International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: xarax on August 26, 2011, 07:17:09 PM
-
As one can see, there in no explicit "statement" that the knot I show at the attached pictures is a Practical Knot. There is nothing that can "prove" that this knot is a Practical knot. There is no mention of any Application of this knot, or any use of this knot. There is no "demonstration of the practical nature"(sic) of this knot (1). There is not even a description that classifies this knot into a knot category ( a bend, a loop, a hitch, a stopper, etc. ). All that there is, is a series of pictures of this knot.
So, according to the opinion that some people are trying to impose in this Forum, this thread should be removed from this section of the Forum, after some opinion poll, or even automatically, without any such poll.
I may be a liar, but I am also curious to see what are those people going to do... I guess that they will succeed to remove this thread, the one way or the other, from this section. Then, I guess that they are going to do the same thing with the next knot I will post in this section, with the same warning, and then with the next, etc.. When all the knots I have tied, and taken pictures of, will be moved to another section, I will have to tie new knots. No problem ! :) The Practical KnotLand may not be "vast", but it is huge, believe me on this ! :)
P.S. A screwdriver, is it a tool ? Can I post a picture of it in a "tools" forum? If I so, do I have to "demonstrate" its practical nature, to "prove" that it is a tool, indeed, by showing the screw that I am going to screw with it ? :)
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3565.msg20373#msg20373
-
2.
-
I've been known to use a similar knot at the end of a lanyard for holding the two parts of a striker set. I think I like your knot better.
-
Thank you, drnihili,
I have not thought of this application/use you describe, when I was tying this knot, or when I was presenting it in this thread. So, a practical application or use can be discovered, even AFTER a knot is tied and presented. And it can be discovered by another person than the person that has discovered the knot in the first place, BECAUSE the first knot tyer was able to publish the knot, and the second knot tyer was informed about this knot, and figured out an application/use - an application/use that had never crossed the first knot tyer s mind !
"Practical Knot fundamentalists" do not understand this. They believe that if there is a problem, we may discover a solution to this problem. So, the use dictates the tool that is going to be used. They do not understand that, often times, it is the exact opposite that happen to be the case. If there is a tool, we may discover an application/use for this tool. The tool reveals applications and uses that were not known before its discovery.
If the knot is simple enough, and stable enough, and secure enough, it is very probable that an application or use of it will be discovered, that had not crossed our mind in advance. If we demand that the knot tyer should publish a knot, only if he has "demonstrated its practical nature", only if he had "proven" that this knot is "better" than all other knots, only if he had "stated explicitly an application/use" for this knot, if we demand all those things in advance, we will kill the knot tyer s creativity, and limit the practical knots, and their applications, and their uses, only to what is already known. We will kill any progress in the field of knotting ! Is that what the "silent" or not majority of knot tyers in this forum really wish to happen ?
-
Xarax,
This looks very familiar.
I'd like to ask you a question, which is not intended to anger you or cause you to become defensive:
What are the practical advantages and disadvantages of this knot?
-
What are the practical advantages and disadvantages of this knot?
I do not know, yet. I would be glad if somebody tells me something about it. I doubt that it will be you, but miracles happen !
As you see, I have not stated any practical advantages or disadvantages, applications or uses, demonstrations or proofs, that this is a Practical Knot. So, what are you waiting for ? Why you do not report this thread, so it will be moved or removed from the forum ? Am I have to "be waiting long" for you to act as you are acting the last two years, and 572 posts, and 83 threads ? Or you do not understand what I am talking about, because your Google translator failed to translate my incomprehensible language to your superior one ? Should I write the same things in my "native language", coming out of this third world north african country, where they have only recently discovered writing, and where nobody speaks English ?
P.S. Should the mere action of asking questions, that are rhetoric or provocative - to say the least- be considered as a "contribution" to the advance knotting ? If yes, you are a great knot tyer, indeed...
-
...Or you do not understand what I am talking about, because your Google translator failed to translate my incomprehensible language to your superior one ? Should I write the same things in my "native language", coming out of this third world north african country, where they have only recently discovered writing, and where nobody speaks English ?
*sigh* Well, I tried.
-
Xarax,
I appreciate that you are not a native English speaker and I do think that your grasp of English is generally excellent. However, your previous post was unnecessarily insulting to someone who asked a perfectly reasonable question. Please limit your comments to the discussion topic and do not use this forum to make personal attacks on any poster.
