Two pairs of pet TIB twin eyeknots

[Ruby]

well, as a PET loop, how do you tie it using one end?

I think I just got that bowline like method following exactly your instructions.

though acturally I don't get the concept of crossing knot.

is there any knot without crossing?

strange knot words , just for me.

[X1]

different tying method maks different knot, even the structure is the same?

   No, I, for one, will not go as far as this... although I have seen instances where a different tying method can arrange the tails differently, so it can tie a different knot (1).
   However, I believe "simplicity" is a most complex thing !  A quick tying method may not be simple to understand, and I think that, if people start from a common bowline s initial stage, as you did, and tend to believe that those pet TIB loops are just more complex bowlines, they will not understand them - and they will not understand the bowline, either. The common bowline s nipping loop is a completely different thing than a crossing knot - based nipping loop... Therefore, it needs a collar, around the standing end, to remain stable, and to not degenerate into an open helix. The crossing knot loops are very different in this. They may be more convoluted at the beginning, and their nipping power may be less than the nipping power of a single nipping loop ( where the second limb runs directly into the eye), but they are, in a sense, self-stabilized, they are far more stable  : So they do not need a "proper" collar ! Big, huge difference !
 
   1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4128.msg24826#msg24826

[X1]

acturally I don't get the concept of crossing knot.
is there any knot without crossing?

   Crossing knots have two crossings !  ( well, almost...the standing part comes very close to itself two times, not only one, as in the "common" bowline s single nipping loop

   Tie the crossing knot-base loops shown in the reference I had mentioned in Reply #43, and you will get it at once !

P.S. At the attached picture you can see a crossing knot s nipping structure - no relation whatsoever with the "common" bowline s nipping loop, obviously !  If the standing end is at the upper left side of the picture, and the eye leg at the lower right side, and if we count the "crossing points" of the standing part with itself starting from the standing end, the "second" ( at the right side of the picture ) crossing point is the one that should be maintained at all costs - so, the returning eye leg has to secure that the two segments of the crossing knot that meet each other at this point remain in touch ( or very close ) to each other, and only then to secure itself, hiding in between his fathers pants ( the strong standing part s first curve ) and his mother s skirts ( the weaker returning eye leg s first curve ). So to make sure that the crossing knot will remain crossed at this "second" point, the working end needs to turn around the two segments that meet there. Following this strategy, you will tie all the crossing knot-based loops we have, and then some !

[Dan_Lehman]

   Notice two things :
   1. The second end ( at the right side of the picture ) of the first "small" bight
 ( the bight that is going to form the nipping loop ) goes "over" its first end
 ( at the left side of the picture ),

?!  I see not "bights" but "loops" --fitting the standard
definitions (and such terms as "nipping loop")--, so it would
help to so refer to them.

Secondly, given the orientation of ends in the finished-knot
image, the SPart is not what begins (and happens to end)
on the right, but on the left.

I have no doubt that this loop is much better than the Span loop ( ABoK#1049 )
 --the tail is secured/locked in between the first curves of the standing part AND the returning eye leg ),
 but, judging from past experience, I reckon that this would need 60, at least, years
 to be understood and appreciated by Ashley s devoted followers .     

By Ashley's presentation, the function of the span loop is to
provide an attachment eye for a "span"; hence, the knot is best
if "TIB" (one might think of the butterfly, but maybe that's
not among the "this series" Ashley cites).  Your given eye knot
seems intended for a particular SPart loading and the other end
qua tail (unloaded).

Note that the start of the span loop is consistent with making
one of the bowline in the bights --one needs to make the
"back flip" of the inserted bight (or loop, for other versions)
back around the knot to collar the SPart.

As for how many times some part is nipped, that is not even
a sure indication of value on its own of security of that part,
let alone an indication of the quality of the knot overall
--such things as ease of tying/untying, economy of material,
and so on.   If both knots are secure (loose, loaded), then
counting number of points of binding is rather academic.


But, in any case, the showing of inserting bights/loops within
others is a good opening of the mind to methods for forming
knots.  I have found one (which is much MUCH better
than these!) that works decently qua mid-line eye knot,
and I think should prove reasonably sound in other regards,
but which I cannot assuredly tie with the ends (i.e., by
non-TIB method), and which requires, for that, some careful
formation and then holding-in-place while the knot is
completed by reeving the tail through it.


