Juergen [ON THE "NEW" FORUM] writes ::
"We should therefore limit ourselves to the knots that someone has deemed useful and valuable.
But what are the criteria for that?"
Perhaps one might begin by tilting the purpose of the collection
to "Norm de Noeuds"/"Knots Standard" --i.e., to presenting in richer detail
(the bar is darn low, now!) a subset of known knots that are fairly regularly
used (by doctors, anglers, mariners, commercial fishers, SARescue, cavers,
canyoneers, rock climbers, arborists ...), to give them a much better treatment
in terms of materials & loads & dressing-&-setting geometries. What is a
"Figure 8 Eye knot"? --one can find a variety of answers; and these should
be analyzed & explained.
J. continues :: "I have already seen so many nonsensical and incorrectly assigned knots
on the Internet that it would be difficult to create a high-quality system for them."
I'm thinking that the above-suggested NdN would give a document for reference
that would help do away with the nonsense (of which knotting is full of, alas).
The issue arose in KM#160 (and lonnnng prior that, around KM#58), with FCB's
reiterated (since KM#30!) wish for a library-system-like CoKnots, piqued in part
by one more claim or query about whether a "new knot" had been found.
IMO, there should be little interest in "new" if that's all there might be of the knot
(one not seen even if previously coming into some tyer's hands because it has no worth!).
Some people write about deciding/judging "new" as though some prize/award hung
in the balance; that should not be.
Joergan claims " I myself have probably already worked through about 15,000
different simple knots. But I only consider about 30 of them, i.e. about 0.2%,
to be so good that they should be published and cataloged." !!!
That's incredible :: if one discovered 1 "new" knot nearly daily
--333 is a nice multiple for the year's total--, one would have 1k in just 3 years,
and ... 45 years at this rate to reach 15_000 !! That said, I myself have
--using an objective term-- *illustrated* about 2_000, but w/o making
a full count (w/o being well enough organized for counting to be easy).
Suffice it to say, though, the number of (mere) *knots* is overwhelming;
there needs to be some shortcut to help our understanding.
(Frankly, there needs to be much more observation & analysis of what is actually
in use in the world --and not the continual parroting of knots books repeating
what was written in prior books!
Now, one example for this issue :: Joergen offers that "about 30" of his discovered
knots merit sharing. I have discovered a bowline variation that itself can take any of 17 versions,
with minor differences about like that between Ashley's #1010 common bowline & #1034.5
tail-outside bowline --small difference but a difference none the less. So, there are 17 *new*
knots in detail but essentially the same knot. But each of these eye knots can be loaded in
a variety of ways; their eyes can be cut to render a S.Part & Tail and the former S.Part + Tail
fused into a new eye (what I refer to as one way of "fore<=>aft'ing"). So, maybe it becomes
now 17 x 3? If one looks at each version of the 17 as a unique *Tangle* then there are 8 possible
eye knots for a 2-Tangle (calling all parts that leave the entanglement "ends" -->S.Part,
Outgoing Eye Leg, Returning Eye Leg, & Tail<--, one sees each "end" take its role as S.Part
with 2 EKnots resulting.
(2-Tangle :: piece 1-2 entangled with piece A-B ; EKs are 1-versus-2+A, ... 2+B; 2-v-1+A, ... 1+B, ... B-v-A+2).
NOT to say that these knots are going to be good, but they're there (sometimes dubiously with instability).
.:. a LOT of counting, cataloging.
Before which comes a not-so-easy task though of deciding how to image-wise present the Tangle.
The Bowline-sheetbend... tangle is I think a specious case, as the knots (k. = Tangle + Loading Profile)
mostly are nicely presented in a planar image; but other knots, well, are not so surely decided
to be from this or that perspective. <sigh> And so on ... . TOUGH issue!
But I do think that my "Norm..." idea can be tackled; in a sense,
it's doing much of what has been done but with much better,
detailed presentation --addressing IN-USE knots and not bothering
to chase everyone's hope of "NEW???".
[fearing what the "NEW" Forum will do to formatting ... (yes, it ruined it)-:< ]
--dl*
====
