Quick tie Kalmyk Loop Knot

[alanleeknots]

Hi All,
         I have a video here, " Quick tie Kalmyk Loop Knot " hope you like it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61mxfWz1LcY
謝謝 alanleeknots.

[agent_smith]

As usual, impressive Mr Lee!

Ashley missed the slipped 'Anti-Bowline' (aka Kalmyk, aka slipped Cossack)  in his seminal book.

At 0:11 in your video, the knot (with Z chirality) has the tail rotated/twisted so it lies outside of the eye.
Normally, the tail would lie inside the eye - as per the top right knot in my attached image.

At 1:17 in your video, the knot on the right (with S chirality) also has the tail rotated/twisted so it lies outside of the eye.
Normally, the tail would lie inside the eye - as per the top left knot in my attached image.

Its probably a quirk of the lightening fast tying method you use...

[tsik_lestat]

Ashley missed the slipped 'Anti-Bowline' (aka Kalmyk, aka slipped Cossack)

I am not really sure if a slipped `Anti-Bowline`, is a kalmyk loop (or at least the knot presented in the previous video).
The slipped `Anti-Bowline`,has a simple helical nipping loop, while the knot shown in Mr Lee's presentation, under closer inspection, has a crossing knot nipping component.But is there a relation between those two knots? I believe it is as follows.........

1)Start with an anti-bowline with the tail inside the eye.

2)Flip the bight structure 180 degrees towards the SP. This moves the tag end outside the eye, transforming the simple nipping loop to a crossing knot nipping structure at the same time.

3)Just slipp the tag end to get the kalmyk.

It seems rather easy to loosen the collar of the kalmyk, if you load the knot heavily.

[agent_smith]

I am not really sure if a slipped `Anti-Bowline`, is a kalmyk loop (or at least the knot presented in the previous video).
The slipped `Anti-Bowline`,has a simple helical nipping loop, while the knot shown in Mr Lee's presentation, under closer inspection, has a crossing knot nipping component.

You might want to look even closer, your eyes have deceived you.

Wikipedia is not always correct - and you have to be careful - but, I suggest that you look at this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_bowline

The so called 'Eskimo' Bowline is actually an 'anti-Bowline'.
The Eskimo Bowline is also claimed to be a 'Cossack knot/loop'.

The slipped version of these has the name 'Kalmyk loop'.

The nipping component is in fact based on a helical loop. So it is correctly identified as a nipping loop.

[Trakl]

Mr. Lee,

Your video arrived as if vouchsafed from heaven.  I have just recently been fumbling with tying the Kalmyk loop without having it around a fixed anchor point and the movements have been less than satisfactory.  Your method has remedied this for me, I tip my hat to you sir.

Regarding the tail lying outside of the eye: when I tie the Kalmyk loop with the Z chirality that you show first in your video, and pull the slipped end through to create the Cossak loop, i then put my hands into the loop and ring load the knot (transforming it into the Anti-Bowline that is pictured in Mark's images) which actually turns the tail up and into the inside of the eye.  I thought it might just be the rope I was using (PMI 8mm accessory cord), but after trying it with several other types of cord, it reacts in the same manner.

I had noticed a very subtle difference in the way the rope lies in relation to the collar and the nipping loop when the Cossak loop is tied.  This seems to be caused by the force applied in a vertical direction towards the end of the loop (which can also be deceiving in its structure).  As the force is applied in a horizontal direction (i.e. ring loaded), one can watch the tail slowly roll into the loop, and the more conventional form of the Anti-Bowline appears.

[agent_smith]

I had noticed a very subtle difference in the way the rope lies in relation to the collar and the nipping loop when the Cossak loop is tied.  This seems to be caused by the force applied in a vertical direction towards the end of the loop (which can also be deceiving in its structure).  As the force is applied in a horizontal direction (i.e. ring loaded), one can watch the tail slowly roll into the loop, and the more conventional form of the Anti-Bowline appears.

Look closely at the 4 anti-Bowlines in my image (above at reply #1).
In any of the 4 variations, you can 'force' the tail out of position by inducing a slight twist/rotation of the 'bight' component.
My photos show each of the 4 variations in its 'neutral' (natural) orientation (with no induced twist/rotation).

My comments/remarks re Alan Lee's video were not intended as a criticism - rather, it was simply an observation that I noticed that the 'bight component' had an induced rotation/twist.
I conjectured that his lightening/rapid tying method was likely causing the slight rotation/twist of the bight component.
Again - this must NOT be interpreted as criticism of Alan Lee - it's merely an observation.

[tsik_lestat]

You might want to look even closer, your eyes have deceived you

I shall try eating more carrots!!

I noticed that the 'bight component' had an induced rotation/twist.

I have already told you that in my previous reply, when i described the flip\twisted bight structure, providing a method for the transition from the anti-bowline (aka eskimo), to the kalmyk.

More details in the following link, always in good faith!!!

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=9e964e130a215416afe399baf6af2977&topic=5324.msg35343&fbclid=IwAR1feZHtB7mn0koXlfcydl3JofqF9ZL5gb0pbLyh8V4jXHvgmC3oR0zTF08#msg35343

[agent_smith]

I have already told you that in my previous reply, when i described the flip\twisted bight structure, providing a method for the transition from the anti-bowline (aka eskimo), to the kalmyk.

More details in the following link, always in good faith!!!

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=9e964e130a215416afe399baf6af2977&topic=5324.msg35343&fbclid=IwAR1feZHtB7mn0koXlfcydl3JofqF9ZL5gb0pbLyh8V4jXHvgmC3oR0zTF08#msg35343

The anti-Bowline in its slipped form (aka 'Kalmyk') - and indeed an anti-Bowline with the bight component rotated/twisted - does not have a fully formed #206 Crossing hitch.
I regard it as a partially formed #206 Crossing hitch.

If you look at the attached image in this post - you can see a virtual Bowline built from a fully formed #206 Crossing hitch (a derivative of the so-called Karash double loop).

...

The heart of the issue is how you wish to define a #206 Crossing hitch.

For example, is mere appearance sufficient to declare it as such?
Or, must there be other qualifiers to clearly define what a #206 Crossing hitch is?

In my mind, #206 Crossing hitch (known to climbers as a Munter hitch) works on account of a capstan effect along with friction caused by rope-to-rope contact.
In a fully formed Crossing hitch, a rope segment performs a U turn around its own SPart - and exerts a degree of pressure on the SPart.
In the Karash single loop (derived from the Karash double loop) - we can see a fully formed #206 Crossing hitch.

In the Anti-Bowline, there are various dressing states and tail alignments that can be achieved - and depending on the particular dressing state - you can achieve a partial #206 Crossing hitch.

I don't think anyone has attempted to define the #206 Crossing hitch structure with precision.
It is an open argument.

I think arguments for the boundary transition point where a loop becomes a Crossing hitch will be difficult to define - because it may not be constrained solely to a 180 degree U turn around its own SPart. Looking to Ashley may not be helpful either, because he never precisely defined a loop let alone a Crossing hitch (for example, Ashley did not appear to have a concept of loop chirality).

EDIT: I've added some more images

[alanleeknots]

     Thanks for all the replied.