Crossing knot, a foundamental knotting tool to build jam-proof knots

Practical Knots
41

Hi Alan, many thanks for feeding us with new tangles to process. Might be a good idea to include the link of your video, for new members or for people, weary of searching your youtube channel.

About the loop 002, i have not much to mention except for that’s a variation of Alpineer’s bowline, with the difference that the out-going eye leg, collars SP before exiting from the other side of the nipping structure.

This helical SP wrapping around the returning bight structure, strangles it so much, generating adverse conditions at loosening. Very stable but in my view, jamming is rather inevitable.

However, things radically change at your loop 003, from a nub’s pliability point of view.

What we have here is a smartly set up of a reverse munter nipping structure, which i think will respond well to heavy strain.

The only component that one has to handle after hard stretching, is the helical Sp formation, but the two access points i have indicated in the attached image, (along with the bowline collar of course) would render assistance to release the nub pressure.

I would prefer such a mechanism to accompany SP, yet, it appears that it functions properly in this case too.

The other portal of the nipping structure, results to another familiar, reverse munter based, bowline.

Note that it requires good cinching to remove all the slack between the components to avoid any SP unravelling.

42
About the loop 002, i have not much to mention except for that's a variation of Alpineer's bowline, with the difference that the out-going eye leg, collars SP before exiting from the other side of the nipping structure.
Greg, Thanks for remind me the loop in video loop 001, is difference from Alpineer's bowline.
This helical SP wrapping around the returning bight structure, strangles it so much, generating adverse conditions at loosening. Very stable but in my view, jamming is rather inevitable.
The outgoing eye leg has a u-turn around St part. In this case, it is jam proof. Anyway, thank you for your comment.

I have a picture below. The right picture is my old figure 8 like loop, which can’t handle heavyweight
And the left figure 8 like loop, I made use of the in coming eye leg to make a u turn around St part and is now jam-proof.

https://www.youtube.com/@alanleeknots/videos
loop 001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJtCb3xWuKI&t=46s&ab_channel=alanleeknots
loop 002 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSGFq8bm2BM&t=31s&ab_channel=alanleeknots
loop 003 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd5-Fjzo2f4&ab_channel=alanleeknots
Restore Vanish knots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWVR1wPpqN8&t=53s&ab_channel=alanleeknots

43

We could have the same idea. Apply a U-turn to the standing part of the crossing knot, because the collar leg near the standing part is not parallel , it may only handle near jam resistant,
If we dress the knot with the U-turn Strick out little more it may handle more weight and get close to jam-proof. Thanks alanlee.

44

In making it more complete, i’m just pointing out that alpineer’s bowline features two dressings or “tresse” as he calls them, and one can alternate topologically from one to the other (see attached image).

I believe the second is not so vulnerable to blocking as the first “tresse” which is of course stronger.

For the record, the second tresse had been shown to me by Xarax, but i didn’t know then that it was an alternative tresse for alpineer’s bowline.

With respect to the knots at reply#41(left) and reply#42, i think that the latter outweighs the former, Just because it uses a simpler nipping structure.

The key feauture here, in both knots i’d say, is to be able to loosen the collar component that encircles the SP, which is part of the nipping structure.

If we manage to do that, the rest is easy, the returning collar would not be a problem, at a second stage of decompression, and subsequently the final slackening of the nipping loop, especially that of the shaped eight structure which is a rather clamp component.

Both smart constructions, but if not the first, at least the second (reply#42), should definitely be investigated for its jamming thresold. I 'm also of the view that it can handle heavy weight.

45

Greg, thank for your participation. I will go over it and reply to you later.
For now, I have another knot here. I dreamed of it for so many years and was so happy I got
it done. Thanks alanlee.

