Hi all
I have submitted both “My New Bends” and “My New Knots” folders and the six links of my knotting folders to IGKT for registrations and claims for discoveries on 17th July 2024 and my latest updates on today. Our discoveries should be known by IGKT and should have a place in the archive.
Happy Knotting
yChan
Hi all
I have just submitted my folder “My New Bends” which includes 519 new bends to the president and Knotting Matters for registration or claims for new knot discoveries. Am very much eager to hear from the IGKT in this request.
Happy Knotting
yChan
Does this mean that your prior submittal of a same-named folder
should be replaced by this new, apparently larger one? (And that
any date of discovery is associated in per-knot information and
not attached to folder-submittal date.)
Am very much eager to hear from the IGKT in this request.[u]WHAT sort of response do you expect from the IGKT[/u]?!!
Do you believe that someone is going to actually review
so very many knots?! (Or, even one : recall that it was YOU
who had to point out to editors that a queried knot = #1425
–a knot that had also been missed ID decades ago by Chisnall,
of all people (forensic knotting expert, long-time knot explorer)!
And I recall botching w/mid-ID a Speir-like eye knot, alas .)
(I have been reviewing those contained in “H&G” (=“Hensel
& Gretel” (= Graumont & Hensel’s Encyclopedia of Knots …))
and that has taken a lot of time & scrutiny for about the 700
knots I’ve worked through (Elementary, Simple, & Miscellaneous,
heading through M. to the Appendix collection of newer things.;
I omit the decorative chapters/plates).)
I’d like to review yours, but find it tedious to get to them
via classed-by-starts diagrams, 1 knot per click and work
to get to a finished-knot image --which is really all that
I want, provided that it’s “open”/exploded sufficient to
determine what the entanglement is.
I’m considerably less inspired to print off so many pages,
vs. a few, each containing many complete knots.
Hi Dan
Lists on names of new bends and lists of new bends with exposed dates are included. The files are updates to replace the old submissions.
As I know while members submitted their discoveries and posted to KM, there always been discussions followed. Likely there are some senior members or a board of people to look into the claims. To my belief, the IGKT should have this function.
Would someone in the Guild of the management board to state clear of the procedures for claims of new discoveries of knots or there are not any.
For many years before, I have suggested the Guild should have a photos library to document the knots as archive for references.
By now I have not gotten any responds from the Guild so far after my submissions, I do hope my works could be documented by the Guild, even there is no assessment board.
It is a problem that we depend on papers, books or publications to certify the existence of new knots. In this digital world should we create ways to preserve and protect our knotting works. The place and ways of documentation are needed.
Happy Knotting
yChan
yChan,
I’ll chime in with my perspective on a few things:
Firstly, I am in favour of the concept of invention, discovery, and innovation.
Its part of who we are as the human race.
Creating and presenting potentially new discoveries of knots is good in my view.
I had recently run into difficulties with uncovering the history of what I called the ‘Zeppelin 360 bend’.
The forum had an ‘outage’ - it went off line for about a week.
Its back again - but the issue we all face is that many historical images are gone (lost forever).
This makes it hard to search for historical information.
I am reasonably fortunate because I have private contact with several key knot tyers around the world (via email),
and so I can correspond with them.
As you know, you found an old photo from Xarax proving that he discovered and presented the Zeppelin 360.
By the way, I have asked for Xarax’s permission to rename it ‘Zeppelin 360’ (rather the the bland “A” or “B” bend).
So that sums up my first point… that this current forum is old, there are not many active contributors, and many historical
photos are forever lost.
When the forum was offline, it reminded me how fragile the state of world knotting is.
There really isn’t anywhere else to present potentially new creations.
That worries me to some extent - because if this forum actually does disappear, then what?
I don’t have anything good to say about the ‘new’ forum - it isn’t user friendly - and it locks out the general public (its not free).
And you cant see replies.
…
The second point is the procedure for making a new claim:
Well, this ‘old’ IGKT forum is all we have.
Posting in the ‘new’ forum is not useful or helpful.
The people who reply to new claims do so on an entirely voluntary basis (there is no pay or fee involved).
