Author Topic: Newbie doubt - What class do binding knots and the half knot belong to?  (Read 1236 times)

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Hello NeopsycheMD,

Just a few housekeeping matters I need to attend to first :)   (if I may!)...

1. I don't represent the IGKT or other members on this forum.
2. My replies are purely my own thoughts and ideas.
3. I am only advancing my own theory - which is likely not perfect and will need amending.
4. I'm no 'expert'.

Here goes...

They key test (for me) if a structure can be viewed as a 'hitch' can be framed via this question... "Does it lose structural integrity when the host is removed?"

Things get tricky if the structure is a composite of hitch + knot.

In your attached image, the first (initial) structure (some would identify as a 'half knot') is not TIB (Tiable In the Bight).
If the host is removed, the initial structure does not lose structural integrity and 'collapse'. Although it could shrink to a more compact dressing state (if there was load).
It in fact exists as a self-supporting knot - found at #46 in 'ABoK' - as a simple overhand knot ('thumb knot').

If the first (initial) structure was 'TIB' - for example - a Clove hitch or a Constrictor hitch - as soon as the 'host' is removed, the TIB hitch would lose structural integrity and collapse.

...

Another example is #1720 (round turn and 2 half hitches).
What happens when the 'host' is removed?
It loses structural integrity and transforms into a 'Noose'.
This Noose is structurally a Clove hitch formed upon its own SPart (standing part).
If that SPart is then removed, the Clove hitch also loses structural integrity and collapses.

NeopsycheMD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Of course @agent_smith; will keep that in mind. And thank you; once again, that does make sense. But just to clarify- so, in your opinion, whether the 'ends' have any load or not (or the direction of the force acting on them) is immaterial when it comes to classifying a knot as a hitch, right?
I mean,... in hitches with an outward load, the force tends to pull that end away from the host. And in the mooted 'binding knots' the load appears to BE the 'host' itself, thereby exerting forces on both the ends inwards (or towards the host). And yet we could reasonably place these both kinds under the one heading of "hitches". Am I Right? Please correct me if otherwise. 

I'm really sorry for dragging this out this long. But I just want to know, like I asked before, if I could safely call the 'initial structures' of, say, a seires of stitches when suturing a laceration, as "hitches" (without blatantly offending someone, maybe😅)

Regards,
-Dr. A

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Hello again NeopsycheMD,

In reply to your question... and again keeping in mind the caveat of the above 4 key points I raised:

The question of load as being a necessary ingredient in declaring if a knot can exist has been raised before.
That is, some might posit that load is a necessary ingredient to identify and classify a 'knot'.
Others would disagree - and posit that load is not a requirement - that a knot can exist and be classified without being subjected to load.
I use the term 'knot' in a broad sense here... to encompass all bends, hitches and self-supporting knots.

If we make the requirement that a 'knot' can only exist and be classified when subjected to load - this (in my view) introduces difficulties.
You could run your own thought experiments here... and try to come up with scenarios to either prove or disprove a proposition (sort of like Einstein and Bohr with their great debates over the nature of quantum mechanics - and also Schrodinger's cat).

For me, the existence of load is not a necessary ingredient - but, I may be proved wrong.
It may be useful to conceptualize what would occur if load was to be applied after the 'host' is removed - in a sort of thought experiment.

I've attached some images to clarify some concepts...

Sounds like you are a doctor/surgeon?
If your colleagues are susceptible to being offended because of a name change (ie by calling a hitch a knot or vice versa) - i think you have bigger issue to contend with!

NeopsycheMD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Thanks again @agent smith. Your replies are compelling. Greatly appreciate the help. And the images are really helpful as well. But yeah, this will still probably remain mildly contentious then, I guess.
And regarding the last Q, yeah, a general surgeon. But I was not refering to the colleagues, so much as the knot tying community in general. Most surgeons I've known wouldn't really give a tinker's damn about proper knot terminologies, let alone classifications. We're pretty complacent with a very few made-up terms of our own for these ;)😅.

G'day!
Regards,
-Dr. A

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Dr NeopsycheMD,

Just before you vanish into thin air... I thought I'd share some more concepts with you :)

On the subject of knot terminology - I can confirm that there is no consistent approach across the world.
I can go one step further than that... there is no international standard for knot terminology (eg like an 'ISO' standard).

The real question here is: "Why is there no consistent approach or no international standard for knot terminology?"

If you can answer that question, you would possibly be a contender for the Nobel prize in knotting (if there was one)!

...

Here are some points which are guaranteed to raise controversy!

1. 'Loop' versus 'Eye'.
https://learningknots.com/terminology/  Note how underhand and overhand is used to define a 'loop' (which is nebulous in my view).
Note also the definition of an 'elbow'...

2. 'Elbow' versus 'Twist' (either S twist or Z twist)
See these links for examples of how an elbow is defined:
https://www.ropebook.com/information/knots/terminology/
https://www.netknots.com/rope_knots/rope-knot-terms
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Parts_of_the_knot

3. 'Turn' versus '180 degree U turn'; 360 degree turn; 540 degree round turn; and so on...
The definition of a 'turn' is muddled by many knot book authors and websites.

...

Anyhow, knot tyers can be passionate - and you can be assured that some will be offended if you try to change old concepts.
I don't have all the answers... but I do like to ask questions!