-
your previous post was unnecessarily insulting to someone who asked a perfectly reasonable question.
You are right, of course. I agree on both of what you are saying.
However, this "someone"(sic) is insulting me any time he wishes to, "the last two years, and 572 posts, and 83 threads". How did you failed to notice that? How many times have you told to him, the same thing you are telling to me, when he was insulting me ? Do not bother to count, I have done this "extensive" work for you : 0 (zero).
do not use this forum to make personal attacks on any poster
How many times have you told to him, the same thing you are telling to me, when he was insulting me ? Do not bother to count, I have done this "extensive" work for you : 0 (zero), again ! What a coincidence ! :)
I suggest this : Me and roo delete ALL posts that we are referring to each other. ( They are plenty ! :) ) And agree that no one of us post anything in a thread initiated by the other, without first a peer review by the Wb-Administrator. Is it a fair proposal ?
I have been insulted by roo many times, some times so harshly that I was left with the impression - justified by the language, the tone and the hypocritical way of the insult - that I was a victim of a racist behaviour. I am not telling that I am sure that this was his real motive, I am saying that I was left with this impression. In some of my replies, I was also very harsh and unacceptable rude with him, but only as a legitimate defence. I would be happy to make a new start , if he wishes the same, and my proposal has this meaning. Now, you can consider this proposal be some "strings attached"(sic) from me to obey your notice. Not at all ! To say the truth, I would be proved to be correct in my accusations against him, if he succeeds to ban me from the forum, indefinitely, as I had predicted he will try to. I will not forget who is the "someone" :) who asks a " perfectly reasonable question" :). He did it probably because he predicted you were going to swallow his trick, and intervene to correct me - as you should have done indeed, if this "someone" was not "him", and this "perfectly reasonable question" was not a cunningly chosen rhetoric one, to prove that the knot is not a Practical knot, or make me respond as I had, or something other equally malicious. As it is evident that you have not followed our history of mutual insulting, you have bitten ihis bait ! :)
Tell me Web-Admin, do you REALLY believe that I would have responded the way I had, to some stranger that would have wished to ask me this question ? If yes, do not leave your day job for this unpaid administrator work ! :)
I am dying to have a dialogue with anybody that wishes to talk to me about one f... knot ! I spend much time and effort travelling ALONE in this huge KnotLand, with the HOPE I meet a knot and bring it back to SOMEBODY . And you think that I "use this forum to make personal attacks"sic) to the rare bird, in the middle of the desert, that happens to ask me a question, that happens to have some interest in something I have made after so much time and effort ? If yes, I frankly suggest you take some prolonged vacancies, together with roo... :)
If you are offended by my language, as you should (!), make a brake, and study my proposal above, for a new start in my relations with roo. Then, delete this reply, that was intended to make you see the things not exactly as roo succeeded to make you think them, for yet another time !
Well, I tried.
Indeed you did ! Congratulations ! Your victims, the Web-Admin and me, salute you Caesar ! :)
-
1. There will be no more mass deleting of posts, thank you.
2. I am not the Web Admin. I am the Webmistress.
3. My job is not unpaid.
4. You are now trolling and I do not tolerate trolls [1]
This is your final warning.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29.
-
1. There will be no more mass deleting of posts, thank you.
I speak about deleting isulting posts, that should have been deleted by you right after they were posted. Is it a "mass deletion of posts" ? Thank you.
2. I am not the Web Admin. I am the Webmistress.
I do not know the difference, and I do not care about it. I have told you what I should tell to an authority which manages things in this Forum. [/quote]
3. My job is not unpaid.
That means you should be more careful when other people are insulting each other for two years, not less !
4. You are now trolling and I do not tolerate trolls This is your final warning.
You are unfair, and you threat me without reason, and I do not tolerate threats (1)
1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat
-
I do not make threats. I give warnings.
You are now banned for 14 days.
-
Xarax,
This looks very familiar.
I'd like to ask you a question, which is not intended to anger you or cause you to become defensive:
What are the practical advantages and disadvantages of this knot?
A similar if not identical knot was published in Knotting Matters in I think March this year (I can't find my copy or copy of the original which was sent to me as secretary to pass to the editor).
