Yet, another midline eyeknot

[agent_smith]

Sorry for your concern

?
There is zero concern.
Think of it as more like a curiosity as to your motivations.

I did not know you are presenting a draft or something else

?
I wasn't.
Its a free world that we live in yChan.
I can post whatever I please, and whenever I please - provided it doesn't break forum rules.
The derived bend that drew your attention was simply thrown in by me as an after thought.
It came with no attached dialog and no accompanying information.
Any meaning that you attach to it is solely your own imagination.

And thats fine too - its a free world - you can imagine whatever pleases you.

[Kost_Greg]

@Agent_smith

I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. I made a mistake, (apparently Ychan did it too), confusing the term "corresponding", with the term "derivative".

Moreover, the lack of a bend identifier, impeled me to hasten knot regognition, without seeing that indeed this toggled symmetrical 'bad brother' bend, can be derived from a toggled asymmetrical, inline, TIB, EHL, eyeknot, as illustrated in your image.

A mystery wafting this bend structure, is that many knotters have tied it, with their own hybrid methods, independently, (happened to me too), without knowing its existence, therefore after this fiddling, its pattern becomes in a sense, immediately/easily recognisable.

May i propose, Xarax's Hugo bend A, as a compact symmetrical, toggled, Zeppelin-like, bend/eyeknot structure as well.

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.msg31980#msg31980

[agent_smith]

Yes - the Hugo bend is another example of a knot that employs a toggle mechanism.
The 2 types of toggle mechanisms that seem to appear are:
1. Brace
2. Axle

And some knots employ a toggle mechanism as a critical support element; and when that toggle is removed it triggers total collapse.

In the case of the Anglers loop - removal of the toggle does not trigger total collapse.
The toggle therefore was not a critical support element.
The Anglers loop loses structural integrity when the toggle is removed but, it does not trigger total collapse (to the unknot).

The Hugo bend employs a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - when removed, it triggers total collapse.
The toggle acts as a brace. Its interesting because it is based on the integration of 2 Crossing hitches (so is the 'Carrick bend' - however the Crossing hitches are inter-linked and there is no 'toggle').

In the Zeppelin bend, the toggle is employed as an 'axle', and it is a critical support element.
When the toggle is removed, the Zeppelin bend collapses.

The so called 'EHL' employs a toggle mechanism as a brace. It is a critical support element (removal of the toggle triggers total collapse).
I think I am a fanboy of the 'EHL' - but wish it had a more fitting name!

Anyhow, this is all very interesting.
This whole idea of a toggle mechanism is opening up new lines of thought and how some knots are jam proof, or jam resistant.
The Zeppelin bend is jam proof (no jamming - even up to its MBS yield point).

I'd like to see some serious testing of the so called 'EHL' - to investigate if it is jam proof or only jam resistant.
The EHL needs testing along different axes...ie bi-axially as a through load from SPart-to-SPart but also eye loading.

It would be interesting to test a hypothesis that knots that employ a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - are jam proof?
I know that if the toggle functions as an axle (per Zeppelin bend) it = jam proof.
But what if the toggle functions as a brace - does that also = jam proof (or not)?

[KC]

Yes - the Hugo bend is another example of a knot that employs a toggle mechanism.
The 2 types of toggle mechanisms that seem to appear are:
1. Brace   2. Axle
And some knots employ a toggle mechanism as a critical support element; and when that toggle is removed it triggers total collapse.
.
.
.
It would be interesting to test a hypothesis that knots that employ a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - are jam proof?
I know that if the toggle functions as an axle (per Zeppelin bend) it = jam proof.
But what if the toggle functions as a brace - does that also = jam proof (or not)?

