Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

[agent_smith]

So I would like to know more about
[ ] inter-linked
[ ] inter-weaved/woven
[ ] inter-connected
[ ] superposed / superimposed

Xarax is the person you need to correspond with...he is the one who ignited my interest in these technical definitions.

I can say that I had been analyzing the structure of #1425A (Riggers bend) in comparison to the Zeppelin bend in an attempt to understand why one structure jams and the other doesn't.
I had been corresponding with Xarax - and he brought these technical terms to my attention in an attempt to knock some sense into me 

Having has some sense knocked into me - I came to realize that Xarax is on to something.

#1425A Riggers bend (to my eye) consists of inter-woven overhand knots.
Zeppelin bend (to my eye) consists of inter-linked overhand knots.

Now Xarax will of course correct me if i am wrong (he always does - he lectures me and basically scolds me for being 'retarded').

Anyhow, with the complexities and vagaries of the English language, i think the term 'inter-linked' overhand knots is possibly a more accurate way to describe the structure of the Zeppelin bend. Keep in mind that I am a native English speaker while Xarax is a native Greek speaker...so its all greek to me 

I am now waiting for Xarax to contact me... please standby 

Mark G

[siriuso]

Hi dear all, here is "My working Notes 5". The link is :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1czsx2ScSIgfMClJ7du9vjWaANclF0rW7?usp=sharing

Happy Knotting
yChan

[siriuso]

Hi dear all, here is "My working Notes 6". The link is :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kH7nWyQ_BlSl17YINxUeUvTOAjtwRYfa?usp=sharing

Happy Knotting

yChan

[agent_smith]

Thanks for your work yChan.

May I suggest that you also describe the 'loops' in terms of 'chirality' (left-handed versus right-handed or S twist Versus Z twist).

For example, the zeppelin bend in your notes is constructed from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality.
In contrast, the Riggers bend (#1425A) is constructed from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality.

I found the images in your 'working notes #5' easier to view than #6.

It would therefore be great if you could produce an alternate form of your working notes showing the relationship of bends in terms of:
[ ] loop chirality
[ ] inter-linked versus superposed
[ ] and whether if makes any difference if the chirality is revered

Mark G

[siriuso]

Hi Marks and dear all, thanks for your comments and suggestion.
I think at this moment I will not make notes with loop chirality or handedness of the bends because each of these bends possess a few loop formations and of course will have different loop chirality descriptions. Such as Zeppelin Bend has 6 loops forms, Rigger's Bend has 8, Ashley's Bend has 6 etc.
Starting from the beginning, I aim to do the OTHER tying methods, they are differ from the known tying methods. I have had delivered some startings and tying methods in My Working Notes such as Ends Crossing, Opposite, Parallel, Twist, Spiral Drops, Pecking Duck ... These starts tying methods will access to different loops formations of bends. Also at the finished ends tuckings they are either in crossing, non crossing, twisted elbow or not,  the results will be different and becomes another bend.
You may use my loops formations charts to name out their loop chirality. I always think that the chirality description applied to some loop knots and bowlines are most adequate as each knot is with one SP and one WE. But for the bends, apart from my mentioned reasons above (different starts tying methods) , each bend is with two SPs and two WEs and each may pointing differently to four directions North, South, East and West (64 sets are worked out).
About Bends of superposed are of Types 1 and 2, and the Bends of interlocked type are of Types 3 and 4. They are tabulated in my Loops Formations Charts of Bends in "My Working Notes 5".
You can find out the difference if the loops chirality is changed or reversed in the chart also. But except two bends,  though the loops chirality is changed or reversed, the bend remain unchanged (but reversed and mirrored). They are Alpine Butterfly Bend and Y-lock Bend.
About the terms used to describe chirality, I prefer to use S twist loop and Z twist loop. For the terms S twist and Z twist are common and universal used in rope, cable and screw threads.

yChan

[siriuso]

Hi dear all, here is "My Working Notes Part 7". The link is
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1e7zYivz-Tvw7ImQOYP8ArXXCmXsPvTbn?usp=sharing

Happy Knotting

yChan

[agent_smith]

yChan,

Thanks for your good work...am having a look over this weekend (and no doubt so will Xarax!).

