PET (Glossary of Terms)

[roo]

Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE.

If you cannot explain what you need in a knot and why you need it in plain English, you'll be severely limiting your audience.  This ever-shifting sand of alphabet soup is becoming self-parody.

[Mobius]

Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE.

If you cannot explain what you need in a knot and why you need it in plain English, you'll be severely limiting your audience.  This ever-shifting sand of alphabet soup is becoming self-parody.

I read elsewhere your feelings about acronyms and I agree to a certain extent (read my OP here). I certainly found PET and TIB difficult acronyms to negotiate properly when I first started at the site. Unfortunately perhaps, they appear to be here to stay and others are joining them. Blame me for some of the others I suppose, I suggested VET (Verfiable Easy Tieing - which probably won't get used) and now suddenly we have EEL (Either End Loading) and PETEE, both of which I had something to do with. However, it was not my intention to start an avalanche of acronyms. Use them, or not, I suppose and see if some others (xarax will help us see them I'm sure ) start using them regularly. As for me, I am actually a bit ambivalent about EEL and PETEE and have not really used them in a knot discussion yet

Still, A Glossary of Terms would help a lot, though having one would not give us a license to impel an "alphabet soup" as you say has happened already.

Edit: I just stumbled on TALK (Truly Adjustable Loop Knot), however I had nothing to do with that one 

Cheers,

mobius

[Sweeney]

Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE.

If you cannot explain what you need in a knot and why you need it in plain English, you'll be severely limiting your audience.  This ever-shifting sand of alphabet soup is becoming self-parody.

I agree - a list of acronyms used only on this forum not only encourages them to breed it also becomes a pain to have to keep looking elsewhere for what should be clear from the text. If the idea is to keep this a sort of secret society and discourage newcomers (who may be experienced knot tyers) then this is the way to go.

Sweeney

[xarax]

If the idea is to keep this a sort of secret society and discourage newcomers (who may be experienced knot tyers)

   Of course, this in NOT the idea...
   However, I have seen experienced knot tyers ( at least, dozens of times more experienced than me ), who do not use the notions the acronyms are supposed to describe because simply they do not know them. Worse, many of them do not want to learn them, because they do not want to learn anything else any more... They are satisfied with the knots they have been parroting from the age they were boys, mostly out of the Bible ( ABoK ), and they believe that, since they "do the job", they are everything that exists, or everything that deserves to exist -
and each and every other knot which happen to be tied is just "random", "overcomplicated", "Fancy and Decorative", etc ( I just repeat the BS I have been listening about the knots I tie the last 5 years).
   Knot tyers should not participate in any secret society - by the way, I also believe that nobody should participate in any such society.
   However, what is of the greater concern is that they do participate in a society which creates myths, illusions about how close to rocket science knot tying is, and how great magicians and inventors knot tyers are. Worse, by rehearsing them many times, as they do with the knot tying recipes, they tend to believe to those myths and lies themselves, and to behave to anybody who dares to question them not only as a newcomer, but as a heretic, who should be chased relentlessly by the Holy Grail Keepers of the Knot Temple.
    Am I telling this, assuming (wrongly ) something that had NOT happened in this "society" ? I think not...  

   Now, it may be my illusion  , but I have not seen anybody who understands what a PET is, because he accepts that there is such a thing in the first place, and that it may be useful, to describe this feature with a simpler, more clear way. For example, if you believe that PET is important, and useful, and it may even be proved a safety measure, you do not question the merit of the bowline-like loops - and, of course, you do not tie the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop", which is neither PET nor Zeppelin-like !
   The root of the denial of the PET acronym is the denial of the PET per se, as a useful feature of the loops. And that will be the reason some supposedly "experienced knot makers" / rocket scientist will never use it - simply because they will never accept what is opposed to their holy beliefs.
   However, it was always like this, everywhere... Even in the most supposedly myth-free science, physics, the really new notions and terms are accepted and used only by the next generation of physicists, when the previous one has ceased to exist.

