Need assistance with these Eye knots (History)

[xarax]

   Tell us, does this not-so-grippy, sub-Gleipnir nipping loop need to be "helped by the collar" [sic sic sic] in the sheepshank?

   Evidently, you have not understood any-thing ... so how can I understand what you ask about that ?
   The Gleipnir and the Sheepshank can not work without the mechanical advantage offered by the double line, Your Brightness ! ( How did you miss this, Watson ?)  Next fake-counter-example / question, please...
   ( Under such a blinding light, even faux bijoux may look like priceless jewels !    )

  Because, as Agent_Smith noted, even for a lousily tied Lehman8, things can be untied ! 

  Agent Smith had not said with what percentage of the MBS of the line he had tensioned the knot.
  Of course, you refer to this single comment of a single trial, a century after you had tied this thing, and you feel proud ! Do you feel proud you had failed to mention my reply to Agent Smith s post ? Or proud about the recent invention of roo, of the "Working-load-untiable" knot ?

  trying the knots for themselves, as you do (k)knot?!

  You mean that you had tried the begging-to-be-forgotten Lehman8 thing ? And you still remember what you found, after a century ?  Or that you simply keep kissing it all those years, with the hope it will be transformed into a princess some day ? Keep trying ! 

It is not-so-lever to use, in a bowline-like eyeknot, or in a bend we wish it should be untied easily, the most tight knot we can imagine ! Because that knot will be a "closed" knot, and then it will be difficult to untie.

  How is it "closed" here and not in the binder?
  And how is the "reversed clove hitch" (more) closed than unreversed (which doesn't usually jam)?

  The Clove-hitch based Gleipnir ( which I have tied and tried ) is a very tight knot - it almost jams., although it is not "closed" topologically. The Clove X adjustable loop, is also an almost jamming knot, but this should perhaps be expected, because it is a "closed" knot.
   The reversed and the unreversed Clove hitches have a great difference, which you would had understood, if you had read my posts more carefully, instead of trying to show up to your beloved imaginary audience. I have seen that the self-locking property of the mechanism of the Clove hitch, when tied around compressible materials, is due to the fact that its two limbs are squeezed upon each other, while, at the same time, they rotate towards different directions. This does not happen in the case of the Girth hitch.
   So, the answer is simple : when the limbs are pulled towards such directions which force them to be squeezed upon each other less, or even separate them, the Clove hitch will not jam.
   My remark was crystal clear - but if you really wait your frog to become a princess, you will start to invent any not-so-clever excuses, and not realize, and admit, the simple rule of thumb I had told you : Beware of the "closed", overhand knots, fig.8 knots, etc, tied on ANY side of the Standing Part, before or after the eye.
   Let your Lehman8 be forgotten - It will be good for it, for you, and for my keyboard !
   Phew !

  a "tucked" quick8 maybe it should be called,

   The re-tucked quick8 is an altogether different knot ! Are you going to attempt to validate this mediocre, even dangerous, adjustable quick8 loop, by properties that could had, had it been re-tucked ?   
   Tie the Pretzel TIB adjustable loop, the Clove X adjustable loop, the double overhand knot adjustable loop(s), the recet adjustable loop tied by Alan Lee, and WAKE UP !  And if you dare to boast about your 19th century long-dead and buried quick8 ( NOT for its re-tucked descendants ! ), hic Rhodus, hic saltus ! I would love a 1000$ wager, because there are so many beautiful ropes out there I wish to buy... ( No ? You would nt except it, because your material "can not be so knotted" ?    Then, keep keyboarding ... )

  Just tie knots to tie knots to tie more knots and decry the other knots as not knotty enough.

  Just do not tie knots because you can not tie knots because you have put off your knot-tyer hat, and you had put on your knot-caster hat... Those who can, do, those who can not, decry others ! 
   The frog-ish Lehman8 is knotty enough ?  To my eyes, it is froggy enough, that is for sure - and, given that I tie "decorative knots", as you and your buddy roo keep telling to your clients 6 years now, I can distinguish between a frog and a princess !  Keep kissing it !  Miracles do happen !

