What is the most appropriate board for the Bowline discussion?

[knot4u]

The Bowline thread is less than "not perfect" in the Practical Knots forum.  That thread blatantly doesn't belong there.

On other sites I visit that are related to knots, people don't discuss knot theory.  People discuss knots as they relate to practical applications.  For example, at hammockforums.net, people discuss knots as they relate to hammocks.  The discussions are solutions-oriented. Like in the real world, they treat a knot as a tool in the tool box.

My point is the Bowline Thread would be entirely out of place on sites where people are discussing practical solutions.  On those sites, the word "practical" actually means something.  On this site, the word "practical" should have actual meaning and should NOT be treated as a minor inconvenience.  Otherwise, this site runs the risk of marginalizing itself from the real world and from people who would have been interested in knots.

[Dan_Lehman]

The Bowline thread is less than "not perfect" in the Practical Knots forum[:]
that thread blatantly doesn't belong there.

On other sites I visit that are related knots, people don't discuss knots in a theoretical manner.
...
On this site, the word "practical" should have actual meaning and should NOT be treated as a minor inconvenience.
...

Let us just agree --which I think we can-- that :

1) most other sites that are concerned with some sort of activity
that includes (but is not centered upon) knots don't discuss knots
all so seriously, although perhaps esp. w/fishing & climbing/caving/SAR
there are some good treatments, if often limited in knots scope);

2) we should have interest, awareness, & energy to take a discussion
of knots/knotting beyond what has occurred historically,
and so be able to vitalize a forum covering (to suggest a name)
"Knotting Concepts & Explorations" .

.:.  And thus, where other forums might lack any need to split off
a thread such as the contentious "Bowline" one, we have sufficient
interest and value to do so.  (Whereas in some other areas it is not
always the case that there is some special treatment of knots, we
have knots itself divided into special areas.)

And so, as Knot4U once remarked (roughly remembered by me),
"Why be afraid of ... Theory?"  That was not a dismissal of such
deliberation, but an encouragement to it, enough to support its
own forum!

Let us agree on this.

(And get back to disagreeing on What Defines a "Bowline"? ! )   


--dl*
====

[Hrungnir]

I fully agree with those claiming that we need an orgianized forum. And when we have divided our forum into categories, it is important that the threads are listed under the correct categories. Organizing is quite important to easily find the subjects we are looking for.

When that is said, I'm really shocked that Retucking the thief knot is still under "Practical Knots". First of all the knot presented is an insecure binder or a trick knot, used as a bend - where it has no practical purpose what so ever. The entire point with the topic is to stress that any knot can be secure by retucking it. For a practical situation, you would tie a secure bend and then retuck it, because it's really no point in retucking an insecure bend when you have so many just as easily tied secure bends. The thread goes further into theoretic discussion, when DDK proves that the Thief Bend is still highly insecure when it's retucked, proving that a retucked thief bend doesn't have any practical value what so ever. However, the discussion is very valuable for theoretical reasons....

[SS369]

Hello Hrungnir and thank you for your input.
What you are expounding about is being considered and a workable solution is coming to the front.
Once it is finalized it will be implemented and hopefully satisfy everyone here at the forum. Hopefully so at least.
For now and always, the quality of discussion(s) is paramount and if a particular topic interests you, please contribute.
We are all learning from one another all the time and I personally value any and all quality input.

I suspect that topics themselves will diverge from the main point(s) of the title's statement from time to time, but I suspect there will be something to learn each time, good or bad.

Re-tucking a thief knot could be a thread where someone actually finds a method to cause the original knot to be more practical for its intended use. I am sure that some who read here, have inadvertently tied a thief knot a time or two. Perhaps if they add the end result of the explorations of the thread as a normal procedure it may help them to thwart an awkward situation.

Anyway, let's keep the path open and we'll sort it out as we go.
Thank you.

SS

[xarax]

the knot presented is an insecure binder or a trick knot, used as a bend - where it has no practical purpose what so ever.

