Yet, another midline eyeknot

[Kost_Greg]

Hi Ychan, it's good that you have included the interlinked configuration as well, providing a compehensive picture of these structures.

The "Beta", butterfly-ish variation, although it looks more compact, in Mobius, crossed-line style, i believe it blocks the access to the figure-9 collar, therefore, i also agree with your preference to the other one.

Afterall, what's the point of inducing additional complexity to 1053, which would probably render the untying situation, more challenging than the parent knot?

On the contrary, at the february structure, the 9-collar is completely accessible, with no direct linkage to SParts, and moreover, it operates as a blocking component against the distancing developed between the two non-interlinked overhands of false butterfly, holding them close to one other.

To see what i mean, try to form the figure nine, this time from the right side of the knot, incorporating an S-half hitch.

You will rather uncover a knot, not so stable, as the one with the Z-half hitch, that you have very smartly intergrated  from the left side of the original knot.

One other interesting aspect is, that if the double splayed loop, bowline version is obtained from the original, inline, source knot, this figure-9 form, is transformed to Alpineer's nipping structure.

[Kost_Greg]

Moving to more conventional, hybrid, butterfly forms that synthesize interlinked figure eights and overhands, i have attached the precedent state of this form in first image, just before the reeving of the central bight through both interlinked loops.

Note 1: The right Z loop is twisted, and gets the crossing knot state, before the reeving, for the figure eight to be materialized.

Note 2: If the left S loop is twisted, one might expect a geometrically different result.

As i have explained in previous replies, the hybrid form, (which comes from the previous stage), is subjected to some core modifications, whereon the figure eight is flipped and the eye legs swap positions as illustated in second image.

Finally, the overhand, eye leg continuation, is extended, forming a bight, which in sequence is being folded under the nub, with the finishing reeving of the eye down through this bight.(third image, loose form).

In my view, despite the complexity, this is another interesting mode to interlace figure eight with overhand components, in butterfly-ish style to produce stable, yet jam-safe, midline knot structures.

Looking for a simple tying method that leads directly to third knot, bypassing the intervening stages.

[Kost_Greg]

Last, but not least at this series of knots is the one that points directly to the butterfly Knot.

Perhaps i should have started with this one, as the primary profile in this group of knots, nonetheless, i have mostly favoured the hybrid forms because their interlinked figure eight components, appear to form more pliable core nubs, compared to plain ,raw, overhands.

However, if someone wishes to improve butterfly's jamming profile at about 50% max (theoretically, by leaving only one overhand in action), he does have the option to put this specific profile to the test.

About the tying method, i shall join hands with Alan Lee and follow his tying procedure when forming his inline link bowline, just simply adding an S half hitch at the left SP continuation, as shown in first image mat (three times twist and folding under the main line is the initial mat creation, one more twist compared to the original butterfly method).

Note 1: Remove the collar that encircles the eye legs, in order to materialize the butterfly knot.

Note 2: If you wish to get rid of the remnant overhand, remove the first, left SP HH, and allow inline Lee's link bowline to take on form.   

[Kost_Greg]

This reply is about inline knot formation with a toggle mechanism, that's tailored to butterfly tying method.

First stage, (first image) is the well known, precedent butterfly mat, with the two, different polarity, interlinked loops, just before the final, central bight reeving.

1. Twist the right (Z) loop, anti-clockwise and turn it into the bight state, shown in second image mat.

2. Pass the central bight through this formation in the following order, over, under, under, over.

This is another, butterfly oriented, TIB tying method for the first knot of this thread.

[Kost_Greg]

How about inducing a clockwise twist, at the left, S loop component of the previous pre-stage, of the butterfly knot?

Such action would shape the first image mat scheme, while the toggling action, would push the central bight to be passed under the left bight, in exactly the previously described order (over, under, under, over), generating the fully featured profile of the next two images.

While this knot's response to BTL loading appears to lack the stability and the compactness of the previous knot ar reply#93, it is clear that the eye loading profile outweighs the previous one, from a jam resistance point of view.

Although both knots feature a resemblance in their structural topology and construction (no overhands), their jamming profiles appear to diverge, with the latter being more pliable than the the former despite its strange appearance.

PS: Siriuso would be pleased to find out that one more twist at the left component, would form the Z to Z  mat, while toggling the central bight in exactly the same fashion as previously, the Mantis loop would take on form.

However, i think i shall insist on the pliability of the second nub at this reply.

[Kost_Greg]

Sheepshank variation

As shown in first image's initial configuration, the first two loops are of same (S) polarity while the distinction, compared to a conventional sheepshank, lies to the third loop which is formed with inversed (Z) polarity.