But is not same axle/pin/toggle/bitt in Rigger's high tension jam?
>>just with more direct, interlaced focus of the trapping?
>>rather than the side by side 'hooks' of  Zepp.
.
i think of Rigger's harder locked/coupled box cars on same track as direct/inline unconverted force
>>Zepp more of side by side tracks, couplers bound together sideways/after force conversion as less direct.
Both would be continuous torque direction if BE's fused together as one
>>B'fly has direct , interlaced , 'coupling' of 'hooks' of Rigger's, but side relief/open side not in Rigger's
AND if BE's/eye fused as one,
>>present more of an anti-jam counter-torque of off host crossings/ Backhand Turn as exemplified in basics of  Muenter/Cow etc.
.
Those are direct pressures on axle/pin/toggle (toggle so appropriate as is in circuits: on or off /1 or 0)
Then there is more of a 'chained'  series of same dependency, only buffered.
>>more of a main toggle/axle/pin who's position is more simply stabilized w/less force by next slip pin/axle/toggle
>>besides slipped daisy chain, perhaps most classically (now) shown simply as:

as better rep than Highwayman's to same utility/task.

[agent_smith]

As usual, this is now morphing into an entirely different and vastly more complex subject area.

I am not a moderator and I dont speak for the IGKT but, it does seem that a new thread topic should be started if discussion is to continue to probe into the complexities of knots that employ a toggle mechanism which is a critical support element and also is an effective axle or brace to confer jam resistance.
(#1425A does not have an effective toggle axle - obviously - since it jams).

...

Somewhat more in line with the original knot that was presented by tsik_lestat, i would sincerely like to see some load testing on this to probe its level of jam resistance along different axes.
Maybe Alan Lee is still active as usual (and safe and healthy without the damn Corona virus)?

[Kost_Greg]

Here is, another midline eyeknot, which appears that it can be loaded from Spart to Spart (through loaded). Note, in third image, how the two links embrace one other, subserving this bi-axial loading without jamming incidents, yielding to a stable and secure construction.

The eye loading profile appears to be immune to jamming too.

I have a TIB tying method, which will follow later, but any suggestions are welcome.

[Kost_Greg]

This is a very simple inline eyeknot. It is constructed by forming a flipped Z loop, passing then the right line in between the loop, setting the size of the bight at the same time, as the final eye (first image).

The next step is to pass the bight through the loop, over its continuation line (second image).

Loading the knot from all three directions, induces no observable distortion, or jamming.

The collar, is very easy to bend, athough it is part of an overhand based complex link.

i haven't found a reference yet for this seemingly stable design structure, but it's too soon for claims of originality.

[agent_smith]

Interesting presentation at reply #21.
Thanks for your continuing efforts.
However, I am of the view that it may distort under heavy load.
I like the 'right' side of the structure - the eye leg executes a more gentle turn around 2 rope diameters.
The 'left' side is a different matter - the eye leg executes a sharp turn around only 1 rope diameter.
The 'under' - 'over' (opposing) nature of the 'collars' tends to contribute to distortion under heavy loading.

If there was a way to improve the 'left' side - that would be interesting.

I also wonder if it is possible to create the ultimate BTL (Bi-axially Through Loadable) mid-line eye knot that is also TIB?
Imagine a structure that is based on a Zeppelin-like core?
Challenge accepted?

[Kost_Greg]

Thank you agent_smith

However, I am of the view that it may distort under heavy load.

I guess you are refering to BTL profile, but you have to dress it smartly, by gradually cinching all three endings, in order to cease nub distortion and hasten the balance state. I believe the TL profile("tugboat loadings", SPart 1 = > eye, SPart 2 = > eye), barely leave a `tortured` nub.

I think of the harness 1050, as a super basic inline structure, and am trying to build on its core to produce more stable results. However, whatever transformation i subjected  to the previously presented inline configuration, i was not able to pick up any correlation with some known knot (some inline knots are harness derivatives), but with a Xarax Samisen bowline.

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4883.0

I'm afraid, it is not possible to completely diminish the nub distortion of an inline TIB knot structure, because of both links asymmetry.

Xarax had given prominence to this concept by stating that " there can be no symmetrical TIB midline loop".

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5440.msg36783#msg36783

What we can do, is try to approximate this supposed " pseudo symmetry", in order to keep the distortion to a bare minimum level.

Of great importance, would also be the validity of EEL (either end loadable), CL or RL (cross loadable or ring loadable) qualities, with the feasibility of  a solid EL (eye loadable) , BTL (bi-axially through loadable) profiles that correspond to a midline knot accordingly.