   An unsolicited advice : Forget the Lehman8 - the most simple TIB bowline you had tied, and the Mirrored bowline, are much better and notable knots. Forget the quick8 adjustable loop - the Dave Poston s loop consumes the same amount of material, it can be tied as easily and quickly, but it is a much more secure solution - for GodKnot sake, even your buddy roo has understood that ! Of course, the Pretzel TIB, the C Clove X, the double-overhand-knot-based one(s), and the recent Alan Lee s adjustable loop, are years ahead of them- but that is a problem I guess you will manage to solve the next century. 

[alpineer]

Hi Mark,
Edit: Here are images of the Tresse Bowline with barrel "coil over S.Part" geometry for you to do your camera magic. I'll edit this post with beta later.

[alpineer]

Hi again Mark,
Edit: Here are images of the Tresse Bowline with blood "coiled S.Part" geometry.

[xarax]

   This Tresse coiled S.Part bowline is a nice, easy to remember, and easily tiable in-the bight and in-the-end TIB loop ( it ibecomes TIB, when the Tail End is re-tucked through the collar, everything else remaining the same ).  Personally, I prefer it from the similar Barrel bowline, because it does not have this very sharp turn at the first curve of its returning eyeleg.
   It is a pity that it does not have a more convoluted collar ! As I had said some time ago, its "nipping structure" is sophisticated, but its "collar structure" remains naive - and I believe that we should try to keep a balance between those two essential components of the bowline...
   I had thought of replacing the collar, too, with a braided one : an idea is to use the very simple crossed-legs collar of the Cross-gartered bowline :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4283.msg35800#msg35800

[alpineer]

very sharp turn at the first curve of its returning eyeleg.

Please interpret your phrasing for me. Do you mean the curve at the base of the barrel "coil over S.Part" nipping structure? And if so, why? Are you implying the blood "coiled S.Part" form is the stronger of these two Tresse Bowline geometries?

[xarax]

    Are you implying the Blood form is the stronger of these two Tresse Bowline geometries ?

   As this curve has to withstand the 50%, only, of the total load, I do not believe there will be any significant problem of strength. I just do not like sharp turns ! I like wide, smooth, gradual, gentle, feminine curves...

[xarax]

   I had said enough against the mediocre, to say the least, quick8 and Lehman8 knots - but I am not the kind of person who likes to bulldozer the past ! All knots tied by all knot tyers have their value, and their place in the history of knots, and even when their proud fathers are not yet prepared to simply let them go, I do not wish to be considered as someone who pushes them to do so... The only reason I feel a need to forget some knots, is that my memory can not remember many knots any more ( or, for that matter, many of any-things...), so I have to make room for the new ones, oftentimes by kicking some old ones out, in a not-so-polite way...
   In an attempt to balance my somewhat harsh attitude, I have tied the knot shown in the attached pictures, also based on a "closed", fig.8 knot tied on the Standing Part before the eye. The idea was to "hang" the returning eyeleg from the oblique segment of the fig.8, and then to secure it by passing the Tail End in between the two eyelegs, which squeeze it from both sides - because the eyelegs themselves, in their turn, are squeezed by the powerful Standing Part s first curve / lower collar of the fig.8. Of course, loyal to my recent TIB-mania, I had made it TIB.
  In memoriam of the quick8 and the Lehman8 knots - Amen.   
       

[Dan_Lehman]

This Tresse Blood bowline is a nice, easy to remember, and easily tiable in-the bight
and in-the-end TIB loop (...).  Personally, I prefer it from the similar Barrel bowline,
because it does not have this very sharp turn at the first curve of its returning eyeleg.

1) What is shown first --viz., the "barrel" version-- is
 1a. - my Y2K knot (for IGKT), "locktight eyeknot" (one of...),
 1b. - wrongly distinguished from "blood" courtesy of the
     appallingly stupid promulgation of an in-tying-steps orientation
     of internals that should not occur in the finished knot
   (What Barnes called "out coil" vs "in coil", the latter being the
   intended, final orientation for the knot's origin in nylon monofilament
   fishline --what results from setting (lubricated, sometimes).)