Barry
Barry
-
A similar if not identical knot was published in Knotting Matters in I think
March this year (I can't find my copy or copy of the original which was sent
to me as secretary to pass to the editor).
Barry
Ah, yes, you're right (and I might match you in
(dis)iorganization/findability of received mail, alas!).
It's surprising that this seems to be a *new* knot, given that
it is so like ABOK #1097, which treats the trio of paired
parts (the twin ends & two bights) as equals and gives each
the like relation to one of its neighbors --A is to B as B to C to A.
Even though their functions/loadings should be expected
to be not so equal.
One would expect someone to see the above point and look
to making A to B --speaking of the bights-- a reciprocal relation,
and the twin ends standing apart from this.
In any case, did I *know* of it? Yes, by my own fiddling. But,
how much *know*ing : only now in gazing at these images
does it occur to me that one can see this as the twin ends
*pouring* material into a (horizontally oriented, here) twin
piece (with bight ends) that then ties an overhand knot
around the twin ends!
And doing some *theoretical* playing on this notion, why not see
about instead tying a fig.8 or better a symmetric fig.9 knot(s) !?
The former has a different symmetry from the original & latter,
so doesn't seem to offer a happy result; the latter gets bulky
without obvious advantage to that. --but it leads to some more,
interesting musings about knot construction.
--dl*
====
-
Xarax,
This looks very familiar.
I'd like to ask you a question, which is not intended to anger you or cause you to become defensive:
What are the practical advantages and disadvantages of this knot?
One advantage/disadvantage as compared to the knot I normally use is that the two loops in this knot are of fixed length. The knot I normally use (sorry, I don't have a name for or a picture of it) has the two loops connect in such a way that one loop can be lengthened at the expense of the other after tying. The tension on the knot is sufficient to keep this from happening without a stout pull. Whether this difference is an advantage or a disadvantage depends on one's use and preferences of course.
-
The tension on the knot is sufficient to keep this from happening without a stout pull. Whether this difference is an advantage or a disadvantage depends on one's use and preferences of course.
I did notice that when a certain combination of one standing part and one loop is pulled, this knot slips.
As an aside, if you need a double loop knot with non-communicating loops, you might look over:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/dsplayedloop.gif
...which is based on the Butterfly Loop (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/butterflyloop.html).
Or the double loop knot discussed on the bottom of this page:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/midspan.html
(see the second diagram)
-
Those are both clearly sturdier knots, I especially like the one based on the butterfly. But for my application, the knot doesn't have to be especially sturdy. On the other hand, a certain neatness is appreciated. The butterfly variant produces wider loops than OP knot. While sturdier, these wider loops seem more likely to snag on passing branches and such, especially since the loops must be left around 4-6 inches in length each to allow the use of the striker. Of course there's always the danger that the lanyard itself may snag, so perhaps the additional snag chance provided by the loops is minimal. Still, for a striker lanyard I think I prefer the look of the narrow loops. While aesthetic consideration are not entirely "practical", they may be considered part of the "practicality" of any knot that is to be worn.
On the other hand I think I'll try that butterfly variant on a fishing lanyard that needs multiple smallish loop along it's length. The open loops seem like they might tangle amongst themselves less.
-
I did notice that when a certain combination of one standing part and one loop is pulled, this knot slips.
This isn't a good knot for isolated SParts.
One can imagine some circumstance in which a doubled
line was used for a handy purchase to pull something,
and that this knot worked well in presenting two,
splayed eyes for two strong pullers. --rather casual
application, this, and hardly a strong reason d'etre,
but plausible (in the "many ways to skin a cat" thinking).
--dl*
====
-
Hello drnihili,
The double loop knot you've described reads like ABOK # 1087 aka Spanish "Bowline".
For more info on double loop knots here is an informative link with pictures. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm)
If this can be helpful to you.
SS
-
Hello drnihili,
The double loop knot you've described reads like ABOK # 1087 aka Spanish "Bowline".
For more info on double loop knots here is an informative link with pictures. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm)
If this can be helpful to you.
SS
That's close, but not quite what I've been using. I thank you greatly for the link though, there is much to think about and try out there. One of these days soon I'll set up a camera. I want to get some advice from the decorative forum on how to finish off a project I've been working on.