   There is not ONE knot presented there, but SIX, and all are quite secure bends, to my testings. If you have tested any of them, and you have found it insecure, you could have report it to us. Do not confuse the "base", parent knot, the thief knot, with the re tucked knots, that are greatly more secure bends than the thief knot.

The entire point with the topic is to stress that any knot can be secure by re tucking it.

   Of course not, and you should not claim this for all the other knots ! The point of the topic is to stress that the thief knot, and only the thief knot, can be improved by whatever of the 6 stable retuckings. If you have found the same thing for another dangerous, insecure knot, other than the thief knot, please report your findings to us.

it's really no point in re tucking an insecure bend when you have so many just as easily tied secure bends.

   That is your opinion, evidently, and it is a completely mistaken one, to my view. But this can be the subject of a new thread. So, please start a new thread with this subject, and I will reply to this naive, altogether wrong, misleading view there...

DDK proves that the Thief Bend is still highly insecure when it's re tucked, proving that...

  Please, speak for yourself. DDK can defend his views by himself, I believe. If you have something to add to this discussion, why don't you post it there ?  I do not believe that DDK has proved anything like that, because he has not questioned the security of those 6 bends. He examined one of them, the A3, and he has found that it was jamming - to his material and loadings.( I have not spoken about jamming, but about slippage, stability and security. I do not know much -and so I am not qualified to speak- about the subject of jamming ). He has also examined the "double thief knot", which I have not mentioned at all, because I thought that it was natural to expect it would present the same "clogging" negative effects as the common thief knot.
   In short, I think it would be better for us to study and criticize the knots themselves a little more, and the infamous classification of the threads a little less. This is only my opinion, of course. I know that fashion plays a role in everything, and it seems that it is nowadays fashionable for everybody to believe that his opinion about what is a practical knot that should be posted in the Practical knots forum, and what it is not, and should be moved to other forums, is the only correct one, without even examining the knots presented in a thread...Do not fall into this easy trap, study the knots first, tell your opinion if those knots are practical or not only later.  

[Hrungnir]

xarax, my previous post was intended as a feedback on the discussion of placement of certain subjects on the forum. I do not wish to attend a discussion whether your bends are secure or not, but I'm glad that you pointed out that only one of those bends are insecure.

Re-tucking a thief knot could be a thread where someone actually finds a method to cause the original knot to be more practical for its intended use.

Absolutely, but don't you think that is a theoretical part of the process? What we are doing is trying to develop something which might get a practical value.

These "practical" knot topics seem to be "here's a knot, please find a task where my knot can be used".
While it should be the other way around "here's a problem, please suggest how it can be solved using knots".

[xarax]

I'm glad that you pointed out that only one of those bends are insecure.

   No, the "insecure" knot was not presented by me, but by DDK, and only as a proposed counter-example. I have not included it in my original presentation, because it is nothing but the thief knot doubled, and it is natural that it will suffer from the same "clogging" problems the thief knot suffers. All the 6 retucked thief knots I have presented are secure, because they destroty this clogging effect, irrespectably of how / the particular way this retucking is implemented.

These "practical" knot topics seem to be "here's a knot, please find a task where my knot can be used".
While it should be the other way around "here's a problem, please suggest how it can be solved using knots".

   Absolutely wrong, one sided, but "easy", and fashionable view ! It can gain many "votes" !    
   Of course, It would be equally easy, and would-like-to-be-clever, for me to have said something like this : Here is a problem : I have to connect two ropes together. I suggest those bends as solutions to this prooblem...  
   Read the lips of someone the followers of this wrong view would not dare to critisize:
"...the practicalty or impracticality of a knot can be too much stressed. History teaches us that sooner or later a purpose is discovered for everything that exists."

[SS369]

Hello Hrungnir,

Re-tucking a thief knot could be a thread where someone actually finds a method to cause the original knot to be more practical for its intended use. Absolutely, but don't you think that is a theoretical part of the process? What we are doing is trying to develop something which might get a practical value.