In reply to an older post of yours from last year....just some photos to illustrate why I favor showing the 'chirality' (handedness) of loops.
By reversing the 'chirality' of the loops (and reversing the crossing points) - you can make lots of interesting discoveries.
With #1425A Riggers bend, using interlinked L/hand loops (instead of R/hand loops) creates an interesting result (depending on the overlaps of crossing points).
I dont have a photo of inter-linked L/hand loops for #1425A...but will try to capture a photo soon and upload (to show side-by-side comparison with R/hand loops).
I think you are on a parallel path to me...

Xarax has done a lot of work on this topic - and it was he who first brought the importance of chirality to my attention during early development of my Bowlines paper (which I am presently reviewing and amending).

Mark G

EDIT NOTE:
Okay - I have had a look through almost all of your work - and you have put a lot of effort into it. We need more people like you doing this kind of research.
I would like to be critical if I may (sorry - peer review is what advances the science of knotting...).
A lot of your bends all come down (in the end) to loop chirality and crossing points.
If you follow your tying diagrams to their final step - the loops are either inter-linked or superposed - and the chirality is either the same or opposite.

Now - I do have an issue with what you refer to as a 'false Hunter/Riggers bend'.
Structurally, it ought to be referred to as a 'false Zeppelin bend'.
This is because the loops of a Zeppelin bend are superposed (and not inter-linked).
I can see why you like to call it a 'false Riggers bend' - because the shape does have some similarity to the true #1425A Riggers bend.
But, the fact is that the loops are superposed. Whats wrong is the 'chirality' of the loops. In a true Zeppelin bend, the loops must be of opposite chirality and the tails must point in opposite directions.
In your tying diagrams of what you call a 'false Hunters bend' - if you look closely - you will see (on the final step image) that the loops have the same chirality.
I am sure Xarax will weigh in here...

[siriuso]

Hi Mark,
Thanks for the comments.

The FHB and ZB are both superposed loops. In my "Loops Formations Chart of Bends", they are in Types 1 and 2, but in different sets. FHB is in the set with SHB, 1453, HB and 1426. ZB is in the set with YLB, this indicates that superposed and inter-linked are taken places in Type 1, 2, 3 and 4. Within the same set, Type 1 to 4 have the same chiralities but loops are in either superposed or inter-linked (in two ways). Since FHB is in the same set with HB, that is the first point I named it FHB.

The second point is : the tying method (different starts) shown both in HB and FHB are similar with little difference. But you cannot do it with ZB. (see other tying methods of FHB and HB).

The third point is : the finished FHB and HB look nearly the same except on one side (because the loops superposed or inter-linked)

The forth point is : the collars of SParts of FHB and HB are the same on one side. But the collars of SParts of ZB are opposite/upside down. This is the main and most easy distinguish point to identify them.

The fifth point is : both HB, FHB and SHB have their own 8 loops formations (chiralities varied), but ZB has 6 loops formations only.

Upon these points, I named it False Hunter's Bend.

yChan

[knotsaver]

Hi siriuso and agent_smith,
even if I agree with agent_smith, I think we won't change our own minds so we should stop naming a knot/bend a "false something".  I think we should follow D. Mandeville (who, as far as  I know, first showed the bend in his Alphabend (see KM4 or KM18)) and name it Bend N or "Neat & New".
However, to my mind a knot is a knot, it's not its tying method(s)!
Ciao,
s.

[agent_smith]

Hi vChan,

Thank you for your reply.

I will do as knotsaver suggested - I don't think I can change my mind!

Here is my analysis of your so-called 'False Hunters Bend' - with opposite twist tying method:

In your 'False Hunters bend' that allegedly begins with interlinked-loops, what in fact is happening is that your opposite twist tying method is creating a 'false positive'!

Your so-called 'opposite twist' tying method is forcing a square peg in a round hole so-to-speak...and it induces an instability. The moment you attempt to set and dress the knot (it capsizes) - and undergoes a 'energy phase-change'.
Once it has 'capsized' (or 'energy phase change' for want of a better term) - it self-orients to its 'intermediate stable form'.
From this 'intermediate stable form' - as increasing load is applied - it undergoes a further energy phase change.
The collars actually morph - and switch. The final stable energy state that is achieved has the same 'appearance' as #1425A Riggers bend - but is axially-rotated so that the SParts and tails are exchanged.