-
I think that it is high time that antagonistic statements cease. They really serve no purpose except that they can show mean spiritness. Sometimes it it is better to lead from the front than to slog through the mud from behind.
Sorry for the divergence from the OP.
SS
-
I find that the OP double loop knot has merit if the SP and WE are tied to each other using a bowline-like method. Essentially turning it into an end of line double loop. Not necessarily the best of breed, but another to use if someone likes the way it performs with the spread and splay of its loops.
I can see Practical "decorative" usage attributes as well.
SS
-
This knot is the only double loop I know that is both symmetric and has loops that don't communicate. Still, I can't think of an application in which I'd prefer this knot over some other double loop knots I know. If someone knows of an application, please share so we can discuss, thanks.
-
I have used ABOK 1097 for one of the slings in a Plummer System climbing rig. I wanted a short side loop coming out perpendicular to the vertical foot sling. I wanted the tied slings to be more or less permanent.
-
Hello Bob,
Thank you for jostling my memory.
I had thought of this in regards to a "frog" climbing system where both feet/legs could be used to propel upwards as well. Not my personal pick though. Take a Prusik sling and tie this knot or type into the bottom, wrap around rope to be ascended and in conjunction with the other friction hitch to harness it will allow for the use of both legs.
Picture example here> http://www.onrope1.com/store/images/products/f40.jpg (http://www.onrope1.com/store/images/products/f40.jpg)
Hello knot4u, there quite a few relatively symmetrical double loop knots, see here > http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm). What one will choose is a matter of need(s) and perhaps other criteria.
SS
-
The knot I normally use (sorry, I don't have a name for or a picture of it) has the two loops connect in such a way that one loop can be lengthened at the expense of the other after tying. The tension on the knot is sufficient to keep this from happening without a stout pull.
Might this mystery knot be a Sheepshank Double Loop?:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/sheepshank.html
-
Just to be clear, the original knot is NOT the same as ABOK #1097. Note that ABOK #1097 is NOT truly symmetric, while the original knot is truly symmetric. Ashley says that #1097 is difficult to untie. In contrast, the original knot is NOT difficult to untie.
These are some pretty neat advantages. I wish Xarax would point out some advantages so I'm motivated to test a knot instead of summarily dismiss it.
Hello knot4u, there quite a few relatively symmetrical double loop knots, see here > http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm (http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm). What one will choose is a matter of need(s) and perhaps other criteria.
OK, but just to be clear, no knot on that page is truly symmetric.
-
If there is no name for this knot, I propose one of the following:
"Bipod" or "Mirror Double Loop"
-
The knot I normally use (sorry, I don't have a name for or a picture of it) has the two loops connect in such a way that one loop can be lengthened at the expense of the other after tying. The tension on the knot is sufficient to keep this from happening without a stout pull.
Might this mystery knot be a Sheepshank Double Loop?:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/sheepshank.html
The mystery knot is not the Sheepshank Double loop, because in the SSDL there is direct translation from loop to loop,
(http://notableknotindex.webs.com/sheepshankdoubleloop.png)
while in this knot there is no direct translation.
(http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3571.0;attach=5776;image)
-
The mystery knot is not the Sheepshank Double loop, because in the SSDL there is direct translation from loop to loop,
Derek,
I was discussing drnihili's yet-to-be-pictured knot, not the knot xarax posted.
-
This knot is the only double loop I know that is both symmetric and has loops that don't communicate. Still, I can't think of an application in which I'd prefer this knot over some other double loop knots I know. If someone knows of an application, please share so we can discuss, thanks.
I have thought of this loop only after a quarrel with knot4u, about the Karash bowline-like loop, in the "theoretical" :) discussion about the bowline. As a sailor, there is only one thing I really fear while at sea : a man falling overboard. In such a case, which has never happened to my boat - and I almost "pray" not to happen ever - a double loop, tied on spot and quickly, might be of some help. Learning how to tie a simple double loop as a rescue harness, is a safety measure for the psychology, at least, of the inexperienced crew. I believe that this loop can serve this purpose sufficiently well, because, as I have said, it is the simplest possible double loop and the most easy to memorize - essentially just a double line overhand knot .
See the video (1) for an application proposed for the Karash bowline-like loop. (1) Exactly the same thing can be tied with the even simpler double loop presented in this thread.
