Author Topic: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction  (Read 28234 times)

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1928
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2009, 12:44:24 AM »
  As for how easy it will be to untie if you load both ends, I don't know.
The underlying knot is a known jammer.

Quote
The only time I had a hard time untying it was when I put my full 175 lb weight on a thin climbing rope.  But then again, I think many fixed loop knots would be problematic to untie at that point.
There are quite a few fixed loop knots that are easy to untie after heavy strain.

Quote
When I'm untying my tarp, I can unclip the tarp and hold it with one hand while I just give the cord a quick tug with the other hand.  I then loosen the noose from around the tree (one handed again), and am able to pack everything up without ever letting the tarp touch the ground.
If you are using carabiners, it'd seem that you can unclip and worry about untying the rope later, while tending to the task of keeping a tarp off the ground. 

Quote
I don't think it's the same thing as 1018, as in 1018 the stopper knot could theoretically slip through the load bearing overhand, whereas in mine, it can't. 
If that's the only reason for not recognizing it as the ABoK #1018, you run into problems.  If the knot was so loose as to "theoretically" allow the stopper knot to travel through the knot, it'd also be loose enough to allow your modification to come completely untied.... theoretically.

Appending an inactive feature to a knot doesn't pass the new knot test to me.  It may be a variant of a knot or a supplement to a knot, such as a Figure Eight stopper knot tied in the free end of a Bowline, for example.  I certainly wouldn't call a Bowline plus a Figure Eight stopper a Fibonacci Loop.

P.S.  It might be a good topic for another thread, but you may be able to replace your tarp carabiners with a number of various rope or knot based systems.  Imagine adjusting the tension on those tarps! :)
« Last Edit: January 06, 2009, 01:18:43 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".

Notable Knot Index

Paco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2009, 06:03:06 AM »

Quote
The underlying knot is a known jammer.

I agree.  That's why I wouldn't want to use this knot with heavy loads.  It definitely isn't the end-all of knots.  But then again, if you know of the perfect knot that can be used for every situation, please let me know!   :D

Quote
If the knot was so loose as to "theoretically" allow the stopper knot to travel through the knot, it'd also be loose enough to allow your modification to come completely untied.... theoretically.
I'd have to disagree with you there.  In the right (or wrong) situations, I can feasibly see 1018 coming loose, such as in the case of stretchy rope, when wet, or with a lot of uneven pull.  All that needs to be done is for one knot to pass through one turn of the rope.  Whereas with the positive knot, if the stopper loop passes through the first overhand,  you get a real funky looking bowline variation (see photos below).  I've been playing with trying to get it to fall apart, purposely putting it through worse case scenarios without dressing it, and it ends up being a pretty stubborn knot to get undone.  Whether it's a new knot, I still can't tell you, but it is definitely more secure than the Department Store Loop.

So just out of curiosity, has the IGKT ever come up with a technical definition of what constitutes a knot and what constitutes a variation?  Or is it like the definition of sports, where it's impossible to find one definition that works in every case (we argued that one extensively in a unicycling forum).

And in the interest of science, I'm running a test on the Positive Knot right now.  We're having a cold snap with a lot of snow, so I decided to test out extreme weather on the knot.  I went out into the backyard, and hung a piece of paracord from a tree branch.  In the cord, I tied a positive knot (while wearing thick gloves, I might add; I told you it was easy to tie!).  From the positive knot loop, I tied another piece of cord, and from that, I dangled a brick (in the 5-10 lb range).  Then I took off my gloves, grabbed a handful of snow, and packed it around the positive knot, letting the heat from my hands turn the snow into ice.  So now I've got the knot under load, with ice around it and exposed to 18 degree weather.  I'll check it tomorrow and see if it's hard to undo.

Keep up the comments.  It's helping me to be able to explain and clarify with people who know what they're talking about!

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2009, 12:44:23 PM »

So just out of curiosity, has the IGKT ever come up with a technical definition of what constitutes a knot and what constitutes a variation?  Or is it like the definition of sports, where it's impossible to find one definition that works in every case (we argued that one extensively in a unicycling forum).


That is a very interesting point Paco, one that I am sure will attract some future attention because as far as I am aware, there is no formal definition and certainly no IGKT Panel set up to consider / adjudicate on such issues.

