2 keys knot - Noeud a deux clefs

[agent_smith]

per Derek:

However, we really should post a Warning Note with any knot that is presented as an open lacing, because lacings may be dressed into a number of working conformations, and we are dealing with working knots here rather than artforms.

I think there is an alternative viewpoint available.
I would suggest that B.P. was presenting a loosened dressing to aid in observing its structure - and not necessarily intending to present a purely art form as such - its a technical discussion.
I think he is interested in reading carefully considered replies - from a theoretical perspective. It is implied from his posts that he is open to new ideas and learning. His mind is not closed to new concepts.

per Derek:

So, before commenting on the virtual Bowlinesqueness or not for this knot, could you please post the intended dressing for the final working knot.

Derek, he already did! There are apparent technical issues with some images at the moment with this forum but, a fully dressed version of his presentation was already tendered. That image is visible to me on my computer at the moment.

per Derek:

I request this because I have just dressed it into a Carrick component with a bight based nipping helix, and another form that I would not even try to categorise, other than to say it is not a Bowline even in the most virtual of realities.

Your use of the phrase 'carrick component' is arbitrary.
One could also tender a view that your so-named 'carrick component' has the form of #206 Crossing hitch (or 'knot' depending on context). The alternative view is that #206 makes use of the capstan effect - and that the transitory dressing state of the uniform weave pattern of #1439 is but one way to arrive at the final form. One could also arrive at the final form of #1439 by directly inter-linking 2 'Crossing hitches' (so as to bypass the transformation step).
And yet another view is that #559 is topologically equivalent to the 'unknot' (an inherent property of its TIB status) - and in B.P.'s presentation, it is loaded at both ends.

Your statement that it is not [a] 'Bowline' (of a virtual type - or not) - appears to be a declaration of fact.
And in who's reality are we imagining?

B.P. is simply presenting a knot structure based on a #559 Marlinspike hitch - which is a functional nipping component (it is TIB, freely encircles and clamps both legs of the collar, is loaded at both ends, and is jam resistant). The collar performs a U turn around the SPart (upon which it is braced). The knot is also 'PET' (a term advanced by Dan Lehman and Xarax).
I think B.P. has presented a creation that is very interesting and worthy of further investigation (eg load testing).

Edit note: Computer issues happening...

[siriuso]

Hi Mark,

Please do not mix up with Marlingspike Hitch #559 with Crossing Knot #206. The insertion of an foreign object to this individual knot to form the knot is different. B. P.'s uses Marlingspike Hitch to his bowline, so as yours too, not in the form of a Crossing Knot.

yChan

[DerekSmith]

Hi BP,

Welcome, and thank you for bringing us this knot and (when we see it) an impressive tying method.

I don't believe for one moment that you are suggesting that your knot is a bowline, so please ignore my previous comments re bowlines, virtual or otherwise.

The knot is interesting and should be quite strong with its long SP feed-in right through the heart of the knot, shedding load gradually, up to a nice SImple hitch Component around its own loop leg.The loop itself being formed by the WE being fed through the loop of a slipped OH, around the SP and back through the slip.  If there is a principle weakness in this structure, it is the lack of a primary SP clamp around the WE, the consequence of this is that if there is any ring loading, the hub will transform, relaxing the clamp across the Bight component legs.  The clamp is critical to provide negative linear cogging, without this the WE will be at risk of being pulled through and out of the nub.  It is a specific set of events needed to produce this failure - ring loading followed by Bight leg loading, so the risk might be deemed small.  However, risks such as this are normally designed out of a knot, even at the risk of reducing MBS.

Although the knot contains the Slipped OH which is capable of providing the XL Carrick component, renouned for being jam 'proof', the component has not been implemented.  Consequently the knot may have a tendency to jam.

So, thank you, and keep them coming.

PS does anyone have any idea why all the linked images cause 404 errors?

Derek

[SS369]

Good day Derek and all.

The database is unreachable at this time and the cause is being looked into.
Hopefully it will be taken care of in short order.

SS

[agent_smith]

per yChan:

Please do not mix up with Marlingspike Hitch #559 with Crossing Knot #206.

?? What causes you to believe that I dont know the difference between #206 and #559 (ie per 'mix up?)?

The insertion of an foreign object to this individual knot to form the knot is different.

