Bends and their corresponding eye knots

[agent_smith]

As the title states: Some bends and their corresponding eye knots.

This topic has arisen a few times before - but not all bends and their corresponding eye knots have been shown.
Perhaps this post might serve as a basis for other bends and their corresponding eye knots?

Due to file size restrictions - it was not possible to show all the different chiralities (S and Z forms).

Curious to see the bends that correspond to:
[ ]  Lehman 8 eye knot
[ ] Anti-Bowline

EDIT NOTE: Fixed image

[agent_smith]

Anti-Sheet bend and corresponding eye knots (Anti-Bowlines).
I have not shown the 'tail outside the eye' version.

Of interest is the 'Lapp knot' (per Budworth 'The complete book of knots' 1997 - although he illustrates it as a tied loop/circle).
There is also this IGKT link: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1955.0
The term 'Anti Sheet bend' is simply my terminology because its corresponding eye knot is the 'Anti Bowline'.
Of further interest is the April 1996 edition of Knotting Matters (van de Griend and Warner article).
Budworth further conjectures that it has been referred to as a false sheet bend although this may confuse with #1432 (which Ashley refers to as a 'left-hand sheet bend) - where the tails lie on opposite sides. I personally think the terms 'left' and 'right' should be aligned with 'S' and'Z' forms.

I have not tested the effectiveness of the 'anti-sheet bend' in comparison to the #1431 Sheet bend.
Although it is interesting to compare the two structures.
Perhaps it provides additional insight about the Anti-Bowline?

[agent_smith]

#1053 derived Butterfly bend with corresponding Butterfly eye knot (end line non TIB version).

Also showing structural similarity with #1425A Riggers bend (per Phil D Smith).

In his Book (Knots for Mountaineering - first published in 1953) - he provides clue as to how he might have discovered his 'Riggers bend' (at illustration #29 ).
See page 18 for his written description at entry #29.

I posit the discovery pathway went as follows:
1. #1053 Butterfly eye knot (TIB mid-line version) - already known and published by AA Burger in April 1914 as a 'Linemans rider' - and then again in 1928 by Wright and Magowan)
2. #1053 derived Butterfly bend (likely via a simple visualization of 'cutting the eye' - which derives the bend version)
3. #1425A Riggers bend (by way of a simple reversal of a tail in the Butterfly bend)

Mark G

[agent_smith]

#1431 derived Scott's locked Sheet bend and corresponding eye knot (Scott's locked Bowline).

There is also a tail outside the eye version of Scott's locked Bowline (in both S and Z forms).

[Dan_Lehman]

As the title states: Some bends and their corresponding eye knots.

And it's been discussed that "corresponding" as used here
presumes but one a variety of ways in which eye & end2end*
can be seen to correspond.
 (*might "end2end" => "joint", for a clearly distinct sound/letter
   (vs "eye knot" / "EK") !?)

Curious to see the bends that correspond to:
[ ]  Lehman 8 eye knot
[ ] Anti-Bowline

?!  What an odd thing to think?!  Given your notion
of correspondence, you KNOW those knots --just cut
the eye and load.

Rather, be curious about a sometimes better notion of
correspondence --that that uses "twinning" of one joint-knot's
side and then seeks ways to fuse one twin tail to the other
end's (untwinned) tail so to have a bona fide eye knot.
(I think it's #1043 else 1045 that can be seen to correspond
to the sheet bend, u-part qua SPart (a case you do not give!).

--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

per Dan Lehman...

?!  What an odd thing to think?!  Given your notion
of correspondence, you KNOW those knots --just cut
the eye and load.

Why is it odd?

I said I am curious to 'see' these knots...the word 'see' in this instance imputes of notion of photographic images posted on this forum.
I have not seen such photos...not high quality images that clearly show structural details.

I posted an image of Scott's locked Sheet bend and corresponding eye knot - because I had not seen this posted before (have you?).

Also, it is possibly of interest to forum members and indeed visitors to this site to see such images and topics being explored... and it might spur others onto new developments (which is a good thing).

With regard to the Lehman 8... i have yet to see a corresponding Lehman end-to-end joining knot.
Have you tried to tie and photograph such a structure?

[Dan_Lehman]

I said I am curious to 'see' these knots...the word 'see' in this instance imputes of notion of photographic images posted on this forum.

--quite a constraint on seeing!!   

I certainly don't wait for someone to post the obvious,
at least; and even some novelties could be conveyed
verbally (possibly w/questions along the way).

The general notion(S) should suffice; that for "twinning"
though does entail some adventure, varying per knot in
being pretty well indicated or not.  (The e.g. I gave with
#1043/5 is arguably overly *efficient* and a dubious case!)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

quite a constraint on seeing!!   

I certainly don't wait for someone to post the obvious,

There is a tone in your replies that is distasteful.

Here is a quick round of educational information for you Dan.
Different people learn and understand in different ways.
Surely you must be aware that some people are visual learners, some are better at learning from reading text. Others learn best by hands-on practical skills development.
And some learn best via auditory (listening/hearing) means.

It is apparent that you can type a lot of words to convey a description of a knot - and you seem to prefer that method.
I surmise this because I rarely see any clear/quality photos from you...all I read from you is hundreds/thousands of words.