These "practical" knot topics seem to be "here's a knot, please find a task where my knot can be used".
While it should be the other way around "here's a problem, please suggest how it can be solved using knots".

We are here because we like to discuss and trade information about an almost arcane subject, perhaps vanishing into antiquity sooner versus later.
I personally don't require that during any conversation about a topic that it be Immediately curtailed by "is this properly placed?"
I think with reason that it is and can be better to finish the conversation and then at its conclusion ask the grey mice to organize it or move it to its most appropriate repository.

Whether discussing this thief knot or bowline or whatever in the board of practicality or wherever, what matters to me and I think others, is the content of the discussion, not that it is here nor there.

The search function works well enough to find this info amongst the data here.

I think it far better in my opinion to join the merriment of conversation, intellectual sword play and enjoy oneself, than to stick to such rigid rules and miss the happiness that comes from and can come from a very, very small family of sorts.
Before long some will have driven others away. I am not pointing fingers directly at you, please do not get this wrong, but I ask along with others: Please be part of the solution.
Although I have addressed this reply to you Hrungnir, I aim it at a few more.

Can we go on,, without falling off the edge of the earth?
Please?

SS

[Hrungnir]

Here is a problem : I have to connect two ropes together. I suggest those bends as solutions to this prooblem...  

Yes, but I still wonder why you would recommend a retucked thief knot? We already have good alternatives like fisherman's knot, sheet bend, blood knot and zeppelin bend. These are already secure bends without retucking, and extra security may be added on some of them with the suggested retucking.

"...the practicalty or impracticality of a knot can be too much stressed. History teaches us that sooner or later a purpose is discovered for everything that exists."

I agree with you 100%, xarax. But as long as the practical value isn't discovered, it's still theory. It's like drawing a circle on a paper. It isn't much practical until you know how it can be used as a wheel. The theory and tools come first.

The search function works well enough to find this info amongst the data here.

The search function works well, but the forum allows me to search within certain boards to limit the search results. If subjects are misplaced, I have no guarantee of finding the wanted subject, either when searching or browsing. Another problem is that misplaced subjects might be taking over the activity on certain boards. One example is when several popular "feedback" threads are put in "chit chat".

Before long some will have driven others away.

My intention of attending the debate is not to make enemies, and I have no intentions of driving anyone away from the forum. If sharing my opinion doesn't lead to anything but harm, then I can keep both opinions and suggestions to myself.

[xarax]

I still wonder why you would recommend a re tucked thief knot? We already have good alternatives like fisherman's knot, sheet bend, blood knot and Zeppelin bend. These are already secure bends without re tucking, and extra security may be added on some of them with the suggested re tucking.

