Re: My Working Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

[siriuso]

Hi dear all,
The bends shown in " My Working Notes"are tied in three Ends Starting Methods.
They are :
1) Cross Ends,
2) Opposite Ends, and
3) Parallel Ends,
which you will find the two working ends are all going to form overhand, underhand, interlocking, non-interlocking loops. These are alternative ways to get into the loop forms of the shapes b, d, p, q, 6 and 9 for some existing and new bends.

Based on these three starting ways, some new bends together with their mirror-images are discovered, recorded and posted for sharing.

Further to the posted " My Working Notes " and  " My Working Notes 2 ", herewith are the "My Working Notes 3 ", the " List of Bends " and a diagram of " Variations and Features " uploaded for sharing. Here the link :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6M254Y0VsckVXMWc?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6bm1RQUNvTnhwTEk?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6enNvemJWTmxSaTg?usp=sharing


Wui-yuen Chan (yChan)
20th September 2017

[agent_smith]

Hello Wui-yen Chan,

I'm surprised no one has replied to your post.

If Xarax was still a member of this forum, he would have replied almost immediately.

Xarax and I had explored these types of bends in 2011.

I first started looking at #1402 (Reef knot) as a base and other superimposed bights/loops.

Xarax in particular took things a lot further a virtually tied every possible combination. If you search this forum using 'xarax' as a key word, you will find literally hundreds if not well over a thousand knots that he tied and presented to the IGKT.

...

By the way, nice work!
Keep tying knots and presenting them...

Hopefully Xarax will notice my reply post and he might contact me with details and links pointing to his work in this area. If he does, I'll post his reply herein.

Mark Gommers

[siriuso]

Hi Mark G, thanks for the comments. Am waiting for more comments.

yChan

[agent_smith]

I received this email from Xarax:

NOTE TO FORUM MODERATORS: I hope that I am not breaking any rules by posting content from Xarax..I received his consent to post his email in this forum. I am of the view that Xarax has made some important contributions to our collective knot knowledge. I am not sure of the nature and extent of any open/ongoing or existing bans with regard to Xarax?

Bends

Of course I have examined carefully all the knots presented by yChang seconds after he presented them at the Forum ! However, I didn't have his e-mail address, to congratulate him, and tell him my opinion on them, in particular, and on the issue of bends, in general ( on which I do NOT consider myself a master, as Roger E. Miles is - I only have tied some good tight hitches and one secure TIB bowline... )

1.       First, we have to tie every possible simple bend there is.

( I use the word ?is?/ =?exists?, but I could had used the world ?can be? / ?can be tied? as well ?  simple knots are like basic mathematical numbers, shapes or theorems. We can say that they ?exist,? in a quasi-Platonic means, even if they have not been discovered yet by us, humans. We cannot say they are free, pure creations of the human mind, like art ? sooner or later, every sufficiently intelligent being, wherever and whenever in the Universe, would discover them ).

  ?Practical? bends, for many reasons, can not be but simple bends ? but ?simple? is not as simple a thing as it sounds! J  Moreover, in knots ?simplicity?, even if it can be defined unambiguously, it can be estimated by different measures ? as I had tried to explain, in vein, in :
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3740.0

In this thread I claim that multiple re-tuckings, and multiple turns, and multiply ( helically ) coiled segments, reduce the simplicity of a knot, because they increase the complexity of the path the rope follows in 3-D - regardless how easily can the knot be set-up and dressed during tying, and how conceptually simple and easy to remember is its shape and/or tying method.

Therefore, we have to place some limits on the complexity of the ?practical? bends we use. Otherwise, the ?practical? bend, which is a tool a piece of engineering, becomes too complex, un-practical and over-engineered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overengineeringractical

 

2.       Second, we have to test all those knots, and see which are secure and un-jammable.

( Ideally, ?maximally? secure, and ?maximally? un-jammable ). By ?maximally?, I mean under as heavy load as the knots themselves can withstand ? they should not slip, and  they should not jam, even on the brink of their rupture.). And we have to test them on the ?common? rope materials AND on the very slippery materials like UHMWPE ? two distinct lines of tests ).

Needless to say, regarding the second task, nothing ( = 0 ) has been done? J

Regarding the first task.