46
I believe the second is not so vulnerable to blocking as the first "tresse" which is of course stronger.
Greg the quote here I don't understand what it means.
With respect to the knots at reply#41(left) and reply#42, i think that the latter outweighs the former,
I am confident to say reply#41 for this class the loop this Figure 8 like loop is practical and a beautiful knot, everything falls in place so perfectly, you can not and will not find any bugs with this loop any more. And yet it is jam-proof with soft rope. I have time will test it with a stiff rope. I think it will pass the test. This is my favourite knot. Thanks
47

Having another loop here is decent enough, might as well add it on.

48

Another loop here has a little issue with the collar near the standing part, the two legs of the collar are not parallel. More or less, it will interfere with the jam threshold. will test it and let you know.
Thanks, alanlee.

49

That’s ok Alan, i shall try to explain.

It means that the nipping structure of Alpineer’s bowline features two forms, or states or dressings or whatever you want to call them.(Alpineer for example, calls them “tresse” which is a word borrowed from French, meaning braided, plait or lace).

The knot at reply#43, is a topologically equivalent form with the knot that’s demonstrated in your most recent video under the title “001 Alpineer’s bowline” (you may get from one to the other with just a little fiddling of the nipping structure).

In my view, the knot of reply#43 is not so strong as the “tresse 1”
(in your video), but more pliable with the benefit of retucking directly down through the collar to get the TIB form.

Since you have crossed over into figure eight based loops, i want you to investigate the following offering.

I give the structures (images 1,2) prior to reeving the eye through the bight as i indicate in the images, in order to see the bowlinesque form of the knot, and after the reeving (images 3,4,) where the knot takes its final figure eight form.

You may notice, that the figure eight has a flipped shape, which is not prone to jamming, and its segment that’s vulnerable to distortion, lies between the bowline collar and the SPart, maintaining a solid and stable state.

All one has to do, is to depress the two collars and loosen the core.

50

Hi All,
Another loop here I like very much. With the collar near the standing part, the two legs of the
collar are parallel, meaning it will act like a bowline nipping loop. It should handle heavy-weight
very well.
Greg, thank for your reply and will reply to you later and tell you what I think. Thanks.

51

Hi All,
Here is another beautiful loop, I hope you like. Thanks alanlee.

    Nov/22/2023 name change from "Lee' Figure 8 knot Bowline" to "Lee's Lock 8"
52

Not a BWL, but a Fig.8 EK variation, and a variation
(i.p., what I’ll call “Tail-swapping” or “reverse RELeg flow”)
of the Lehman8.

It can be productive to look as some extant knot and
then re-connect/swap/fore<->aft things. --such as having
the RELeg flow into the “end-binding” Tail and … going the
full opposite direction of that knot-completing passage.

And funny thing is that, coincidentally I today just sketched
this Tail-swap relation for very nearly the same knot,
but one that has the RELeg making its turn outside of
(i.e., most eyeward of knot’s turns) the Fig.8’s eyeward
turn. --a knot I name “BowlinEight” to signify the base
structure “8” and the RELeg’s BWLesque return.
Which is a knot that can be imaged so that it’s ambiguous
with what has been called “Lee-Locked Yosemite BWL”
(a YoBWL with an “end-bound” Tail wrapping).

!!

–dl*

53

Hi Dan, Thanks for your reply. Yes, I know it is not a bowline. I just don’t know what to call it, and it looks like “Lee-Locked Yosemite BWL”. Just simply name it for now. Well, I will make the corrections.
By the way, I try to look at your Lehman8 on the link ;https://forum.igkt.net/index.php?topic=4125.180
and I know Xarax had tied your Lehman8 here before but image no longer show .Can you please post some images of your Lehman8 and “BowlinEight”
Also, Reply #19, I spent many hours just reading. I just can’t draw out the loop. If you can, you post the knot here, it will be really appreciated. And if it makes sense to me, I will make the change to the knot. I know you can make life easy for a poor 73-year-old -Oldman. Thanks alanlee

54

YOUR image is exactly the Lehman8 but for loading:
as I remarked, “Tail-swap it” (returning eye leg flows
into what was the Tail --so, makes the completion of
the knot in reverse flow/order. Of the original, it would
be Outgoing Eye Leg → (into) Tail … and finishing where
the Returning Eye Leg part was.

