Inline noose loop

[enhaut]

I present this experimental knot in this thread for two reasons.
The simplicity of the mechanism can maybe exploit in other safer forms.
It needs "working on" an idea to make it wholesome.
Upon working with that knot the only safe usage, I saw fit was of a midline adjustable noose loop.
Because if used as a traditional loop a defecting dressing will expose a dreadful nipping leg's sliding.
The TIBness is welcome.

images = MAN-L Front
         MAN-L Front Loose
         MAN-L Back
         MAN-L Back Loose

[agent_smith]

Thanks for your presentation enhaut.

Can you please define what you mean by 'inline'?

Also, is it your design intent that there are 2 SParts?
Or is there intended to be only 1 SPart?

Some casual readers of your post may interpret your use of "inline" to mean that there are 2 SParts -and each SPart is pulled apart in opposition - so that the SParts are axially aligned in 180 degree opposition (like an inline or directional F8).

I note that if there are 2 SParts - and each is pulled in 180 degree opposition, the knot core is now offset from the axis of tension.
This is interesting to me - and I will investigate if a corresponding end-to-end joining knot (ie bend) can be created - and is stable and secure?

Have to run...off to work.

[enhaut]

@agent_smith
Thx for the heads-up.
Yes, I admit it is confusing because the presentation shows a simple loop form which  indeed was my first iteration of this knot.
Upon seeing that this option was dicey I concluded that the best outcome for this structure was to use it as an inline noose.
Here I present the inline solution with two S-parts.
My question relates to the usability of such a knot who I think possesses a high jamming threshold, but it is just a hunch.
On the other hand, the TIBness is real.
ps. I had to produce these images with bad lighting conditions hope that the rendering is acceptable.




images = MAN-L side-A
         MAN-L side-B
         MAN-L loose
         MAN-L nub view
         

[agent_smith]

In my personal view, your presentation isn't a 'noose'.

However, your use of that descriptor may of course be heavily influenced by your definition of what constitutes a 'noose'.

In the classical interpretation and use of the word 'noose' - it means an eye that shrinks as soon as load is applied.
A good example is #409 Poachers noose (ie Double overhand noose).
And there is the age old hangman's noose.
Both of these are 'slipping nooses' - where the eye cannot resist load - it shrinks.

But the definition of a 'noose' can be further qualified...
A key structural characteristic is that the knot core is able to slide up/down the SPart - so as to adjust the eye to the desired size - simply by pulling.
An example of which is a 'Prusik noose hitch' which is formed on its on SParts.
The core of the hitch can readily travel up/down its own SParts - allowing the eye to be adjusted.
When load is applied - the eye does not shrink.

In your presentation, the eye does not shrink when load is applied.
The eye of your knot is 'fixed' - in the sense that it retains its circumferential size under load.

In your case, the knot core appears to be jam resistant - and this allows the user to adjust the eye to the desired size (Note: I haven't load tested to verify the level of jam resistance).

But - I would draw your attention to #1053 Butterfly.
When this knot is biaxially through loaded (SPart-to-SPart) it is also jam resistant.
It is also possible to adjust the eye to the desired size, even after load has been applied.

I see close parallels between your presentation and #1053 Butterfly when they are biaxially through loaded (SPart-to-SPart).
(Although as stated - the core of a Butterfly knot isn't offset).

But I don't describe the Butterfly as a 'noose'....any more than I dont describe a #1047 F8 as a noose (and I can adjust the size of the eye of an F8 after light/moderate loading).
To adjust the eye of a Butterfly, some manipulation of the knot core is required.
In the same way, to adjust the eye of your presentation, some manipulation of the knot core is required.
Essentially, the SPart penetrates through the knot core - in a relatively undisturbed linear path.

In my view, there are 2 types of nooses:
1. Slipping noose; and
2. Adjustable noose (where the knot core is formed around its own SPart and no manipulation of the knot core is required).

Other examples of adjustable nooses include the Purcell, and the gnat hitch.

...

Be that as it may...