   If one would REALLY wish to help in this matter, he should better find other, simpler ways to describe the features and things we want to describe with those acronyms. However, to do this, he should first read the posts and learn about the ideas of those who write about them, is nt that so ? If he has put them in his "ignore list", as roo advises the newcomers to do with me in his ingenious "signature", then I am afraid he will keep whinning, and only help the so-called "society" to degenerate...   
   

[Mobius]

Here is my $0.02 on the matter:

I would use PETEE.

If you cannot explain what you need in a knot and why you need it in plain English, you'll be severely limiting your audience.  This ever-shifting sand of alphabet soup is becoming self-parody.

I agree - a list of acronyms used only on this forum not only encourages them to breed it also becomes a pain to have to keep looking elsewhere for what should be clear from the text. If the idea is to keep this a sort of secret society and discourage newcomers (who may be experienced knot tyers) then this is the way to go.

Sweeney

Get rid of all the acronyms then, I didn't start them and learning here would have been easier for me without them. I'm not even using many of them apart from the two seemingly well established ones. However, If TIB and PET are only used here they can go too for all I care.

.... So, if we untie the eyeknot using either of the two ends, the moment we would pull it of the nub, the whole knot will be unknotted, without leaving any "relic" knot near the other end ( which should be untied at a second stage ).
   How we could call such a eyeknot ? For the time being, I use the term PEET or PEEET ( Post Eye - starting from - Either End, Tiable ). Any better (= shorter, more easily and clearly denoting this feature ) word ?

I was simply pointing out to xarax (a question he raised) that PETEE made more sense than either PEEET or the PEET he was already using. Maybe there have been discussions about acronyms before and I have just stepped into the middle of a two way argument, however we either use them and explain somewhere what they mean... or don't use them!

Cheers,

mobius

(Edit: added a quote from xarax for context)

[Dan_Lehman]

(I recall writing a nomenclature/acronym response,
but must've only Preview'd it and then lost it, thinking
I'd Post'd it as well.)

I'm not even using many of them apart from the two seemingly well established ones.
However, If 'TIB' and 'PET' are only used here they can go too for all I care.

Along with 'SPart' (& 'S.Part') vice "standing part"
(and vice partly w/accent on a functional aspect[**]
of the completed --not inchoate-- knot), I've
brought these shorthand terms into usage with the
belief that they capture in few keystrokes fundamental,
commonly used expressions of knotting.  "PET" abbreviates
an expression that IMO originated with Rob Chisnall (one
of our former IGKT presidents, a co-founder member,
and influential in Canadian rockclimbing & SAR circles).

To these, "EEL" seems reasonably solid, too, in its
expansion and connotation.  (One could see it as saving
ourselves from a jocular borrowing of "ambidextrous".  )
Although, there is a not insignificant subjective element
in so judging this condition.

I sympathize with the resistance to having a proliferation
of acronyms, and the "secret-society" aspect they present;
but there is some benefit to capturing a thought in a short
character string, readily recognized --a benefit that comes
much from weighting (usage frequency).  As I assert above,
these few terms are for commonly used expressions.  There
are things for a newcomer to overcome, regardless of language.
Given the notions of this trio of terms, the learning time should
be quite short ("EEL" I think will not be immediately recognized,
but "SPart" is closer to its full term).  --in contrast to the long
strings such as "tiable in the bight" (where "tiable"/"tyable" both
get red-lined reprimand from this editor!).

[**] IMO, "standing part" is defined and much used in the
literature to denote a part of the rope-to-be-tied... that is
passive in the tying process, in contrast to "the working end"
with which one makes the entanglement.  Often, but not
assuredly so, the standing part will emerge as that part
of the knot that bears full tension into the knot; but it
is sometimes the case that tying goes the other way
'round, and then one has a conflict with the sense that
*I* want for the term --which is of the load-bearing in
the (completed) knot, not of some transient, tying aspect.


--dl*
====

[xarax]

..."standing part" is defined and much used in the literature to denote a part of the rope-to-be-tied... that is passive in the tying process, in contrast to "the working end" with which one makes the entanglement. 

