Variant Knot Vs. New Knot - who cares?

[Dan_Lehman]

So, knotting has become "sport",  then!?  Maybe in addition to Practical & Decorative
forums we need "Sport"--threads like "Most New Knots in a Week Award" or something.
But we most certainly do NOT need a eNKack board.

The absurdity of this should sink in to those with reasonable reflection; to others, I''m
not sure it's worth debating.  The last thing we need is a system of certificates for
"invention".

Derek Smith had Invented / Discovered the famous Marlinspike Hitch on such and such a date.
 -- The Guild commends his budding knotmanship

... or cites him w/penalty for poor research skills?  (This has all the sound of the frequent
practice of posters asking questions of forum residents that Google would've answered.)

Look, there is ample, worthwhile  work to be done in just putting the limited published
knowledge into order--including killing the abundant nonsense, and qualifying much of
the remainder as "best guess" and wanting a sound basis.  Ashley alone has more knots
than most are familiar with, so why do you want any more--those "new" knots of lore?
Doesn't it say something worth SHOUTING and remarking that several books of whom
are regarded as prominent knot tyers have not even gotten so simple--and so worthwhile,
practically (though I'm yet to find it, "in the wild")--a knot as Ashley's "Oysterman's" Stopper
correct?  There is an enormous amount of slop to clean up with extant knots before getting
over-excited by oddball "new" knots, especially were those to be garnered mostly in the
hope of winning some certificate!

Pocket Guide to Knots & Splices , pp.48-9 , by Des Pawson

Knots
  --by Richard Hopkins, p.58
  --by Gordon Perry, p.24

Ultimate Enclopedia of Knots & Ropework , p.118, by Geoffrey Budworth

... et al.!
And in one case, well, it got bungled enough in a book I contributed to
(Outdoor Knots --but contrary Clyde, it wasn't me who bungled it),
and renamed the "Bowline Stopper", which is the right knot pulled on the
wrong end!   amazing (& "new")

Among things crossing the NKCAC's purview were the Scott Knot, seen here
in a sort of re-birth towards that certificate (as I wryly noted) and the Karash
Loop (Google gets it at its own site and in a Cavers' forum discussion).  The
former was published by Owen "New Knots Inc." Nuttall in KM, for whatever
that was worth (no certificate), and the latter was seen as EKFR 's "Twist
Bowline" correspondent to the Bowline's Bowline on a Bight--which reveals
a twin-eye-making mechanism (insert eye-bight tip and do back-flip) that
will work on most any eyeknot (so, just think of the potential projection into
many, many "new" knots!).

Need I reiterate the curious history of the Guild's founding based upon a "new"
"Hunter's Bend" knot that (1) really wasn't so new as thought, and (2) isn't all
so appealing as various then-extant knots such as Ashley's Bend #1452, #1425,
& Rosendahl's Bend?  SmitHunter's is an okay knot, which thrilled me to discover
back in 1973, but does it deserve all that hoopla in the face of those other bends?
No.

If I wanted to, I could contribute a "new" knot daily for 3 years or more (newer ones
tend to pop up in mulling over the knots in preparation for illustration, I find).  And
to what end, given how little is appreciation of things already out in the published
knot-space, AND things not there but in the wild ?  In another current thread here,
we have some new bowlines not only revealed but heading for some testing--and
the general case of a bowline-around-3-diameters, one way or another; AND at
last a decent indication of where a bowline breaks.  (Although the absence of this
did not prevent Dick Chisholm from posting a sometimes-cited paper about it,
quite wrong, but demonstrating the power of "structural analysis"--yeah, right.
And Derek was going to demonstrate in a similar nevermind-reality way the
dangers of the bowline's "Gee Spot"?!  Well, re that, you can just shift the location
a little, I think, and still go with one thrust of the argument vis-a-vis a knot giving
some broader compression/constriction.  Barnes found such spots in the center
of the Blood knot for monofilament nylon.)

The grand work to be done in knotting closest to this "new knot" lust is the
classification of knots, and in building that the exploration by a rigorous
checklist examination of "knots" that result from each given "tangle".  In
the process, knot-making mechanisms (e.g., insert eye tip into nub, back-flip
bighTip to lock) can be witnessed & extracted & applied in other cases.
One will soon find this to be a huge task, and might engage some shorthand
ways to signal "and much of the same lies in that  direction";  I can, without
tying, conceive of the quadruple Grapevine Bend (= quintuple Fisherman's knot),
and I don't care to check for its existence in publications or create a certificate for it.