There is no ‘committee’ or panel of independent judges.
There are no paid positions.
And there are only a handful of people who generally respond:
Dan Lehman
Myself
Yourself (yChan)
Scott
Alan Lee
??
I wish Xarax was here… and also ‘Luca’, ‘knotsaver’, ‘DDK’, and ‘Derek’.
Luca was very knowledgeable and quick to hunt down obscure knots.
You could try to use catch words like:
"I am making a claim of originality for the knot I have presented…
I would like verification if it has ever been presented or published before.’
Dan Lehman will likely make the point that making new claims is dubious.
I think his underlying reasoning is that knotting history goes back a long way in time.
Once you get to 1900-1910 era, books become very rare and hard to find.
And this IGKT forum is clunky to search (and many historic photos are gone).
Also, Dan will posit that people may have been playing with cord and tied knots,
but never recorded them. Anyone could therefore make a claim of originality.
In my personal view, any counter-claim must be backed up with evidence.
Acceptable evidence being:
photos with date/time stamp or a way of determining the date
publication (eg in a book, a periodical, journal)
a technical paper
publication in this IGKT forum
The Butterfly and Zeppelin bend are 2 cases in point.
It was difficult to track down and pinpoint the creators.
The Butterfly trail seems to stop at Henry Bushby in his 1902 personal journal.
The Zeppelin bend trail seems to stop at a caving newsletter published in 1966 by Bob Thrun.
The trail has gone cold after that, can’t find any historical records early than these dates.
Dan’s point is that how do we know for sure?
What if there are older historical records that we just don’t know about?
I mean, the Butterfly was found by accident in Bushby’s personal journal that was never published.
All you can do is your best.
As it stands, all we have is this ‘old’ IGKT forum.
…
I would also concur with Dan in relation to searching through your pdf files.
It is tedious to the point where most would give up.
There is no searchable index, and your knots are arranged in an incoherent way.
Its not a user friendly experience.
I’ve pointed this out to you before, but you ignore any advice given to you.
I am being brutally honest when I say; You are the author of your own misfortune with your presented work.
Indeed that can be fine,
but what about the knowledge & understanding of what IS?
–I’ll wager that none of you have this understanding of all
(of even most) of ABoK & EKFR (“H&G”); nor in one’s own
survey of actual-factual knotting.
So, to what gain is it to add to these masses of unexplored
knots with hundreds more? (I could tie in to a climbing rope
with a different knot each day of the year!)
As you know, you found an old photo from [b]Xarax [/b]proving that he discovered and presented the Zeppelin 360.Really?! In yesterday's private e-mail you had only pointers to a thread in which X. presented what we'll per your naming scheme call "Zep.-540", to which I verbally sketched the "360".
I did more than verbally sketch --actual image of my illustration!–
in the decade-back thread “Ashley Bowled Over” & Re-tucked (#1452)"
–to wit ::
Among these was Ashley’s bend #1452 re-tucked,
which I thought should work, as it nipped the tails
between the U-turns of the (heavily loaded) S.Parts
and not just once but (in the “re-tucked” version) twice!
Alas, my eyes were opened wider by its slipping!
Has this HMPE cordage no respect for a knotter’s
hard efforts?Beyond the structure of interlocked overhands’s
nipping the tails I wanted to try also that of two
turNips (nipping turns) 'a la bowline --these, I reason,
differ from the former in making full encirclings of the
nipped tails, and so should each (each end) bind
the surrounded tails better --and enough to hold,
especially if the tails are re-tucked.I began various ways of bringing two turNips together,
but settled on an interlocking, as it helped keep the
material in place for continued tying, and maybe
gives some shared nipping of S.Parts and smoothing
of their turns to boost strength? Something told me
that in fact my supposed bowlinesque knot was also
related to Ashley’s, and indeed one can see it as
simply furthering that knot’s initial flow of S.Parts
into full turns and then the collaring; so, I’m calling
it “Ashley Bowled Over”, with “-1452” & “re-tucked”
as qualifiers. (There should be similar versions for
other interlocked-overhands end-2-enders #1408 &
zeppelin & … .)
