Hi Andreas, I am wrong, Xarax loop is slightly difference form your.
Where had this "Hitched-Tail Eye Knot" (my terms) come from?
It's something I've recently discovered --and maybe somewhere
a little less recently (so much for my jumbled slips of illustrations)--
in response to
km160:10 (in which so many good things were missed
for a lousy, dubious "bowline"!).
I was about to note that the image given is not quite
right, but thought to try orienting it that way, ...
and it works; *my* dressing/orientation has the outgoing
eye leg more *near* the RELeg, and the knot body thus
turns such that the RELeg collar would --for this image--
be more atop the S.Part's nipping turn. (Perhaps in some
materials one will get pretty much the same thing; in others,
there will be some influence from dressing & setting. !?)
Also I found Scout's fig.9 adjustable loop very good too.
This picture is taking by Xarax.
Ah, that takes me way back --80s, I think, or 90s.
I saw it as appealingly gradually bending the S.Part.
I'd prefer today using a "Symmetric Fig.9" base
(cf. Ashley #521? for SF9 state --presented there qua stopper).
How "adjustable" (or is it
when, re adjustment?)
these knots are depends on loading and ... . I have found
them helpful when I stress-test some knot with my crummy
5:1 pulley :: as with that ratio --nevermind if I'm getting
the mechanical advantage, I DO make the haul-line travel!--,
my foot often reached the ground without putting my full
weight on the structure, and I need to "re-load"; using such
a THEKnot can let me draw tighter the specimen after I've
reset the pulley, and have another go.
(BTW, the Anchor Bend in orig. & re-dress forms can work
pretty well at this --it's a baby ProhGrip/Blake's knot.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re knots illustration, I've come around to some few
conventions ::
1) I try to draw the knot in a realistic way but with
clarity as to its structure.
2) I'll ID each visible segment, and indicate the
*flow* of the material with the S.Part as the start.
3) Which clarity can come by some annotations to
compensate for visual ambiguity, writing something
like "part 4_5 goes UNDER all" (where one here is
describing the back side of a knot to the viewer).
((sometimes the ambiguity begets . . . a NEW knot ! :-))
4) I put the S.Part in one color, running out into the
Outgoing Eye Leg (well, for EKs) PAST the eye's apex
and then break the line drawing into a (newly) 2-dot
indication of indefinite length --graphical ellipsis--,
and continue the Returning Eye Leg in a new color.
Which might finish it,
of in some cases where I see a knot as being one thing
(say, a basic BWL) AND THEN extending into the full
knot being presented (#1010 with an end-bound wrap, e.g.)
I might use a 3rd color for that.
With not-so-small images in parallel lines,
I can use 0.05 - 0.5 pens to make the ID and
arrow'd flow indicator IN the parallel-line-bounded
space; otherwise, I might have a point line from
the spot out to the ID beside the knot, put into a
circle, which will point to show flow.
(And have at times cursed myself for the lack of such
clarity in images that then, in ambiguity, are giving
me more "new" knots than I want! :-).
(Even in perspicuous cases, the parts-IDing gives
a handle for discussion --i.e., IDs for the parts.
I might "illustrate" a version of the just sketched knot
verbally ("swap REL & Tail" (e.g., #1010 => #1034.5);
"reverse the Xing of parts 8 & 3".)
--dl*
====
