Dental Floss - Challenge

[roo]

You are right Roo. That was short lived success. Tried another waxier, slipperier brand and zepplin bend doesn't hold in it.

Blood knot holds for awhile but seems the waxxy ribbon stuff will slip out of just about anything.

Back to ABOK.

Here's another approach that's very fast to tie:

Are you familiar with the Stevedore Knot?

http://www.troop7.org/Knots/Stevedore.html

OK, now imagine you tie a Stevedore with the two ends of the floss twinned together, pointing in the same direction.  Oh, and also use a lot more twists.

So you take both ends together, pointing in the same direction, take a bight from them with your index finger and spin, spin, spin, until you're satisfied, and tuck the free ends through the bight loop.

It should take all of two seconds.

(My apologies if this was described by someone else without me realizing it.  Sometimes describing knots with words is tough).

[JimC]

Results obviously relative to floss quality. What works on one doesn't work on other.

Have tried between 4-8 tucks on Blood. More tucks increased effectiveness but still collapsed relatively readily on the 'slippery' one. Adding overhand stoppers pretty much solves the problem and works well. Getting a bit complex for purpose though.

Ashley may not be up-to-date on synthetics but I've not seen too many knots in synthetics that are not in ABOK.

Thanks Roo, best solution (I.e. as in most convienient) seems to be putting an overhand stopper on doubled ends then Stevedore knot behind stopper. Putting overhand stopper initially helps to keep everything together too.

Thanks folks

[Brian_Grimley]

The "Rosendahl or Zepplin Bend" worked in the Johnson & Johnson Reach (waxed) Floss but not in the Colgate Total (waxed) Coated Dental Floss that I bought today.

The "Spider Hitch Knot", http://www.sdhookandline.com/knots/spiderhitch.html , worked in the Colgate Total (waxed) Coated Dental Floss.  Instead of using a thumb, I found a piece of plastic straw worked just fine, required less thread and helped keep the strands parallel. With the suggested 5 wraps, the floss circle consistantly broke before the knot slipped; with 4 wraps, sometimes it slipped and sometimes it broke.

I must see if I can find some of this "Glide" next time I visit the pharmacy. Will a Glide owner try the "Spider Hitch Knot" and see if it works?

Cheers - Brian.

Ps. To give credit were credit is due: I found the "Spider Hitch" looking at "How to Split Leaders" when I was browsing for ideas in Geoff Wilson's "Complete Book of Fishing Knots & Rigs". I like his work - BG.

[JimC]

Colgate "Total" is the slipperiest one I have at the moment and the one that is proving the greatest challenge. Maybe something to do with the cross section too.

Tried the spiderhitch with some success but, after experimenting with different approaches thought, isn't spiderhitch essentially same as stevedore except that the turns are made with the wend and not by twisting the loop. Final result looks pretty much topographically same construct.

 

[Brian_Grimley]

JimC asked, " ... isn't spiderhitch essentially same as stevedore ... ?"

With the discussion in the other thread "Tentative Defining of Knot", I would like to tread softly in this reply.  

As you know, the stevedore is a stopper knot of two turns while the spiderhitch is a loop knot of five turns. As a result, if I heard or read others using the words, I would say that they are obviously totally different knots.

I think the challenge is to decide what we mean by the adverb essentially.


First Approach

If we replace the doubled strand, in the spiderhitch, with a single strand and remove one turn at a time, we end up with an Overhand knot. Using Nick Wilde's term "deliberate complication" from his definition of a knot in the "Tentative Defining of Knot" thread, we could say that the spiderhitch is a deliberate complication of the Overhand Knot.

If we remove one turn in the stevedore's knot (defined by the site to which Roo linked (see footnote)) we end up with a Figure-of-Eight.  We could say the stevedore is a deliberate complication of the Figure-of-Eight.

As a result, since they are deliberate complications of different knots, I would say that the spiderhitch and the stevedore are essentially different knots.

Second Approach

If again we replace the doubled with a single strand in the spiderhitch and remove half-turns this time, we end up with a different form of the stevedore knot. If we think of a knot as tied, dressed and set, then the "half-turn reduced" spiderhitch and the stevedore can be seen as tied the same, dressed differently and set. For me, the same knot dressed differently is a different knot and the spiderhitch and stevedore are essentially different knots. However, if you think two knots tied the same but dressed differently are the same knot, then the spiderhitch and the stevedore are essentially the same.

As I said at the beginning, I think the challenge is to carefully define what procedure is used to determine the meaning of the phrase "essentially the same".  

Cheers - Brian.

Footnote: If you are using the links posted by Roo and myself to tie the knots, it will be less confusing if the stevedore is tied by going "clockwise" down the standing part rather "counter clockwise" as shown here: http://www.troop7.org/Knots/Stevedore.html .

