Bends Charts

[Dan_Lehman]

In the file (New & Neat-like group)
I am sure #1425A is right in its group.

But as you've severely re-dressed it,
it plainly is NOT #1425A --just as an Anchor
Bend isn't a Strangle knot, though they can
be dressed one into the other.
(Dressing and in-load transformations have a way of
confounding classification!)

Yours so called REVERSED#1425A is better known to me
...

Ooops, I stand corrected.  (I'd just assumed that
that was the case --or so it appeared on a quick tying?)

The same tail crossing technique can be performed with Riggers bend (#1425A)
--its still a Riggers bend but with the tails crossed (its a variation of the parent bend).

Or vice versa --there is nothing inherent in the knotting
to consider one of these a parent to the other.  It
might have been the case of discovery order for some
knot tyer --who might have herself been deemed originator;
but purely in terms of relations I don't see the distinction
as implicit in the knots.


--dl*
====

[siriuso]

Hi all,

I concur with Dan that there is nothing inherent to the knotting to consider one of these a parent to the other, It might have been the case of discovery order tor some knot tyer.

Cases were found to ABOK#1426 which was mentioned in Ashley's book. This bend is with the tails crossing of the later found Rigger' s Bend (later included in Ashley's book as ABOK1425A). You will see that #1426 appeared earlier than #1425A. This order of discovery is the child born fist than its parent. IMO, most inventors will not or in no concern or by any aids to find out its root, but name mush be given to the new born. It happened also to the family of ABOK#1453, Shake Hands Bend and Shake Hands -X Bend. #1453 (the child) has born first.
    ABOK#1453 (with tails crossing)
    Shake Hands Bend (with tails crossing)
    Shake Hand -X Bend (without tails crossing)

Happy Knotting
yChan

[agent_smith]

yChan,
Obviously its your technical paper and you have the unrestricted right to do as you wish.
I've pointed out various issues over the past few years - but I realised you are quite resistant to any feedback that does not align with your ideological views.
For instance - I've mentioned several times that your work could benefit from a proper searchable index.

I will make a final comment for you to ponder - specifically in terms of a tail crossing within an 'end-to-end joining knot' (refer to attached image).
I did use the terms 'parent' and 'child' - and these were simply attempts to draw attention to the fact that there is a geometric relationship between certain knot structures.
You can also think of these knots as being related in terms of: ''Genus', and 'Species':
A. Butterfly - Z twist
B. Butterfly - S twist
C. Butterfly - No twist (#1053)

Its not really a question of which came first - its a question of geometric relationships.
In terms of the attached images of 'Butterfly eye knots... they are all related - and are all from the same 'Genus'.
It can be argued that image 'C' (#1053) is the logical base structure - eg, it can be conceptualised as the 'parent'.
The other structures are all 'cousins' - they are related - one has a Z twist and the other has an S twist.

[Dan_Lehman]

I will make a final comment for you to ponder - specifically in terms of a tail crossing within an 'end-to-end joining knot' (refer to attached image).
...
A. Butterfly - Z twist
B. Butterfly - S twist
C. Butterfly - No twist (#1053)

In which we see that --by some counting, at least--
"C" has one fewer crossing (of the Eye Legs<=> Tails with each other).

<argh!!!> There are I think intractable problems in working out
classification schemes.  One must ask What is the purpose (of a
scheme) --what can it do for us?!  (I find myself hitting dead ends
or contradictions or overwhelming variables.)-:


--dl*
====

[siriuso]

Hi Mark,

I have put up cases of some bends families which are existing for decades. I see that their geometric relationships or genus were not being aware of and thus the names were not align with the structure or align with you. As I have mentioned in the early threads, there were limited of information at that time, less information/reference can be reached. IMO, by now you can obtain some useful aid in one of my knotting folder "Bends Classed By Starts". I always try to get the bends in family/genus. I tabulate what I found. I respect everyone, especially the making of the existing names of knots/bends known to us for decades.

I have tried this kind of indexing as a whole before, not only pin point to some basic pathing. I realized your suggestion/applications will accomplish a bit only, but not the whole indexing. I understand that your indexing are only indicating the type of placements of the exited Working Ends after tucking through the central hole of the two loops. By this, will you give us a few examples of your indexing on some known families? Then how are you going on for the rest. Will you give us more and more examples?