  Indeed, this concerns me, too - I find myself describing completely tied knots, and wondering what is there except a Standing Part... as all the "work" of the "Working End" has been finished.
   Also, oftentimes I have to call as " Tail End" a short segment of the Standing End which is a direct continuation of the proper "tail" ( which can be waged !  ) inside the knot s nub - and this may confuse the reader. 

[Mobius]

..."standing part" is defined and much used in the literature to denote a part of the rope-to-be-tied... that is passive in the tying process, in contrast to "the working end" with which one makes the entanglement. 

  Indeed, this concerns me, too - I find myself describing completely tied knots, and wondering what is there except a Standing Part... as all the "work" of the "Working End" has been finished.
   Also, oftentimes I have to call as " Tail End" a short segment of the Standing End which is a direct continuation of the proper "tail" ( which can be waged !  ) inside the knot s nub - and this may confuse the reader.

If I take the Right Hand Bowline as an example:

I tend to think of the Standing Part of that knot being the loaded end and the extension of that to the Nipping Loop. Then the Nipping Loop extends to the Eye Leg from/of the/to the Standing Part. One could change the focus of this description and think eye-to nipping loop-to standing end. Either way, I find it useful to think of parts of the nub as 'standing parts'.

On the other side when the Eye turns back towards the nub it becomes the Eye Leg to the Tail End, followed by the Bight (an extension of the Tail) and then finally the "wagging" Tail. Therefore, I think of parts of the nub as 'tail parts'.

None of the above, or perhaps only some of this is technically correct, however a lot of our discussions and knot part descriptions (particularly about the bowline) seem to make better sense to me if I think in those terms.

I know this is not the traditional meaning of the terms, however there is certainly quite a lot of 'grey' nomenclature used in knot tying. After reading most of the 22 pages (to date) concerning the definition of a bowline (sometimes conflicting), I don't think I am alone thinking this.

Cheers,

mobius

[Mobius]

I tend to think of the Standing Part of that knot being the loaded end and the extension of that to the Nipping Loop. Then the Nipping Loop extends to the Eye Leg from/of the/to the Standing Part.

   It is like you have already tied the bowline before the nipping loop, and you are now tying the rest of it !  There is nothing there before the nipping loop, no "knot", not even an open helical coil like it happens in the Helical loops.
   I use to see the nipping loop as part of the Standing Part, only a part with some individual characteristics which allow us to label it with yet another name.

An un-knotted piece of rope has an incipient Standing Part and a Tail End in my schema (let's ignore Either End Loading  considerations) so when a Right Hand Bowline is tied I do see the Nipping Loop as 'belonging' to the Standing Part (SPart). The SPart and Tail were there first so it seems to make sense to me to also think about parts of the nub and eye in terms of Sparts and Tails.

   And what about the "collar structure" - which is not a simple "bight", as the collar is called in Analysis of bowlines.
   Is it a part of the Standing Part, or not ? We can not call "Tail" or "Tail End" this "knotted", tangled segment of rope, interweaved with the nipping loop, the Standing End and the eye leg, which plays the role of the common s bowline collar ( and that is why I call it "collar structure" ).

The "collar structure" is a tail part of the knot to me. That the tail forms a Bight around the Spart doesn't deter me The nub is simply made up of parts that better belong to either the SPart or the Tail in my schema.

   At the end of the day, definitions and nomenclature do not matter. They are only mental tools, to help us further understand and classify the knots.

Indeed, I am new at studying knots and my current schema for considering knots is just that, a tool to help me think about the structure, composition and essence of a knot, no more.

Cheers,

mobius

[Mobius]

  The "collar structure" is a tail part of the knot to me. That the tail forms a Bight ...

  Not only a bight ! In the case of the secure bowlines, it forms much more complex "knotted" forms.
 

Sure, I was only using the Right Hand Bowline as a simple reference point.

[Dan_Lehman]

I tend to think of the Standing Part ... .
... I think of parts of the nub as 'tail parts'.

