yChan's Knot - Y2A Loop Knot

[knotsaver]

Oh, and Y2A is PET.

Oh Derek,
Y2A is NOT PET!!!
(As before I ask you: do you refer to the reversed knot?)
If you untie (starting from the tail!) the loop/eye of the Y2A (for instance it was tied around a tree) you will have, (tied) on the rope, a big OH (OverHand knot)!
----
@siriuso
the discussion about the name is about the structure of the loop/eye/ring too!
However, as often I find "brother" "sister" "cousin", this knot can be considered a brother of the loop/eye/ring tied from Ashley Bend (if you tuck the tail from the other side of the last bight, I mean if you tie an OverHand with the tail too).
It can be considered also an "one-side-Overhanded relative" of the Carrick loop/eye/ring.
Ciao,
s.

[siriuso]

Hi Knotsaver,

Thanks for your comment. You are perfectly right about it is relative of the Ashley's Bend. In my article in KM 137, I present a Ashley's Loop and also with this Y2A.

yChan

[DerekSmith]

Hi yChan,

This lovely knot, with its xlCarric Component and full Simple Hitch Component, is clearly not a bowline.  But I have to ask, why would you want to lumber this knot with the slur of being a bowline -  this knot is massively superior to the bowline.

The Y2A is a knot in a class of its own.

Derek

@Mark

Sorry that you think that I am at odds with you because you claim this Y2A is not a bowline.  As you will see from my earlier post - I agree with you.

Derek

[knotsaver]

 You are perfectly right about it is relative of the Ashley's Bend. In my article in KM 137, I present a Ashley' Loop and also with this Y2A.

ooops, sorry, I haven't read KM137, but I hadn't read (carefully) your #14 reply
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6231.msg41975#msg41975

you said it there: I have to pay you a beer

Ciao,
s.

[DerekSmith]

@knotsaver

Oh Derek,
Y2A is NOT PET!!!
(As before I ask you: do you refer to the reversed knot?)
If you untie (starting from the tail!) the loop/eye of the Y2A (for instance it was tied around a tree) you will have, (tied) on the rope, a big OH (OverHand knot)!

I do not have the reference, but I believe Xarax described PET as allowing any preparations needed to be made to the cord in advance of the WE being passed around the looped object - then using the WE to finish tying the knot.  Yes, you have to start with an OH, and yes after releasing the loop you are left with an OH.

If my recollection is wrong, or if the definition has moved on since my first encounter with the term, then I stand corrected, otherwise it is PET - or more aptly PLT.

Derek

[siriuso]

Hi Knotsaver,

My article in KM 137 with the title of 'Manipulating Alpine Butterflies' was not named by me. I have had reflected to the editors. I preferred it should be 'Manipulating Ashley's Bend', because they are about Ashley's Bend and the AA Bowline (recently I have revised it's name and the structure to Y2A Loop Knot.)

Happy Knotting
yChan

[knotsaver]

I do not have the reference, but I believe Xarax described PET as allowing any preparations needed to be made to the cord in advance of the WE being passed around the looped object - then using the WE to finish tying the knot.  Yes, you have to start with an OH, and yes after releasing the loop you are left with an OH.

Derek, please look at this:

"Bowlines are post-eye-tiable eyeknots ( = PET loops ) - and this means that their nipping structures, tied before the eye, are ""open"" knots, topologically equivalent to the unknot. When their collar structures, tied after (=post) the eye, are detached from them, those nipping structures ( be them simple or double nipping loops, Clove, Girth, or Constrictor hitches ) can be straightened and released completely, leaving no "relic" ""closed knot"" still tied on the rope."

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6231.msg41975#msg41975

If my recollection is wrong, or if the definition has moved on since my first encounter with the term, then I stand corrected, otherwise it is PET - or more aptly PLT.

Let's add PRT (R is for ring)
I have no problem to use "loop" "eye"  even "ring" even if it is not my preferred one. In Italian we say "gassa" but if you look at the dictionary definition you read ... every eye ("occhio") tied with a rope
I understand the attempt by Mark G, but it is not easy and can be misleading.
Ciao,
s.

[DerekSmith]

"Bowlines are post-eye-tiable eyeknots ( = PET loops ) - and this means that their nipping structures, tied before the eye, are ""open"" knots, topologically equivalent to the unknot. When their collar structures, tied after (=post) the eye, are detached from them, those nipping structures ( be them simple or double nipping loops, Clove, Girth, or Constrictor hitches ) can be straightened and released completely, leaving no "relic" ""closed knot"" still tied on the rope."

Hi Knot saver, I had not realised that the definition had been upgraded (perhaps it has always been so) to defining the nipping component being made before the loop, although I did read recently that Mark was adding to the definition that the nipping component must be an unknot.

Either way, function of the Y2A is misunderstood.  The OH component is not the nipping component.  The OH component is transformed by the WE relacing into an xlCarrick Component and the WE lacing becomes the nipping component, therefore as such the nipping structure is PET and conforms to the more recent demand that it be an unknot (although to be honest the majority of components are unknots).

