact that the "design space" in infinite ! :)  There can be no such thing as a systematic/exhaustive exploration of a ( limited ) area, which your scheme implies. The number of even those very simple knots we use for practical purposes, is very big. People tie knots for thousands of years now, and the Gleipnir, a most simple knot, was discovered 6, only, years ago... Why ? Because the "design space" is larger that we believe.

   "There are more knots in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
      -- (What Hamlet should have said)

In deference to your preference, let's call it 'the space of realizable knots' and shorten this to 'the space of knots' or more simply 'knot-space'. I never implied that knot-space could be exhaustively searched; the fact that it cannot be means that we have to rely on peoples' skill at sampling the more promising cases. Thank goodness that different people will explore the space in different ways. I also agree with you that you never know 'what's just around the corner' in knot-space. That keeps it interesting!

It's easy to alter the form of any knot, but its difficult to 'fully' evaluate all the strengths and weaknesses of each variation. I would argue that it's impossible to fully evaluate all the strengths and weaknesses of a knot, because it always depends on the context in which the knot is to be used, or the context in which it is to be judged.

The preferences we have for what constitutes a 'good' knot alters the trajectory with which our attention moves through knot-space in a never-ending search for 'better' knots. Our preferences register in the criteria by which we evaluate the merits of a knot. But the insights and intuition we gain by studying a succession of knots will also shape how we choose the next knot to examine, the next step in our trajectory. As we learn even more we may be able to formulate principles to better articulate those insights.

(In my twisted mind) I consider the evaluation criteria, insights, intuition, and principles that govern a person's trajectory through knot-space as their "design approach", which leads different people to uncover different knots and appreciate them in different ways.

« Last Edit: September 08, 2015, 11:28:59 PM by InTension »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2015, 12:44:57 AM »
   You envision a gradual, step-by-step exploration of the knot-space along some "paths" / trajectories, defined by personal / subjective "criteria, insights, intuition, and principles...". You believe that the evaluation /appreciation of the values of the knots discovered during this journey in KnotLand depends on "many" things, because : "Our preferences register in the criteria by which we evaluate the merits of a knot ". 
 " Different people uncover different knots and appreciate them in different ways "
   
   There are two ways to escape from this totally virtual and false model of what truly happens in real life :
   
   1. Study the history of science - and realize that there is nothing "gradual" there, and that "there are no paths - paths are made by walking". There is nothing "personal" or subjective in the evaluation of a great scientific theory and the scientific revolution it initiates, which changes the "scientific paradigm", and comes out of the blue, unpredicted, unasked, and unexplained. Things that could well had been discovered centuries ago, had not ( the steam engine, for example ), and things which nothing "ordered" them, which served no "purpose" in their time, were discovered centuries before they were finally appreciated and applied ( the "method of exhaustion", and the "method of mechanical theorems" of Archimedes - precursors to the methods of calculus -,  the conic sections" and the projective geometry I had mentioned in a previous post, for example ). The history of science is not "gradual" - far from it !   
   2. Stand for one hour in front of a great piece of art, or listen for one hour a great piece of music.

   There is a land of common things, and there is a land of great things, and there is no bridge between them. :)
   The Gleipnit binder is a great knot - it can not be evaluated in the way we evaluate the common knots we learn and we forget every day. 
 
« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 12:53:43 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

InTension

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #43 on: September 09, 2015, 03:47:48 AM »
   You envision a gradual, step-by-step exploration of the knot-space along some "paths" / trajectories, defined by personal / subjective "criteria, insights, intuition, and principles...". You believe that the evaluation /appreciation of the values of the knots discovered during this journey in KnotLand depends on "many" things, because : "Our preferences register in the criteria by which we evaluate the merits of a knot ". 
 " Different people uncover different knots and appreciate them in different ways "
   
   There are two ways to escape from this totally virtual and false model of what truly happens in real life :
   1. Study the history of science - and realize that there is nothing "gradual" there, and that "there are no paths - paths are made by walking". There is nothing "personal" or subjective in the evaluation of a great scientific theory and the scientific revolution it initiates, which changes the "scientific paradigm", and comes out of the blue, unpredicted, unasked, and unexplained. Things that could well had been discovered centuries ago, had not, and things which nothing "ordered" them, which served no "purpose" in their time, were discovered centuries before they were finally appreciated and applied . The history of science is not "gradual" - far from it !   
   2. Stand for one hour in front of a great piece of art, or listen for one hour a great piece of music.
   There is a land of common things, and there is a land of great things, and there is no bridge between them. :)
   The Gleipnit binder is a great knot - it can not be evaluated in the way we evaluate the common knots we learn and we forget every day. 

