Unnamed double loop knot

[SS369]

Hello all,
I am newly registered and have very little idea of the correct procedure to ask for some help so I will just get to it and will take the admonishments as they come.
Some long time ago I was fiddling around and came upon a knot in my hands that I could not and still have not found any reference containing it. I would like to submit it to you for examination.
I call it the "ScottKnot".
I can describe how I tie it if anyone shows any interest or if it happens to be a new one.
Any and all comments are welcome.
Thanks ahead of time.
SS369

[squarerigger]

Hi SS

OK - I'll bite - how do you tie it?  I can follow your cord so I assume (which usually gets me in trouble) that is not the way you do it.  What is it used for and/or what does it replace or do better?

Squarerigger

[DerekSmith]

Hi Scott,

That sure is a neat little knot.  Its a bit slippery in my twiddling string (3mm braid) and the loops tend to flow when pulled against the knot, but none the less, I like 'neat' knots and this sure is.

Yes please, pray tell how you tie it and also what you have used it for.

Derek

[SS369]

Hello Squarerigger and Derek,

so nice of you both to respond so quickly and interestedly !

The knot is a fairly secure one, well balanced, easy to tie and easy to untie as well. Fits the bill I think for a good knot.

It can be used for many double looped applications. I have used it as a temporary climbing sit harness ( as it's loops are easily adjusted to any size) with the addition of an upper body loop (bowline on the bight). It worked well. I haven't done any scientific testing with it, but have yanked and pulled till I was tired. Never did it capsize for me. I will leave any additional testing for men with better backgrounds and experiences in this field.

As for what it does better? Only a curious mind at work here and a love of knotting.

Now on to the tying of it.
Simplest way I know to describe how it can be tied is to make a prusik knot in hand, sans the rope it could go around, then draw the outer bights from each end through the inner coils. Then just snug it all up by pulling the loops to the desired size and then work the standing and working parts to tighten.
Do it once and it will become an easy task and you will have another knot under your belts.
I would love to read more input and if anyone can tell where or when they have seen this, if they have.

Sincerely,
Scott

[SS369]

Hello Squarerigger , Derek and Everyone Else,

No feedback so I am unsure what to make of your opinions. Or if by chance this might be a new knot?



SS

[turks head 54]

Hello,

That knot looks like a spanish bowline. It looks strong. If I have to do any work up high I'll try using it as a harness.

[Dan_Lehman]

Hello Squarerigger , Derek and Everyone Else,
No feedback so I am unsure what to make of your opinions. Or if by chance this might be a new knot?

Well, SS, it wasn't all so "new" half a decade ago when you enquired,
it's probably not gotten any newer since then, don't you think?   

--to wit, my response:

My mistake: shortly after we engaged in discussing your knot, the IGKT's Knotting Matters disclosed the knot--Owen Nuttall,
of the UK, wrote that "the Boson's Double-loop and the Double-Loop Lark's Head [i.e., Scott Knot] were sent to the Guild in
the eighties." He also presents four other dbl.loop knots [km71:06-12]. Of course, I'll send to you a copy of the pp..
KM#71 is June 2001, so it arrived after our engagement but I hadn't looked closely at the article!

 

[SS369]

Hello Dan, so nice of you to remember me! I am sorry that my halfhiemers kicked in and after some digging and prying I pulled up that memory data and wouldn't you know, you are right. Well I didn't get any newer since then either.
I am hoping to discuss its merits if any one has the desire to. I would love a knowledge filled discourse on it's pro's and con's.
I do think that perhaps my "discovered" way of tying the "Scottknot" or "Double-Loop Lark's Head" may be new?
So what do you think?
And thank you for being the knotter of days gone by.

SS

And to turks head 54, thank you for some interest and please be careful and try it out close to the ground first. Check back to this posting for further erudite proliferations.
I hope.

[DerekSmith]

Isn't it ever the case that the 'Devil is in the Detail'

Yes, at first sight the Scottknot looks a lot like the Spanish.  But when you look at the Spanish in detail (see the following image courtesy of the Knot Knowledge website)



You can see that the loop one side is connected directly to the loop the other side, while in the ScottKnot this connector comes from opposite side loops which cross first in front of the two load lines.  The Spanish is {OI-26:15} while the ScottKnot is {OI-34:15}

Now Dan reminds us that the ScottKnot has previously been identified as the double loop Larkshead.  Sadly Dan you have fallen foul of your earlier criticism
of declaring a name as sufficiency for knot structure and as back issues of KM are not yet available to members online, we will have to rely on you posting a diagram from that publication from half a decade ago.