--dl*
====

[X1]

?!  I see not "bights" but "loops" --fitting the standard definitions (and such terms as "nipping loop")--, so it would help to so refer to them.

OK - but a nipping loop which has not yet been penetrated by something that is going to be nipped, is still a bight, is nt it ? 

   Your given eye knot seems intended for a particular SPart loading and the other end qua tail (unloaded).

  Indeed - but it works fine as a midline loop as well. I have to admit that I was seduced by this fine bowline-like (post-eye-tiable) eyeknot that is also a TIB knot! As I had mentioned, I prefer to tie it as TIB, even at the end of the line ! So, what is wrong with a double edged sword ? 

   As for how many times some part is nipped, that is not even a sure indication of value on its own of security of that part, let alone an indication of the quality of the knot overall

   You missed this point ( Ruby has understood it much better ). It is not about "how many times', it is about "where" ( in between the two stronger opposing curves of the knot s nub ), and "how" ( at right angles ). The where and the how the tail is secured in this eyeknot, is not only an "indication", but almost a proof ! 

    I have found one (which is much MUCH better than these!) that works decently qua mid-line eye knot,
and I think should prove reasonably sound in other regards, but which I cannot assuredly tie with the ends (i.e., by non-TIB method

  Will you e-mail a picture of it to us, the next century or so ?  Perhaps at that time it would be TOO late for me to comment on it...

[X1]

   Notice two things :
   1. The second end ( at the right side of the picture ) of the first "small" bight ( the bight that is going to form the nipping loop ) goes "over" its first end ( at the left side of the picture ),

...given the orientation of ends in the finished-knot image, the SPart is not what begins (and happens to end) on the right, but on the left.

   Read this ( quite complicated, I admit it...) phrase one more time... ( it is correct). I am talking about the relative positions ( "over" / "under" ) of the "first" and "second" ends / limbs of the "first" bight ( the one "above" the other, at the picture , which will become part of the rim of the crossing knot s nipping structure ), and the corresponding ends / limbs of the "last" bight ( the one "below" the other, at the picture, which will become the "collar" around the two eye legs ). The Standing end of the finished eyeknot is at the left side of the picture ( it is identical with the "first" end / limb of the "first" bight ). Perhaps I should nt have shown it at the "vertical" orientation in the last picture... but I always want to show that the main purpose of this eyeknot is to be a decent bowline-like post-eye-tiable loop that happens to be TIB as well, not a mid-line eyeknot ( that can be loaded both ways ). I think that if I were to tie a mid-line loop only, I would have tied a Butterfly loop. I am always interested in PET eyeknots, but I was surprized that a fine one, as this loop is, was also a TIB knot  ( it was a bonus ! ) - and I got stuck with it ! Now, I prefer to tie it as TIB, always !

[Ruby]

Crossing knot ...

these knots look like zepplin bend

maybe zepplin bend is formed by two interlocked crossing knot? (unlike  some interlocked overhand)

[X1]

these knots look like zepplin bend
maybe the Zeppelin bend is formed by two interlocked crossing knot? (unlike  some interlocked overhand)

  The Zeppelin bend is completely different from most bends we know, that is true - it is a rope made hinge, with the tails playing the role of the pivot of this hinge. The main bights, the first curves of the standing parts, are not "hooked" on each other : they remain parallel to each other, and they are connected only indirectly, by the pair of their tails that penetrate the two parallel "rings" and are able to withstand the shear forces acting on them.
   However, each link is still topologically equivalent to the overhand knot, while a crossing knot is topologically equivalent to the unknot : that is why the crossing-knot based loops are post-eye-tiable eyeknots. When you release any knotted structure that involves the continuation of the returning eye leg, there remains nothing knotted on the standing part. This is a sine qua non of a mooring knot, as the bowline : the very moment one removes the returning eye leg from a bowline-like loop tied around a bollard or within a ring on the dock, the mooring line is "clean", unknotted - so it can be pulled on board without the danger of being caught somewhere, during the dangerous moments the ship leaves the dock. The last thing a sailor on board of a ship that leaves the dock wishes, is to use the mooring line to "fish" a knot tied on its free end ! 
  Moreover, you should look at how a particular "shape" of a rope segment is loaded, that is, you should try to "see" the flow of the tensile forces running through it, before you decide if it is "similar" or not to another... At a crossing knot, both ends are loaded, at each Zeppelin bend s link the second end, the tail, is unloaded. 