Having said that, i only know so far just two knots which somehow come close to such an optimal response when loaded, the 1053 butterfly and the cask knot (EHL).

I also wonder if it is possible to create the ultimate BTL (Bi-axially Through Loadable) mid-line eye knot that is also TIB?
Imagine a structure that is based on a Zeppelin-like core?
Challenge accepted?

This is a tough challenge, but i wouldn't bet against the existence of  such a knot structure! Maybe, our minds are not prepared for it yet!!

[alanleeknots]

 Recently I have had a quick test on tsik_lestat's Simple line and Xarax's Re-harnessed Harness
     loop, both of them jam, for tsik_lestat loop one side has a twist collar Angler's loop,
     and Xarax's loop has overhand knot.
     My loop here is compact and stable. On the white standing part side don't have overhand knot,
     but it acts like overhand knot and it's jam too.  謝謝 alanleeknots.   

[Kost_Greg]

Hi Alan, many thanks for your midline offering, as well as for the TIB tying method. It appears to be a very strong inline knot, certainly more stable than mine, and i wonder how i 've missed it (i shall explain later on).

What's going on with the inlines jamming? I thought (hoped) that my angler's component collar would survive.

I do have a proposition for Xarax's reharnessed harness, which overrides the overhand, maybe for an upcoming thread, where i could organize most of harness derivatives.

Now, performing some TIB transformation maneuvers, including some consecutive collar flips at your structure, i have arrived at an equivalent bowline topology i had tied in the past.

I believe, it was its midline variation, that was  presented here......

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6909.msg45707#msg45707

Pretty much the same knot (midline/mirror).

[agent_smith]

My offering appears to be an improvement on the original #1053 Butterfly.
The eye legs turn around 3 rope diameters.

It is TIB.

I didn't post this as a claim of originality in new knots - because it is likely that the legendary Xarax has already tied it.

Would be good to get some load tests to confirm stability and jam resistance.

Note: Jam resistance should ideally be tested across different loading profiles:
[ ] bi-axial through loading
[ ] eye loading (both axial directions)

[alanleeknots]

 Have a few tests on these two loops here, looking good to me, 
 will do more test then I can tell you.
 How to tie Midline Loop (B) please see this link. 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxS6_NT0lac   謝謝 alanleeknots.
 

[Kost_Greg]

@agent smith

Thanks for this variation, it certainly looks original to me, i guess it remains to be seen!

Although its topology, as well as its tying method, denotes the knot of origin, i can confirm this correlation through transformation, where your inline offering, can be simplified to take the final conventional butterfly form.

You have chosen to enhance butterfly's core by adding some extra coils to one of its links, rather than retucking to add some extra collars.

I like the tidy, smart, dressing with the parallel lines within the nub. In my view, stability wouldn't be a problem, as i consider this structure as super stable, but it's left to be seen, if this nub interference, whilst it does not considerably appear to disturb butterfly's pseudo symmetry characteristics, does affect the jam resistance of the various profile loadings.

I suppose Alan would give it a go to find out.

@Alan Lee

Have a few tests on these two loops here, looking good to me,
 will do more test then I can tell you.

I should really hope you do, because Midline A's jamming profile had concerned me too.

Link : https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6841.msg45557#msg45557

I have not fiddled with the Beta version yet, but hopefully i will.

[DerekSmith]

An observation on terminology and an apology for the tangential (pun intended) distortion.

A bend is a single or monoaxial structure - the force line has a single axis.

If an Alpine Butterfly loop is tied such as to excuse a portion of the cord, then it is effectively a bend and therefore also a monoaxial structure.

However, the moment the loop is loaded the structure transforms into a triaxial  structure, although still in a single two dimensional plane.

Then of course, if the loop becomes ring loaded the structure immediately switches into a quadaxial state in three dimensions,

Finally, if the load becomes dynamic, the fourth dimension of time comes into play, our brains turn to mush and we declare - 'Well, it's complicated'...

Derek

PS tsik - lovely tying method, but overall, I think I prefer the Alpine loop because I can tie it in my sleep and it works.