And your image --esp. the left one-- readily shows
the BowlinEight (it’s a close neighborhood these knots!)
as follows.
Push in some slack from the Returning Eye Leg,
to loosen this finishing part of the knot. (The RELeg
enters the knot and runs beside part of the S.Part’s
fig.8 center part.)
Now, push the RELeg & its loop around the knot
upwards out over the S.Part’s turn.
Then set it into place accordingly.
(The eye legs of this “Tail-swapped” revision to your
shown knot are the parallel parts; the original RELeg
has become the Tail in the revised knot, and vice versa.)

it looks like “Lee-Locked Yosemite BWL”.

Oh, yes, the looks can be deceiving!! Sometimes I have
to manually FEEL my way around to whichever connection
is actually there --visually, both (more?) are!

–dl*

55

Dan, thanks for your time.
Just for fun, I have a beautiful bowline here for ladies knot lovers. Thanks alanlee.

56
Can you please post some images of your Lehman8 and "BowlinEight"
Hi Alan, I've attached a photo of the Lehman 8 bend and its corresponding eye knots. I've shown what I refer to as the 4 'primary' corresponding eye knots. There are further secondary corresponding eye knots, based on choice of S.Part and tail. If you study the Lehman bend, try visualizing all the various ways of linking a yellow segment to a blue segment (and then also try linking same colour segments!). Then - choose an 'S.Part'. The choice of 'S.Part' alters the loading profile of the corresponding eye knot. [u]NOTE[/u]: You can perform this same exercise with any 'bend'. The #1053 derived Butterfly bend is interesting to work with.. and this is how the 'Mobius' variation was likely discovered.

I find the best way to understand this is to tie a ‘Lehman bend’.
Once you have the ‘bend’ - you can then create corresponding eye knots.
This number count of course is based on one chirality. If you take chirality into account, then double this number.
(chirality means hold any knot up to a mirror… the reflection you see will be the opposite chirality - like a left hand a right hand).

EDIT NOTE:
I like what you have presented.
I never really liked the original Lehman 8 loading geometry.
Your particular orientation (a corresponding version of the original Lehman 8) is worthy of follow-up testing to determine jam resistance and stability/security under various loading profiles.
If it is jam resistant (which I think it will be) and is also stable and secure, I would like to include it in my next update to my knot study guide.
It has potential to become a reliable rock climbers tie-in knot.

EDIT NOTE 2:
I deleted my original image and uploaded an improved image for clarity of thought.
I’ve also edited my original text to reflect the new image…

57

No, you have not.
The Lehman8’s S.Part runs exterior to what of the
OH closure’s part briefly twins it, designed this way
on the (perhaps mistaken) belief that the bearing
into the twinning part by the S.Part will offload some
force before the S.Part makes a somewhat sharp turn.
The Tail lies across the Fig.8’s S.Part-side loop; and
another version has the Tail poking down through it.
(It would be better presented to show this knot’s
opposite face/side to what your showing its backside.)

I like what you have presented. I never really liked the original [i]Lehman 8[/i] loading geometry.
Perhaps because you are not looking at the [i]Lehman8[/i], but at your *almost it* variation?!
what I refer to as the 4 'primary' corresponding eye knots. There are further secondary corresponding eye knots, based on choice of S.Part and tail.
1) You've gotten what I presume you call "secondary" as your 4th/rightmost knot (presumably you distinguish "primary" as "loading one or other of end-2-end joints S.Parts as the eye knot S.Part --and your 4th knot doesn't) 2) To be perspicuous, given a 2-Tangle (such as holds all end-2-end joints, and simple eye knots), where the entanglement is seen with all parts that run out from it ("S.Parts", "Tails", "eye legs") being its "ends", then each end can be an eye knot S.Part, necessarily connecting to its opposite end --what flows each to the other-- and where one or the other end of the other piece in this >>2<< tangle serves as the Returning Eye leg, Tail.

