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.