Author Topic: History of a Knot  (Read 6270 times)

treecowboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
History of a Knot
« on: November 29, 2015, 05:14:51 PM »
Lets say I come up with a knot, and begin using it.  I find the knot to do very well, and perform safely.  A few years go by, and I use the knot in several climbing competitions, with the approval of the competition judges.  I share the knot with fellow climbers.  Then I begin publicizing the knot, in order to gain some legitimacy for it's identification and authenticity.  In the process of the "peer review", one peer comes forth and makes a statement that "someone somewhere used this knot, and had called it by such and such name, and therefore, it is known as the "such and such" knot, and it can also be used in different contexts from which you have described (split tail versus single line). This information was not verifiable, and was not online prior to the disclosure of my introduction of the knot. The knot goes on to be used as the "such and such knot" that the peer called it, and the name I gave it was never recognized. This all transpired since 2007, by the way.  The knot was first used by me in 2000.  I competed with it as early as 2003. 

A few more years go by, and I have climbed on the knot of about 15 years now, and it has enough plus marks for me to advocate it, although it has its peculiarities.  I feel confident that my discovery of the knot, public use of it in competitions, and later publication of it on a climbing website preceded any other discover of the knot. 

The question is, how would I go about
1)authenticating that the knot is in fact unique (we have done that on a tree climber's  site)
2)demonstrating that my discovery of the knot preceded the discover by someone else

I simply wish to record the history of the knot appropriately.  It has gained wider use in climbing circles. I would be happy to share it on here, along with some transcripts of the conversation that introduced it in 2007, and some photos of it in use earlier.





This reminds me a bit of the "Hunter's Bend" story which started this entire guild.

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 974
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2015, 06:12:02 PM »
Welcome to the forum treecowboy. You asked:

The question is, how would I go about
1)authenticating that the knot is in fact unique (we have done that on a tree climber's  site)
2)demonstrating that my discovery of the knot preceded the discover by someone else

I simply wish to record the history of the knot appropriately.  It has gained wider use in climbing circles. I would be happy to share it on here, along with some transcripts of the conversation that introduced it in 2007, and some photos of it in use earlier.

This reminds me a bit of the "Hunter's Bend" story which started this entire guild.

Unsurprisingly perhaps this question arises regularly. The simple answer is that it is all but impossible to prove beyond doubt that a knot is being shown for the first time. You can of course publish your knot on this and other fora or websites and nowadays if the knot ia already known prior to your discovery of it someone is likely to say so. But if they don't then it may simply be that those who have used it, perhaps for years, do not have web access or are simply unaware of your interest. At the end of the day you discovered a knot for yourself and you can take pride in that achievement. I suggest that you post pictures of your knot and see if anyone recognises it from before you first discovered it - if they did then you still discovered it for yourself but if not then you can argue that the history of the knot starts in 2000 until someone can show otherwise - which unfortunately does not give you the definitive answer you are looking for.

If the knot is not well known, as appears to be the case, and it performs at least as well if not better than other knots for the purpose, then you should aim to give it maximum publicity with your name being associated with it - Dr Hunter achieved that even though his discovery was not original (the tying method was not previously recorded as far as I know).

Sweeney

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1755
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2015, 09:10:10 PM »
Lets say I come up with a knot, and begin using it.  I find the knot to do very well, and perform safely.  A few years go by, and I use the knot in several climbing competitions, with the approval of the competition judges.  I share the knot with fellow climbers.  Then I begin publicizing the knot, in order to gain some legitimacy for it's identification and authenticity.  In the process of the "peer review", one peer comes forth and makes a statement that "someone somewhere used this knot, and had called it by such and such name, and therefore, it is known as the "such and such" knot, and it can also be used in different contexts from which you have described (split tail versus single line). This information was not verifiable, and was not online prior to the disclosure of my introduction of the knot. The knot goes on to be used as the "such and such knot" that the peer called it, and the name I gave it was never recognized. This all transpired since 2007, by the way.  The knot was first used by me in 2000.  I competed with it as early as 2003. 

A few more years go by, and I have climbed on the knot of about 15 years now, and it has enough plus marks for me to advocate it, although it has its peculiarities.  I feel confident that my discovery of the knot, public use of it in competitions, and later publication of it on a climbing website preceded any other discover of the knot. 

The question is, how would I go about
1)authenticating that the knot is in fact unique (we have done that on a tree climber's  site)
2)demonstrating that my discovery of the knot preceded the discover by someone else

I simply wish to record the history of the knot appropriately.  It has gained wider use in climbing circles. I would be happy to share it on here, along with some transcripts of the conversation that introduced it in 2007, and some photos of it in use earlier.

