Beautiful complex symmetric bends ! - as it should perhaps be expected, for symmetric retuckings of beautiful simpler bends.
Nobody has ever tied any of them, I believe - because nobody had ever searched for so convoluted bends - we used to think that the simpler bends were already too many, even for the experienced knot tyer s mind, and convoluted more than enough for the job, so any further retucking of them could offer very little, and it would not worth the trouble - and the added material. Now with the Dyneema revolution, we are back to the square one - or , for that matter, to the square zero, as shown with a
picture at the previous post.
However, I am not yet convinced that all the simpler bends we already know are inadequately convoluted - nobody has ever tied and tested more than a handful of the 60 bends presented at Miles, for example, and Miles book is 20 years old... People seem to be ready to jump into conclusions and make general statement, indeed, they almost feel compelled to do so, especially regarding knots that have tied, but they do not feel obliged to see what other knot tyers have already tied before them. That is often a good thing, because it offers them the power of a fresh look, but I believe that, at this stage, we need more tests, not more ties. Of course, people that can not
test,
tie, and people that can not tie, only
talk about knots - I know this because I have actually
seen this, with my own eyes, in my case !
To my eyes, the tuck B style looks more promising - as I have also tried to explain (1)(2), a few sharp turns and/or right angle crossings can do a better job then many constricting=nipping round turns/loops. I have thought that the fig.9 stopper, which has such properties, can be more effective than the almost equally complex double fisherman s knot, for example - so I tried to incorporate it in a fisherman s knot, and
see what
happens.(3)
I think we should not high-jack allene s thread any more, showing more and more "new" bends that should possibly be as efficient as the retucked alt. Carrick bend - or even more efficient. I suggest the previous posts be moved to a new thread, and we continue talking about those particular retucked Snug bends there.
"When the one line is squeezed on an other, their surfaces are deformed - the saddle-like shapes that are generated play the role of obstacles, of "dents", which increase the amount of forces required for any lengthwise motion predicted by the theory of friction of solid, non-deformable bodies.
We can actually see this by measuring the friction between two lines when they meet each other at different angles. When the angle is more acute, so the area of mutual contact is more extended, the lines can slide along each other easier, because the deformations / obstacles on their surface are less pronounced - they are more extended, but less deep. When the angle approaches the right angle, the contact area is smaller, so the same perpendicular force can allow the lines to bite each other harder and deeper - so they can not move lengthwise as easily as it would had been predicted by a theory of friction which does not take account the local deformation on the surfaces of the bodies."(1)
"Why does the Twedledee bend slips "easily", while the 88 bend does not ? I believe that this is due to the fact that the oblique elements of the two 8-shaped links meet each other at an almost right angle, so the surface of the one bites hard and deep into the body of the other - a condition that deforms the two lines, and prevents their mutual lengthwise displacement more effectively than the increase of the pressure they are hold together. So, just constricting two lines is a less efficient mechanism than preventing them to slide on each other, by paying attention to the angle they follow as they reach to their contact point."(2)
1.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30822#msg308222.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30894#msg308943.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4764.0P.S.
As you can see, the
Snug bend ( M. B 11 , p 89 ) can be represented as a tying diagram on a 5 x 5 square grid. I suggest we label the openings of the tying diagram with their position in the matrix - for example, the central opening is the ( 3, 3 ). Then, we can label the variations by denoting through which openings we have driven the ex-Tails, in order to retuck the "base" bend once more. We can use the + or - symbol to denote that the ex-Tail penetrates the tying diagram going from the one half-space to the other :
+ if it penetrates it moving "downwards", relatively to the diagram laying on a horizontal plane, and
- if it penetrates it moving "upwards". This way we can avoid the "first", second", etc labels, and provide the adequate information so one can tie the knot, without having to look at a picture of it.