?? Yes, and there is also an 'insertion' (or forming around) occuring in #206.
The same could be argued for all 'hitches' - eg #1763 Prusik hitch, or the #206 based 'Munter hitch' in a climbing context. All of these structures form around a 'foreign object' (a better term may simply be 'object') - so to speak. Whether you insert, or clip into, or place over, doesn't alter the fact that there is a on 'object' around which the hitch conforms to and operates.
I am unclear as to why you feel that you need to state the obvious?

B. P.'s uses Marlingspike Hitch to his bowline, so as yours too, not in the form of a Crossing Knot.

??
Yes, B.P. has used the #559 structure to serve as the 'nipping structure' in his presentation. I am aware of that.
And I have uploaded images of 'Virtual Bowlines' built from #559 and #206.
Are there specific words that I typed that lead you to believe that I am somehow 'mixing' up one for the other?

When I use the term #206, it is the 3D geometry that I refer to. I dont show #206 with an object (eg a carabiner or a post) inserted. The 3D geometry involves a rope segment performing a U turn around its own SPart which invokes a capstan effect.
In #559, the 3D geometry does not invoke a capstan effect. A 'bight' segment is drawn into a 'loop' - and as load is applied, that bight segment tries to straighten out (ie the bight segment attempts to withdraw from the 'loop'). The insertion of an 'object' through the 'bight' segment occludes it - preventing it from withdrawing from the 'loop'.

In any case, both #206 and #559 can function as 'nipping structures' when loaded at both ends. They are both 'TIB', jam resistant and capable of freely encircling and clamping both legs of a 'bight' component.

Which part of this is causing your perceived mix up?

Happy to discuss with you

[siriuso]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your clarifications above. You mentioned that the Crossing Knot #206 is acted as a collar in the said knots. Sorry for mistook your saying as a start  to my knots. My knots (Y2A, Y3A and Yia Loop knot) are started with Marlingspike Hitch # 559.

I am all clear about it, thanks a lot.

Happy Knotting
yChan

[B.P.]

Bonjour B.P.

Good day to you too Mark 

and thank you very much for your interest and your answers

And merci for posting your work here at the IGKT forum.
It is very much appreciated

My French speaking skills are shockingly poor - and my 17 year old daughter took French lessons at school so she assisted me a little.

I am very interested in how you and yChan have used #559 Marlinspike hitch as the basis for creating your 'virtual Bowlines'.

I have intended that the phrase 'virtual Bowline' denotes:
 Almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to a strict definition.
 Almost a particular thing or quality.
 Almost, but not exactly or in every way.

I am aware that my introduction of this phrase could attract undue negative attention - and any detractors should be aware that it is a 'work-in-progress'.
Xarax has criticized the use of the word 'virtual' because he feels that in the modern era - it has come to be associated with computer generated imagery (virtual reality).

The word "virtual" in nowadays french is heard as a synonym of "unreal" or "artificial".
Here, this is to establish a family tree of knots, but I feel like people may think, when they'll hear "VIRTUAL BOWLINE", "WEAK", "FALSE"/"FAKE", "NOT GOOD AS", "UNSECURE"...

But, I think as long as I provide a glossary of my intended meanings, it should be understood in the way that I intended.

Another phrase that I have introduced is; 'First order Bowlines' (or; Bowlines of the first order).
What I mean by 'first order' is:
 Of major importance or significance.
 Used to denote something that is excellent or considerable of its kind.
 A thing having the highest status in a group.

In my view, the illustrations depicted by Ashley at #1010, #1012, #1013, #1034 1/2, #1080 and #1087, are 'first order Bowlines' (or Bowlines of the first order).
Without exception, all of these Bowlines have nipping structures based directly on a helix (or double helix).

For me, where things get interesting is when you use a nipping structure that isn't based directly on a helix - for example, a TIB non-jamming hitch such as #206 or #559.
Provided that all other requirements of a 'Bowline' are met, I think that these structures could be regarded as 'virtual Bowlines' (with the word virtual having the meaning I tendered above).

I think that I need more time to study these questions, hoping to find (my) answers to share, but maybe in the thread "What defines a Bowline? - structure, characteristics, topology" http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.0

...

I like your particular creation very much - it has an elegant geometry.
Of note is that in your creation (in comparison to yChan) - is that both legs of the collar are encircled and clamped by the #559 nipping structure. In comparison, in yChans creation - one of the legs is displaced.
I had advanced that a nipping structure must freely encircle and clamp both legs of the bight (NOTE: Some will prefer to conceptualize the collar and its 2 legs as a 'bight' component).