Upon your query and proposal, should we now get a new start with you and some clever members to explore on it.

Happy Knotting
yChan

[agent_smith]

yChan,

I am posting this info in good faith.
If you implement each of these recommendations, your work will be significantly enhanced/improved - and potentially rival the work of Roger Miles and even Ashley.

In my view, here is what you need to do to get your work into a form that is more user friendly.

1. Number all of your knots (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6 and so on - like Ashley has done).
    This will make referencing your work much easier... you could say for example knot #38 is 'xyz'

2. Organise all of your 'bends' into geometric categories as follows:
  [ ] Overhand + Overhand (examples include: Butterfly bend, Zeppelin bend, Riggers bend, etc)
  [ ] F8 + F8 (example is #1411 F8 bend, etc)
  [ ] F8 + Overhand (example is 'Lehman 8' bend)
  [ ] U fold (bight) + half hitch (example is Sheet bend)
  [ ] U fold + U fold (example is Reef/Square knots/bends)
  [ ] Crossing hitch + Crossing hitch (example is Carrick bend)
  [ ] Crossing hitch + Overhand knot
  [ ] Crossing hitch + Loop (example is 'Tugboat bend')
  [ ] Interpenetrating strangles (example is #1415 Double Fishermans)

  and so on...

3. Create a searchable index
    Note: And this is where the numbering system will make it much easier to find a specific knot (like Ashley has done).
    At present, it is almost impossible for the general public to find a specific knot - or to reference your work (because finding stuff is tedious).

4. Ensure all images are like those in your 'About bends' folder (no more images taken on your couch/sofa)

5. Ensure that your specify chirality with all images (eg if you have an image of a riggers bend, specify if it is S/S or Z/Z)

6. Get a faster storage cloud server (the load times for your current folders are painfully slow - for example I lose patience and give up).
   Note: This is not as critical as the other points above - but would make browsing through your folders a more user friendly experience.

...

    Note: I don't think you need to publish every knots mirror opposite version - perhaps only a select few where it aids understanding.
As long as the reader can understand that you are only portraying one chiral form.

[siriuso]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your comments. In reply to your thread above.

1.   I have once disagreed your proposal to have my bends all in numbers before. The reason why I would not do that because I am now doing it in alphabetical order. New comer (new or known bends) can be easily get in line. Once the bends were found not new, they would be deleted from the line and backed to their old names. Ifffff I get them with numbers as you suggested, there will be a big crisis. People can easily access to the information by the knot names and no need through some numbers and find the knots. And bear in mind, I suppose new comers are welcome to be included in my folders.

2.   Your suggestion is good for listing out the components of a bend. It is an easy job for everyone. Interested readers should have their own notes. I have just finished one chart for [Bends of Crossing Knot + Crossing Knot] a few months ago pending for re-checking. The chart will be released on the coming month.

3.   IMO, the numbering system applied to my folder will be overdone. See reasons above. To my knowledge, the so arranged in Ashley's book ABOK are:
    a) The numbering is for the sketches, nothing related to the names of the knots, unless they had no names. We the readers use the number e.g.ABOK#xxxx for identification/referring only.
    b) The names of knots shown in the index pages are in alphabetical order, and listed with pages numbers. Hence these various pages show the sketch numbers (same knot has different numbers in different pages because the numbers represent the sketches drawn in different applications/chapters).
    c) The total numbered sketches are not actual numbers of knots. There are many cases of one knot possesses more than one number.
    d) In Roger Miles' book - e.g. Diamond Bend (B7). the numbering (B7) is for his four types classifications of bends. If there happens to be another knot with the same name. We usually distinguish them by adding (B7).

4.   Photos can always tell more, sketches can not. I took no good photos because I did them in a simple way. I can work much better on this if I want to. To me the content is essential, brief and clear. Though I am a retired designer, I do not chase/favor for perfection, because it is an illusion, we always be demandable.

5.   The photos tell.

6.   Will it cost money to buy/fire the service. It is now free for me to use.

Reply to your note
      My reply : They are good for left-handed persons to tie the knot/bend. Do not neglect the usual public. Sometimes you will tie the mirror version, thus it is a handy note for verification.

Mark, I cannot do anything for you, but your comments/suggestions give me the chance to express myself. Thanks.

Happy Happy Knotting
yChan

[agent_smith]

Happy knotting yChan!