NeopsycheMD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Thanks again @agent_smith. It's strangely comforting to know that. In fact, these are some very things I've been having a hard time wrapping my head around. I remember having come across some such heated conflicts in this forum as well. Anyway, I think matters will stay resolvedly unresolvable. Guess I'll just lay it to rest at that.😅
And hope you're doing well, in these dark times. Sending good vibes your way. Stay safe!
-Dr. A

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
whether the 'ends' have any load or not (or the direction of the force acting on them)
is immaterial when it comes to classifying a knot as a hitch, right?
?!  No, not per my definitions : a hitch is a knot
of one piece of cordage and an object in which
one end is loaded in opposition to the object
and the other end is not loaded.
(That's for a basic hitch, neverminding that one
can think of more complex things (and the simple
girth hitch).

Quote
I mean,... in hitches with an outward load, the force tends to pull that end away from the host.
Yes, as noted above.
 
Quote
And in the mooted 'binding knots' the load appears to BE the 'host' itself, thereby exerting forces on both the ends inwards (or towards the host).
Hmmm, the "forces on both ends inwards"
seems to slip in a practicality belying my definition;
the ends have no resistance (but mass/inertia),
and I'd not go so far as you do, here.
But it does put *binder* qua class in a challenging light!

Which I should remark shows my classification
having a *formal*/IvoryTower view : one needs
the defined loading, really, to establish the
entity; devoid of load, it's ... *a*-defined (the "a"
vs "un" as in "amoral"/"immoral", so ... vs. "undefined").

Quote
And yet we could reasonably place these both kinds
under the one heading of "hitches". Am I Right?
Some might, but I like my thoughts of the circle
w/"X" in it indicating the tangle, and however
many ends emerging, to be given a loading profile
per class.  And my hitch & binder classes have the
necessary object, and different loading profiles.
Quote
But I just want to know, like I asked before,
if I could safely call the 'initial structures' of, say,
a series of stitches when suturing a laceration,
as "hitches" (without blatantly offending someone, maybe😅)

You could possibly call them "bends" or "bights"
and many would be none the wiser!
But would "a series of knots" work?
"throws" is used in the multi-square knotting,
yes?)

Quote
Say we have a series of square knots (does this have a name?),
a simple series of halfknots of alternating [handedness] in succession,
formed around a host solid.
Would one call the first knot (layer) a hitch
and the rest of the securing knots (overhand knots) on top of it 'knots';
Or would one consider the whole thing as a single unit
and place it under 'hitches'? or 'binding knots' as a separate category
as Dan_Lehman would probably do?
Per my loading-profile basis,
the first throw is a binder, were that all :
the "overhand" crossing and unloaded tails.
Completing a squaREef knot as a next step
opens our can of worms : at this point (ends
unloaded), I'd call it a binder,
but sans object (removed, say) AND LOADED
as a round sling, it's an end-2-end knot (a knot
with 2 pieces (1-2 & A-B) with end-1 loaded
vs. end-A, the others slack.
And further with the "throws" ... , egadz, one
does face definitional chaos.  (Put overhand
stoppers
in the tails ultimately, and THOSE
I'm happy to see as separate, "back-up" knots.
But one can construct problematic cases with
these or their like, too.)

What, really, hinges/matters on this definition?


--dl*
====

ps : Re "bight", it's recently occurred to me that
it might be pushed to take primarily, openly,
the U-shaped-construct sense,
and we'll hope for a better term for the sense
of "without using cordage ends"; what of this
might remain in some knot names, eh, just
shrug.  (And escaping all English terms --i.e.,
having a mixture of language sources-- for
some terms would be good.
("TIB"=>"SULE"  >>> " sans utiliser les extre'mite's ", say ? )
)
« Last Edit: June 10, 2020, 11:47:43 PM by Dan_Lehman »

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 290
    • latest project
i  think  of a Hitch USAGE as a node deformity in otherwise smooth linear force rope run as termination of force line thru rope.
>>to decreasing force thru rope arcs, from linear force to radial conversion at restriction against.
>>primary arc /conversion point is on opposite/opposing side of host mount than imposing load of equal force.
.
Binding is not end to end like linear, but seized ends of change only
>>radial force is constrained by radial force
>>no conversion, no loss/no decreasing force thru arcs(only ends)
thus same rope force all around as Equal /Opposite reflection back w/o conversion loss.
Equal 'radial glow' of force from host, met evenly by rope restriction against.
No external force, self contained arc system
.
As we go from radial restriction to linear pass to radial restriction etc. in series to me is chain  system
>>even as list of Half Hitches or Marls etc. to some termination point.
Stitch line seems would have 'bookends' /anchors of Binding knots as self contained force, not from external pull in USAGE if tensioned
Granny side feeds to Bind direction lend to this some,
>>and is  more self equalizing>> but can tear at skin in doing so
.
To this model Capstan Equation NEEDS linear input, thus does not exist in Binding
>>Equal force thru linear pass portion, converting to compounding force reduction thru arcs give the effect.
.
i  define arc as 180, mid apex between 2x90s; mid/apex lines up parallel (at  least) with linear input (SPart)
1arc  : Turn     
2arcs: Full Turn (generally not seen)
3arcs: Round Turn(RT)
5arcs: Dbl. Round Turn (Dbl.RT)
7arcs: Coil
A simple Turn is just a reverse in direction @ friction cost
Full Turn throws in 2nd arc for some grip from line of force between each arc apex into/thru host mount, but not as usable in termination/as goes on to next distant point.
RT adds another arc, firmer grip, force line between arc apexes more 2 dimensional grip; can take some side force, and capstan equation frictions starting to show much harder etc.
Binding is different..
« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 09:45:31 AM by KC »
Rope-n-Saw Life
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~