From my perspective, the issue depends on the knot being decorative or functional.  Clearly in a decorative knot the physical placing of a cord affects the decorative functionality of the knot, so simple cord placement might differentiate one knot from another.  But if the knot is functional as in the case in hand, then I feel that issues such as cord/rope/ribbon, material, nature, thickness, colour etc. are irrelevant and if an item contributes functionally to a knot then it is part of that knot, and if the functionality changes, then we have a different knot or a variant of that knot.

Taking Roo's position on slipping the #1018 stopper as diagrammed.



The slipped stopper has changed the functionality only in that it has made the whole knot easier to dismantle, it is essentially still the #1018, just a variant of it.

If we move the slipped stopper loop around, it is decoratively different, but functionality remains the same.

However, if we pass the working loop through the slipped stopper loop as you have done, even if we leave the slipped stopper loop loose, have we changed the functionality?

In the normal use of the knot, I believe the answer would be no, it is not functioning any differently from a slipped stopper variant of #1018.

However, in the abnormal use, where the knot has relaxed or sprung open, then this modified structure becomes highly functional and prevents the knot from failing.

As security variants are frequently acknowledged as knots in their own right, I believe it is reasonable to consider this as different from the #1018.

Derek

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1928
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2009, 04:00:27 PM »

That's why I wouldn't want to use this knot with heavy loads.  It definitely isn't the end-all of knots.
Hence my earlier comment about the knot being best suited for disposable line.  It's not just heavy load, but heavy strain.  It doesn't take much load to heavily strain smaller rope or cord.  Instead, you could use a Bowline, Double Bowline, Water Bowline, various hitches (slipped or unslipped), or even a Versatackle variation that allows adjustment, etc.  But that's a topic for a new thread.
 
Quote
So just out of curiosity, has the IGKT ever come up with a technical definition of what constitutes a knot and what constitutes a variation?  Or is it like the definition of sports, where it's impossible to find one definition that works in every case (we argued that one extensively in a unicycling forum).
As with my "Bowline + Stopper does not equal Fibonacci Loop"  example, I would propose that it strongly affects the naming of any variation.  The security effects of inactive additions upon theoretical catastrophe is irrelevent.  

I could imagine a reasonable description of the knot in question as the following:  "This is a Department Store Loop finished with a slipped stopper.  The drawloop of the slipped stopper can be placed over the main loop to [insert rationale here]."

Quote
And in the interest of science, I'm running a test on the Positive Knot right now.  We're having a cold snap with a lot of snow, so I decided to test out extreme weather on the knot.  I went out into the backyard, and hung a piece of paracord from a tree branch.  In the cord, I tied a positive knot (while wearing thick gloves, I might add; I told you it was easy to tie!).  From the positive knot loop, I tied another piece of cord, and from that, I dangled a brick (in the 5-10 lb range).  Then I took off my gloves, grabbed a handful of snow, and packed it around the positive knot, letting the heat from my hands turn the snow into ice.  So now I've got the knot under load, with ice around it and exposed to 18 degree weather.  I'll check it tomorrow and see if it's hard to undo.

Keep up the comments.  It's helping me to be able to explain and clarify with people who know what they're talking about!

Temperature extreme exposure may not be the most extensive test.  Some tips at the end here:

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/knotfaq.html

Get a few different types of rope before you begin.  Be advised that if you are giving rope a good jam-resistance test, you may end up breaking some, so take care to keep out of the way of energetic breakages.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 04:54:04 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".

Notable Knot Index

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2009, 08:06:21 PM »
Hi Paco,

I am a moderate person, not given to accepting change just for the sake of it.  I do write long replies, however, so please bear with me.  It occurs to me that it is unnecessary for the IGKT or any other august body to come up with a name for something or even a definition, where one exists already.  Hence:

Quote
So just out of curiosity, has the IGKT ever come up with a technical definition of what constitutes a knot and what constitutes a variation?  Or is it like the definition of sports, where it's impossible to find one definition that works in every case (we argued that one extensively in a unicycling forum).

I do not think that the IGKT would ever need to come up with a technical definition of a knot, when one exists in the dictionary:

Quote
Fastening made by looping a piece of string, rope, etc., on itself and tightening it Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11th ed.

One could argue that the word "fastening" requires some further exploration, but it still seems to me to be perfectly adequate.  What would you or anyone else see as needing expansion or further explanation about such a definition?