The BWL’s Tangle thus begets:
#1010, #1034.5, 2 Eskimo BWLs, and then the rather
squirrely things loading the U-fold’s ends qua S.Parts
(to which dressing adds a dimension, alas).

–dl*

58

Dan,
I actually posted the ‘original’ Lehman 8 eye knot late last night… then I deleted it.
I reposted the image you disagree with - because I thought it more logically represented what Alan had tied and presented.

Yes - I acknowledge the slight variation in geometry - where the tail structure lie on the opposite side of the ‘S.Part’.
I thought about this late at night - and decided that the tail structure variation was a ‘genus’ variation - and therefore closely related (same ‘genus’ - but I agree, different ‘species’).
That is, both have the same general geometric arrangement consisting of the union of a Figure 8 and an Overhand knot.
What differs, is precisely how this union of Figure 8 and Overhand knot is integrated.

For the sake of clarity and to address your point, I’ve re-uploaded your original Lehman 8 (which I had tied and photographed for you many years ago.
Note: All those years ago, you didn’t complain about the image so I presume your attitude has not changed!

With regard to the number of possible corresponding eye knots that can be created from the parent bend, the language and theory on this is open to some debate - to get the ideas straightened out (so to speak).
In the example I gave yesterday, I used the term ‘principal corresponding eye knots’. This is my approach to linking opposite colour segments (blue-to-yellow in my image yesterday).
For each linked segment (blue-to-yellow) - you have a choice of 2 S.Parts.
If there are 4 principal eye knots, each having a possible choice of 2 S.Parts, this makes 8 corresponding eye knots.
Note: This is from the point of view of having the same chirality. If you take chirality into account, presumably the total number is 16?
EDIT NOTE:
Not all of the corresponding eye knots will be stable (and this is true for all corresponding derivations from any given eye knot).
With all non TIB (end of line) ‘eye knots’ - there is always going to be an ‘S.Part’ and a ‘tail end’.
An eye knot that is ‘EEL’ (Either End Loadable) will be stable regardless if the tail or the S.Part is loaded - so that what was previously the S.Part is now the tail and vice versa.
Therefore, the fact that an eye knot has a ‘tail’ - does not automatically imply that it is stable if loaded from that tail.
An example of an ‘EEL’ eye knot is the #1080 Bowline on a bight.

As I stated in yesterday’s post, you cant link same colour segments.
You can only link segments of opposite colour.
If you believe it is possible to create a corresponding eye knot by linking segments having the same colour (eg yellow-to-yellow) - I’d like you to demonstrate this please!

To be perspicuous, given a 2-Tangle (such as holds all end-2-end joints, and simple eye knots), where the entanglement is seen with all parts that run out from it ("S.Parts", "Tails", "eye legs") being its "ends", then each end can be an eye knot S.Part, necessarily connecting to its opposite end --what flows each to the other-- and where one or the other end of the other piece in this >>2<< tangle serves as the Returning Eye leg, Tail.
I'd like to clarify this (somewhat): If you have a different view, I'm happy to try to understand it.

Using the images below (yellow/blue bend):
You can only link segments of opposite colour
The are 4 ‘principal’ corresponding eye knots (which are derived from the parent bend, and are relative to the existing logical ‘S.Parts’)
Each of these ‘principal’ corresponding eye knots has 2 possible ‘S.Parts’ - a primary and secondary S.Part (the primary follows from the parent bend’s S.Parts).
Because there are 2 possible choices of ‘S.Parts’ - there are therefore a total of 8 possible corresponding eye knots derived from a parent bend

NOTE: This is true for one chirality.
If chirality is taken into account, this means 16 possible derivations.
Every knot has a mirror version (‘S’ or ‘Z’) - the mirror version is usually not published by authors or content creators.