Your creation:
1. Has a collar that performs a U turn around the SPart
2. Has a nipping structure that is loaded at both ends, is TIB and jam resistant
3. Is PET (post eye tiable) - which some would prefer to identify as post 'loop' tiable
4. Has a fixed 'eye' (which some would prefer to identify as a 'loop')

For these reasons, I believe that it is deserving of the title 'Virtual Bowline based on #559'.

I am not clear about its stability when 'ring-loaded' - we'll see.

The stability when 'ring-loaded : I thought that was "the" weakness, so I presented various finitions too.

I am also unclear how well virtual Bowlines built from #559 will remain 'stable'. If I find some spare time, I'll perform a load test to assess stability...

That would be great.

NOTE: I think Geoffrey Budworth (a prolific author who some would regard as an 'expert' on knots), defines a 'loop' as being formed by the overlap of one rope segment over (or under) the other so as to create a helix. The resulting helix can have either S or Z chirality.
I have formed this view based on examination of some of his books where he attempts to illustrate his conceptualization of a 'loop'.

Once again, I think that I need more time to study these questions, hoping to find (my) answers to share, but maybe in another thread.
Thank you for this knowledge.

Au revoir,
Mark

A bient?t  and thanks again

[B.P.]

we are dealing with working knots here rather than artforms.

I agree (I guess)

[B.P.]

per Derek:

However, we really should post a Warning Note with any knot that is presented as an open lacing, because lacings may be dressed into a number of working conformations, and we are dealing with working knots here rather than artforms.

I think there is an alternative viewpoint available.
I would suggest that B.P. was presenting a loosened dressing to aid in observing its structure - and not necessarily intending to present a purely art form as such - its a technical discussion.
I think he is interested in reading carefully considered replies - from a theoretical perspective. It is implied from his posts that he is open to new ideas and learning. His mind is not closed to new concepts.

per Derek:

So, before commenting on the virtual Bowlinesqueness or not for this knot, could you please post the intended dressing for the final working knot.

Derek, he already did! There are apparent technical issues with some images at the moment with this forum but, a fully dressed version of his presentation was already tendered. That image is visible to me on my computer at the moment.

per Derek:

I request this because I have just dressed it into a Carrick component with a bight based nipping helix, and another form that I would not even try to categorise, other than to say it is not a Bowline even in the most virtual of realities.

Your use of the phrase 'carrick component' is arbitrary.
One could also tender a view that your so-named 'carrick component' has the form of #206 Crossing hitch (or 'knot' depending on context). The alternative view is that #206 makes use of the capstan effect - and that the transitory dressing state of the uniform weave pattern of #1439 is but one way to arrive at the final form. One could also arrive at the final form of #1439 by directly inter-linking 2 'Crossing hitches' (so as to bypass the transformation step).
And yet another view is that #559 is topologically equivalent to the 'unknot' (an inherent property of its TIB status) - and in B.P.'s presentation, it is loaded at both ends.

Your statement that it is not [a] 'Bowline' (of a virtual type - or not) - appears to be a declaration of fact.
And in who's reality are we imagining?

B.P. is simply presenting a knot structure based on a #559 Marlinspike hitch - which is a functional nipping component (it is TIB, freely encircles and clamps both legs of the collar, is loaded at both ends, and is jam resistant). The collar performs a U turn around the SPart (upon which it is braced). The knot is also 'PET' (a term advanced by Dan Lehman and Xarax).
I think B.P. has presented a creation that is very interesting and worthy of further investigation (eg load testing).

Edit note: Computer issues happening...

Thank you again, Mark, for the answers you made about me and the knot.

[agent_smith]

per Monseur B.P. (NOTE: This is my poor use of French! - Trying to say 'Mr').

but I feel like people may think, when they'll hear "VIRTUAL BOWLINE", "WEAK", "FALSE"/"FAKE", "NOT GOOD AS", "UNSECURE"...

I disagree. (NOTE: The word 'disagree isn't intended as an insult - it just means my view is different!)

And my disagreeance is put like this:

If an author of a paper includes a glossary of terms - and is 100% crystal clear from the outset as to the intended meaning of certain terms - then a reader should be able to understand the meaning that was intended.

However, as often occurs with typed words on a computer screen, some people dont read properly or subconsciously substitute (or imprint) their own conceptualization in contradiction to that of the author of the paper.

Here is an example:
I intend the meaning of virtual to be defined as follows:
 Almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to a strict definition.
 Almost a particular thing or quality.
 Almost, but not exactly or in every way.

Now, there are some who will simply ignore my tendered definition and insert their own.
In my tendered definition, you will see that words such as 'weak', 'not good as', and 'insecure' do not apply.

