Although this is now somewhat drifting off topic ...
per Mobius:
I would be much happier for Dan Lehman to name this knot,
not have "Riggers X Bend" thrust upon us
Xarax made this comment about what constitutes a new knot versus a modification to an existing knot (via direct email to me):
Per Xarax:
As I have told many times, in writing, I do not think that such a minor modification
deserves to be considered as "tying a new knot" --even if the geometries
and structures of the derived knots may become slightly different / better.
...
A "new" knot is a knot that is :
unpublished,
unknown,
untied,
AND it is not an obvious variation, or even alteration,
of a published, known, tied knot.
What is an obvious variation or alteration of a knot ?
I have examined the knots I have taken and published pictures of,
especially the many bends : No wonder there were many :
it is very easy for one to imagine a tangle of two ropes that prevent
them from slippage, simple enough so we can claim it to be an "interesting",
and possibly, just possibly, a "practical""knot" as well.
Xarax furthers states that:
Implementing a working definition - I had advanced the following :
...
I am very glad that, using this "new" "new knot" definition,
got rid of the burden of giving birth to so many "new" bends !
As for your suggestion of happiness that Dan Lehman ought to name the Riggers bend
with transposed tails (and rejection of the 'X' term):
I personally hold the view that a simple transposition of the tails within
an existing/known bend (ie end-to-end joining knot) does not constitute
an entirely new creation. In my view, it is a modification.
This is why Xarax used the term 'X' to denote that the structure was not 'new'
--rather, it was a modification.
The use of the term 'X' implied a 'crossing' --in this case, a crossing of the tails.
Applying this concept, we can thus have:
[ ] #1425A Riggers bend -----> Riggers X bend
[ ] Zeppelin bend -----> Zeppelin X bend
NOTE: Although Harry Asher had previously used the name
'Eastern Zeppelin' in his book 'The Alternative Knot Book' 1st published
1989, at illustration #94 on page 59). ...
The notional concept of 'X' is directionless. It is simply a reference to a transposition of the tails.
And here is a reference to why i also thought Dan Lehman had been exploring the effect of transposing the tails in #1425A Riggers bend:
per Dan Lehman Ref Link: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5357.msg35684#msg35684 Dated 26 May 2015
from Smith's topmost diagram of the knot, get the improved
version (better resisting jamming, if not also stronger)
by taking one (either) tail OVER the other en route to its
tucking through the central nipping zone and then finally
out UNDER (giving reciprocal "over" to opp. tail).
What this does is stuff tail material into the collaring bight
which prevents that from so tightly gripping the S.Part
and jamming --by significant degree, at least.
To be honest, I am not sure who first started to investigate jam resistance
of #1425A Riggers bend via modification with transposed ('X') tails.
Given that Dan Lehman posted this information in May 2015, obviously,
he already had the concept in his mind.
Maybe Dan Lehman himself can advise?
I had also remember reading a post from Dan Lehman where he wrote
that Phil D Smith's use of the name 'Riggers Bend' was bogus (his words).
If memory serves me correct, Dan's reasoning was that widespread use
of this bend was not apprarent by riggers working in the construction industry.
...
But then, the obvious question is; Why did Phil D Smith give rise to the name 'Riggers bend' in his book?
Whew, what a load ... crying out for (further OT) comment!
In short, knots nomenclature --including knot-names--
is a tough problem to get a grip on.
To cut to the chase on some of the above points, I've
been looking at so-far-known trio of *inventers* of
#1425a --viz., Phil Smith, Edward Hunter, & moi--
yielding a name "SmitHunter's" (nothing from "moi"
).
To which X's "X" qualifier for the better version does
seem to fit appropriately, as stated above.
But what if that knot had been first-to-knowledge,
and the 1425a one came as a variation to IT?!
Would you retrofit "X" into it, or try the amusingly
awkward
"SmitHunterman's [<-there's moi!]
Un-X Bend" ?!
For common parlance & understanding, X's "X" name works
--and working is more than one often gets, in knots nomenclature!
Re the "bogus" aspect of some knots naming, well, given
the double-entendre aspect of E.H.'s name, one could see
it going (esp. sans capitalized "h") as an indicator that
somehow hunters --of what?-- used the knot; or, I guess,
for that matter did smithies use it?!
Naming can seem a solvable problem at least when
considering some (mere) 10-20 knots set within some
particular application; but trying to work in the entire
infinite (or merely so-far-known-to-knot-tyers) field
of knots leads me to ... no good result.
As for the long debate about "new",
in a similar spirit if not exact reasoning,
I count all differences as "new" and prefer thus
to diminish the signficance of that adjective
--that "new" in itself can be trivial (either in the
degree of difference, or in the given knot's intrinsic,
useful value << NB !!
And, to further complicate the matter, there is the
issue of "dressing & setting" --things that can lead
to pretty contrasting results, including quite different
*knots*, IMO. (Beyond this and along these lines,
one can wonder about the *identity* of a knot changing
per force?! --"nipping turns" opened into helixes, e.g.?!
< argh & sigh ^^(n+1)
>
This was one reason I opposed Derek Smith's notion to hand
out certificates of *new*ness creation to those eager-for-fame
would-be inventers; I feared encouraging more knotting nonsense
(I have plenty of my own originated such stuff --literally STILL
some heaps/clumps of *new* knots to record in illustration
(or, with a sigh partly of relief, to just discard "into the waste
basket" (H.Prohaska)). --same relief Xarax feels in his raising
the bar for *new*; but I lower the presumed importance of it.
For who can know so well what is in fact human-wise *known*?!
What if the infamous
zeppelin bend later shows up in some
historical digging around, or in some heretofore isolated human
community?
As for creativity/inventiveness, were any of us to meet some
little/young person who, left out of sight with curiosity playing
among our pretty ropes and who doing so came up with some
batch of well-known & indeed well-regarded knots,
should some acclaim for invention be denied?
To the particular case of
"SmitHunterman's" bend",
*I* probably am well enough right-dated as having taken
fondness for the "X" version, which I had tested circa
1985? (I can I think exact-date this --as I have the test
correspondence (fyi, about 65% vs. 62% of these two
versions --small victory in one case, 1/4" nylon laid rope).)
I was dismayed that Asher quickly dismissed it (in his earlier
A New System of Knotting), just as I'm dismayed with
AshLEY's lack of precision for #1452 & his unenthusiasm
for it & same-digits #1425 (which can lead to interesting
& useful eye knot(s)).
In my own world, I'm abashed to admit such changes of
heart/opinion, recently (re-)inventing the Final Solution
to securing the
bowline, proudly documenting it (well,
a bit of special note in the quick drawing), only to later
find it well shown among other options and without
even a hint of its later-believed superiority! --and this
not something coming from a change of materials!
(Nor did I mean to say "wouldn't".)
--dl*
====