2) So, the "blood" version is badly named, propagating the
all-too-darn-common mistake noted above.  (And, in the UK,
there is "larksfoot" to deal with, after some mis-translation
of French, 'tis suspected.)

3) X.'s critique of the former, of its apparent tight S.Part U-turn,
also concerned and puzzled me : how could blood knots be SO
strong (the "100%" or is it "90%" knots)?!  What Barnes found,
in loading, breaking, and doing post-mortem on such knots tied
in (then fairly new) nylon monofilament fishline was that
3a - the S.Part broke in the center of the nub where it crosses
against the tucked tails, and
3b - the tightness of wraps was such as to make compression
indentations on the S.Parts (maybe more on the continued
half of one S.Part rather than the just-entering-half of the
other (a diff. in tensions?)!?  !!  (And it puzzles me that so
much force that can do this has survived going around that
tight turn!)

(FYI, I had a knot break-tested in which a similar hard turn
manifested itself --wasn't my plan, but ... --, and it was the
strongest one, breaking in 2 of 3 strands!?  Now, there was
some internal pressure too, but ... .)

4. I devised some variation in which the tail returns from
collaring the S.Part into the coil a little *later* so as to
accommodate really stiff rope.  The hard turn of the exit
of the S.Part-side eye leg helps to prevent that from feeding
material into and so loosening the knot --it won't *flow*
around such a bend.  The coil compresses tightly, for slack
security, but the "back door" of the bowlinesque collar and
so on enables easy untying.  (I might suspect that in the
case of a severe dynamic loading, there could be some
actual "welding" from frictional melting, as the coil gives
a lot of material to be drawn out in tightening!  (Unless
one can preset it very tightly.)

Now, this can point to interesting challenges about defining
"strength" :: is it by dynamic loading, where the tightening
and that flow of material might reduce peak impact force?
--or might induce melting and breakage not seen in standard
loading? --or ... <what we haven't guessed!> ?


--dl*
====

[alpineer]

First off, let me say there are so many breaking thoughts in your sentences that it's hard at times to follow your lines without my brain being turned inside-out.

1) What is shown first --viz., the "barrel" version-- is
 1a. - is my Y2K knot (for IGKT), "locktight eyeknot" (one of...),

Acknowledged, of course, although I prefer my name for it, whatever that name might be.

1b. - wrongly distinguished from "blood" courtesy of the
     appallingly stupid promulgation of an in-tying-steps orientation
     of internals that should not occur in the finished knot

In kernmantle I have witnessed spontaneous orientations of both, probably because I form the nipping structure by making the two underhand coils in the same direction.

2) So, the "blood" version is badly named, propagating the
all-too-darn-common mistake noted above.

So, the real "blood" version is actually the "barrel" version? How do you describe the faux "blood" version? Shine yo' light bro', 'cuz I wanna kno'.
 

(And, in the UK,
there is "larksfoot" to deal with, after some mis-translation
of French, 'tis suspected.)

You threw this in as an unrelated side note to help make your point??? It's not helping.

3) X.'s critique of the former, of its apparent tight S.Part U-turn,
also concerned and puzzled me

That's not what I understood him to be referring to... see his cropping of my image with the big red arrow. 


 

[xarax]

X.'s critique of the former, of its apparent tight S.Part U-turn,

   That's not what I understood him to be referring to...

   True. I was referring to this sharp turn at the turn of the upside "L", where the returning eyeleg gets inside the nub. However, the issue with the Standing Part s first curve ( which lead dL to his infamous Leaman8, I believe ? ), may be more significant, regarding strength - because the Standing End bears the 100% of the total load, while the eyeleg bears only the 50%. I was talkinh only about the shapes of the curves I prefer, in all knots, not about strength, on which I know next to nothing. 

[Dan_Lehman]

First off, let me say there are so many breaking thoughts in your sentences that it's hard at times to follow your lines without my brain being turned inside-out.

One might thus conclude that it needs the exercise!   
(But often the inserts are put to shed light on a 2nd
aspect, to qualify and thus help focus on the point
--as words are often too *blunt* for precision, alas.)