As for what a variation is, again the dictionary comes into play:

Quote
a change or slight difference in condition, amount or level OED 11th ed.

The NAMING of a knot is of course an artifice that is used by humans to feel comfortable that they have a meeting of the minds, a shorthand if you will, when discussing the placement or choice of which knot, bend, splice or hitch form to use, and so that they have a quick way of describing it.  There is no regularity of naming (would that there were, so as to diffuse the endless energy expenditure and discussions of whether a knot is the Thumb Knot or the Overhand Knot or Simple Knot or whatever) and the idea that there would ever be any regularity, when some only consider there to be a matter of some few hundred knots (see Dan Lehman's posts regarding the oft-quoted 3854 knots of ABOK), seems to be somewhat moot.  Naming of species of flora and fauna which could conceivably be in the hundreds of millions (just a guess) definitely needed some taxonomy, but knots?

In physics and engineering, of course, there is a need to understand simple concepts like stress (force per unit area), strain (change in length divided by original length), tension (causing an increase in length by action of pulling), compression (causing a decrease in length by pushing), elastic (having the ability or state of being able to return to original state upon release of stress), plastic (having the state of flowing into a new volume and shape as a result of tension or compression without return to original state or form) and so on, and we all are guilty of using these terms incorrectly at some point - indeed I may have described them incorrectly for some purists.  However, they can be very helpful when describing what has happened or is predicted to happen in a piece of cord, rope, etc., when placed under tension producing a stress.  Hence it would be useful to be able to describe when something is a variation by describing how it acts differently from the base unit, rather than using a different name for it, which IMHO would serve only to muddy the water.

Bottom line?  What you have shown is a variation on an existing knot description, which variation appears functional and should be able to be described functionally different from the base unit.  I would prefer to not name it thus:

Quote
"This is a Department Store Loop finished with a slipped stopper. 

because this (or any other description, including the one below) is incomplete and requires further description in itself, thus denying it the essence of definition, but rather to name it "a slippery overhand stopped with a second binding slippery overhand to form a demountable loop in the end or middle of a piece of line."  Of course that would be silly, because it is far too long for normal conversation - we are not speaking in terms of taxonomy or classification here - but a short name or a shorthand method of uniquely identifying the knot in ten characters or less would assuredly be welcome.  Your suggestion of Positive Knot seems to fit that idea, but is not descriptive to anyone not familiar with it in the first place, so as to help them make one for themselves.  OTOH, Derek's ideas of using Frank Brown's methods are welcome as are the other various schema suggested on this forum and elsewhere.  However, such a thing is nirvana and too ideal for knot-tyers, because we like to suggest that there could be other uses for a knot and therefore we need a different name for such an event.

Good luck with obtaining a definition.  As a final point, try submitting the knot to the IGKT (address: secretary@IGKT.net) and ask the Council to ratify, through a sub-committee set up for that purpose, that this is a new knot.  See what happens..... ;D

SR

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1928
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2009, 08:43:26 PM »
  I would prefer to not name it thus:

Quote
"This is a Department Store Loop finished with a slipped stopper. 

because this (or any other description, including the one below) is incomplete and requires further description in itself, thus denying it the essence of definition, but rather to name it "a slippery overhand stopped with a second binding slippery overhand to form a demountable loop in the end or middle of a piece of line."  Of course that would be silly, because it is far too long for normal conversation - we are not speaking in terms of taxonomy or classification here - but a short name or a shorthand method of uniquely identifying the knot in ten characters or less would assuredly be welcome. 

Not every arrangement of rope or combination knots needs a separate formal name.  If you really need a shorthand way of referring to the subject of this thread, you could say that it is Paco's variant of the Department Store Loop.  Even that is assuming that it becomes a subject of conversation outside this thread. 

At least that informal moniker wouldn't suggest an entirely new knot, and it would provide immediate insight to anyone familiar with the Department Store Loop.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2009, 09:09:55 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".

Notable Knot Index

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2009, 09:44:17 PM »
I'm still puzzled, though admittedly I've been hastily reading from press of other things
on time.

In PACO's photo, (1) where is the tree (tied-to object), and (2) what end bears load?