Derek

[agent_smith]

per Derek:

The OH component is not the nipping component.  The OH component is transformed by the WE relacing into an xlCarrick Component and the WE lacing becomes the nipping component, therefore as such the nipping structure is PET and conforms to the more recent demand that it be an unknot (although to be honest the majority of components are unknots).

Its not recent Derek.
Xarax had this concept long ago - and he contacted me about it quite some time ago.
I simply overlooked and then forgot to include it in my Analysis of Bowlines paper.
I had also forgotten to add it to the mix of requirements that define [a] 'Bowline'.

Hmmm, if you think about it, all nipping components (within a Bowline) are TIB and equivalent to the unknot - this is simply factual and not a last minute after thought by me. As stated, Xarax had already conceptualised the idea long ago. Furthermore, all 'Bowlines' are 'PET' (Post Eye Tiable).

All I am doing is trying to rationalize the use of certain terminology (so it can be applied in a consist and coherent way) and, attempting to tighten the definition of [a] 'Bowline'. This is why I disagree with your use of the term 'carrick component' - which I find to be nebulous.
The other technical issue that I see as 'problematic' is finding a strict definition of what a 'loop' is.
For example, inserting loop into PET is problematic - because which part is the 'loop' - and which part occurs in what order? It 'appears' to me that your use of the term 'loop' has a fluid and diluted meaning.

EDIT NOTE
per Derek:

Either way, function of the Y2A is misunderstood.

No Derek - I think the misunderstanding lies with the way in which you choose to apply some terminology and; closely linked to this - is the way in which you choose to interpret what some are advancing.

[DerekSmith]

@Mark

Its not recent Derek.
Xarax had this concept long ago - and he contacted me about it quite some time ago.
I simply overlooked and then forgot to include it in my Analysis of Bowlines paper.
I had also forgotten to add it to the mix of requirements that define [a] 'Bowline'.

Then if you have only recently published it, you will hopefully forgive me for not knowing you had known this for a long time and concluding it to be a recent amendment.

Hmmm, if you think about it, all nipping components are TIB and equivalent to the unknot - this is simply factual and not a last minute after thought by me.

If you believe this to be so, then why does it need declaring?

But actually, it is false.  An OH is a Nipping Component, but is not an unknot.  Or are you now going to propose, for the purposes of your definitions, that all Nipping Components must be unknots?  If you are, then I am sure you can take a guess at my response.

No Derek - I think the misunderstanding lies with the way in which you choose to apply some terminology and; closely linked to this - is the way in which you choose to interpret what some are advancing.

There is no terminology issue here.  The issue stems from the fact that the knot is tied starting from an OH for clarity and simplicity.  However, it has long been accepted that it is a fallacy to identify a knot from the method used to tie it, because totally identical knot structures may be tied by different methods, or recipes.  The recipes are there simply to facilitate ease of tying and to aid memory - they do not command the knot.

Derek

[agent_smith]

per Derek:

Or are you now going to propose, for the purposes of your definitions, that all Nipping Components must be unknots?  If you are, then I am sure you can take a guess at my response.

Within a 'Bowline'?

If you mean within a 'Bowline' - then yes.
As an example, #46 overhand knot cannot qualify as a 'nipping structure (or nipping component)' within [a] 'Bowline'. The nipping structure (within a 'Bowline') must be jam resistant, and it must be free to encircle and clamp the 2 legs of the collar (which you might prefer to conceptualize as a 'bight').

And this is not a new idea.

[DerekSmith]

If you mean within a 'Bowline' - then yes.

Thanks Mark, do you see how important the qualifying details are to eliminating assumptions and confusion.

So, how about this :-

• A Bowline has the following key aspects:-
• A Bowline has two defining internal components, these being a Bight Component and a Helical Nipping Component, plus two defining external components, these being a load bearing SP and a load bearing fixed loop.
• A Bowline may contain other components, but these must not change the form or function of the two key internal components.
• The Bight Component collar must encircle the SP in order to stabilise the Bight Component, although in use the collar may become distorted and lead to eventual failure of the bowline - this is a continuous progression through various degrees of Bowline viability.
• The legs of the Bight Component must be secured by and within the Helical Nipping Component.  This action provides the negative linear cogging function within the knot and is a critical aspect of knot functionality.
• One of the Bight Component legs must be a loop leg.
• the remaining Bight Component leg is normally the WE, but may be reworked to enhance security, but must not change the form or function of the defined key internal components.
• The Helical Nipping Component must be loaded on both ends.  One end must be loaded by the SP, the other must be a loop leg.  The helical Nipping Component may range from an overlapped helix, through a spectrum of degrees of openness.  In use, the helix may continue to open if the bight legs are drawn through the grip of the Helix, eventually leading to loss of viability as a fixed Loop Knot and conversion to a Noose.
• This definition is based on ABOK #1010, but does not extend to incorporating the Eskimo 'Bowline', wherein the Bight collar does not encircle the SP.

It incorporates a considerable amount of flexibility, yet retains the core essence of the Bowline.  The price is that the Eskimo will probably have to become known as the Sheetbend Loopknot ....

Derek