As for continuing Ashley's numbering?  --no, no:  for one, his numbers aren't
aren't all for "knots"; and a good classification system should have an entry-ID
that is more sophisticated re connoting/denoting its referent (but that is quite
a challenge).  Names are clearly a troubling issue; the best we can do at the
moment is to fight the more obvious mis-naming as we find it, which only adds
to the already confused names situation.  (One effort might be to establish the
way to apply such qualifiers as "double".)  Conceivably, Ashey's numbers could
serve as temporary IDs in extension either by adding to the numbers (in the
sense of #3854 + n), or using them as a component of a new number (e.g.,
"1452.a", "1452.b", & "1452.c", vs. "1452.1", ...  --former for dressings of the
extant knot; the last for a "new" knot deemed best corresponding to 1452!?).

Other grand work is to get out into the various fields with knotting components
and observe what is actually done.  This was my troubled urging for the good
folks of PAB who join in a Fisherman's festival in September and so are in place
to rub shoulders and share/gain knowledge with/from them; that my urging fell
flat for want of volunteer interest speaks to me about where the Guild needs
action--and it's not to go to expend it on flights of fancy in finding "new" knots.
In any  case, novelty needs a firmer base of "familiar" to distinguish itself from.

And we can look to the on-going project to create an Improved Index for ABOK
to see how well some once-celebrated actions are doing (and whether in fact
it actually IS "on-going").

--dl*
====

[DerekSmith]

So, knotting has become "sport",  then!?  Maybe in addition to Practical & Decorative
forums we need "Sport"--threads like "Most New Knots in a Week Award" or something.
But we most certainly do NOT need a eNKack board.

The absurdity of this should sink in to those with reasonable reflection; to others, I''m
not sure it's worth debating.  The last thing we need is a system of certificates for
"invention".

Derek Smith had Invented / Discovered the famous Marlinspike Hitch on such and such a date.
 -- The Guild commends his budding knotmanship

... or cites him w/penalty for poor research skills?  (This has all the sound of the frequent
practice of posters asking questions of forum residents that Google would've answered.)

--dl*
====

So, one day a member of a rare breed, that of 'Budding Knotter', is twiddling away and comes across a brilliant hauling knot - sooper easy to tie, even inline, balanced in pull on a hauling handle, doesn't jam, extremely strong and best of all, it comes undone with a twist or by slipping out the hauling handle.

Our Novice is excited at 'finding' such a useful knot and naturally wants to know more - is it new? what is it called?  etc. etc.

It seems you would have this interested novice scouring Google rather than face 'penalty for poor research skill'

Now our novice can take a picture of their knot, but you cannot Google a picture, only text, so perhaps they Googled - 'hauling knot' - sorry, you won't find easy reference to the marlinspike hitch that way.  If you were not that much of a novice and you had FCB4 you might draw the diagram and click 'Find' - then you would be lucky because the binary signature would take you to this page http://theknotlibrary.wikidot.com/100011 and they would have been in luck with discovering what it was called for themselves.  But fewer novices will know about FCB4 than will know the name of the marlinspike hitch, so that is an improbable source of knowledge.

How then would you have them discover the identity of their knot?  Scour the internet for pictures of knot, scour books.  Yes of course that would work for this knot eventually, but our budding knotter might loose interest long before success and the world of knotting might loose a new recruit.

How much easier to have a well signposted place to go, to describe your knot and post a picture and ask other interested people if they recognise it.

And if we did have such a place and if they did come to it, then the very last thing they should be met with is censure for not being professional enough to have known that they were asking such a 'silly question' and not to bother the very busy experts.

I would suggest to you that if eNKacK had to serve a thousand discoveries of the marlinspike hitch, that the world of knotting would be much more prolific and fun and secure than it is today.  Far from thinking that an eNKack board would be an absurd addition, I believe that it is an important enhancement to the service that the Guild purports to provide whilst at the same time it would reduce the amount of 'silly questions' that might get fired in the direction of our NKCAC resource.

Anyway, enough of my opinion - any chance of some response to the rest of my post?