  My dear Hrungrir, I do not recommend ANY of those re tucked thief knots !    I only wish to explore any simple, actually or possibly practical knot might exist in the 3D universe, document it, and study it. When we study a knot, we may discover a part of this knot, a particular way this knot works, that would be useful when we tie other knots. Also, the workings of this knot might help us understand how knots work, how we should dress them, what is we should pay more attention on them, how to chose the knots we should use in every particular instance. I had only wished to do the same with those bends, that I have not seen published or discussed anywhere else. If they are not explored here, then where ?
   The fact that any way we retuck the thief knot, we manage to cancel the clogging effect, seemed an interest subject/question to me, that I felt I would have liked to discuss with anybody that knows some more things bout the "clogging effect" than me. I admit that I can not help but lose any such interest when I am confronted with such responses to my sincere intentions like yours, when you said that you were "really shocked"(sic) by this thread being posted and still remaining in the practical knots forum, Of course, I might have read into it something that was simply not there, because I am a little agitated more than I should, with this latest fashion to "shoot first the thread - remove it from the "Practical knots" to whatever less visited site of the forum -, see the knots presented there only later - or never"
   I have posted hundreds of "new" bends that I do not recommend !  Bends that have not been tied earlier, or studied earlier, or tested earlier. But I post them only if I find them stable and secure, easy to memorize and tie, to a certain degree. Of course, that degree may vary from person to person, according to his knowledge, experience, dexterity, way of making mental pictures and memorizing knots, material used, range of loadings, etc.. How I could possibly know if and when there is a lower common denominator for all those characteristics, all those people, and for the many more that decide, over time, the practicality or not of a knot ? I post the picture, and wait natural selection run its course. However, I am not happy when those knots are not given the chance to be known to somebody, because some people fear that they will lose the monopoly of knotting wisdom they wished for themselves. And I am not happy when some people wish to dictate the use of words and their meaning, like "practical knot ", according to their own interests.
   I will give you an example that proves things are not as the latest fashion try to impose : In a thread about the essential bowline characteristics - the well known "misplaced" thread that was judged as "misplaced" and removed from the Practical knots forum after 150 or so replies ! - I was wondering about the relation between the nipping loop and the collar. I tried to find some examples and counter examples of the views posted there, and I have tied many '" new" bowline-like loops that I would never ever though of, had this discussion not taken place. Then, Dan Lehman discovers a picture with a bowline he though of as a collapsed or a misplaced loop. Because I had documented all the bowline-like loops I had tried, I instantly recognize the loop, remember where I have posted a picture of exactly the same knot, and be happy to clear things out. (1)  You would have felt this joy, to first draw the circle, then someday else discover, "in the wild", a wheel, and then you recognize those two things happen to be one and the same thing ! It proves that we can indeed think as nature /other people do, or vice versa ! 
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg20665#msg20665

I agree with you 100%,xarax...

Good, because then you agree with Ashley, who wrote those words in the ABoK...

...as long as the practical value isn't discovered, it's still theory. It's like drawing a circle on a paper. It isn't much practical until you know how it can be used as a wheel. The theory and tools come first.

   First, we do not know if there is any practical value to be discovered if we do not "see" what is the proposed knot, can we ? It is fashionable nowadays in this forum, to have more people that doubt about the knots been practical, than people that just have a closer look at those knots...as I can tell by the number of times the pictures of the practical knots I have posted, as attachments, are visited... That is a miracle ! They may be good knot tiers, but how do they know, in advance, if there s not any practical value or knot, in a knot they do not know, and they do not want to learn, to tie, to test, in a knot they do not even wish to have just a f...look at  ? 
   I am not sure that humanity should limit the drawings only to things that were proved to be practical !  And a circle is much more useful than any wheel, believe me !  We could well exist without wheels, but not without circles....

If subjects are misplaced, I have no guarantee of finding the wanted subject, either when searching or browsing.

   Tell me Hungrir, do you really believe that the problem we have in this forum, where our 'votes" can not be more than a single digit number, is the misplaced threads ? Or this latest popular fashion is a just scape goat, to cover our inability to stir the interest of more people ?

If sharing my opinion doesn't lead to anything but harm, then I can keep it to myself.

   This is exactly what the whole heated "debate" about "misplaced" threads can cause : Persuade people keep their opinions to themselves, i.e. destroy dialogue, limit posts to repetitive blah blah about the same things, reduce the forum to a knot-recipe catalogue of a handful of  "practical" knots that nobody would understand why and how they work.  We do not wish that to happen, do we ?
   The best attitude against this is to talk about the knots themselves, and try to find out what are the interesting things in them, and what are the dull and dangerous things. Otherwise, we can all say : I tie only those X< 10 or 12 or 13 knots, those are the only practical knots for me,  that are enough for 99.99 of the jobs I need, I use fasteners for the rest, so good bye IGKT forum, and good riddance !   
   I do not pretend there is a knife-sharp distiction between the various classes of physical knots, and that "I" know when a knot is a "Practical knot", or not !  I try to tie practical knots, but it might well be the case that some of them would probably have only a decorative value, or they are theoretical contraptios that are completely useless from the practical point of view. What concerns me most is if any of those knots is dangerous, and I have not seen it in advance. Now, if those knots are the "best" of their breed or not, this is a whole different story. Of course, they can be not the "best", or even good enough, but be "practical" knots nevertheless, as many well known knots are ! Personally, I tie only the common bowline, the Zeppelin bend, and rarely the Constrictor or the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir", 99.99% of the times. It would be really boring for me to take pictures and talk only about those knots, would nt it ? 
   