Now, if you reverse engineer the knot, carefully removing the tails from the central toggle-axis, you will see that it is nothing more than 2 superposed loops of the same chirality!

So I see your 'opposite-twist' tying method as an illusion - because in the end, it is in an unstable energy state - so the structure undergoes a phase-change to try to find its most stable form. And when you reverse engineer the final knot, it is nothing more than 2 superposed loops of the same chirality.

Mark G

Edit: Grammar edits...

[agent_smith]

even if I agree with agent_smith, I think we won't change our own minds so we should stop naming a knot/bend a "false something".  I think we should follow D. Mandeville (who, as far as  I know, first showed the bend in his Alphabend (see KM4 or KM18)) and name it Bend N or "Neat & New"

Indeed.

One can try to dig through historical work to find support for an argument - we do that all the time.
But, the term 'false' does have a place in the world of knotting.

The term 'false' has been used by other knot book authors on occasion - notably by Ashley and Budworth - no doubt to emphasize a point (ie a knot looks the same, but really isn't).

What I see as important with bends built from superposed or inter-linked loops is chirality and orientation.
What yChan refers to as a 'false Hunters bend' - to me, has structural beginnings from 2 superposed loops (despite his 'opposite-twist' tying method which is nothing more than a trick method).

Mark G

[agent_smith]

Request to moderators...

I think that this thread should be moved to 'Knotting concepts and explorations'.

The subject matter is exploring concepts that are interesting - and will generate further interest.
There is a lot more to be discovered by experimenting with superposed and inter-linked loops - and to determine the underlying science/reasoning of how 'bends' (end-to-end joining knots) are formed.

Mark G

[siriuso]

Hi dear all, thanks S. and Mark, I agree to move this thread for further discussion under some other topic.

yChan

[agent_smith]

I have attached an image showing inter-linked loops which form the starting base for tying #1425A Riggers bend.

In the attached JPG image:
[ ] the top schematic shows L/handed chirality.
[ ] the bottom schematic shows R/handed chirality.

'X' indicates the central axis - through which the tails must penetrate in opposite directions.

Note the crossing points have reversed (indicated with 'O')

Tie each knot to its conclusion...and each is the mirror of the other.

Alter any of these parameters - and you end up with something other than #1425A Riggers bend.

NOTE: I should also point out that the tying method depicted in Ashleys Book of Knots at illustration #1425A induces an instability similar to that which occurs with yChan's 'opposite twist' method (for his so-called 'False Hunters bend). The tying method illustrated capsizes into a energy stable form immediately when load is applied.
As with yChan's method - it appears at first instance that you begin with superposed loops of the same chirality. But this is a trick method - because the structure immediately capsizes into an energy stable form the moment load is applied, while trying to set & dress it.
If you reverse engineer the stablised knot - by carefully removing the tails from the central axis, you are left with none other than 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality!

Mark G

PS... Thanks for moving this thread Scott

[knotsaver]

...
ok, I tried to shelve the discussion with historical argument (by the way, I forgot to mention Miles B6 Pivotal knot (after Mandeville))
...
 Let's try to change yChan's mind   
...
YChan gives a lot of importance to the tying methods, but these are useful but can say nothing about the knot, we can obtain completely different knots with a different tuck/crossing (please, see Mandeville's Trambles (KM10,18,19,...) or Miles' symmetric end twisting (Symmetric Bends Ch8 "How to invent Symmetric Bends") p.154)).
I said a knot is a knot, it's not its tying method(s) because it is not important how we obtain the knot but how it is, how it works: it is important its structure, its topology and above all its geometry! So IMO it is more important to compare structures, geometries than tying methods! The analysis of the structure can tell us something about how the knot will work, if it will jam...the tying method not!
With this perspective the Zeppelin and the "Neat&New" are, as Xarax likes to say, rope made hinges, but the Neat&New (it's too long Neat&New I will say Bend N) distorts the pin.
2 days ago I tied a Double Zeppelin and a Double false Zeppelin eehh a Double N  (maybe useful for dyneema) they look very similar and with the "doubleness" they work in a similar way.

Hope this helps (to change yChan's mind  )
Ciao,
s.