Interlocking overhand knots

[roo]

  I'm not claiming anything.  I'm asking a question.  There is a difference.

   You are not asking a question. You are asking the same question about all the knots I have posted in this forum. There is a difference !
   If you do not remember how many knots I have posted in this forum, I can help you : Go to the thread (1), and start counting... Stop, after number 30. ( And this is only the bends. Do not count the hitches...) Then, try to count the decorative knots. Stop, after number 1.
   I doubt you have ever bothered to tie any of them, or you will ever tie one. It seems you find pleasure only in repetition, so you tie the same small number of knots it happened for you to learn when you were young. There is nothing wrong with this, we all stop learning, after a certain age, and spend the rest of our lives trying to persuade ourselves that there is nothing new under the sun...    
   Roo, you have a problem with me, I know, but I beg you : Do not let this problem evolve into a problem with yourself. Your contribution to this forum was, and still is,  valuable, and it will be a pity...I really feel sorry. I sincerely hope the best.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3125.0

I'm asking the same question again because you keep refusing to answer.  I have no problem with you on a personal level.  Why are you perpetually surprised at questions of knot practicality in a Practical Knot Forum?

[roo]

 Why are you perpetually surprised at questions of knot practicality in a Practical Knot Forum?

   I am not surprized by perpetual questions !  I try to find the cause that is at the root of the repetition, like we do with all repetitive natural phenomena. When it comes to a perpetually broken mechanism, I stop. I can not fix the human soul, I can only tie some knots ! 
   I suggest you better start tying my knots, and stop talking with me... I assume you have not lost the former ability yet, but I am afraid you desperately try to find some kind of cure, practising the latter. ( Go to Google, and translate, please, my native dialect into yours.)

When I tie your knots, what am I looking for?  You refuse to say what problem it solves.  You refuse to say what the practicality is.  I cannot test your hypothesis if you hide your hypothesis!

If you were to say, "This bend nicely resists jamming and is secure", then I'd have both a motivation to tie the knot, and a claim that I could test.

As it stands now, it's like you're throwing out patterns of ones and zeros in a software forum without bothering to run the program, debug the program, or even describe what it is supposed to do well.

Help us out, Xarax.  We cannot read your mind.

[roo]

Do not hesitate to ask me as many different questions as you wish, and I will answer immediatelly.

Really?  Let's limit it to this thread.  Of the knots presented in this thread, which is the most practical?  How does it excel as a practical knot?  What problem does it solve?

Let's see if you will answer immediately.

[xarax]

   I believe that the lR-uL bend is the most interesting one, as the two overhand knots are maximally interlocked : The extend of the contact between the two links is quite large, probably more than adequate for securing the tails into the knot s nub. Also, I like the front/ back side symmetry, which makes the knot very easy to inspect ( as it is the case for the Zeppelin bend). I have also tested in slippery monofilament material, and it holds very well. It is only one tuck more complex that the Carrick bend, and its first curnes are much wider, so I guess it will have a greater strength ( The Carrick is not such a strong knot).
   I do not know if you have tied this knot... If so, what are your first thoughts about it ?

[xarax]

   I have met, by pure chance, the bend lR - uL first, and, elaborating on it a little, the oSE,lR-oSE,uL , later. ( The "B" and the "A" knots, respectably, as named initially in the first posts of this thread )(*). It was only much later that, by "reverse enguineering", I have learnt the general method of tying them, and I have met the 5 other new knots belonging in the same tying group.
   Now, we can group those 7 knots in three broad categories. In the second we can place the Ashley-bend-like (looking) bends (  C-C, oSE,C-oSE,C , oSE,uR-oSE,lL ) In the first, besides my favourite, also the R-L (see attached pictures) (**). This bend is also looking central symmetric from each side (but the two sides are not themelves identical, like in my favourite... )
   It might well be proved that this bend will be an equally secure and usefull bend, as the lR-uL. Its strands are secured, by friction, along an equally convoluted and long path inside the knot s nub. So, the not-uninterested, or not-disinterested reader  , is kindly requested to have a look at this bend as well.

   A Note. Presenting those pictures, I try to do many things, so I have to compromise a little on all. The bends are not tightened as tight as they could, so the knot retains a more symmetric pre-loaded shape, and the paths of the rope strands are easily followed by sight. A mixture of a realistic image with a diagramm, in short, no one of them being perfect...

(*) P.S. 2011-10-31 : The bend IR - uL is identical with the B 25 bend, named "Illusion", by Roger E. Miles : Symmetric bends. (How to Join Two Lengths of Cord), 1995. (p. 94, p.113)

(**) P.S. 2011-10-30 : The bend R - L is identical with the B 24 bend, named "Rhomb  bend", by Roger E. Miles : Symmetric bends. (How to Join Two Lengths of Cord), 1995. (p. 94, p.113). See also D. Mandeville, Knotting Matters 29, 1989, 6-13.

[Dan_Lehman]

A Note. Presenting those pictures, I try to do many things, so I have to compromise a little on all. The bends are not tightened as tight as they could, so the knot retains a more symmetric pre-loaded shape, and the paths of the rope strands are easily followed by sight. A mixture of a realistic image with a diagramm, in short, no one of them being perfect...

If you were drawing images, you could sometimes get the
harder-to-discern-but-more-realistic image to succeed by
supplementing it with indicators of *flow* through the knot
(say, by numbering parts 1, 2, 3, ... <end>).
Sometimes, looking at a knot in an ambiguous image, one can
arrive at a *new* knot by (mis)connecting parts!  --which leads
to an interesting question about "invention".

This knot can be seen as an interlocked variation to a sort of
"mis"-oriented fisherman's knot --the overhand components
being tied differently.  Which knot seems quite secure, albeit
somewhat awkward/bulky.  This interlocked variation might achieve
some bump in strength, but looks to be jamming, and more bulky.

--dl*
====

[xarax]

This knot can be seen as an interlocked variation to a sort of "mis"-oriented fisherman's knot --the overhand components being tied differently.

  I would not characterize the fisherman s knot as an "interlinked-overhand-knots" bend ( like the Zeppelin and the Hunter s bend, the Ashley s, the Alpine butterfly and the Shakehands bend.) In the fisherman s knot, the inter-connection is too simple, something resembling more of an inter-penetration: the two overhand knots do not have their curved rope segments interlinked the one with the other , and only the standing ends are penetrating the one into the other s knot nub.
   Because of the fact that the curved segments of the one overhand knot are found in an elbow configuration with those of the other, this bend is bulkier than the fisherman s knot. However, its curves radii are much wider, and this is what moved me, in the first place, to search for it, and for the other bends of this thread.

[xarax]

   A different dressing for the most symmetric interlocked-overhand-knots bend, the lR-uL (shown at Replies#1, #3, #6, #8). The two pairs of ends are perpendicular and in touch to each other. I do not know if this dressing/form can be maintained under heavy loading, but it is interesting nevertheless, because it reveals the symmetry of this bend in yet another way.