OFFSET LEHMAN 8 BEND (Edit):
To add further to the list of corresponding knots, one can also derive the ‘offset Lehman 8 bend’ - refer to image below.
This appears to be a stable and secure offset bend - that integrates a Figure 8 with Overhand knot.
Again, there are variations to this structure - all of the same ‘genus’, but with slight changes to position of rope segments.
I knew of this Offset bend years ago - but always favoured my own Offset bound overhand bend (which has gained much popularity with climbers around the world).
Unfortunately, most climbers would find this too difficult - and likely complain about the usual things like, fatigue, time pressure, memory, etc in favour of more simple bends based directly on the infamous ‘EDK’.

59

Hi Mark,
Thank you very much for your help. I will give a good test and let you know as soon as possible
You have a great day.

60

No :: Alan has shown --as I stated up front—
EXACTLY the Lehman8 Tangle, but he’s made
a RELeg<->Tail reversal ; in other words, he’s
used a different loading profile.
To the Lehman8’s 1-v-2+A (B=Tail), Alan shows 1-v-2+B.
(And not your mistaken positioning of part of the OH
completion into the base Fig.8 --there are things to
find in doing that, but it’s not what happened here.)

With regard to the number of possible corresponding eye knots that can be created from the [u]parent bend[/u], the language and theory on this is open to some debate - to get the ideas straightened out (so to speak).
Firstly, you're assuming a correspondence got simply by loading profile; as I've noted previously, there are other ideas about correspondence between eye knots & end joints --i.p., where one end-joins the twin legs of a U-fold to the single opposing S.Part (we might smile and thing "oh, end-to-endS joint!"), and then work out the fusing of one of the U-fold ends into the single-S.Part piece's outgoing part. E.g.,#1045/43 can be seen as corresponding to the Sheet Bend (!). Odd "correspondence"? --well, the idea is that one preserves the e2e loading, in a way.
In the example I gave yesterday, I used the term 'principal corresponding eye knots'. This is my approach to linking opposite colour segments (blue-to-yellow in my image yesterday). For each linked segment (blue-to-yellow) - you have a choice of 2 S.Parts.
Here one might object that for the question of correspondence, one needs to correspond TO a thing ; and if you take either end of a tangled line, you are multiplying, not corresponding. .:. So, one might suggest "principal" or some other qualifier for an e2e joint's 1-v-A => 1-v-2+A, and then turnabout being fair play, A-v-1 => A-v.B+1. And the idea is that the joint's S.Parts BOTH are loaded in a "principal" corr. EKnot. Then things go into unprincipal'd reaches, original Tails being loaded variously, and one or other reference S.Part being a Tail.
Not all of the corresponding eye knots will be stable (and this is true for all corresponding derivations from any given eye knot).
?! I think that the [i]Fig.8 e2e joint[/i] yields stable EKs, entirely. And I'll later have fun trying out the Angler's/Perfection loop on this, too. Ha, it might be that the EKs are what are stable to an unstable e2e joint --e.g., [i]Ashley's #1445[/i], the union of opposite-handed loops, begetting a [i]Myrtle BWL[/i] or a [i]Bollard Loop[/i] & !
With all 'eye knots' - there is always going to be an 'S.Part' and a 'tail end'.
What do you call a BWLesque formation of a large eye --enough to surround say a collection of dockside piles-- using an eye splice (the *knotting* coming in the apex of this eye) ?! There is no Tail, here.
An eye knot that is 'EEL' (Either End Loadable) will be stable regardless if the tail or the S.Part is loaded
One needs caution on this thinking :: while the *unbiased* structure might take [u]from this state[/u] either loading, one cannot be assured that THEN going to the other-end loading will have happy outcomes --YMMV per knot. (In a sense, it is to regard the initial loading as a particular, hard setting --and that might NOT be how one wants the knot set!)

–dl*