What I find very interesting with your presentation is that your knot is offset when subject to a BTL loading profile.
In contrast, the Butterfly is not offset.

If we cut the eye of your knot, it is now a corresponding end-to-end joining knot (ie bend).
It appears to be very secure and stable as a corresponding offset end-to-end joining knot.
It also appears to have a reasonably small footprint.

For me, the corresponding 'bend' is worthy of follow up investigation - as you may have made a significant discovery
Also note that all 'bends' have 4 corresponding eye knots (within a chiral type/domain).

Would you be interested in tying your eye knot as a corresponding bend?
And then investigating its security and stability under load?
Also - have you fully investigated if this knot is jam resistant? (iie how much load have you applied to check this?).

[enhaut]

I must agree with your definition of a noose and that it is not applicable to my presentation.
My reasoning to tag this knot as a noose (first post) was faulty , my thinking was that the structure under certain circumstances will act as a noose.

Also - have you fully investigated if this knot is jam resistant? (iie how much load have you applied to check this?)

I would be interested if you investigate the security of this form under load.

Didn't you inform this forum that you were buying a new load cell?

If you proceed and do some tests, I am curious to find out if my knot (bend form) can withstand the same heat as the Alpine Butterfly Bend who "appears" to have the same visual small footprint.

You could produce a comparative chart in the jamming and breaking point of both knots.

[Kost_Greg]

Hello Enhaut, i salute your new offering and your fine quality photos.

In my opinion, you have uploaded a series of images of an end termination, helical eyeknot, with a double overhand returning eye leg component stabilizator.

I think it is rather peculiar to load it as midline, in this particular form, i mean i haven't seen it before.

Nonetheless, if you wish to investigate the response of your TIB offering loaded as midline, you have to convert it into a form, where the two parallel ends change into eye legs, and the two eye legs of your original post structure, change into SParts.

Observe the axial allignment of the SParts, in the attached photo.

It appears to be rather stable, when loaded from Sparts, but remember that the double overhand, is a rough component, if you load it from this link.

You can find a TIB method that suits you, or tie the corresponding assymetrical bend, where you can think of the eyelegs of this midline form, as the tails.

[enhaut]

Hello tsik_lestat

Thx for your reply and review, as usual you go to the point giving me a particularly precise insight.

I think it is rather peculiar to load it as midline, in this particular form, i mean i haven't seen it before.

I choose the Knotting Concepts and Explorations thread to cover my grounds, this is exactly the place to propose such acrobatics propositions.

Your image (parallel ends change into eye legs) explains why I went to presenting as an inline loop rather than an end loop.

I always explore the "ring loading" deformations when devising a loop, this one showed promises and so I taught that maybe it can be used as a middle conception.

but remember that the double overhand is a rough component

Talking like Xarax would here, but you remember the vice-virtue challenge?

The image below shows my lazy side, I don?t always do the retying exercise when I can imagine the outcome right away.
 

[agent_smith]

Didn't you inform this forum that you were buying a new load cell?

? A strange comment!

'll respond as follows:
Having an actual load cell in my possession is one thing.
Waiting for a purchased load cell to arrive from overseas is entirely different matter.

While I am hopeful that my load cell will arrive before Christmas - in this covid disrupted world, anything is possible. It may not arrive until 2022!

The point here is that this is your discovery. Why don't you take the initiative and investigate further?
Why leave it only to one person to test? This is an ongoing problem in the world of knot geeks - there is not enough peer reviewed testing by others. You could prove some things for yourself...eg tie the corresponding 'bend' form as a round sling (with 2 identically tied bends within the round sling). Then pull it to its MBS yield point. There will be one 'survivor' knot. Don't need a load cell for this experiment. I am too busy at the moment with other work commitments... but, hopefully I'll get more free time as we draw closer to Christmas.

I will take another look at the corresponding 'bend' form of your knot - because I think it has merit.
It appears to be stable and secure as an offset end-to-end joining knot.
It also has a relatively small footprint.
I am not sure about jam resistance or indeed if there is an instability load threshold.... but, as stated, I will take a closer look when I've got time.

