Lee's Super 8 Loop & other nipping structure

[siriuso]

Hi Alan

Re Reply#84. The Lee's Bend #1Z and 2Z are found already included in my folder as Mercury Bend.

Happy Knotting
yChan

[Dan_Lehman]

Re Reply#84. The Lee's Bend #1Z and 2Z are found already included in my folder as Mercury Bend.

Which makes one look closely to realize, as yChan earlier
remarks, "Lee's Bend #2Z is the mirror image of Lee's Bend #1Z"

OK, glad that that's figured.
BUT, in a way, they're different, per Alan's precise geometries:
note that in the 2Z/lower knot, the Tails meet & cross sides
BEFORE running up through the rest of the knot; whereas in
the other case, their Xing comes up within the knot.
Does it matter --and this is a matter of dressing & setting?!
I recall the HowNotTo guys testing --supposedly only?--
Butterfly knots and through loading (so, Butterfly joints),
and all or nearly all of them pulled undone, spilling,
with continual rolling out of material along the way;
Mr.HowNotTo (Ryan Jenks) opined that he'll not ever
trust the Butterfly on account of seeing this.

In ONE case (2?), it happened that #1408 (wrongly named
by Jenks/video as "1452") was tied; surprising to me, it too
rolled, continually having Tails jump from one state to another,
and feeding out material.  Well, I THINK that were those #1408
Tails dressed to cross *outside* of the knot and the knot then
set firmly to secure that positioning, ... it would've held, to rupture.
HERE --after searching through a LOT of HN2 videos-- is the case,
at about minute 25:54 => 17:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqlkVuECmPY

<sigh>  Just one more thing to worry about ... .

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

In ONE case (2?), it happened that #1408 (wrongly named
by Jenks/video as "1452") was tied; surprising to me, it too
rolled, continually having Tails jump from one state to another,
and feeding out material.  Well, I THINK that were those #1408
Tails dressed to cross *outside* of the knot and the knot then
set firmly to secure that positioning, ... it would've held, to rupture.
HERE --after searching through a LOT of HN2 videos-- is the case,
at about minute 25:54 => 17:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqlkVuECmPY

<sigh>  Just one more thing to worry about ... .

--dl*
====

Still amazes me to watch this!

(-8 !!

[siriuso]

Hi Alan

Teepee Bend and Mercury Bend were discovered by me and have been posted to this forum in my folders on 11/6/2018 and 1/9/2020 respectively. You may find them about the dates when I exposed my bends (in the pdf "List of My New Bends") in my folder "My New Bends"

"My New Bends"
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/118JW083wRZ52FlhlAjF-lUvAdCpiE9fB?usp=sharing


yChan

[alanleeknots]

    Hi Chan,

? Reply #68 on: September 25, 2024, 10:43:23 AM ?
At this moment, I find your discovered bend "Lee's Unconventional Bend V2" is the same as my "Teepee Bend" in my folders. Please check my folders.

    You said "is the same as my  "Teepee

Reply#84. The Lee's Bend #1Z and 2Z are found already included in my folder as Mercury Bend.

"You said "already included in my folder as Mercury Bend."


I do believe you have these Bends,

Getting old and slow I have a hard time finding information about your knots, also you have been updating your folders so many times.

Well, I have my new bends posted, and you come in later and make a claim, and you didn't offer any information.
     And you want me to look for it myself ?    Thanks

[agent_smith]

Hello Alan,
Hope you are well and happy.

My advice: Don't worry about any 'claims' and/or 'counter claims' made by others - just keep doing what you're doing!
Just let yChan do the detective work for you (as he did).
If if thinks he got there first, he'll quickly announce it here on the IGKT forum.

Its impossible for any reasonable person to sift through his published work because there is no searchable index or any
logical way for someone to try to search (other than by a painstakingly slow and tedious page-by-page search). And even if
a person was to attempt to painstakingly sift through each page - its still easy to miss/overlook a knot due to what I refer
to as 'big data' syndrome.
Given this level of search difficulty, its best just to let yChan do the searching for you!

[agent_smith]

Hello Dan,
[being mindful of possibility of diverting this thread off-topic]

With regard to your comment re Ryan Jenks (HowNOT2):

I recall the HowNotTo guys testing --supposedly only?--
Butterfly knots and through loading (so, Butterfly joints),
and all or nearly all of them pulled undone, spilling,
with continual rolling out of material along the way;
Mr.HowNotTo (Ryan Jenks) opined that he'll not ever
trust the Butterfly on account of seeing this.

The Butterfly video you cite (Ryan Jenks youtube video HowNOT2):
I'll comment as follows:
Have a look at the video from time stamp 5:55 through to 6:07.
The test article ('Butterfly') is being subjected to a through-loading profile.
Look closely at the geometric form of the 'Butterfly' eye knot.
At time stamp 5:55 we already see the pull test in motion - we don't get to see
exactly how the Butterfly was tied (ie the exact geometric form prior to loading).
There is already some significant distortion happening - and it appears as if there is
some irregularity in how the Butterfly was tied (at 5:55, the load wasn't yet approaching
the MBS yield point).
My point is that I wouldn't place too much reliance or emphasis on their tests.
Its hard to make a judgement about how accurate and diligently they tie their knots.
Jenks likely didn't tie the knots himself (maybe his assistant?) - we cannot be certain.

You might counter by stating that this video and test is representative of the typical
climber and/or climbing community - and so this is what you get out in the 'wild' (ie, this is
the norm for rock climbers - so you might claim that the data is useful).
In my view, if you're going to test and then publish to the world, you need to be accurate
and diligent - and you need to ensure repeatability by others.

I'm always exercising some level of scepticism when viewing HowNOT2 videos - partly due
to the lack of scientific rigor (eg the 'scientific method').

[Dan_Lehman]

With regard to your comment re Ryan Jenks (HowNOT2):
/.../
- we don't get to see exactly how the Butterfly was tied

Which is true of lots of places. What stands out is that
the knots failed to hold, mostly --they slipped a LOT--::
THAT, by any tying, stands as remarkable.
For it's not like the #1408 "Jeckel & Hyde" (Roo) situation,
where orientation of the Tails' exit is critical.
And they do test one #1408 (wrongly calling it #1452,
Ashley's Bend); and one can see there that albeit briefly
it obtains the 1408 orientation BUT ... pops out of it & slips!!

(Now, I have raised the point about the Tails X-ing point
being within rather than just below the nub,
but, still, that rope does amazing things,
which should have no business happening no matter
niceties of dressing!)


--dl*
====

[alanleeknots]

​      Hi all, another bend here. Hope you like it.  And thanks for all the replies.
                Thanks