Is the committee still in operation?
Who are its members?
What is your remit and what is the basis for guiding your decision making?
but perhaps most importantly, what have the committee 'assessed' and where have you recorded your assessments?
and
How come you haven't mention your role or this committee when 'new knots' have been posted onto this forum?  Were they 'captured' by the committee and assessed behind the scenes?

What did the committee make of Dave Roots lovely Myrtle Knot (collapsed Constrictor on self, forming a bend or a loop)? or Paco's knot which led to this thread?

What system have you used to designate the new knots that have been found to be 'new to you' and what are your thoughts on using an extended ABoK numbering system?

..., what are the guidelines for submitting a knot or method to 'eN Kack' and where are the submissions to be made?

Lindsey, what is your remit for publication of these little jewels and what format do you require, and can you regularly publicise this committee?

Derek

[roo]

It seems you would have this interested novice scouring Google rather than face 'penalty for poor research skill'

Now our novice can take a picture of their knot, but you cannot Google a picture, only text, so perhaps they Googled - 'hauling knot' - sorry, you won't find easy reference to the marlinspike hitch that way.  If you were not that much of a novice and you had FCB4 you might draw the diagram and click 'Find' - then you would be lucky because the binary signature would take you to this page http://theknotlibrary.wikidot.com/100011 and they would have been in luck with discovering what it was called for themselves.  But fewer novices will know about FCB4 than will know the name of the marlinspike hitch, so that is an improbable source of knowledge.

I don't think Dan is against all questioning any more than you are against any independent research.  I'll let him speak for himself. 

As an aside, I doubt many people would download a program from an essentially unknown source.  Red flag city.  And if the program only checks a handful of knots, I doubt even the most trusting users would bother.

[DerekSmith]

It seems you would have this interested novice scouring Google rather than face 'penalty for poor research skill'

Now our novice can take a picture of their knot, but you cannot Google a picture, only text, so perhaps they Googled - 'hauling knot' - sorry, you won't find easy reference to the marlinspike hitch that way.  If you were not that much of a novice and you had FCB4 you might draw the diagram and click 'Find' - then you would be lucky because the binary signature would take you to this page http://theknotlibrary.wikidot.com/100011 and they would have been in luck with discovering what it was called for themselves.  But fewer novices will know about FCB4 than will know the name of the marlinspike hitch, so that is an improbable source of knowledge.

I don't think Dan is against all questioning any more than you are against any independent research.  I'll let him speak for himself. 

As an aside, I doubt many people would download a program from an essentially unknown source.  Red flag city.
...snip

I agree Roo, do you think there is any chance of the Guild promoting FCB4 ??

Derek

[roo]

I agree Roo, do you think there is any chance of the Guild promoting FCB4 ??

Derek

Uh, the Guild isn't exactly Microsoft.  They are hardly in a position to vouch for the soundness of software. 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Once again i don't think that the "topology" is the only answer, but rather how the force is conducted through the formation/topology, and the functions those mechanics make.

Case in point, if we take a turn and cross 1 leg over it, and pull we can have a type of hitch, but if we pull the other leg we just have a crossed turn(?).  So, a Clove wouldn't be 2 opposing Hitches (as might be described by topology); but rather a 'Crossed Turn" and a Hitch(?).  Anyway, by whatever name, the lacing/topology/static picture are the same; but as the dynamics of force and motion take place, the lacings obviously have a differance.

In the Bowline example, we can describe the Bowline as a SheetBend to self to form eye(like an Anchor to self to form eye creates a dblNoose), but should also note that now the 'lock'/choke turns from a Hitch in the SheetBend (no tension on the Bitter End after Hitch) to a Half Hitch in Bowline(tension force on both ends of "Hitch" formation).

A Clove or Constrictor are symetrical, so are same lacing name and function pulled from either direction/leg.  But, wouldn't a "Bag Knot" be the same topology, but called a different name if pulled by the opposite leg(Bitter End).  It still holds very well, is formed same, but the dynamics of force flow thru differently.

A Cow pulled by either leg is still a Cow, but; pulled by both legs evenly, is a Girth, etc.

[roo]

Once again i don't think that the "topology" is the only answer, but rather how the force is conducted through the formation/topology, and the functions those mechanics make.

Unless the conduits of forces (or lack of forces) is considered part of the topology.  For example; standing part, free end, and loop legs should all be considered integral parts of topology in my opinion.