2) So, the "blood" version is badly named, propagating the
all-too-darn-common mistake noted above.

So, the real "blood" version is actually the "barrel" version?
How do you describe the faux "blood" version?
Shine yo' light bro', 'cuz I wanna kno'.

There isn't a common name for what we might describe
as a helix'd S.Part (aiming for gradual curvature, for me).
FYI, the dbl.bowline can take this form by pushing
the 2nd/"dbl" turn of the S.Part forwards through the
initial one (just as the Hedden hitch's coil-back part can
see the S.Part sort of "cascade" around later turns vs.
going straight to top of coil (well, you need more turns
than the orig., brief Hedden to do this!).

But, to the point : blood knot has a history and that
history might show different tying steps but the finished
knot should have S.Parts running straight through the nub
to opposing ends, and then U-turning (sharply).  Typical
of angling-knots images is little more than a cryptic squiggle
to show the finished knot, and the uniformed echoers of
such things see the clear, during-tying image and make
wrong deductions about that.  (And some of those squiggle
makers might be as much in the dark about the result!)

(And, in the UK,
there is "larksfoot" to deal with, after some mis-translation
of French, 'tis suspected.)

You threw this in as an unrelated side note to help make your point??? It's not helping.

?!  I added a note about another mistaken naming;
it wasn't intended to be greatly helpful directly, but
to show how things get bent out of true in popular
"literature".

3) X.'s critique of the former, of its apparent tight S.Part U-turn,
also concerned and puzzled me

That's not what I understood him to be referring to... see his cropping of my image with the big red arrow.

Okay, I see.
Re the S.Part's turn, one can orient the tail so that
the S.Part bites hardest into it and draws it around
with force, rather than putting that force directly
on the adjacent eye leg --and this might help!?

In heavy loading I've done, the ropes do show the
force at this point, so it's a concern (yet to be given
some testing).  (In some of your orientations, it looks
as though you too might mitigate this aspect.
(Orienting in anticipation of changes wrought via force
and elasticity and friction ... can be tricky, and knots
that require such things for achieving their claims to
fame are by some measure dubious --but angling knots
do come with stated setting guidance, usually.)


--dl*
====

[alpineer]

There isn't a common name for what we might describe
as a helix'd S.Part...
But, to the point : blood knot has a history and that
history might show different tying steps but the finished
knot should have S.Parts running straight through the nub
to opposing ends, and then U-turning (sharply).

Thanks Dan. That's what I needed to have confirmed.
So, correct me if I'm wrong... The first set of my four images show - albeit with fewer turns - the true "blood" form. The second set of images depict the topologically equivalent but geometrically bastardized "blood" form. And that same "blood" terminology applies to the single ended stopper knots, yes?

[Dan_Lehman]

There isn't a common name for what we might describe
as a helix'd S.Part...
But, to the point : blood knot has a history and that
history might show different tying steps but the finished
knot should have S.Parts running straight through the nub
to opposing ends, and then U-turning (sharply).

Thanks Dan. That's what I needed to have confirmed.
So, correct me if I'm wrong... The first set of my four images show - albeit with fewer turns - the true "blood" form. The second set of images depict the topologically equivalent but geometrically bastardized "blood" form. And that same "blood" terminology applies to the single ended stopper knots, yes?

I'm lost on "four", as you've two posts each showing four
images, then two more w/one each.  In any case, where
the S.Part runs more or less straight through and then
turns and wraps back around itself (& other parts) is
"true blood" form.  A grapevine knot could be said
to show this, though it has somewhat different *internals*.

--dl*
====

[alpineer]

One might thus conclude that it needs the exercise!   

 

There isn't a common name for what we might describe
as a helix'd S.Part

Edit: I'll go with the term Coiled S.Part for the helix'd S.Part. 

 
 
 

[alpineer]

I'm lost on "four", as you've two posts each showing four
images, then two more w/one each. 

 

Bad grammar on my part. Alright then, try "my first of two sets of four images each" or "my first four of eight images". Mr. x's use of my images do not factor into the equation. Hope that finds you.