???
Why aren’t you using the quote function,
which nicely highlights quoted from commenting text?
This is annoying to distinguish it otherwise, esp. in this forum’s
context where eveyone else is quote-ing --and then, whoops, surprise!
Investing time in tying knots is not cheap either (value of life), but we do it.
Do we? I suspect that very few people have bothered with Xarax’s
barrage of new knots, which are not so easily discerned, for starters,
and complex enough beyond that to get right, or what might seem
right though in different materials one might struggle to achieve
the posted image’s shape. Heck, it took me quite some time at
no small effort to drive home an understanding of Ashley’s bend #1452,
which I find far simpler in formation, and well enough shown to be
valuable (if only equally so with other knots); one knot (or one small
set of knot versions)!
And precisely because of the number of them tossed out, and the
absence of any supposed good qualities, and in general their often
dubious nature : big, bulky, hard-to-tie are not winning qualities.
–much as Roo complains, but is met with whining in reply.
I think we should explore all knots and not be so quick to shut down the process because there may be some that are not immediately found useful.
“all knots” is an infinity; no matter your desires, you won’t get to
even a <name_your_fraction> of them in your lifetime if you start
NOW and don’t stop but for some sustenance.
I suspect that you've never perused the P.O. website. But, if you did you just might comment "Why did they even spend any money on that idea?"
I’ve done better : sat and perused hard (paper, i.e.) files of patents;
yes, they can be quite a HOOT --and one wonders how they got patented,
in addition to your point! (But, recall, Joe McNicholas got some “new” knot
of his patented --even though it was evidently not new, previously published.
There is no recall mechanism that is cheap, though.)
You reckon Mr. Ashley thought "Wow, everyone is going to find the greater majority of the work I did useful." ? One day?"
You read Ashley and see him just tossing out random-thought knots and
saying “Here, what about THIS, and THIS too, and this THREE, … ?” ?!
Consider that the Ashley stopper is a good one, but seemingly quite unknown,
despite (or because?) being published in a big book of knots. I still find this odd.
but "I" want to learn ANY new knot there is, or might be.
And yet “you” don’t want to bother doing much testing or thinking about
the use/value of the knot --just toss it out and chide others for not doing
it all for you. Learning a knot entails understanding its function, use.
For one thing, if there was a [u][i]CoK[/i][/u] and it contained both useful and dubious knots, people who think that they've discovered a new knot would have another place to check to see if it's been done before, and on finding it, can find out if it's any good.If only useful knots are documented, all dubious knots will seem like “new” knots to discoverers every time.
True, but there is a point of overwhelming consciousness in quantity
– a sort of make-work for the cataloguers. I think that, at least from
a practical level, one would want to filter out things that had no hint
of benefit (and even had some judged grounds for rejection). Now,
by some means, one can probably indicate a good many knots by
a shorthand, and so cover the ground without much effort.
ABOK probably has a great many knots (clearly not “new”) that are
unknown to those here saying they want to know all new knots;
and the question to ask is why aren’t they going through ABOK
and exercising this expressed interest?
As for testing, when you consider the relevant factors that are
involved in that, you quite quickly arrive at a very costly process
to get meaningful results --for just a single knot or few,
not everything posited as “new”,
so it won’t be something you’ll do.