This reminds me a bit of the "Hunter's Bend" story which started this entire guild.

Hi treecowboy and welcome.

Please do share your pictures and transcripts.
If nothing else, I am interested.
And you'll widen the swath of readers/users some more.

SS369

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2015, 07:34:20 PM »
Don't be so secretive. Share the damn knot, or links.
 

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3617
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2015, 10:24:38 PM »
This reminds me a bit of the "Hunter's Bend" story which started this entire guild.
Touche'!
And, more to your "climber"s --by which you mean
"tree(rope!)climber" and not "rockclimber"--
world, that of the "Blake's hitch" (which I thus
like to call "ProhGrip" hitch). 
 ;)

Yes, so please do show'n'tell.
(And has Mark Adams been among those doing the
arborist-site vetting?)

Cheers,
--dl*
====

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2015, 03:25:30 AM »
Thanks for the tip Dan. Have a look at the Martin on pg. 4.
http://www.treebuzz.com/pdf/0505_geneology.pdf

See also...http://www.treebuzz.com/pdf/Apr07-cc.pdf  pg. 2
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 06:49:18 AM by alpineer »

treecowboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Introducing the "Michigan" knot.
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2015, 06:50:21 AM »
Dan,
     You nailed it, yes Mark Adams is familiar with the scenario I have explained. Mark in fact introduced the argument about the knot being called "the Martin", and later renamed it "the Michoacan".  This knot Mark describes (not the knot I describe) is tied in a split tail fashion, anchored on both ends to the climbing saddle via carabiner clips, using a cord, tied around a climbing line. Mark indicated in his 2005 article, a climbing instructor from Arbor Master began using this set-up, and named it after himself.  In the 2007 article, it was a gentlemen named Morales who wanted to rename it after his home state, and in a Tree Buzz commentary, it was a climber that he had worked with in the past. Maybe they are all the same person he is describing.
     Regardless of the backstory on the "Michoac?n",  I think it is an adaptation of my knot, which I introduced to some involved with Arbor Master, prior to 2005.  I think my knot was shown to Mark, as an adaptation into a double anchored/micro pulley system (which I don't prefer to climb on). Mark wrote articles about it, and it was called a name that they decided to call it. None of Mark's early articles discussed it as single line, which is seen as a bit ancient in tree climbing circles. I prefer ancient.
     When dressed up in a modern high strength small diameter cord, double anchored and combined with a micro-pulley for easy tending, the knot looks and functions quite differently than the simple naked knot I tie on a single line.  Mine would last quite longer, and doesn't glaze, but the double anchored variation will glaze under pressure, much like the Blake's. The knot I designed ties with a single line. The double anchored variation would need two lines, one of smaller diameter with eyelets, which would exit the knot and put pressure at two points of the bottom coil, versus one point.  This causes higher friction at the bottom coil, mainly because when anchored at one point, the knot goes into a side bend and arcs along the four coils, distributing the friction between the four coils.  When anchored at two points on the bottom, and knot compresses more vertically, and the bottom coil is offset slightly, reacting more like the Blake's.  Rather than functioning as a top loaded coil, pulling down on the four coils below, the second anchor point simply changes that back to a bottom loaded coil (point of least resistance), just like the Blake's.  I tied this knot because I didn't find the Blake's to be very welcoming, and it cooked a lot from the regular glazing, sometimes getting locked up, especially if I was in a sappy tree like a pine. 
     Therefore, I am asking for some consideration in regard to naming it the same knot, when used in single versus double anchor.  After tying it, looking at it, and using it, the differences will be clear. I don't climb using a double anchor, mainly because I prefer climbing on a knot that matches the diameter of my line, and find that readily available in my climbing rope, with less moving parts. So, I use about 24" of the end of my climbing line to tie up my climbing knot with about 8" of tail.  I have used a split tail of the same diameter, and used a single anchor point. That functions the same.  I tried the double anchor, but didn't like the performance.
     I believe that there should be some variation in the name of the knot when tied single line versus double anchored as a cord.  I am proposing that when used single line, the English translation of the name be used: "Michigan".  When tied double anchored, use the Mexican name; Michoacan. I happen to be from Michigan, and the climber from Mexico happened to be from Michoacan, Mexico (according to Mark). The translation of Michoacan to English is "Michigan".  That's where I first swung from rope, as a kid.
     A judge named Scott Profit, creator of the "Porta Wrap" for dynamic lowering, approved the knot for me to climb on in at a competition around 2004 or 2005, at Agnes Scott College, in Decatur, GA.  He photographed the knot, and stated it would be sent in for strength testing and review.  I used the photograph he took of me with the knot as my profile photo on Tree Buzz, but in their new website that image was recently deleted. Bob Weber was shown the knot at a Vermeer expo in Marietta, GA while there on a demonstration around 2004 (he wasn't too enthusiastic about it.)  Mark's first article came out shortly after that, in 2005, introducing the knot as the "Martin". Two years later, in 2007, Mark's second article discusses the knot again, renaming it the "Michoacan".  Neither of the articles demonstrates the knot in single line design, only double anchored in a cord.  It's all I have climbed on for the past 16 years. Prior to that, I didn't use a friction hitch, I used mechanical ascenders, and a figure 8, because I didn't know any better, and wasn't comfortable not using some type of prophylactic to climb with.
   