   

[Hrungnir]

xarax, I do not want you to stop posting either your knots or your work. I applaud you for bringing up the subject about retucking, it was an interesting and educational discussion, even though I didn't contribute myself.

Our differences seem to be "what is practical" and "what is theoretical, where I personally believe the retucking thief knot has more of a theoretical value. I believe "Practical knots" is a tool used to solve practical problems. Here we have a knot which you don't recommend, we don't know it's potential and we don't know when or how to use it. The argument for leaving the topic in "practical knots" is: it might at a later point prove to be practical, or it might trigger someone to make a practical knot or practical knot solution.

There are grey zones, where a Knife Knot can be both practical and decorative, and we might use theory to argue why the Knife Knot is the most correct knot for this specific task. But I think we should be able to distinguish what is the original purpose of the subject, and rather split it if it goes too off-topic in either a theoretical or decorative manner.

remove it from the "Practical knots" to whatever less visited site of the forum

I can understand why you get offended when you look at it from that point of view. But as long as we don't put the highly interesting theoretical and knot structure analyses into that forum, it will forever be a less visited part of the site. I do however think that something should be done with the titles and descriptions of the theoretical and practical boards.

Tell me Hungrir, do you really believe that the problem we have in this forum, where our 'votes" can not be more than a single digit number, is the misplaced threads ? Or this latest popular fashion is a just scape goat, to cover our inability to stir the interest of more people ?

I'm not sure I understand the question really. But by clicking the "advanced search" link, you can see that you have the possibility to exclude some of the boards to get more relevant hits for your search. Personally I find that functionality quite useful.

If you refer to what other problems this forum might have, then yes sometimes the debates get a bit too heated. But I guess that's more an effect of commitment and participation 

[SS369]

Hello All,

I would like to propose something to you.

For the right reasons and for the survival of all the interested intellects who contribute/read and for the many guests who duck in and out here and for all those to come.
Let's limit the requests to move a topic or re-place it to a more appropriate board to personal messages to the moderators.
Or for that matter, strike up a friendly correspondence with the ;-)) perpetrator(s) and discuss the merits.

I should think we are a friendly lot.

Thank you ahead of time for considering this.

SS

[xarax]

Our differences seem to be "what is practical" and "what is theoretical, where I personally believe the retucking thief knot has more of a theoretical value.

What happens if the retucking of thief knot has more of a theoretical value for practical knots ? We are both right ! 

I believe "Practical knots" is a tool used to solve practical problems.

   The title of the thread thread does not say this ! And I do not know what means that "original purpose of the subjec"(sic), what this purpose was, and if this purpose is to be carved into stone for the next millenium. It simply says  "Practical knots". I believe it is a tool to solve knotting problems that practical knots can solve AND problems about practical knots.

But as long as we don't put the highly interesting theoretical and knot structure analyses into that forum, it will forever be a less visited part of the site.

   Why ? On the contrary, I believe that  if we limit the discussions there only to the "Applications of Practical knots", it will be even less visited than it is now...I, for one, will not visit it so often... Limiting the scope of the "Practical knots" forum to half the field it covers now , it will naturally limit the number of its readers to half, too.

I do however think that something should be done with the titles and descriptions of the theoretical and practical boards.

   Me too. I agree with the proposal by agent smith, at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3555.msg20514#msg20514
You could probably make another concrete proposal that would be more useful.

But by clicking the " advanced search" link, you can see that you have the possibility to exclude some of the boards to get more relevant hits for your search.