How do you deal with people who either willfully ignore or subconsciously modify the authors glossary and intended meanings? (NOTE: I am not suggesting that you are such a person! Its just a discussion).

[B.P.]

per Monseur B.P.

but I feel like people may think, when they'll hear "VIRTUAL BOWLINE", "WEAK", "FALSE"/"FAKE", "NOT GOOD AS", "UNSECURE"...

I disagree.

And my disagreeance is put like this.

If an author of a paper includes a glossary of terms - and is 100% crystal clear from the outset as to the intended meaning of certain terms - then a reader should be able to understand the meaning that was intended.

However, as often occurs with typed words on a computer screen, some people dont read properly or subconsciously substitute (or imprint) their own conceptualization in contradiction to that of the author of the paper.

Here is an example:
I intend the meaning of virtual to be defined as follows:
 Almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to a strict definition.
 Almost a particular thing or quality.
 Almost, but not exactly or in every way.

Now, there are some who will simply ignore my tendered definition and insert their own.
In my tendered definition, you will see that words such as 'weak', 'not good as', and 'insecure' do not apply.

How do you deal with people who either willfully ignore or subconsciously modify the authors glossary and intended meanings?

Mark,

My observation was about french because we have the word "virtuel".

In english I don't know how people can perceive "virtual", but I know that I don't like the ton of the message I'm presently responding to.

What does mean this "per Monseur B.P." ? Those letters in red ? and the unfair cut in the quote ?

The word "virtual" in nowadays french is heard as a synonym of "unreal" or "artificial".
Here, this is to establish a family tree of knots, but I feel like people may think, when they'll hear "VIRTUAL BOWLINE", "WEAK", "FALSE"/"FAKE", "NOT GOOD AS", "UNSECURE"...

Maybe I should have just stayed silent about the "virtual" issue.

I'm not here to fight.

[B.P.]

Hi BP,

Welcome, and thank you for bringing us this knot and (when we see it) an impressive tying method.

Hi Derek, thank you very much 

I don't believe for one moment that you are suggesting that your knot is a bowline, so please ignore my previous comments re bowlines, virtual or otherwise.

No problem.

The knot is interesting and should be quite strong with its long SP feed-in right through the heart of the knot, shedding load gradually, up to a nice SImple hitch Component around its own loop leg.The loop itself being formed by the WE being fed through the loop of a slipped OH, around the SP and back through the slip.  If there is a principle weakness in this structure, it is the lack of a primary SP clamp around the WE, the consequence of this is that if there is any ring loading, the hub will transform, relaxing the clamp across the Bight component legs.  The clamp is critical to provide negative linear cogging, without this the WE will be at risk of being pulled through and out of the nub.  It is a specific set of events needed to produce this failure - ring loading followed by Bight leg loading,

I agree, that's why I presented a few possible finitions.

so the risk might be deemed small. 

Would you have concrete examples of contexts in wich this could happen please ?

However, risks such as this are normally designed out of a knot, even at the risk of reducing MBS.
 

Sorry, even with the dictionary and the automatic translator to help I don't understand for sure what it means.

Although the knot contains the Slipped OH which is capable of providing the XL Carrick component, renouned for being jam 'proof', the component has not been implemented.  Consequently the knot may have a tendency to jam.

Could you please give me links, photos, videos, any references about the XL Carrick component please ?

[agent_smith]

per B.P.

I'm not here to fight.

Hello B.P.

No fight at all!?
We use the quote function in this forum to aid with explanation. Using the 'quote' function is not intended as a means to pick a fight. Quite a few people use the quote function - and it should never be interpreted in a negative way simply because someone uses it!

And 'Monseur' - was my poor attempt at saying mister in French (it was intended in a humorous way!).
I typed 'per Monseur' so it was clear that the quote originated from you (and not someone else). Again - perfectly normal - nothing sinister here!

And I was not fighting about your understanding of the word 'virtual'.
You are mistaking 'fight' for 'engaging in a discussion'.
Nothing bad or sinister intended!

I am sorry if you misread my intent and assumed I was 'fighting' - quite the opposite actually
There are certain conventions when discussing technical concepts on this forum - and some of it is of a technical ('science') nature. The technical nature of discussion can be misread as being aggressive or insulting when the opposite applies.

EDIT: Can you take a look at my previous post? - I added explanations that hopefully show that I wasn't trying to 'fight'!

[B.P.]

per B.P.

I'm not here to fight.

Hello B.P.

