YONN (Yet another new knot) and a new member introduction

[Paco]

Paco,

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

Dan,
Interesting variation.  I've been trying to figure it out visually since yesterday, but I think I've got it.  When you pull on the main loop, the stopper loop gets tighter, right?  Interesting.  I wonder if there are any benefits to this variation?

[Dan_Lehman]

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

Dan,
Interesting variation.  I've been trying to figure it out visually since yesterday, but I think I've got it.  When you pull on the main loop, the stopper loop gets tighter, right?  Interesting.  I wonder if there are any benefits to this variation?

   You've quoted Derek , but seemingly responded to Dan --by name AND sense
        (for Derek provided a graphic which would remove visualization effort).

I said

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

to which I meant "... and out parallel to the main eye/bight", but I now see that
one could go straight "down" with success, too.
Actually, the more important/tricky part is the initial tucking in of the 2nd bight,
which perhaps should come up around/over the belly of the Slipknot rather than
getting more behind it--it needs to be in position for setting, which will then
keep it there.

Frankly, why not just a slipped Half-hitch (and was this #1019?) in the end?
My variation stuffs another 2 diameters of rope through the main nip,
which should make pulling out just the one strand of the end all the
more easy, and then result is freed-up space for the bights to pop out.

--dl*
====

[Paco]

Dan (for real, this time),

I apologize; I was responding to Derek and his image.  Even with his picture, I had to physically take out a rope and recreate his image to understand it.  As for your (Dan's) description, I still don't quite get it.  I'm new to talking with experienced knot tyers, and so don't understand all your terminology.  Belly?  Spine?  Nip?  Is there any way you could draw a graphic or take a picture?  You'll have to have patience with me as I "learn the ropes," so to speak.  I'll keep work on figuring it out.  Thanks for continuing to discuss it.  I find it fascinating, even if I don't quite follow everything.

[Dan_Lehman]

As for your (Dan's) description, I still don't quite get it.  I'm new to talking with experienced knot tyers, and so don't understand all your terminology.  Belly?  Spine?  Nip?  Is there any way you could draw a graphic or take a picture?

Derek's provided a graphic.  The terms re the Overhand are from the late Harry Asher;
where the knot's ends cross each other is the "spine", and opposite this the "belly".  In
the above diagram, the spine is above the belly, and Derek has opened the spine such
that there is a crossing (light gray) of the background graph at its center ("X marks the
spot"!).  My suggestions involved bringing the end up around/over the belly and down
into this end, either feeding it also (a bight, at the point of insertion through the spine)
out alongside the knot's eye bight, or just sticking it straight "down"--i.e., away from
the viewer (perpendicular to the *graph paper*.  One might need care in tightening
the SPart upon it to hold it in place, but so done, it seems stable thereafter (esp. for
just holding tension on a tarp).

--dl*
====

[Paco]

Thank you, Dan.  I think I get it.  So the working end (or at least a bight) would be fed through the middle of the knot before it was tightened, right?  I can see that there are many more variations than I had thought of!

My question is what exactly is the benefit of this variation.  It sounds like it might be more stable.  Would it be less prone to jamming, since removing the bight from the belly? (still working on the terminology here) would loosen the knot?

I still don't see how it's better in terms of the cost/benefit ratio.  My original can be tied and untied quickly after being frozen under load for two days while wearing winter gloves (I tried last night), and from I understand and have tested, still is secure/stable enough for lightweight usage.  So it seems that other variations make it more difficult to tie/untie while not improving performance.  Am I missing something?  Are there situations where the Dan variation would be a "better" knot?

[Dan_Lehman]

So the working end (or at least a bight) would be fed through the middle of the knot before it was tightened, right?
I can see that there are many more variations than I had thought of!
My question is what exactly is the benefit of this variation.  It sounds like it might be more stable.
Would it be less prone to jamming, since removing the bight from the belly?

I still don't see how it's better in terms of the cost/benefit ratio.

Why not #1020, the top (SPart-end) of which got copied in the image of #1018, for that matter?
My offering is like 1020 but with the bight run across through the spine, as you understand.
Yes, I think that it would better resist jamming.
As for quick tying, what I've just described is a slipped Anglers Loop (#1017),
which can be tied quickly in the bight, entirely (one just lays a bight vs. end
across the initial loop before pulling the eye-bight through to complete the knot.

And realizing the kinship between the Angler's/Perfection Loop and that eyeknot
named "Dragon" of "Double Dragon" notoriety one can step over to a surely less
jammable knot, slipping the single Dragon, and putting the slip-bight around
the eye-bight (if that's comforting and accepatble for untying--requiring that that
action is reversible, rather than simply immediately pulling the end to spill the knot).
There are trade-offs with slack-security here, depending upon cordage.

--dl*
====

[Transminator]

Is it hard to get wrong? --  Yes, two slipped OH's and it doesn't seem to matter which loop goes through which --  10/10

I have to disagree with that. I tie two slip knots. If I pass the loop of the second one over the first one (as in the video), I end up with a mess. If I pass the first loop over the second, it works as described. Possibly I naturally tie the slip knots in a different orientation, but the point is that it works one way and not the other!

3.  What's wrong with a fixed bowline (or some variant)? 

I second that.
I always tie the bowline starting with a slip knot (which gives me also a very simple and effective way to tie the waterbowline or double-knotted bowline if needs be (by tying the slip knot starting with two loops)) which is at least as fast as tying two slip knots and passing one over the other (which leaves a rather bulky knot).
The bowline has the additional advantage that it has a long track record and a clear structure, which can be easily checked for correctness and is fairly easy to untie even after heavy load (and needs less rope).

Having said that, there is of course nothing wrong with trying out new knots and in the end it is always a matter of taste. It seems to work well for you Paco and I will give it a try at my next camping trip. Maybe it "grows on me".