I THINK that the through-other-eye eye must go around the tree (1)
Okay, then the end going out of photo leftwards is the SPart (bearing load).
(Dang, images need to be clear not ambiguous re such "minor" details!)

Frankly, I find it hard to see this structure as efficient in tying time,
so effective in tightening (though one can haul on the end of the
initial Overhand and have considerable friction of knot & trree to
resist loss of tension), and not all so easy to untie.

Why not just cast the Slipknot (as for a Trucker's/Lorryman's tie-down),
run the end around the object, and reeve it through the (smallish) slip-bight
and haul taut and tie off with a slipped Half-hitch (which slip-bight could
itself be given a slip-bight through it).  Or the Scouts' intended solution of
a Tautline Hitch, guarded for slick material with a HHitch; depending on
length of line, this all can be worked with the bight, keeping the actively
loaded strands into prominent position and  the follow-along bight parts
away).

Beyond these, I can see taking the line around the object,
then beginning to tie a Bowline with a bight in the quick-tie method
in which a HH with the bight around the SPart is hauled sharply to cast
the HH into the SPart with the straightening of the bight;
then just tie off the bight-end, HHing it, or ... whatever.  With some
effort, one can increase tension by pulling the bight through the
ever-tightening turn/HH in the SPart, before finishing the tying.

--dl*
====
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 04:47:41 AM by Dan_Lehman »

Paco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2009, 12:50:06 AM »
I THINK that the through-other-eye eye must go around the tree (1)
Okay, then the end going out of photo leftwards is the SPart (bearing load).
(Dang, images need to be clear not ambiguous re such "minor" details!)

I can see how the way you're envisioning it would really be a complicated thing to create.  My second video I think shows it clearer, but let me try to show with a picture and an explanation.

The PK (positive knot) actually doesn't go around the tree.  For that you use a simple slip noose, or a round turn and two half hitches, or whatever hitch you feel like using.  The PK is created after the cord is already tied around the tree, to be a clip-in location for a carabiner (similar to the alpine butterfly).  In that situation, it is very easy to tie and untie.  The illustration below shows the placement of the PK, but not the shape.

Hope that helps!
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 12:51:21 AM by Paco »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2009, 07:32:12 AM »
The PK (positive knot) actually doesn't go around the tree.  For that you use a simple slip noose, or a round turn and two half hitches, or whatever hitch you feel like using.  The PK is created after the cord is already tied around the tree, to be a clip-in location for a carabiner (similar to the alpine butterfly).  In that situation, it is very easy to tie and untie.

Thank you.  It would seem that the Positive Knot would be in both places in your
diagram--the "running eye" for noosing the tree, and the fixed eye awaiting the
clip-in.  Is it expected that one will ***adjust*** tension with the Positive Knot?

For quick untying, one could otherwise attach the line to the 'biner with a slip-free
hitch (e.g., my revision of the Highwayman's h.), and then tie to the tree with a
turn & Rolling/Tautline hitch, adjusting for tension.  Untying will likely require
some relaxation of the line before the slip-free hitch can be slipped free.
But there are many ways to be simple and quick here.  A bowline, e.g. ... .

Quote
So what is a knot, what is a variation, and what is a series of knots?  Isn't a Killick Hitch just a Timber Hitch and a half hitch combined?

Ah, philosophical questions!  That can go deep, and I've not found my way on this,
though on this forum posited some definitions years back re "knot".  As for the particular,
well, that touches such depth, too, I guess; but a quick surmise on my part is that, NO,
the Killick/Killeg/K...sub-n Hitch was a SECURED COW/Girth Hitch--the end dogged
around one side, and it pressed sufficiently snug to the SPart that, esp. in nature-fibre
cordage that might swell when wet, jammed securely around the stone weight.

And only some years later, bereft of this knowledge or for whatever reason, some
knots book put is as two separate things, which got further separated just as did
its use from the account of its use/purpose.  (Interestingly, maybe in Nature's way
to balance this particular case, it seems that the Water Bowline's once well separated
HHitches have been nearly fused in coming together!)

I'm with Roo & SquareRigger on this re "new":  the fundamental aspect is the end
reeved back through the Overhand base, which is done as cited and in the opposite
direction in the Honda/Bowstring knot (which might be less prone to jamming);
tying this off can be done in innumerable ways, from which one can generalize
to a great many other structures where one thing can be conjoined with a myriad
of others, and "new" knots could multiply like . . .  humans, overrunning the world.
Which is not to say that some rather simple cases might nevertheless stand out
in value, no matter how easily *reached* they were--and prove useful.  But my
outlook for this Positive knot is not positive.