However, in the meantime, here is an image I have found of the double loop Larkshead on the Dickey Family site http://dickeyfamilyresearch.com/knot_pics/bowline_pics/bowline_014.jpg



It is {OI-26:15} and from what I can make out, it is exactly a match for the Spanish.  So, unless the Larks head loop published in KM is a different variant of Double Loop Larkshead knot, then I think we can safely say that the Scottknot remains previously unpublished and therefore attributable to Scott, along with his method of tying.

I would have to say that I would be surprised if this extremly neat little double loopknot had not been discovered and published before, but perhaps Scott really has found one of the gems of knotting.

I have now lived with this little beauty for some time and at last I have realised what has been bugging me about it.  It is the Myrtle knot, published by Dave Root, but with one side doubled and configured externally into two loops.  Although the knot has a perfect Myrtle structure, the Myrtle itself is a single loop knot so there is no way it can hold provenance or lineage over the Scottknot.  I really like the Myrtle because of its neatness and ease of tying using the constrictor loop method.  Now its two loop cousin is here to match its simplicity and ease of tying.

I would like to think that congratulations are in order Scott, but perhaps we had better wait for Dan to publish the images from the KM article from June 2001 before popping any 'tinnies'.

Derek

[Dan_Lehman]

But when you look at the Spanish in detail ... You can see that the loop one side is connected directly to the loop the other side,
while in the ScottKnot this connector comes from opposite side loops which cross first in front of the two load lines.

Now Dan reminds us that the ScottKnot has previously been identified as the double loop Larkshead.  ...
 we will have to rely on you posting a diagram from that publication from half a decade ago.

However, in the meantime, here is an image I have found of the double loop Larkshead on the Dickey Family site ...
It is {OI-26:15} and from what I can make out, it is exactly a match for the Spanish.  So, unless the Larks head loop published in KM
is a different variant of Double Loop Larkshead knot, then I think we can safely say that the Scottknot remains previously unpublished
and therefore attributable to Scott, along with his method of tying.

I'm not sure how many people beyond SS I'm "reminding", otherwise "informing"--and there are those
among us who can confirm my citation (i.p., Scott has, upon the reminder).  Interesting name dug up
by the Dickey Family, but then knot names are a muddle--though here we have the case of a well-established
(and in the nautical history of knotting) name, viz. "Spanish Bwl", being ignored though I think much of such
historical sources constitute the Dickey's research domain (i.p., Hansel&Gretel).

I would have to say that I would be surprised if this extremely neat little double loopknot had not been discovered
 and published before, but perhaps Scott really has found one of the gems of knotting.

Oh, but there are hundreds of neat gems, and a splayed-loops LK as neat as this and perhaps more
discoverably obvious, which I shared w/SS, but has apparently been missed in the literature.
(Finding a purpose for such structures is a challenge, and there are common knots that suffice.)

...this little beauty ...   is the Myrtle knot, published by Dave Root, but with one side doubled and configured externally into two loops.
Now its two loop cousin is here to match its simplicity and ease of tying.
... but perhaps we had better wait for Dan to publish the images from the KM article from June 2001 before popping any 'tinnies'.

If you are seeing Myrtle here, I think some tinnies have been more than popped!

--some aspects, maybe, hmmm, on some loadings, but not others; I think the relation is more distant ...

--dl*
====

[DerekSmith]

Dan,

Cutting to the chase, have you been able to confirm that the 2001 publication of KM showed the Dickie Family rendition of the Double Loop Larkshead (DLL) to be wrong or is the DLL in reality simply another name for the Spanish Bwl.?

Re seeing Myrtle though a 'tinnie' haze.  My local Pub is a Freehouse and has some good Guest Ales on tap, so there could be good reason to see things which might require a significant stretch of the imagination.  But this is not the case for the Scottknot/ Myrtle association, and I find that to be able to visualise the inner structures of a knot I need a perfectly clear mind.