No fight at all!?
We use the quote function in this forum to aid with explanation. Using the 'quote' function is not intended as a means to pick a fight. Quite a few people use the quote function - and it should never be interpreted in a negative way simply because someone uses it!

And 'Monseur' - was my poor attempt at saying mister in French (it was intended in a humorous way!).
I typed 'per Monseur' so it was clear that the quote originated from you (and not someone else). Again - perfectly normal - nothing sinister here!

And I was not fighting about your understanding of the word 'virtual'.
You are mistaking 'fight' for 'engaging in a discussion'.
Nothing bad or sinister intended!

I am sorry if you misread my intent and assumed I was 'fighting' - quite the opposite actually
There are certain conventions when discussing technical concepts on this forum - and some of it is of a technical ('science') nature. The technical nature of discussion can be misread as being aggressive or insulting when the opposite applies.

EDIT: Can you take a look at my previous post? - I added explanations that hopefully show that I wasn't trying to 'fight'!

No harm, there were probably missunderstandings from each side, I have to get better in english and learn the uses of the forum ( but your french is ok  )

I'll try to read carefully your posts about the three orders and the word "virtual" and then write about it - but unfortunetly a large lack of time is programed soon...

[B.P.]

Hello,


I'd like to explain here what path was taken to chose the name TWO KEYS KNOT (2KN).


The 2KN "appeared" at the beginning of may.

One of my goals at that time was to find a knot simple to tie and memorize, secure, with a nice geometry, a "fun" tying method and able to be efficient in a large variety of contexts without jamming, easy to untie - so, a sort of Graal or a "mouton a cinq pattes" (a sheep with 5 legs).

I mainly worked around (slipped) simple knots : NOOSES, BOWLINES, FIGURE-EIGHTS, ANGLER'S LOOP, CARRICKS (BOSCO/DIAMOND...), ALPINE BUTTERFLY, CHAIN SINNET, ASHLEY'S STOPPER KNOT, HITCHES (CLOVE, CONSTRICTOR, MARLINGSPIKE...), (SHEET) BENDS...

Amazed by the simplicity and the complexity of those knots and of their relations.

The BEE KNOT came out those essays :

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6152.msg41359#msg41359

I like it but it's a little bit difficult to tie, I can't imagine a lot of applications for it and have great reserves concerning its possible propension to jam.

So I continued, focusing the work on the different types of BOWLINES, the CARRICKS and the tying methods.

BOWLINE seemed to be a very common knot but a few problems were often expressed by users :
 
- complexity -> difficult to learn, memorize and recognize -> possibility to tie it wrong
- when BOWLINE is not in tension (climbing context to secure somebody for example), a not well-clamped tail -> obligation to secure the knot = more cordage "spent" and more complexity -> difficult to learn, memorize and recognize -> possibility to tie it wrong

An improvised manipulation brought easily the 2KN in my hands. Then I practiced to (re)discover exact gestures of a tying method to share (tested since on several neophyts).

I naturaly considered the knot as a probably kind of BOWLINE, and thought that it was, not for sure but almost, already known and referenced.

I then dived deeper in the study of loop knots, especialy BOWLINES, trying to find clues.

Most of you maybe know that in french a BOWLINE is called NOEUD DE CHAISE (CHAIR KNOT), but be careful, the (FIREMAN'S) CHAIR KNOT in english is really not a BOWLINE, but the HANDCUFF KNOT.
Anciently, the  nowadays NOEUD DE CHAISE was called NOEUD DE BOULINE, which led to BOWLINE.
Today, in english, a FRENCH BOWLINE is not a regular BOWLINE with one fixed loop and maybe a little bit different finish (for example a beret on the head, an armpit based baguette or a camembert in the pocket) ; no, it's a two adjustable loops knot, most of the time called PORTUGUESE BOWLINE. So then, in french, do we call the FRENCH/PORTUGUESE BOWLINE a NOEUD DE CHAISE PORTUGAIS/FRANCAIS ? yes, sometimes, but it would be too easy, so its main name is NOEUD DE CALFAT (CAULK KNOT).
Due to the fact that there are different kinds of loops (and turns, curves, bights, eyes, rings, coils, bends, convolutions, curls, twists, spirals and whatever), the BOWLINE ON THE BIGHT has two fixed loops, but the DOUBLE BOWLINE has one (and as far as I know, no common name in french).
Apparently, at the beginning, the NOEUD THE CHAISE was our nowadays BOWLINE ON THE BIGHT, now called in french NOEUD DE CHAISE DOUBLE SUR SON DOUBLE (DOUBLE CHAIR KNOT ON HIS DOUBLE). So can we stand that with its two fixed loops the BOWLINE ON THE BIGHT is the french BOWLINE ? maybe, but be careful, because like seen before the french BOWLINE is also the BOULINE (so, the BOWLINE), with one fixed loop, and the FRENCH BOWLINE is mostly PORTUGUESE, with two adjustable loops.
 