Rioger E. Miles had thought that, by starting from the planar representations of bends, he would discover all the interesting knots that can serve as practical bends. However, he did nt consider two things :

First, that, oftentimes, the loaded knot acquires a very different geometrical shape than the initially set-up and dressed knot. Second, that identical planar representations can lead to different, geometrically, knots ( bistable knots ), and it is the geometry of the loaded knot, and not the topology of its initial tying diagram, which determines how the knot behaves regarding security and jamming. As, sometimes, knots with different, topologically, initial tying diagrams behave almost in the same way ( and we even call them by the same name, for example, the ?left? and the ?right-hand? common bowlines ), sometimes knots with the same, topologically, initial tying diagrams behave differently. Topology reigns only in mathematical knots ? in practical knots, it almost does nt matter.
It is no surprise that Miles did nt generate a complete catalogue if all the simple bends, and he just published tying diagrams and pictures of the dressed but yet unloaded of a few of them.

It seems to me that this over-estimation of the capability of the initial tying diagrams to generate all the simple knots is a common mistake ? possibly because we are accustomed to remember knots and ( one of their many ) tying methods together, we store them in the same corner of our brain, and we tend to confuse them?  Noope, unfortunately, by starting from simple initial tying diagrams, and simple initial pre-bends ( the Reef, the Butterfly, etc. ), we can NOT discover all the simple bends there can be, and we can not produce a complete, exhaustive cataloguing and enumeration of the simple bends? And THAT is the task, all the knots that can be, not only some ?new? knots ( which may well have been tied many times in the past, but, just because they have not been members of a well-studied complete set of knots, and because they have not been tested, they have been forgotten?

I have tried to ?bypass? the complete enumerating and the testing phases by ?guessing? bends that would be easy to untie ? like the ?Easy to untie? bend, for example. How wrong I was? By actually testing  those bends, under heavy or even moderate loading, all of my guesses have been proved so wrong. Many ?guessed? forms, during tensioning, change completely, even lose their initial symmetry, capsize, slip, become a jammed lump of material, you name it?

It is true that I have tied, and tried, most of the bends presented by yChang ( but not all ). And it is also true that, starting from simple, well known and easy to form configurations, and re-tucking them, one can discover ?new? knots. However, many ?re-tuckings? are tricky, and that is why they have not been explored systematically, and they have escaped the attention of knot tyers. The Ampersand bowline is just such a simple, single re-tucking of the common bowline, but it has not been found for many years. Also, I came to believe that this way of generating ?new? knots is like wandering in our desert of ignorance, hoping to un-cover something, but it is not the road we have to follow from now on. We are well beyond that point. We need our Mendeleev, a systematic, ?complete periodic? table of bends, based on some new concept, property, generating method, whatever, something that would produce all the simple bends there are. And then, we have to test them !

Under ?Xarax?, as well as under ? X1?, I have published some ?new? bends in the Forum ? with pictures, of course. yChang may search there for something identical, or similar to the knots he presents. He SHOULD also read Miles ! Also, he may find something interesting at :

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.0

 

As a present, for his beautiful work, tell him to read one attempt, similar to his, to discover a class of bends - in which he will find some of the knots he published.
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4445.0
In particular, I like the & bend shown at
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4445.msg29585#msg29585

But that ( 'like" ) means nothing ! This bend jams even by looking at it !

[Sweeney]

I received this email from Xarax:

NOTE TO FORUM MODERATORS: I hope that I am not breaking any rules by posting content from Xarax..I received his consent to post his email in this forum. I am of the view that Xarax has made some important contributions to our collective knot knowledge. I am not sure of the nature and extent of any open/ongoing or existing bans with regard to Xarax?

I don't see a problem in quoting Xarax (or anyone else with their permission) as long as the quote is relevant (as this is) and does not contain insulting or derisory comment. Xarax was banned from the forum for persistently making inflammatory remarks to and about other posters. This went on after he was temporarily banned and reinstated.  The problem for Moderators is that although both of us check the forum regularly (and because of the time difference in our locations we can cover a broad timeframe) we can only act once a post has been uploaded by which time the damage may well have been done. If a responsible Forum member, such as agent_smith in this case, posts (as necessary edited) material sourced from a non-member then that would be welcome in my opinion.

Sweeney

[agent_smith]

Thank you Sweeney.

I am pleased that I have not broken any forum rules.