In a general sense, you could be said to be discriminating
the two pieces of flexible material in the knot.  That is,
put a "cookie cutter" circle around any knot, such that
all "ends" pass out of the circle into undefined oblivion,
and you can identify one piece/segment/line but by its
endpoints "1" & "2", the other ... "A" & "B".

From which one can specify different *knots* (or how
do we make particular terms, here?) by loading : load
1 vs. 2 + A = bowline-L, 1 vs 2+B = bowline-R,
2 vs ... = "Eskimo" bowlines, and 1 vs A is a sheet bend,
and so on.

For me, the "tail" is the unloaded finish of such a "piece";
I might take it into the nub a bit, but not for the entire
piece.  I have mused about defining "SPart" per effect :
it extends into the nub until a major deflection will not
affect strength --e.g., one might presume after the U-turn,
or some arc around a bowline's turNip (<-aha, another
beloved term!), there's little force on the part (consider
that in a sheet bend it runs to "tail"/unloadedness).
However, I think that such a definition would see the
extent of a SPart vary per material --slick ones delivering
force farther in?!

--dl*
====
[edit to correct 'but' mistyped for 'by' --an odd but not
uncommon mistake, curiously]

[Mobius]

I tend to think of the Standing Part ... .
... I think of parts of the nub as 'tail parts'.

In a general sense, you could be said to be discriminating
the two pieces of flexible material in the knot.  That is,
put a "cookie cutter" circle around any knot, such that
all "ends" pass out of the circle into undefined oblivion,
and you can identify one piece/segment/line but its
endpoints "1" & "2", the other ... "A" & "B".

From which one can specify different *knots* (or how
do we make particular terms, here?) by loading : load
1 vs. 2 + A = bowline-L, 1 vs 2+B = bowline-R,
2 vs ... = "Eskimo" bowlines, and 1 vs A is a sheet bend,
and so on.

For me, the "tail" is the unloaded finish of such a "piece";
I might take it into the nub a bit, but not for the entire
piece.  I have mused about defining "SPart" per effect :
it extends into the nub until a major deflection will not
affect strength --e.g., one might presume after the U-turn,
or some arc around a bowline's turNip (<-aha, another
beloved term!), there's little force on the part (consider
that in a sheet bend it runs to "tail"/unloadedness).
However, I think that such a definition would see the
extent of a SPart vary per material --slick ones delivering
force farther in?!

--dl*
====

I think if you take your 1,2,A,B model and think about potential respective loading arrangements on each part, maybe you are able to define different knot types. I am not experienced enough to do that (If it's worth trying), though it is interesting.

For example, could we differentiate between a Double Dragon Loop and a Right Hand Bowline, just based on the two knots load characteristics? I suspect not. I think we could differentiate between a RH Bowline and a Zeppelin Bend  by looking at loadings on 1,2,A,B , however I don't know how useful that is either since we are really probably just differentiating between a Loop and a Bend.

The whole concept is interesting though, thanks for sharing.

Cheers,

mobius

[Dan_Lehman]

could we differentiate between a Double Dragon Loop and a Right Hand Bowline,
just based on the two knots load characteristics?

Oh, goodness, no.  The purpose of the loading profile
is just to define "end-2-end", "eye knot", ... and so on.
It is, as you see, simply taking whichever parts of the
given "tangle" and specifying the load.  (There is an
equal way : to specify angle --one implies the other.)

I was reacting to your "tail parts", by which I took you
to mean what I might see as segment "A-B" if we've
identified "1-2" as the S.Part (and for an eye knot, see
2 being connected in forming the eye to either A or B,
and the vice-versa of the lettered segment being my "tail").

 

[jarnos]

As for the glossary of terms, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_knot_terminology in Wikipedia. At the time of writing, there is no definition of PET there, but TIB is mentioned as 'tying-in-the-bight' in the description of 'Loop knot'. The article has much more terms, but no acronym for them.

I started another thread about PET at https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6935.0