In my opinion, a lot of material to get confused, even for someone who is interested by knots, history and languages.

I identified the central structure of the 2KN as a MARLINGSPIKE HITCH, called in french by different names : NOEUD DE TRESILLON, GUEULE DE LOUP, DE BATEAU (same in english), and often confused with DEMI-NOEUD GANSE (SLIPPED OVERHAND KNOT - but if you literaly translate from french it's "BIGHTED" HALF-KNOT), BEC D'OISEAU and NOEUD DE GALERE.

Like I wrote for the BEE KNOT :

This tying is approximatively the meeting of an angler's loop (abok #1017) and a double scaffold knot (abok #1120).

I could have then described the 2KN as such :

"This tying is approximatively the meeting of a BOWLINE and a MARLINGPIKE HITCH".

I intensively searched on the web to find a photo, a drawing, a description or a video of the 2KN. In vain. Though I had the joy to discover the work of eric22/alan lee knots 

Then I bought a few books about knots, including the ABOK. But didn't find the knot. So I began to think about a presentation on the IGKT forum and a possible name, for example the "MARLINGSPIKE BOWLINE", the "2 PERPENDICULAR COLLARS BOWLINE", the "MAY KNOT", the "SOFA KNOT"...
I didn't like these ideas.

During this search I read the actual IGKT forum and agent_smith/Mark's paper about BOWLINES.
I then thought that the first set of explanations about the nipping loop page 17 of the article would probably lead (a large part of) the knotting community to doubt about the possibility to qualify the 2KN as a BOWLINE.

This fact, associated to :

- my unsuccessful quest for a name related to the (BOWLINES) knots history ;
- the problems of "nodologic" definitions and translations evocated above,

pushed me to find something wich wouldn't refer to BOWLINES or any other knot.

The name of the knot should instead have a meaning for anyone. I wanted something easy to translate and in relation with the anatomy or the functioning of the knot, hopping that this last point could help a larger amount of people to identify and memorize the 2KN by the way it looks and works.

Obviously the knot presents :
- two collars ;
- a pretty common 3/4 turn around the birth of one of the legs of the fixed loop.

Please don't shoot, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings ; let me rephrase this :


[not only for knots nuts, but]

- a pretty common (3/4 ? 270 degrees ? between a half and a complete ?) turn ((closed ? nipping ? clamping ?) loop ? helix ? helical ? (structure ?)) around (the birth of ? point of emergence of ?) the left or the right (ongoing ?) (eye- ? loop- ? bight- ? ring- ?) leg (part ?) of the (fixed ?) (closed ?) bight (loop ? eye ? ring ?) wich constitues (is ?) the (fixed ?) eye (loop ? ring ? bight ?) (of this (fixed ?) loop (eye ? ring ?) knot (for sure)).



[/not only for knots nuts, but]


in my opinion the originality or identity of the knot is not the 3/4 turn but the two collars.

The word "collar" may provoque confusion, for example in french it means "necklace", and lot of necklaces are using knots for practical or artistic reasons.

Purposes of these two collars are to maintain and to untie the knot.

To untie : first, the collar below, and after a few releasing of standing part, the central collar.

Like the collar of the BOWLINE, these two collars have a function of keys.

Even if it's not a term usually employed to describe the anatomy of knots, I think the word "key" can avoid confusion, be searched on the web, translated and memorized better than "collar".

Could you please tell me if it's preferable to write "2 KEYS" or "TWO KEYS" ?

I'm open to discussion about the opportunity to modify the name of the knot, and if someone finds the 2KN already referenced somewhere with a description or even a qualification, I'd be glad to learn it.


Sorry if some of you may think that I'm imprecise, totally wrong and my english extraordinary bad (this last point will probably often be the best explanation about the two previous ones).
I hope you'll keep in mind that even with someone speaking the same language it's frequently difficult to understand and express a simple idea - in fact I think that this is also true even alone, in a conversation with self, despite paper, pen, cordage, computer or other possible things (like human beings) doing all their best to facilitate an understanding.

Thank you very much for your interest.