   I was not meaning that ! I mean that our problem is the small number of the participants here, not the functionality of the search button ! There is much less to search than there could very well be !

[Dan_Lehman]

I still wonder why you would recommend a re tucked thief knot? We already have good alternatives like fisherman's knot, sheet bend, blood knot and Zeppelin bend. These are already secure bends without re tucking, and extra security may be added on some of them with the suggested re tucking.

And the fig.8 end-2-end knot --which is, to one perception,
a re-tucked thief knot (among other possible origins)!   

remove it from the "Practical knots" to whatever less visited site of the forum -,
see the knots presented there only later - or never"[/i]

While I admit the *marketing* aspects supporting this point of view,
I resist going with their follow-the-masses flow; i.e., I don't resign to
having the "<*explorations*>" forum being of no interest; and I know
that one can only lead an unthirsty horse to water, and not beyond
--and if water isn't wanted, even the leading might become tough.
(I.e., those who are inclined to regard --rightly or not-- these adventures
into the uncharted knot-space as non-Practical will not be induced to
read them, and might by ad hominem inferences miss some that they'd
fancy.  Those who do read ... will do so no matter the forum umbrella
overhead.  (And there can be further instances of an idea first appearing
one place, and being further explored in another --in either direction.))

 

Then, Dan Lehman discovers a picture with a bowline he thought of as a collapsed or a misplaced loop. Because I had documented all the bowline-like loops I had tried, I instantly recognize the loop, remember where I have posted a picture of exactly the same knot, and be happy to clear things out. (1)  You would have felt this joy, to first draw the circle, then someday else discover, "in the wild", a wheel, and then you recognize those two things happen to be one and the same thing ! It proves that we can indeed think as nature /other people do, or vice versa ! 
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg20665#msg20665

Whoa!  Dan Lehman posted two orientations of two
well-known eyeknots --and only the first, found "in the
wild," was an apparently surprising discovery (to you).
The Eskimo bowline you presented has been presented
previously and long ago; discovery of it in common marine
cordage (vs. Inuit knotted structures) might be something
not much done, but, then, part of the purpose of the Practical
Knots  seminal thread, "Knots in the *Wild*", was to urge
knot tyers to open their eyes and scour their surroundings
and to report WHAT IS DONE (vs. mere echoing knot books'
assertions).

Now, I did have a sort of Xarax-described eureka when one of
the *slight-SPart-curvature* eyeknots I envisioned & sketched
was found in the wild; and only then or after some reflection
upon it in light of the more obviously capsized bowlines did I
come to see the structure as something got by in-use loading
rather than (presumably) deliberate, purposeful tying (but of course
this is a matter of conjecture, the tyer unknown, unqueried).
It was a form of what I've called an "anti-bowline" --i.e., turNip
with tail brought through it in the opposite direction to the
bowline's and then elongated/capsized by force of mooring.
(And, arguably, I didn't really see, thus, what I'd *invented*,
for my invention was deliberate to the final form, not accidental.)


--dl*
====

[xarax]

The Eskimo bowline you presented has been presented previously and long ago; discovery of it

   Whoa ! Dan Lehman feels the need to state that he has "discovered" a knot "long before"(sic) me !  (*)
   Well, I have only said that I have met this knot, not accidentally "in the wild", as Dan Lehman, not long ago, but only recently, and because / as a by-product of the "long" discussion I had with Derek Smith and him on the essential elements of the bowline. So, a "theoretical" discussion has lead a thirsty horse to a "discovery/invention/meeting" of a practical knot, that was proven to be practical, by the fact that it has has been done and was being used in the marine world already. That eureka moment, this coincidence of reality and imagination, was remarkable to me, and indicates that the field of practical knots may be huge but it is not so vast, and that we are starting to get a glimpse of its whole extend.

(*) I am not sure if I should now reduce the ammount of debt, ot increase the estimated age difference...