The language of what we do

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

It is a bit off topic, but there might be some interest:

The load you show the "turnip" handling must be a load only equal to the carabiner's weight. I am unable to sustain the coil for even the most modest of gradually increased pull using 5mm accessory cord. Granted the cord is well worn from testing knots and previous climbing use, but that should matter little here.

The example of the bowline that is last in the four picture collection shows a bowline that is still dressed/faired/tightened/primped/preened/coiffed/formatted, etc. a weebit loose and IMHO is potentially destined for capsizing if the load is great enough and not just a steady one.
/.../

I haven't yet seen a bowline capsize, and when it takes the TurNip form, which it invariably does when there's a substantial load on it, it looks like it's half-capsized.

In fact, the TurNip needs very little stabilisation. In the picture in the referred post, it is indeed only a shackle hanging in the loop, but for a more convincing image, I hung a weight of about 25 lbs (11 kg), a computer tower, from that same TurNip loop, and it will not collapse. I can gradually increase the load, and as long as there is tension on both legs of the loop, the TurNip does not capsize. It's really amazing.

However, the rigidity of the line you use and its friction and form may influence its holding power. This red cord is rather stiff with good friction.

Maybe the weight of the tail adds some security, as when those coils of rope are hung from my clothes rack, but at least with this cord, that weight is not needed for the TurNip to be stable when tension increases.

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

Portrayal of knots
Of course it helps a lot to have a language to describe what we are doing, but also imagery that is adequate, and the importance of complete descriptions shall not be underestimated. Here we have seen, that "TurNip" is indeed a term that fills a void, which many of us learned when delving into the holding power of the Gleipnir. Hence I think that it is important not only to show tying patterns and idealised flat laid out forms, but also to show and describe the final form, the form a knot takes under load.

Much improvement can also be done to patterns that we have used for ages. The recent quibble going on over a certain form of the Zeppelin comes to mind. In that case, the image was not meant to show everything; the tying pattern was not the point. However, when portraying knots in instructions, it helps a lot if it is possible to follow the parts of the knot through its structure. Ideally, an image should portray the knot in as many as possible of its aspects, so that the novice can use the image in the process of learning how to tie the knot or to evaluate whether it has been tied correctly.

[Wed]

In that case, the image was not meant to show everything; the tying pattern was not the point.

In the same way, the illustrations I made, was all about showing the (name of the) function of the line at certain positions in the knot. Call it grammar if need be. We have all the possibilities to make instructions from string to fully dressed.

[Benboncan]

Quote from Inkanyezi #59

When I ask for a spiral in inkscape, it gives me a flat spiral that grows from the center and out, while this is one that grows in a dimension perpendicular to the circumference it describes.

Helix or helical would be best for the latter.

[Dan_Lehman]

It is a bit off topic, but there might be some interest:

...
I am unable to sustain the coil for even the most modest of gradually increased pull using 5mm accessory cord.
...
The example of the bowline that is last in the four picture collection shows a bowline that is ... potentially destined for capsizing ... .
/.../

I haven't yet seen a bowline capsize, ... .

Staying with this OT discussion,
voici 4 photos of capsized bowlines, which I find at my sometimes
nearby docks with such frequency as to make me wonder if the
capsized --call it "pile-hitch-noose"-- form is actually intended (but
I hardly think (m)any of these could have been so tied, directly;
only left with a loose collar in anticipation of capsizing).

It might have to do with what Inkanyezi described vis-a-vis chafe :
some iteration between angles of loading with a boat moving such
that there are moments when the SPart & SPart-side eye-leg are what
bear tension, the tail-side eye-leg without, and so the conversion of
the turNip into a (more open) helix is furthered and locked!?

In any case, **I** did not construct these examples to make a point
--there they were, and I merely *clicked* to capture.

.:.  Yes, much of knot behavior depends upon material.


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Portrayal of knots
Of course it helps a lot to have a language to describe what we are doing,
...
Hence I think that it is important not only to show tying patterns and
 idealised flat laid out forms,

but also to show and describe the final form, the form a knot takes under load.

To emphasize, I see a distinction between (the OP's) doing and (what is) done
--"the final form, the ... knot ... under load" (or even not-all-so-loaded).

And I emphasize (enbold) "flat laid-out forms" to suggest that it might behoove
us to fashion some language to convey such forms verbally, in lieu of
images (where the means of imagery are unavailable, say).  I have long
railed against the "flat" form of the Fig.8 eye & end-2-end knots because
they give no indication of the final form's dressing (although presentations
of these knots that use such images might advise proper dressing, with
no further guidance as to what that is!).  Getting this far, though, can
be some help, and having language to do this thus has merit.  (Derek's
efforts --painful as they were (to some  )-- with an Overs/Unders index
come to mind (poorly, as I think I've even botched his title!).)

Terms such as "SPart" & "collar" & "u-turn" & "(over)wraps) & even "turNip"
are pertinent to finished knot parts, not really guidance for doing but
observations of the done deal.  (So, yes, Scott, I have some terms
loosely recognized.)

Some time ago I tried to motivate (myself &) others to read read read
the extant literature and see how certain terms (e.g. "standing part")
are actually used; alas, that effort got more speculation & fantasizing
than data-generation (seems I mostly was counting on "others"    --touche'!)
so it remains a task to do.  But I think we'll see "S.Part" used in ambiguous
ways --defined as a part not moving, being worked upon with the "working
end", yet generally being that part that (this is my intent w/"SPart")
delivers force into the knot primarily (which, hmmm, begs a question
regarding binder  knots, doesn't it!?).  --that, e.g., in tying the
groundline hitch in reverse (which should be easier in the #1243 case
I point to elsewhere) one's "working end" would be(come) my "SPart"
in use.  (For my sense of primary load-bearing part, some other term
should be better --"SPart" just a placeholder in lieu of improvement.)

--dl*
====

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

I started a new thread on the bowline tranformations in the Practical Knots forum.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2641.0

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

My synonym finder has "fork, bifurcation, corner, angle, bend, divarication, division, groin" as synonyms for crotch - any of those more pleasant to the ear and, which is more to the point, is more descriptive and clear? /.../

I admit that sometimes "bifurcation" can be a relevant term, but for the crotch, I think crotch is the right word, and it has long history of use in the knotting world.