[X1]

 

   By Ashley's presentation, the function of the span loop is to provide an attachment eye for a "span"; hence, the knot is best if "TIB" (one might think of the butterfly, but maybe that's not among the "this series" Ashley cites).  Your given eye knot seems intended for a particular SPart loading and the other end
qua tail (unloaded).

By Ashley's presentation, the function of the span loop is to provide an attachment eye for a "span"; hence, the knot is best if "TIB" (one might think of the butterfly, but maybe that's not among the "this series" Ashley cites).  Your given eye knot seems intended for a particular SPart loading and the other end qua tail (unloaded).

   It is impossible to show the pet Loop in all possible orientations and loadings of its four limbs - and I do not claim, of course, that I have examined all of them ! However, there is one advantage of this knot which, in comparison to the Span Loop, is almost self-evident  : In the case when both eyeknots are loaded mainly from their two standing ends ( that is, when they are tied-in-the-bight on a tensioned main line and the loading of the eyeknot from the two legs of the eye is much lighter than the loading from the two ends ), the pet Loop seems stronger than the Span Loop. The pet Loop s first standing curves, being "hooked" to each other, do not suffer as much as the one end of the Span Loop which makes the collar- like sharp U turn around the other - and this is not depending upon the specific orientation of the two Standing ends, or the amount of tensile forces induced into the eyeknot by a more or less loaded eye.  See the attached pictures - I am talking about the end coming from the left side of the picture. Therefore, I have a reasonable argument to support my claim that, even during such a "spanned" configuration, where those TIB / midline eyeknots are tied on a more or less tensioned from both ends main line in order to provide a purchase, the pet Loop would be stronger than the Span Loop.

[X1]

  In the previous post, I have used, on purpose, an image of the pet Loop where the left part looks somehow "similar" to the left part of the Span Loop - so one can easily distinguish the difference of the way the Standing Parts first curves are "hooked" inside the two eyeknots.  A more "natural" dressing and final stage of the pet Loop is shown at the attached pictures of the present post. The eyeknot ( meaning, the "nub" of the loop ) is more compact, and more aligned with axis of loading of the eye. One can see that there in no sharp, collar-like U-turn like the one that exists at the Span Loop.

[xarax]

   Notice that the pet TIB B can be tied in a more secure form, if the path of the tail ( in relation to the standing part s and the eye leg s "hooks"/ first curves ) is similar to the path followed in pet TIB A ( i.e., if the tail is "locked" securely in between them ).

   Here is another way one can tie the pet TIB BB eye-knot. Although it looks more secure, as said above, its security depends upon the stiffness of the material - tied on a soft, very flexible rope, the Tail that works as a toggle, can bend and slip outside the knot s nub.

[Luca]

Hi,

If one has the patience to learn the Kung Fu method for the common Bowline by Alan Lee mentioned here http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4476.msg29856#msg29856 (look at the video!),it can take advantage of a variant of this method to run fast even the PET TIB (A) loop.Below the differences between the Kung Fu method for the common Bowline and the one for the Pet loop(in the "KungFuPetLoop2" diagram the two movements are numbered in order of execution,because the first have to be performed necessarily before the second).
                         
                                                                                              Bye!

[Luca]

Hi,

Below the simplest representation I've found to describe how to realize the Pet loop, perhaps it is also the most inaccurate way to represent it, but the knot at the end is all there: with a little practice, one can realize that it is really easy and fast to build like the Span loop #1049!

                                                                                                           Bye!

[xarax]

it is really easy... to build like the Span loop #1049!

   No, it is easier to remember how to tie, and to tie, than the Span loop ! - because you start from a symmetric configuration (see the first picture), and then you half-reeve the right bight ( with your right hand ) from the back to the front, ( see the second picture), and then you full-reeve the central bight, again from the back to the front ! Once you have applied this method a few times, you can not forget it ! 

[Festy]

it is really easy... to build like the Span loop #1049!

   No, it is easier to remember how to tie, and to tie, than the Span loop ! - because you start from a symmetric configuration (see the first picture), and then you half-reeve the right bight ( with your right hand ) from the back to the front, ( see the second picture), and then you full-reeve the central bight, again from the back to the front ! Once you have applied this method a few times, you can not forget it ! 

X, is it a directional loop knot?