The origination or disclosure of the “360” is made here,
as a structure to employ in various interlocked-OHs joints.
Do we really need to put every one into an image?? (no!)
Dan Lehman will likely make the point that making new claims is [i]dubious[/i]. I think his underlying reasoning is that knotting history goes back a long way in time. Once you get to 1900-1910 era, books become very rare and hard to find. And this IGKT forum is clunky to search (and many historic photos are gone). Also, Dan will posit that people may have been playing with cord and tied knots, but never recorded them. Anyone could therefore make a claim of originality.Fair enough. And additionally that "originality" is not a great claim to make per se, and many such claimed knots lack any redeeming value. One can originate knots ad nauseum, and already it can be seen that we are overwhelmed with knots while being underwhelmed with knots understanding!
The Butterfly ["Lineman's Loop" and Zeppelin bend ["Thrun's Joint"] are 2 cases in point. It was difficult to track down and pinpoint the creators. [<--single! so far] The Butterfly trail seems to stop at [u]Henry Bushby[/u] in his 1902 personal journal. The Zeppelin bend trail seems to stop at a caving newsletter published in 1966 by[u] Bob Thrun[/u]. The trail has gone cold after that, can't find any historical records early than these dates.A.A. Berger's publication presents --as a known, in-practice knot-- the Lineman's Loop (aka Butterfly), dated 1912, to which one must presume knot familiarity following unknown "origination" well prior --surely close enough to challenging Bushby's awareness. Thrun's Joint hits a publication date for him (roughly), with likely then-recent discovery on his part, and so, yes, an end point; but the much more public fact of the joint in the magazine we must believe has an origin different than Thrun, and we don't know what that is. (We've seen the claimed source of Cmndr Rosendahl rejected by ... him! Now what?!)
I would also concur with Dan in relation to searching through your pdf files. It is [b]tedious [/b]to the point where most would give up. There is no searchable index, and your knots are arranged in an incoherent way.Oh, I find the arrangementS OK --and beneficial for the tying if not to something *fundamental* about the so-grouped knots. BUT, for someone like me to try to look over see the MANY knots ... I want a tied-knot image, and with many such images per page --which per then my own choosing might lead to other files with tying methods.
In the spirit of yChan’s original post:
I am going to assume that most IGKT forum members would not be in favour of accepting a verbal (typed)
description of a knot as constituting evidence for making a claim of originality (or assigning a person to a knot).
Dan, verbal/typed descriptions of knots require the following:
That’s asking a lot.
Now, I want to be clear here.
I am not stating that converting typed words into a complex 3D geometric form is an impossibility.
But I am stating that it is very difficult to accomplish reliably.
Some have previously pointed out; Why not just use a photo?
I would concur - a photo is easier and avoids the nuances and potential ambiguity of language.
One of the issues I have with using words to describe a complex 3D object is what I call a reference frame.
The notional concepts of up, down, left, right, over, under all require a reference frame.
I use the analogy of space and micro gravity. In ‘space’, there is no up and down, or over and under.
So when attempting to use words to describe manoeuvres or shapes, a reader needs a reference frame to
spatially orient to, and coordinate with, the verbal/typed description.
…
but what about the knowledge & understanding of what IS? --I'll wager that none of you have this understanding of all (of even most) of ABoK & EKFR ("H&G"); nor in one's own survey of actual-factual knotting.Hmmm, I'll wager that some of us know more than you might imagine. I have a reasonable collection of knot books - but I don't have 'EKFR' (Graumont & Hensel originally published in 1939). Link: https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofkn0000grau
Dan, you always refer to this book - and you both love and hate it!
I think its a love-hate relationship.
With regard to “understanding” - I’ve learnt a lot from Xarax over the past 20 or so years.
Depth and breadth of knowledge comes with dedication and willingness to tie knots,
apply them, and see how they behave under various loading conditions (relative to other knots).
I’ve gained some further insights by exploring the relationship between ‘bends’ and ‘eye knots’.
And along the way, discovering a few offset knots that might be employable in the field
(although nothing has beaten my own ‘BOB’ (‘Bound Offset Bend’) abbreviated version
for Offset bound overhand bend.