Of course, there is nothing stopping you from taking the initiative and performing some of your own tests? Or not?

[enhaut]

? A strange comment!

It is a question, not strange at all, showing that I read your many posts on the question of testing and how to calibrate the related paraphernalia. All those commentaries suggest that you have become a specialist of the field.

Thus why not ask a fellow poster and expert if he is willing to perform some tests, moreover, if its post convey some doubts about a structure's soundness.


For my part, I am not equipped to perform elaborate tests, I do not have the technical and financial means to follow a path that seems to pique your curiosity.

Sometimes with the help of different cords and very hard human pulling I can extrapolate the jamming threshold of a knot with a subjective result. That is how far I can go in the testing realm.

My interests lay elsewhere in trying to find some novelties with success or not, adding my findings to others toward the ultimate goal; the evolution of the field.

I always try to be rigorous in my presentation showing easily readable images in the hope that onlookers will at least try and tie my propositions.
Scientists thrive on precision.

I am glad to you plan to examine this offering and wish you good success doing it.

ps.
For all the time I have spent on this tying forum, it should be noted that I have known for a long time that a loop can be converted in four corresponding bends if you want to reach the casual reader convey your messages in such a way that the prime poster don?t look like a newbie.
It should also be noted that I always try the reverse form of a loop I'm working on a practice stemming from the past arguments done in the Xarax's days on this forum.

[agent_smith]

There are some more strange and somewhat peculiar comments embedded within your post... and I am not sure what is motivating you in this regard? Perhaps there is some source of irritation?
It could also be simple language barriers - that is, I am a native English speaker. English is my first language - it is actually a complex language that can have many subtle nuances.
The IGKT has members that are from nations all around the globe - and English isn't always their first language.

enhaut - as stated, I find your presented knot interesting.
One aspect that drew my attention is that a corresponding 'bend' happens to be 'offset'.
Offset rope joining knots are important in the world of climbing - and I'm always on the lookout for new ideas and/or improvements on the #1410 offset overhand bend.

Having had a closer look at the corresponding offset 'bend' - one of the rope segments (ie continuation of one of the SPart's) merely consists of simple turns - but there may be a way to build on this to improve security without a substantial increase in 'footprint'.

Reading further into your last post has some strange comments:

Thus why not ask a fellow poster and expert if he is willing to perform some tests

It is the usual practice of a person who makes a discovery to conduct a few of his own non scientific (ie homebrew / backyard) 'tests'. eg Applying own body weight and/or bouncing on a knot with own body weight. Such testing usually stems from a curiosity about their own creation, and a desire to determine its worthiness. Some have tried using a tree as an anchor and then using their vehicle as the machine to generate a force. Anyhow, these days I do have an interest in measuring a knots jamming threshold and indeed its instability threshold (if it exists). And less of an interest in 'pull-it-till-it-breaks' mindset.

I have known for a long time that a loop can be converted in four corresponding bends

Did you intend to write this comment as:
"A 'bend' (ie end-to-end joining knot) has 4 corresponding eye knots"?
Yes - an eye knot has corresponding 'bends', but, it is less obvious and harder to conceptualise the possible orientations. Easier to conceptualise going from 'bend' to an 'eye knot' (rather than the other way around).

and there is this strange comment:

if you want to reach the casual reader convey your messages in such a way that the prime poster don?t look like a newbie.

?
Hmmm.
This is a technical knot geek forum.
Obviously, knot geeks will engage in technical discussions about various knots - that is the very nature of the IGKT forum!
Technical discussions can (unfortunately) devolve into a knowledge contest - at which point one or both protagonists could become offended. The cause of offence is often related to use of language - and a persons interpretation of that language.
In this case, I certainly was not intending to make you look like a "newbie". That's actually an offensive remark. I think you mistake technical discussion with personal critique that is calculated to cause offence or harm. Again, language barriers may play a role here...
For example, if this forum was geo located in Greece, and I tired to write and reply in Greek, I would struggle, likely misinterpret everything (I don't speak Greek) - and end up sinking like the Titanic.

