Author Topic: Yet, another midline eyeknot  (Read 1694 times)

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2020, 12:42:47 PM »
Quote
Sorry for your concern
?
There is zero concern.
Think of it as more like a curiosity as to your motivations.

Quote
I did not know you are presenting a draft or something else
?
I wasn't.
Its a free world that we live in yChan.
I can post whatever I please, and whenever I please - provided it doesn't break forum rules.
The derived bend that drew your attention was simply thrown in by me as an after thought.
It came with no attached dialog and no accompanying information.
Any meaning that you attach to it is solely your own imagination.

And thats fine too - its a free world - you can imagine whatever pleases you.

tsik_lestat

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2020, 02:13:46 PM »
@Agent_smith

I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. I made a mistake, (apparently Ychan did it too), confusing the term "corresponding", with the term "derivative".

Moreover, the lack of a bend identifier, impeled me to hasten knot regognition, without seeing that indeed this toggled symmetrical 'bad brother' bend, can be derived from a toggled asymmetrical, inline, TIB, EHL, eyeknot, as illustrated in your image.

A mystery wafting this bend structure, is that many knotters have tied it, with their own hybrid methods, independently, (happened to me too), without knowing its existence, therefore after this fiddling, its pattern becomes in a sense, immediately/easily recognisable.

May i propose, Xarax's Hugo bend A, as a compact symmetrical, toggled, Zeppelin-like, bend/eyeknot structure as well.

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg31980#msg31980
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 02:47:26 PM by tsik_lestat »
Going knots

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2020, 12:40:58 AM »
Yes - the Hugo bend is another example of a knot that employs a toggle mechanism.
The 2 types of toggle mechanisms that seem to appear are:
1. Brace
2. Axle

And some knots employ a toggle mechanism as a critical support element; and when that toggle is removed it triggers total collapse.

In the case of the Anglers loop - removal of the toggle does not trigger total collapse.
The toggle therefore was not a critical support element.
The Anglers loop loses structural integrity when the toggle is removed but, it does not trigger total collapse (to the unknot).

The Hugo bend employs a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - when removed, it triggers total collapse.
The toggle acts as a brace. Its interesting because it is based on the integration of 2 Crossing hitches (so is the 'Carrick bend' - however the Crossing hitches are inter-linked and there is no 'toggle').

In the Zeppelin bend, the toggle is employed as an 'axle', and it is a critical support element.
When the toggle is removed, the Zeppelin bend collapses.

The so called 'EHL' employs a toggle mechanism as a brace. It is a critical support element (removal of the toggle triggers total collapse).
I think I am a fanboy of the 'EHL' - but wish it had a more fitting name!

Anyhow, this is all very interesting.
This whole idea of a toggle mechanism is opening up new lines of thought and how some knots are jam proof, or jam resistant.
The Zeppelin bend is jam proof (no jamming - even up to its MBS yield point).

I'd like to see some serious testing of the so called 'EHL' - to investigate if it is jam proof or only jam resistant.
The EHL needs testing along different axes...ie bi-axially as a through load from SPart-to-SPart but also eye loading.

It would be interesting to test a hypothesis that knots that employ a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - are jam proof?
I know that if the toggle functions as an axle (per Zeppelin bend) it = jam proof.
But what if the toggle functions as a brace - does that also = jam proof (or not)?

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 290
    • latest project
Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2020, 10:03:29 AM »
Yes - the Hugo bend is another example of a knot that employs a toggle mechanism.
The 2 types of toggle mechanisms that seem to appear are:
1. Brace   2. Axle
And some knots employ a toggle mechanism as a critical support element; and when that toggle is removed it triggers total collapse.
.
.
.
It would be interesting to test a hypothesis that knots that employ a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - are jam proof?
I know that if the toggle functions as an axle (per Zeppelin bend) it = jam proof.
But what if the toggle functions as a brace - does that also = jam proof (or not)?


But is not same axle/pin/toggle/bitt in Rigger's high tension jam?
>>just with more direct, interlaced focus of the trapping?
>>rather than the side by side 'hooks' of  Zepp.
.
i think of Rigger's harder locked/coupled box cars on same track as direct/inline unconverted force
>>Zepp more of side by side tracks, couplers bound together sideways/after force conversion as less direct.
Both would be continuous torque direction if BE's fused together as one
>>B'fly has direct , interlaced , 'coupling' of 'hooks' of Rigger's, but side relief/open side not in Rigger's
AND if BE's/eye fused as one,
>>present more of an anti-jam counter-torque of off host crossings/ Backhand Turn as exemplified in basics of  Muenter/Cow etc.
.
Those are direct pressures on axle/pin/toggle (toggle so appropriate as is in circuits: on or off /1 or 0)
Then there is more of a 'chained'  series of same dependency, only buffered.
>>more of a main toggle/axle/pin who's position is more simply stabilized w/less force by next slip pin/axle/toggle
>>besides slipped daisy chain, perhaps most classically (now) shown simply as:

as better rep than Highwayman's to same utility/task.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 10:18:02 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.~

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2020, 10:38:58 PM »
As usual, this is now morphing into an entirely different and vastly more complex subject area.

I am not a moderator and I dont speak for the IGKT but, it does seem that a new thread topic should be started if discussion is to continue to probe into the complexities of knots that employ a toggle mechanism which is a critical support element and also is an effective axle or brace to confer jam resistance.
(#1425A does not have an effective toggle axle - obviously - since it jams).

...

Somewhat more in line with the original knot that was presented by tsik_lestat, i would sincerely like to see some load testing on this to probe its level of jam resistance along different axes.
Maybe Alan Lee is still active as usual (and safe and healthy without the damn Corona virus)?

tsik_lestat

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
Re: Yet, another midline eyeknot
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2020, 05:30:30 PM »
Here is, another midline eyeknot, which appears that it can be loaded from Spart to Spart (through loaded). Note, in third image, how the two links embrace one other, subserving this bi-axial loading without jamming incidents, yielding to a stable and secure construction.

The eye loading profile appears to be immune to jamming too.

I have a TIB tying method, which will follow later, but any suggestions are welcome.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 10:06:19 PM by tsik_lestat »
Going knots