 ;)

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2009, 11:06:16 AM »
The idea of naming a knot has a lot to commend it but given that the same knot has in many cases 3 or more commonly used names I am not sure that this is always helpful esp to those familiar with say only one name. That said are we hung up on the word "knot" when as pointed out the Killick Hitch is simply a combination of 2 other knots so perhaps a "fastening" is appropriate to indicate a combination (still a hitch maybe but the Killick  Fastening rather than knot)? The subject of the thread could be described as an "interlocked slip loops fastening" - still a bit of a mouthful but descriptive. Equally as it forms a completed knot then perhaps the word "knot" is more appropriate in this case. Whatever else I do think the Guild should have a library of knots not in ABOK (on the website?) based on photos or diagrams. Not to indicate approval or otherwise but simply to recognise that a knot (or fastening!) exists and to acknowledge the discoverer where known.

Barry
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 04:33:54 PM by Sweeney »

DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2009, 07:51:44 PM »
Dan,

Hope this helps, I do not yet have a symbol for a bina or clip in object and have hand modded the WE symbol.


DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2009, 07:57:11 PM »
Paco,

have you tried this variant where the two slipped loops are directly linked?


DerekSmith

  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2009, 08:04:26 PM »
Hi Paco,
snip...

Good luck with obtaining a definition.  As a final point, try submitting the knot to the IGKT (address: secretary@IGKT.net) and ask the Council to ratify, through a sub-committee set up for that purpose, that this is a new knot.  See what happens..... ;D

SR


Lindsey,

You are a bad man.  I have been branded a Sh1t Stirrer for much less (hence the Dunny Man appellation).

Seriously though, you have the sort of analytical mind needed to run such a project.  How do you fancy starting a topic to consider aspects which would be needed to constitute the definition of a 'Variant knot' and a 'New knot'??

Derek

squarerigger

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • IGKTPAB Immediate Past President
    • The Knot Guy
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2009, 09:17:00 PM »
Hi Derek,

The appellation is well taken and well deserved!  As a Forum member I feel it may well be worthwhile to attempt such a watershed appellation:

Quote
to consider aspects which would be needed to constitute the definition of a 'Variant knot' and a 'New knot'??

I am not certain that I would be the best lead but am willing to lead the unwashed and uneducated (yourself and all others excepted of course) in such a pursuit - it should be interesting! ;D

Lindsey

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2009, 07:40:35 AM »
Re the OP's design goal for a knot, Occam's Razor can trim much of the awkwardness
of the Positive Knot for a better-working one, I think:  having made the initial structure
--the Slip-Knot--, and in the orientation of Derek's diagram, simply bring the end up
over the SPart (just left of anything else) and tuck a slip-bight down through the SPart's
Overhand's "spine" (Asher's term) at the '+' of Derek's grey graph lines--yielding something
similar to the Perfection/Angler's Loop (#1017, IIRC).  In this, the SPart crunches now *4*
diameters and so shouldn't get overly tight; pulling on the slip-bight's end partly works
to prise out some SPart material and ... open the knot.  (I just gave a pretty firm load
to some 8mm marine kernmantle and it came undone fairly easily.)
Beyond this, there are various bowlinesque slipped knots that will work
(something like this was pub'd in KM#68?, I think?).

we hung up on the word "knot" when as pointed out the Killick Hitch is simply a combination of 2 other knots so ...

No, not so:  I'm pretty sure that the K___ Hitch was pretty safely in the (single) *knot*
category; it is only some later presenters' separation of its components into
a compound structure that raises a question.  That the original can  be so
transformed leads to a good question about boundaries--just as one might
have with extreme deformations of the bowline.

As for starting ... re definitions, the collective memory (be it Search or brain cells)
shouldn't be forgetting the first steps already taken; there is a thread to continue,
in this forum.  I surmise that sometimes small alterations in tying can yield much
more than otherwise considerably involved workings, so judging "version" vs.
"variation" vs. "new knot" (or "Empirically Less Frequently Encountered Knot Structure")
will be more an art than a science.

--dl*
====