It should also be noted that I always try the reverse form of a loop

When you use the word "reverse" - do you mean mirror form? That is, tie a knot, then hold it adjacent to a plane mirror - with the reflected image being the inverse (or reverse) form?
Or are you intending a different meaning?

Edit note:
I'll try to take a photo of one of the corresponding offset joining knots of your presented eye knot...when I get time. I've typed this post in record time...so there are likely grammar errors...

[enhaut]

"The reverse form", maybe not the right term but I was referring to the proposition shown at reply #5
Of course there is some sources of irritation.
You are in my native language what we call a "donneur de le?ons".
Try Google translate and reflect on this meaning.
You find time to give me a lecture on the language barrier.
I have enough grasp of the English to discern your wonderful paternalism's inclination.
How is that for the nuances ?

PS: Please don?t reply, it is enough back-and-forth already.

[agent_smith]

to enhaut:

Please refrain from rude or insulting personal offensive remarks.
The IGKT is a technical knot forum - right?
By definition, a poster should expect to receive some replies of a technical nature.
This is the very essence of the IGKT forum - particularly the category of 'knotting concepts' - which by definition usually dives deeper into technical matters.

If you insist on searching for and attempting to extract offense from replies of a technical nature - this is a personal issue you need to work on.
Making comments that are calculated to insult or denigrate someone are not welcome in this forum.

As stated, I like your presentation - and it is appreciated.
I did disagree that it is a 'noose'. My choice to disagree is not an insult, nor is it calculated to be insulting or to make you appear as a 'newbie'.
People can in fact disagree about something - and still engage in courteous discourse.
Mere disagreement about the definition of something is not an excuse to engage in rude behavior.
If you retaliate each and every time a person disagrees with you - what does that achieve? Is that a constructive approach?

I also find it very interesting that a corresponding 'bend' (from your presented eye knot) is offset and appears to be stable and secure.
In my view, it is worthy of follow up investigation. Its given me some ideas which i will follow up on.
This is a good thing - that is, I'm saying well done - and bravo for opening up new lines of thinking.

Please don't reply unless you are prepared to engage in courteous, non-insulting discourse.
If you continue to make comments of a personal nature that are calculated to be insulting or to intentionally cause offense, I will report you to the moderators.

NOTE ABOUT LANGUAGE BARRIERS
I made an earlier remark about the fact that this forum is geo located in English speaking nations.
There are posters and forum visitors from all over the world - this means some may not be 100% fluent in English.
This is not an insult - it is simply a statement of fact.
If a person doesn't speak and read  English as a first language - that is not a deficiency or a disability!
English is not a simple language - there are many subtleties and nuances - some of which can have double meanings.
For those people who don't speak and read English as a first language - if you feel insulted or offended by a reply post; before replying in anger - please stop and take a moment to consider if there might be an alternative meaning. Are you 100% certain that the English speaking poster intended to harm or insult you?
That is, are you absolutely certain that the poster intended or calculated to cause harm or offend you?
If you are certain - what would be the posters motive for such behavior?
Is mere disagreement evidence of an insult or offense?
Can people disagree with you? Or is that forbidden in your culture? (ie in your national culture, is it considered rude or insulting to disagree?).
Keep in mind that the IGKT is (by definition), a technical knot forum.
It is intended for technical discussions about knots.
Not everyone will agree on a technical matter - but that shouldn't be grounds to launch a personal attack against the person or persons who disagree with you.
It should be possible for people to engage in technical discourse without resorting to insults and attacks of a personal nature.

[enhaut]

Going at it again?
More back and forth?

NOTE ABOUT LANGUAGE BARRIERS

hum?..

Keep in mind that the IGKT is (by definition), a technical knot forum.

Okay.

Please refrain from rude or insulting personal offensive remarks.

None so far.

I will report you to the moderators.

Not a good idea they are doing a good job so far on their own.

It should be possible for people to engage in technical discourse without resorting to insults and attacks of a personal nature.

Again none so far.

I guess we should stay clear of each other.