Obviously, the left part of the middle loop is threaded down through the left loop, while the right part of the middle loop is threaded down through the right loop.

This sheepshank variant appears to maintain a more stable form when bi-axially through loaded, with the two sheepshank bights (the alleged damaged part of the rope) in a vertical axial alignment.

Xarax has been there before, because his sheepshank bowline is formed by pushing one bight through the other.

https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=4680.msg30254#msg30254

[alanleeknots]

      Hi Greg, Yes, this is an improved version of sheepshank. Great work. I like it.
                      alanleeknots.

[Kost_Greg]

Thank you Alan for your feedback.

I'll have to point out that even this apparently more stable sheepshank, is always a sheepshank, so one has to be very cautious when using it.

[Kost_Greg]

Relation between Abok#1049 Span loop and Abok#1055

This is not an obvious or direct correlation, one has to work with both knots to establish it.

Starting with Abok#1055 (left of first image), tied exactly as described in Ashley book of knots, the collar encircling the eye legs is flipped for the M, rightmost knot derivative to be created.

This simple maneuver, induces a radical change in the knot's core, with the latter being more stable than the former in all loading directions.

For example, at the left knot (Abok#1055), the nipping loop is a direct continuation of the right SP, with one rope diameter passing through, while at the right knot (M knot), the nipping loop is a direct continuation of the left SP with two rope diameters passing through.

So, which knot might be associated with the so called M knot?

Answer: The M knot, is the direct inline derivative of Mobius M bowline.

Link: https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=6193.msg41584#msg41584

But in what way exactly, does Abok#1049, Span loop jump in this equation?

If the M loop is subjected to an additional collar flip, a Xarax Samisen TIB bowline is shaped, which is dressed and illustrated in a way to highlight the correlation with Abok#1049 (second image).

In other words, while the M core of third image bowline is not pseudo symmetrical, meaning that it's not feasible to progress directly from end of line to midline (same cores) and vice verca, it might be associated with two inline knots, the midline M (mM), and the Span loop (fourth image) and Abok#1055 by extension.

Loading all three inline knots in various loading modes, i would guesstimate that the mM, appears to respond more solidly, with respect to consistency and stability to the initial form.

In conclusion, i would confirm the following "in the bight" core transformations......

1.Inline Abok#1055 <======> Inline M <======>End of line Xarax's Samisen bowline.

2.End of line Abok#1055 <======>End of line M bowline <======> Inline Span loop Abok#1049.

I wonder, if the original creator Mobius, had investigated all these aspects.

[Kost_Greg]

As shown at previous reply, Abok#1049 Span loop and Abok#1055, they both point to the M core, end of line or in line respectively, which somehow stays hidden in between these inline profiles.

Suppose, someone desires a straight TIB tying method for this Carrick like structure without having to pre-form Abok#1055, there is also a simple TIB method that leads directy to mM.

1. Form the bight, loop system shown in first image.
Basically, it is a dual loop system of same polarity, where the left one is designated as the final eye, and the smaller right loop is capsized.

2. Form a bight on the right SP continuation and push it down through the small centered loop.

3. Feed the left loop down through this bight from the previous step.

[Kost_Greg]

By the same token, i could subsequently make the claim that Abok#1054 farmer's loop, is also a similar function, carrick-like, knot.

More specifically, if someone observes closely the details of first image, which illustrates two different loading profiles of the same core, he would probably establish the correlation between the end of line Cowboy M of Mobius and midline Abok#1054 farmer's loop (1054 = midline version of cowboy M bowline).

This very, 1054 farmer's, profile, had also been presented in the following thread, more like an end termination, TIB, Carrick like structure, but i'm mostly inclined to classify it as midline.

https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=7261.msg47307#msg47307

As known, there are two TIB tying methods of farmer's loop in Ashley book of knots because Abok#1054 and Abok#1056 are the same knot structures.

Now there are three, according to the second attached image. This method is almost the same with the one described at previous reply with a slight difference at the second step, whereon the bight on the right SP continuation takes now the form of an S loop, which is threaded down through the small centered loop.

Now, for the deeply initiated, besides the correlation with Xarax's plait loop, i shall demonstrate another dressing state of farmer's loop (third image), which is formed by flipping the nipping loop and changing the SP directions.

This very state, besides some bi-axial loading stability that does not interest me, is the most appropriate geometrical form, in order to subject it to a cask-like operation, as shown in fourth image.

Not as pseudo symmetrical as the original Cask, but the knot gains extra, eye loading stability and pliability of course with the cost of this additional, collar extension.