[JimC]

Thanks Brian,

You have confirmed my suspicion. What your saying then is that a Stevedore IS essentially the same (I.e. in the topological sense) as a Spiderhitch.

So; If I start a Stevedore - No! If I start a Figure_Eight - No! If I start an Overhand knot with a double strand and make one extra turn I have a Figure_Eight knot of double strand. If I add two extra turns (in total that is - not in addition to) then I have a Stevedore of double strand. If I add five turns of the loop then I have a Spiderhitch!

Makes you think doesn't it, what about the poor cousins? What are we going to call the constructs with three and four turns - Do they not count?

Note: I don't mind being accused of deliberate simplification.

Question: Which way should I tie my Stevedore if I'm using "S" laid rope?

[Brian_Grimley]

JimC said, "You have confirmed my suspicion. What your saying then is that a Stevedore IS essentially the same (I.e. in the topological sense) as a Spiderhitch."

Ahhh ... in a topological sense. If you join the ends of the "Spider Hitch Knot" ( http://www.sdhookandline.com/knots/spiderhitch.html ), it quite easily can be "untied" to become a simple circle of cord. This is called a Null Knot.

If by "Stevedore's Knot" you mean the knot shown here, http://www.troop7.org/Knots/Stevedore.html , and if you join the ends, you can not "untangle" it. It is non-Null. The "Spider Hitch Knot" and the "Stevedore's Knot" are not topologically equivalent.

If by "Stevedore's Knot" you mean a loop knot tied with a bight that has the shape of the "Stevedore's Knot", it is called (by some) a Figure-of-Ten loop. If you join the ends of the Figure-of-Ten loop, it can easily be "untied" to become a simple circle of cord. It is a Null Knot.

The "Spider Hitch Knot" and the "Figure-of-Ten" loop are topologically equivalent to each other. In fact, they are topologically equivalent to all knots that can be tied in or with a bight. They are all Null Knots.

Nice chatting with you, Brian.

[JimC]

Brian said, "If you join the ends of the "Spider Hitch Knot" it quite easily can be "untied" to become a simple circle of cord. This is called a Null Knot"

Ahhh ... yes, we agree again! Here we are talking about the case where the ends are being narrowly defined as the ends of the cord and not the more general case where the ends are recognised as being the working end and the standing end of the knot construct.

But I'm more confused now. If we take such a narrow interpretation and, in my attempt to create a reliable circle of dental floss, I see I've been using the wrong ends of the floss as the wend end for the Spiderhitch. But, is it not still a Spiderhitch if I use the separated ends as the wend end and leave the send end as the loop rather than the wend end?

But again, and in any case, is it not also the case that a null knot is not a knot but that a null knot is a knot that is not?

Wend will it all end? I think I'm starting to go round in circles and, since that is what I was seeking in the beginning, I'm well satisfied.

Many Thanks Brian. You have given me much to think about.

[Dan_Lehman]

While not understanding how the Spider Hitch (a loopknot, which would be a "knot"
by some distinctions and not a hitch by any but anglers' ... ?) can serve the OP's
problem of joining two ends to make a circle (is it being proposed to ring-load the knot?),
I find this "topological"/ "wend"/"stend" chatter getting further confused.

To the question of similarity between Spider & Stevedore, they differ in the one being
formed with a bight to make an eye, and with the tuck of that coming in the orientation
for the Overhand-Fig.9-Fig.11-Fig.<2n+1> series, vs. the other orientation being in the
Fig.8-10-<2n> series.  (Some books show a Fig.9 as the Stevedore, mistakenly.)

But so far as I can glean from instructions & images, the physical arrangement of the
wraps is different, in that those of the Stevedore are expected to go away from the
small eye (where end is tucked), but those of the Spider are to half go away and the
later half to come back over the first, to cascade towards the eye upon setting,
with the hope of imparting a twist in the SPart.

A common problem with anglers' knots is that images of them are usually vague,
to the point that I surmise that many of those presenting them don't actually know
WHAT the knot is supposed to look like--so they fudge it with a tiny scribble.
(And this might explain some of the conflicting indications of strength--actually from
differently dressed/formed knots!)

Before one can talk about topological qualities of practical knots, one needs some
rule for obtaining the t. form.  Consider the Bwl:  how is the end + SPart union
made?  --different results from the two possible connections.
(A separate problem is determining equality:  some things can sure look different,
and moving from one to the other seem impossible, and yet can be done!
Ashley's "Tweenie" (#525) is in fact what is called a "Fig.9" form--the Overhand
with one full turn more, or the Fig.8 with one half-turn more.  But moving from
the elongated, asymmetric form to the symmetric one of 525 is tricky!  And there
are actually TWO symmetric forms that this extended series can take.  --a good way
to get a headache, trying to manipulate the transition from one to the other!

--dl*
====