Wayne Shannon
ISA Certified Arborist
Tree Cowboy Inc.
Atlanta, GA
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 03:29:36 PM by treecowboy »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3617
Re: Introducing the "Michigan" knot.
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2015, 09:41:18 PM »
This knot Mark describes (not the knot I describe) is tied in a split tail fashion,
anchored on both ends to the climbing saddle via carabiner clips, using a cord,
tied around a climbing line.
/.../
  I think it is an adaptation of my knot, which
...
When dressed up in a modern high strength small diameter cord,
double anchored and combined with a micro-pulley for easy tending,
the knot looks and functions quite differently than the simple naked
knot I tie on a single line.
/.../
Rather than functioning as a top-loaded coil ["your knot"],
 pulling down on the four coils below,
the second anchor point [of Martin's/Micho.] simply changes that back
to a bottom loaded coil (point of least resistance), just like the Blake's ["ProhGrip" :-].
To be clear, as we have (if looking at Mark's "Martin" image in the pdf)
a common reference, what you have used is the knot shown there
when loaded on the right end only ?!  (Otherwise, loading
the other end solely will give a minimal ProhGrip.)

(I confess that in some measly little cord I've played with so far,
the "Michigan" doesn't appeal!  And five minutes of that checking,
in the *wrong* material, goes nowhere in offsetting years of your
use in the right stuff!   ;) )

--dl*
====

treecowboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2015, 04:13:37 AM »
Front side of knot, I will upload more photos later.  This is tied with a shoe lace.

Line coming down to left side is tied to my belt. Line going off to the left from the knot is the tail, and hangs free. Line coming down to the right is the residual line, on the ground.  To the left, and not in the shot, is the other end of the line tied to my belt, which would then go up and over a limb, and come down, through the knot.  What you see is the end that would come down through the knot. 

As you see, this is much different than the Michoac?n, and much different than a cord anchored at two ends with eyelets.

It is very easy to tie.  You take any line, and you get enough to make 4 rotations, and have a tail.  Turn it from top down, 4 times, without encircling the end you went up with from your tie off point below the knot.  On the final rotation, you encircle the line you went vertical with, and you dress the knot with a final pass through the middle of the coils. 

1. Up from climbing belt or object you wish to ascend or descend.
2. around top of the descending end of line, which would originate on the object being ascended or descended as well, then anchored around a tie off point.
This line would be coming back from the tie off point.  The line going to the tie off point from the object being ascended or descended is not shown.
3. second coil down around the descending line.
4. third coil down around descending line.
5. fourth coil down around descending line
6. fifth coil around includes the originating line, and the tail then goes up through the bottom two coils.  This becomes 4 and a half coils.
7. tail of knot, ends here, after passing under the bottom two coils

The third image is a "Michoac?n", which I believe is an adaptation of mine, tying off the tail of the knot and having two anchor points.  This causes added friction at the bottom of the coils, and reacts under load more like a Blake's hitch.  Why not just use a Blake's hitch if you are going to do that, since it is relatively the same performance. 

When used as a single line knot, with no cord, the knot forms an arch between the four and a half coils, distributing friction between all of the coils relatively even, and does not glaze, or lock up. I don't consider the configuration differences minor, since they have major performance differences.

My knot (the Michigan Hitch), can pass through the bottom coil, or the middle, I suggest the middle for added safety, and slightly more friction.


« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 05:43:43 AM by treecowboy »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3617
Re: Introducing the "Michigan" knot.
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2015, 06:25:48 AM »
To be clear, as we have (if looking at Mark's "Martin" image in the pdf)
a common reference, what you have used is the knot shown there
when loaded on the right end only ?!  (Otherwise, loading
the other end solely will give a minimal ProhGrip.)
To be perspicuous : no, the above does NOT describe
the intended knot.  Rather, the knot can be seen as
a variation of Chisnall's adjustable grip hitch presented
as an adjustable eyeknot in Wikipedia's 2015-12-01-fetched
article here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustable_grip_hitch
The difference between these is that Chisnall's has the tail
tucked out through but one wrap, not two.

(Btw, I do NOT believe the part about its necessarily sliding
under a shock load and then gripping --which assertion is
copied out of Budworth's Ultimate Encyclopedia.., and there
overgeneralized to any friction hitch.)

--dl*
====

ps: Here's one of those perplexing cases where, although
I Google-Searched with 'Chisnall' as one of the terms,
that does NOT show up on the returned page (to a then
computer Search for it) !?!?

treecowboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2015, 06:31:16 AM »
I looked at that photo, but again the coils in that begin low, and end high.  That's the opposite of what is going on in the knot I describe.  The coils begin high, and end low.  The loading is on the top coil, not the bottom coil, and that is the uniqueness of this knot.  The adjustable grip hitch knot begins by starting the line down, and coiling back up, with the top coil including the descending line. 

I don't see this to be the same knot. The knot I am tying, would immediately begin in a coil on top, and coil downward, including the line coming from the top coil inside of the last coil on bottom.  This knot is the opposite, and does not immediately begin coiling downward, it runs the line to the bottom coil first, then coils upward, and includes the line in the top coil. This does not function the same as my knot either.  This gives further proof that my knot varies from the Michoac?n, since the Michoac?n would have also been categorized as the adjustable hitch.  I have had some climbers mistakenly label this the adjustable hitch, and it was discussed on Tree Buzz. I will try to pull that conversation up.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 07:02:27 AM by treecowboy »

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2015, 07:11:44 AM »
Hi Wayne, this may be what you're looking for...  http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/friction-hitch.6623/

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3617
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2015, 06:20:38 AM »
I looked at that photo, but again the coils in that begin low, and end high.
//
The loading is on the top coil, not the bottom coil, and that is the uniqueness of this knot.
The adjustable grip hitch knot begins by starting the line down, and coiling back up, with the top coil including the descending line.
???  Both knots have the hitching line reach away
and coil back (like the Hedden h. vs. the klemheist
--and it's interesting to note that the latter requires
more wraps for security, though the Prohgrip/Blake's
is quite secure!?) ; that the images differ in which way
the reach is going is irrelevant --someone making
an upper vs. a lower eye, that's all.  (I.e, just turn
the dang Wikip. image upside-down!)

Quote

and it was discussed on Tree Buzz. I will try to pull that conversation up.
Will be a good URLink to have.
And, by George, we HAVE it
--that Alpineer is a Find-y kind of guy!


 ;)

knot rigger

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2016, 07:57:49 AM »
"It is hardly necessary to name a knot, but it assists materially in finding it a second time."

              -Clifford Ashley (ABoK #952)

I like the name "Michigan Hitch" if you're seeking any feedback regarding that.  I like elegant linguistic relation to the Michoacan hitch.  There is an arborist friction hitch precedent that two knots with similar form are named differently when tied with a single line, or a split tail.

I'm also from Michigan, so I admit that influences my affection for the name.

I wonder if your question regarding the name of the hitch boils down to "getting credit".  From what evidence I've seen, you seem to have originated this knot, and I applaud you.  I think perhaps though that the name of the knot (or any knot) comes down to, essentially, a popularity contest (for better or worse).  The name of a knot is what most people call it.  "Blake's hitch" is a good example; even if he wasn't first to tye it, or even first to publish it, that's what most people know it as.  Another common example is a "lineman's loop".  If I asked any of my co-workers to tye one they would give me a blank look, even though they all know how to tye a "butterfly loop".  I came across an arborist forum discussion of the "circus bowline" which is really just a "farmer's loop".

If arborist use this knot but call it the "wrong" name does that in any way detract from your achievement?  Not to me.

cheers
andy

Groundline

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
Re: History of a Knot
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2016, 04:03:58 PM »
"It is hardly necessary to name a knot, but it assists materially in finding it a second time."

              -Clifford Ashley (ABoK #952)
???

If arborist use this knot but call it the "wrong" name does that in any way detract from your achievement?  Not to me.

cheers
andy

Except in recording or relating your achievement so others know to what you are refering, and by which they may duplicate your achievement and have it be part of a safe and successful operation.