Me - on the other hand - I prefer to convey information via pictures/images.
Some would say that a picture speaks a thousand words.
I guess you prefer to type a thousand words rather than take photo and upload it?

[agent_smith]

More Butterflies in my stomach.

Showing different correspondence of Butterfly bend to 'Eye knot'.
[ ] tail-to-tail
[ ] tail to SPart

I certainly don't wait for someone to post the obvious,
at least; and even some novelties could be conveyed
verbally (possibly w/questions along the way).

And these images would fall into the category of 'posting the obvious'.
Hopefully some visual learners will appreciate the imagery

[Dan_Lehman]

quite a constraint on seeing!!   

I certainly don't wait for someone to post the obvious,

Me - on the other hand - I prefer to convey information via pictures/images.
Some would say that a picture speaks a thousand words.
I guess you prefer to type a thousand words rather than take photo and upload it?

I'm quite visually oriented, too.
But in this case it's just plain silly to be posting
the SAME image of a knot already seen/known
(as end-2-end) but with a now unbroken connection
between what was a tail to what was a SPart.
THAT, really, ought to be, as said, o b v i o u s !

Now, my "*twinning*" correspondence  is (1) novel,
and (2) one that yet stands in need (after the "obvious*
twinning part) of making the *fusion* of one of the
twin tails (of the end-2-TWOends knot of interest)
to the single strand's tail, which might come in
different ways.  (One can try this with the squaREef
knot and some others and have debatably *efficient*
connection or something more brute-force, by-the-book
--and maybe both count.)

Still, even there, as you love to do some spirit of
precision (but rather frustrating for those reading
w/o ABoK in hand), give reference #s,
I'll posit #1043 as a corresponding eye knot to
the <oh, heck, maybe a few! --the opposite-to-Grass
bend thing>, and #1016 to the "lefthanded sheet
bend".

I am drafting a small set of images of this correspondence
(which can be mighty UNwanted in some cases, but in
those knots that are rather sparse, the twinning's bulk
won't be such a problem.)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Lets see..where are we with this new round of dismissive remarks...

But in this case it's just plain silly to be posting
the SAME image of a knot already seen/known

Hmmm. Silly to you, yes.
Maybe not silly to everyone - and I don't recall seeing high quality images posted in a concise manner covering all the various forms and variations of ['a'] #1053 Butterfly and its corresponding eye knots
I am motivated to get this right - and that means being thorough - even if that means posting images of "obviousness".

I am drafting a small set of images of this correspondence
(which can be mighty UNwanted in some cases, but in
those knots that are rather sparse, the twinning's bulk
won't be such a problem.)

I will be interested to see examples of your 'images' - perhaps your own photographic work or copied from elsewhere?
This is something quite rare from you - and it will be a refreshing change from the usual volumes of words to depict a knot structure (when a picture might be a more efficient pathway for others to comprehend).

[Knutern]

Isn't a long discussion about silly images just a topic killer?

Anyway - figured out that Carric bend makes up a quite a practical loop and is easy to untie. I have not assessed the safety of the knot, maybe you experts have thaughts about that?

Anyway - her is some silly pictures of the rope lying on the wood floor:

[agent_smith]

Carrick bend (#1439) and [a] corresponding eye knot.

I find 'Carrick eye knot' (also known as Carrick bend eye knot) to be vulnerable to transformation. When load is applied, it morphs (undergoes a transformation) to an energy stable state. That is not to say that it is insecure. I m simply pointing out that it does not remain in its initial (and distinctive) dressing state.

NOTE: Not to be confused with the Carrick loop (#1033) - which is an entirely different structure. It has a 'nipping loop' and so is actually a Bowline derivative. The 'Carrick loop' is stable and does not morph (undergo a transformation) under load.

Mark G

[Dan_Lehman]

Anyway - figured out that Carrick bend makes up a quite a practical loop and is easy to untie.

Silly picture!
You might also find similar for Ashley's #1452.
I was recently re-impressed by its form when using
it in a **reciprocal eye-knots bend** (end-2-end),
which is even more strictly a "twin eye knots bend"
--same eye both sides, i.e. (which need not be the case).
Why not the same?  --maybe different ropes ... ?!

I was musing about using the structure in the case of
different-sized ropes, and of the belief that the sheet
bend befits this circumstance.  Well, in this structure
that implies that the thicker rope somehow present
TWO U-parts to the other rope's reeving in the nipping
turns; for this, I saw a fig.8 as being the *inner*
U part, with tail brought forwards to 2nd U.
.:.  The resulting knot was not compelling.

Doing similar though with #1452 looked good.

Agent_Smith's comment about the carrick bend
follows from the common presentation of this knot
in what I call the "open, lattice form", which requires
capsizing (or else seizing it open!?) into final form.
I note that a quick glimpse of t.v. show The Deadliest
Catch --re Alaskan crabbers-- showed two men tying
the knot in their STIFF/hard-laid pot line by having
one man fold & hold one end into a crossing-knot form
and then the 2nd man appropriately reeve the other
end into this.  There are, what, four (more?) ways
this could happen (two sides times two ways to reeve
the other end), so one needs to learn a bit more of
the knot, when tying; but capsizing is then not done.

--dl*
====