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EyfYyJkZss
-
only now in gazing at these images does it occur to me that one can see this as the twin ends *pouring* material into a (horizontally oriented, here) twin piece (with bight ends) that then ties an overhand knot around the twin ends!
The same loop was also presented by me some time ago, with an explicit reference to the fact that it might well be considered as the simplest possible double loop, as it is nothing more than a double-line overhand knot. I had even published two pictures showing this (see the attached pictures). I hope that each time somebody succeeds in getting me banned from the forum, somebody else will succeed in re-discovering something I have already said... :) Peace on the Forum ! :)
-
I have thought of this loop only after a quarrel with knot4u, about the Karash bowline-like loop, in the "theoretical" :) discussion about the bowline. As a sailor, there is only one thing I really fear while at sea : a man falling overboard. In such a case, which has never happened to my boat - and I almost "pray" not to happen ever - a double loop, tied on spot and quickly, might be of some help. Learning how to tie a simple double loop as a rescue harness, is a safety measure for the psychology, at least, of the inexperienced crew. I believe that this loop can serve this purpose sufficiently well, because, as I have said, it is the simplest possible double loop and the most easy to memorize - essentially just a double line overhand knot.
You brought up life saving. So, a full vetting of your assertion is in order. I'm curious what others think about the Bipod being used as a quickly tied rescue harness in comparison to other double loops.
In theory, the Bipod appears like I should be able to tie it quickly. However, in practice, it's not a quick tie compared to other double loops like the Butterfly Double Loop or the Karash Double Loop. Thus, the Bipod does not come to mind when I think about tying a double loop "on spot and quickly".
Also, as others have noted above, the Bipod may require securing the working end to the standing end in order for the Bipod to work properly. This addition places the Bipod in the complex category and, of course, increases tying time.
-
You brought up life saving.
I would better describe the original idea as : "What is the most simple, most easily memorizable double loop, that can be taught to an un-experienced crew, tied easily and quickly, and offer some psychological - mainly - feeling of security ? Because, real life saving, and real security on board of a ship, is a greatly bigger issue, and I am not qualified at all to offer any advice on it...
However, in practice, it's not a quick tie compared to other double loops like the Butterfly Double Loop or the Karash Double Loop.
I guess it depends on tying experience and dexterity. I have not tied the double loops you mention so many times, as the one described here, to be able to compare the tying times of all those loops objectively. Also, and that is the most important point, I think that, conceptually, this "double-line overhand knot based loop' is simpler than either the Alpine butterfly or the Karash double loops.
For the Karash bowline-like loop, which, of course, is a very secure knot, I have observed that, 1, it may happen to pull the wrong segment of the double eight knot by mistake, and, 2, after the pull, the knot does need some careful dressing, to be set properly. The Alpine butterfly double loop is easy to tie with a number of different techniques, but it is not that simple : The inexperienced tier can learn one method by heart, but, as he can not follow the paths of the ropes inside the knot s nub, he can not have a simple mental picture of the knot, so he will probably forgetthe method after a while.
On the contrary, with this simple double loop we are talking about, once one understands the main concept, gets the "double-line overhand knot" mental picture of the loop, he would probably remember it for a longer time, and it would be easier for him to tie it under stress, in a short notice. That is nothing else than my 2 pence opinion, of course, I can not prove it ! Only experienced. long time rescue teachers could possibly say something we could depend upon here...
Also, as others have noted above, the original knot may require securing the working end to the standing end in order for the knot to work properly. This addition places the knot in the complex category and, of course, increases tying time.
1st. With marine ropes, a further connection of the two ends together, is seldom necessary. I do not tie this connection - but perhaps I will, if I will have enough time at those crucial moments...The original loop would probably be deformed a little, under heavy loading, but it will not slip altogether !
2nd. As you have noticed in the video I am referring to, to tie the complete rescue harness, one has to tie an additional knot, even in the case of the Karash bowline-like loop.
-
Isn't this a three-part crown?
http://www.Layhands.com/Knots/Knots_DoubleLoops.htm#TripleCrown
-
Isn't this a three-part crown?
It looks like a three-part crown, ABoK#1097, indeed. Tie both those double loops, and see their front and their back side, to notice their differences.