Mark Gommers

[siriuso]

Hi dear all. Thanks for the comments.
I have not been here since mid 2011. I know I have missed a lot of your works. I am pleased that someone would let me know that some of my knots are discovered and have been mentioned before. In this respect, I suggest this forum should create a photo library for keeping the "Claimed New Knot". It will classify to categories of knots, date of entry and together with tying steps or sketches for members to search for and study.
I just come back here two months before my postings. I see that in some old threads "New Knots" photos were not come with tying method unless you ask. IMO, it is not the attitude to share with the public. A photo of loosen knot could not help any. We should share the tying procedure/methods and the finished knots. Let people try tying it and enjoy your findindgs.

yChan

[siriuso]

Hi dear all, here are "My Working Notes 4".  Wish to share with you all and comments.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6eFpnNlJicmFYRXc?usp=sharing

Thanks.

yChan

[siriuso]

Dear all, I have make a big mistake in the ABOK#1425 in "My Working Notes". I will revise them accordingly.

yChan

[siriuso]

Hi all, the notes are revised. The links are:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6M254Y0VsckVXMWc?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6bm1RQUNvTnhwTEk?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6enNvemJWTmxSaTg?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6J2Skk3l1u6eFpnNlJicmFYRXc?usp=sharing

Happy knotting

yChan

[agent_smith]

Hi siriuso,

I have received a detailed reply from Xarax about your work.

I have been acting as his 'proxy' but, I am somewhat reluctant to post further messages because some members on this IGKT forum are sounding concerns about me doing this.

I can send you a PM with Xarax email address (I'll check with him to confirm) - if you would like to transact conversations with him privately.

...

My personal reply to your post is as follows...

1425A is the actual 'ABoK' reference number (written as #1425A) for Phil D Smith's Riggers Bend (aka Hunters Bend).

The various loops you use as the basis for tying all of the bends are very interesting - Xarax (and initially myself) had explored this in  great detail some years ago. I will try to dig up his posts/links to his posts for your reference.

It would be helpful if you could add commentary about the 'chirality' of your interlinked loops (eg 'left' versus 'right' chirality).

It is amazing what can be created from interlinked loops - as a starting base, and I commend you for the marvelous work that you have done


Mark G

[siriuso]

Hi Mark G, formerly in my working notes, I have presented the other tying methods of ABOK#1425 as well as Hunter's Bend ABOK#1425A. Recently I found I was wrong about 1425 and have updated the working notes. Still you can see there are tying methods for ABOK#1425.
I have contact you in PACI.
Thanks for letting me know you and Xarax have been working on bends. I love bends also.

yChan

[siriuso]

Hi dear all, in "My Working Notes", I have found one new bend is not new, it is Rxxx Bend (sorry for keeping it's name in secret and would be announce later). By the maintime you would be most welcome if any of you could review my bends and let me have your comments.

yChan

[agent_smith]

Hello yChan,

Have you seen/read 'Knotting Matters' #8 (July 1984)?
Article by Harry Asher starting at pages 2-8.

I would also suggest reading Harry Ashers book: 'The Alternative Knot Book' 1989 ISBN: 0911378952
Starting at page 22, Asher discusses  what he calls 'sense' - ie, 'chirality' or 'handedness' of a loop.
And later, at page 55, he further explores the inter-linked loops (such as #1425A Riggers bend and then the 'Eastern Zeppelin bend').

Worth a look if you haven't already done so...

Mark G

[siriuso]

Hi Mark, I have ordered all the KMs after I joined the guild in 1997. Thanks to the guild for decades later issued a CD. I just read your recommended articles about "sense" and "handedness" of a loop both in KM#8 and the "The Alternative Knot Book". I do not like to follow and use the code too. I have my own abbreivated code, such as Cr, Pa, TwB, Di, Ri to be used on my notes as photo taking is not available. I did my notes with photos and drawings to show the steps. They are clear to everyone.
On page 59, Eastern Zeppelin, says : ...The left-handed light loop is simply laid on top of the dark one...
I have classified the known bends as with interlocking loops, they are Alpine Butterfly Bend, Ashley's Bend, Hunter's Bend, Shake Hands Bend. But NOT Zeppelin Bend and Eastern Zeppelin.
I distinguish them by the primary composition of the two overhand/underhand loops whether they are interlocked or not interlocked. So I would like to know more about
[ ] inter-linked
[ ] inter-weaved/woven
[ ] inter-connected
[ ] superposed / superimposed

Thanks

yChan