In the Myrtle, you have two cords crossing one another, passing through one another's full turns and then 'wired up' externally to form a loopknot.  You could call this a 1:1 .  There are of course, the double variants where one of the lines takes two turns through the others turn, we might call this the 1x2:1 or if both lines are double, then it would be the 1x2:1x2.  Of course trebbles and more are possible and in fact the 1x3:1 Myrtle loopknot is a very nice knot.  If however, The lines are doubled, i.e. two lines are passed through the others turn, then we would have a 2:1 and this is in fact the Scotknot, or a double loop Myrtle.

If you clean up the Scottknot, removing extraneous twists and crossings you will find it; a 2:1 double loop Myrtle, with a construction method suitable for creating it mid line -- I think that is quite some find.

A lesson to learn though from its parentage is that in the x1 variants, the Myrtle has very little self holding power, the slightest loosening and the knot can pop open and could flow.  Heeding this, the Scottknot should only be used in permanently loaded situations, and because both the doubled legs each feed to one of the loops, then the load should be applied to both input lines because the Myrtle x1 is prone to cogging and an unloaded end could easily flow through the knot.



See, no haze and even moderate focus.

Derek

[Dan_Lehman]

have your been able to confirm that the 2001 publication of KM showed the Dickie Family rendition
of the Double Loop Larkshead (DLL) to be wrong or is the DLL in reality simply another name for the Spanish Bwl.?

Names are correct by what measure?  --some debate potential there, but ... .

I've confirmed that what SS presents--the finished knot--matches what Owen Nuttall presented
at km71:11 (2001 June).  I've not pursued the naming issue.  One might guess that the Dickey source
predated Owen's naming of it (for whatever that is worth).  E.g., one can remark that neither has as
near a match to Larkshead workings as a triple-collared knot I just fiddled in pursuit of that:  in that
the turns of the SParts don't go into a/the collar, which is formed form legs of the eyes.  AND, yes,
by golly a proper two-collar knot best fitting the name exists--left as an exercise for the students of knotting
to fiddle themselves (at least for now).  (Egads, and more ... --shoot, I'll never be done w/these now ... .)

--dl*
====

[SS369]

Hello Derek and Dan,
the knot that Owen Nuttall showed in the KM looks very similar and has the basic overall structure, but, it is the not "removing extraneous twists and crossings" that indeed make it different!  I think that the crossings add to the overall binding of the cord to itself and make it a weebit more secure.(?) And so the finished knot with the crossings and extraneous twists is not the same as it is said to be.
In my hands the ScottKnott did not give up as easily as the DLL that you Derek show in the picture and Mr. Nuttall had drawn for the KM.
And certainly the method of tying I presented is moderately easier than what I saw in KM, especially for these working hands of mine.
I believe that there is some merit, when posting pictures here, to consider showing both sides of the knot. It sometimes can answer some questions that verbal descriptions leave unanswered. Pictures are very cheap nowadays and easy to post.
And Dan here's to you:  "The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday".  Thanks for all you do. ;-)

[Dan_Lehman]

the knot that Owen Nuttall showed in the KM looks very similar and has the basic overall structure,
but, it is the not "removing extraneous twists and crossings" that indeed make it different!  ...
And so the finished knot with the crossings and extraneous twists is not the same as it is said to be.

Hmmm, to clarify, then:  Nuttall shows a tying method that results--from its final, arrowed-to-completion step--
in a Not-Quite-ScottKnot (a "ScottNot"); but his final, completed-knot image indeed matches the ScottKnot,
"extraneous twists & crossings" nowhere to be seen.  One might presume a bit of "dressing" before setting?
(It is a simple & obvious matter to dress it thus.)

--dl*
====

[DerekSmith]

It is a real pain not having all the back copies of KM available on the website for members to download.

I have asked if this could be done and even volunteered to convert back copies to pdf and have been told that it is already in hand.  Trouble is, anything that is 'in hand' with this Guild seems to proceed at a pace most amateur organisations would be ashamed of.  It wouldn't be so bad if there was an efficient means of obtaining hard copies of back issues.  Requests for these seem to vanish into the same black hole of inactivity as the process of converting the archive to pdf seems to reside in.

Apologies Scott for going off topic -- just needed to have a Victor Meldrew moment -- Thanks, I feel better now.

Derek