Two Quotes from Alan Kay, that you might appreciate:

   "Any thing that's interesting works because its got an architecture. Life is an architecture."

   "One of my sayings is that relative judgments have no place in art.
    You never worry about whether a Beethoven symphony is better than Bach;
    the real question is "Is this piece of music great?" because that's the
    only superlative you deal with in art."

Great scientific theories don't 'come out of the blue' (whatever that means). They come out of the minds of men - men standing on the shoulders of those they've studied. Without personal / subjective "criteria, insights, intuition, and principles" there would be no science. The laws of nature predate their discovery by man, but science is mankind's collective discovery of the laws of nature. Yes, "The history of science is not gradual" - neither are discoveries in other fields, or evolution itself.

Every knot is unique (like a snowflake). Knot-space is composed of discrete elements, so trajectories through it are not continuous; they have to jump. Jumps between similar knots are shorter than those between dissimilar knots.

Is your statement:
   "Things ..., were discovered centuries before they were finally appreciated and applied"
really that different from my statement:
   "Different people uncover different knots and appreciate them in different ways"

I don't believe that we're as far apart as you think. I'm just trying to describe how people go from studying the known to discovering something new. 

I am not immune to awe & wonder:

   "When thou seest an Eagle, thou seest a portion of Genius; lift up thy head!" -- William Blake

« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 03:52:47 AM by InTension »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: A New Binding Knot?
« Reply #44 on: September 09, 2015, 11:35:35 AM »
   Great scientific theories ...come out of the minds of men

   And where did t h o s e men come from ? Have you met anybody ? ( because I have not...) :)
   Why they were born 1800 years before the time they "normally" would ? ( Archimedes was, intellectually, contemporary to Newton and Leibniz ).

   Jumps between similar knots are shorter than those between dissimilar knots.

   You still do not get it.
   There is no comparison, no linear relation, no "similarity" between common and great knots, and, of course, not between great knots. Gleipnir is not "similar" to the bowline and to the Sheepshank, and that is why it was NOT discovered c e n t u r i e s ago, when the bowline and the Sheepshank were discovered. A f t e r  it has been discovered, and only b e c a u s e it has been discovered, we can scratch our heads and try to figure out ad-hoc "similarities", and sort / "explain" everything in a simple, "comprehensible" way that will make us feel good...  Some knot tyers ( with ego problems...) will go as far as to pretend or even believe that they had "introduced" it, somehow, before its author ! :) Personally, I am somehow modest regarding this, when I declare that I would nt been able to discover Gleipni even after 1000 years ! :) :)
   Every knot is unique, as is every great scientific theory or piece of art - but the great ones are more unique than the others ! :)
   Perhaps you have not felt yet what you would, when you will really meet/fall into, immersed/absorbed by, such a thing. There are many mountain peaks. Do you believe that Everest is the same like every other, just a few meters higher ? And that climbers who had reached there, felt the same thing they feel when they climb to the peak of the roof of their house, to fix the antenna ?
  "Mankind collective discovery" is the politically correct way to say that we watch, and applaud, when somebody out there discovers something great. :)
   If THAT is how a horse designed collectively looks like, imagine how a collectively painted painting would be ! :)
   I only want to say that, regarding man, Natura facit saltus ! In other words, " Beauty will be CONVULSIVE or will not be at all".
   Gkeipnir was such a jump.

I am not immune to awe & wonder
   I am sure you are not - but we are all "spoiled", somehow, by the contemporary "politically correct" ideology of collective inventions and discoveries, of the gradual, non-revolutionary way everything in nature and society evolves, and the desperate need we feel to "explain" and "predict" phenomena, far more complex than our models and our processing powers enable us to do. 
   Why the Gleipnir was not discovered 2000 or 4000 years ago, is a mystery - and it will make no harm to us to accept that there will always remain some mysteries out there ! :)

« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 11:56:14 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.