"Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!

[Dan_Lehman]

@xarax post:5

No, I would knot be dragged into the trap of paying back using the same coin - and one reason for it is that, doing this, we would inflate the value of the currency ( among other things, which are already inflated too much…) - and this added inflation would depreciate the value of $ Dan Lehman ow[e]s to me.

@Dan_Lehman post:90

… IMO the knot shown is riduculous to proprose…

However, I have to admit that the situation, and the particular word used for the “proprosal” of the beautiful Oyster bend ( M B5-D2 Threefold - Fourfold )[ of course, this bend was not “proprosed” because it is beautiful, it was “proprosed” because it is a most jamming knot, in a hope that knots which jam when tied on ordinary material, …

Xarax, you’d do better to show the rationale given
for my assertion above, via a fuller quotation --to wit:

But IMO the knot shown is riduculous to proprose at this time of results shown by EStar & Allene --there is a way to clearly an easy slippage path for the well-rounded turns and oblique tucks of this knot : I wouldn't expect it to come close to holding.

THIS much analysis we should do before wasting away
one more precious bit of time, effort, & material. Stop
and take stock of what has, what hasn’t slipped (and
how!). Re “how”, we might be chary in some cases of
whether inaccurate tying allowed some transformation
of form --capsizing, such as can happen in normal materials
with the venerable bowline apparently (see the many
images of this in Knots in the Wild thread), or some
straightening of a part expected to by its curvature achieve
some effect.

Unless I missed it, this debated knot was untested,
so we are left at the state of analysis; I see no reason
to change mine. I owed only a rationale and that was
paid, in full.

---

Speaking only about the un-re-tucked bend shown in this thread

Yes, it occurs to me to realize that in relation to [i]Ashley's #1452[/i] I have first proposed the method of making more secure by re-tucking the tails, and now have [u]added to that[/u] the *rounding* of the S.Parts' central nipping --and that one might hope that the latter change [u]alone[/u] suffices to achieve security!

Still, though, the interlocked S.Parts form a Grief
knot / What knot and jam, alas. (Yet one more path
a knots explorer might take to reach this knot.) Should
testing show promise for the nipping loops (not only with
security, but with strength --that broad curvature …),
we might move on to seeking a non-jamming variation.

An obvious hope for a non-jamming variation on this
theme is the zeppelin knot bowled-over & re-tucked.
Yes, Allene has tested a simply re-tucked version
(“the zeppelin slipped”), but not one that has been
“bowled over” --having the superior? nipping.
And whereas one might also wonder if the re-tucking is
superfluous for security given the “bowling over,” there’s
likely the need for extra diameters to round out the S.Parts’
curvature in order to get strength making the knotting
worthwhile (oh, it might be needed in an emergency
regardless, yes).

Looking further at the bowled-over & re-tucked zeppelin knot
in my hands now, I’m thinking that this is The Winner.
–definitely easier to tie than the Subject end-2-ender,
and I think will be able-to-be-untied-after-loading, too!
(As well as having a popular myth of superiority to fulfill.)

( which, somehow, "resembles" the [i]Ashley's bend[/i], that is true, but which is topologically different = its links are topologically equivalent

The behavior of the material depends on [u]geometry[/u] not topology; "bowling-over" [i]#1452[/i] changes the latter while retaining much of the former. That is what I mean to say in its naming.

–dl*