How much to value “first”?! --which attribute can be hard to determine.
(One might see more insight-to-be-valued by looking
at the reach a discoverer made to find the knot.)
(-;
Quote from: Kost_Greg on September 29, 2024, 11:53:09 AM
full credit so far, as the first inventor,per Dan Lehman:
How much to value "first"?! --which attribute can be hard to determine. (One might see more insight-to-be-valued by looking at the *reach* a discoverer made to find the knot.)This topic category is titled "New Knot Investigations". Presumably, the intent of this section of the IGKT forum is for making new claims of discovery. I would posit that it is becoming more common for people to skip introductory words such as: [i]"I am making a claim of originality"[/i]. It is becoming less clear as to what is actually being claimed.
I again assert that this topic category appears to be set aside and reserved
for making claims of originality/discovery.
On that basis, one can assume that all posts herein are made on the
basis of making a claim of originality/discovery.
If not, then don’t post here!
I would also comment that Dan Lehman appears to be opposed to
the idea of a person making a claim of originality.
If this is true, then one might reach the conclusion that he is also
opposed to having such a topic category in this IGKT forum.
Hi All,
Renamed "Lee's Unconventional Bend V1 loose". to "Lee's Bend #1A"
And add two bends, Lee's Bend #1B, 1C, that belong here. Thanks
More variation of Lee's Bends. Thanks. alanleeknots
Hi all, two more bends here that I like very much, And they are more superior to their classmates.
Thanks alanleeknots.
Good pictures!
Hi Andreas, thanks for your reply. For me, it is not just some good pictures, I am just joking !!!.
Here is one more good-looking picture.
Reply #65 on: September 24, 2024, 02:10:04 PM ? Quote Hi Alan Re Rely #39. I have working on your Bowline Bend #1034 half, and found some question. Is the "A" rope goes under "B" rope? I have posted my findings here. It is always better to present new knots with loosen knot pictures or tying method. yChan
Hi yChan, Thanks for your concern, I have a new “Zeppeline Bowline Bend” here. It is superior then the old one, so just discard the old Bowline Bend. It is all good. Thanks.
Hi Alan
I have been working on your bends, and need your clarification as follows :-
Re : #82, 83 and 84.
I have found : 1) Lee’s Bend #2A is the mirror image of Lee’s Bend #1A
2) Lee’s Bend #2B is the mirror image of Lee’s Bend #1B
3) Lee’s Bend #2C is the mirror image of Lee’s Bend #1C
4) Lee’s Bend #2Z is the mirror image of Lee’s Bend #1Z
Should you rename them, there are 4 bends, not 8 bends.
Happy Knotting
yChan
Hi Alan
Would you please post the tying methods by steps of each bend, so that I can have yours to be included in my folders. It is most beneficial to everyone. Thanks.
yChan
Hi Alan
Re Reply#84. The Lee’s Bend #1Z and 2Z are found already included in my folder as Mercury Bend.
Happy Knotting
yChan
Which makes one look closely to realize, as yChan earlier
remarks, “Lee’s Bend #2Z is the mirror image of Lee’s Bend #1Z”
OK, glad that that’s figured.
BUT, in a way, they’re different, per Alan’s precise geometries:
note that in the 2Z/lower knot, the Tails meet & cross sides
BEFORE running up through the rest of the knot; whereas in
the other case, their Xing comes up within the knot.
Does it matter --and this is a matter of dressing & setting?!
I recall the HowNotTo guys testing --supposedly only?–
Butterfly knots and through loading (so, Butterfly joints),
and all or nearly all of them pulled undone, spilling,
with continual rolling out of material along the way;
Mr.HowNotTo (Ryan Jenks) opined that he’ll not ever
trust the Butterfly on account of seeing this.
In ONE case (2?), it happened that #1408 (wrongly named
by Jenks/video as “1452”) was tied; surprising to me, it too
rolled, continually having Tails jump from one state to another,
and feeding out material. Well, I THINK that were those #1408
Tails dressed to cross outside of the knot and the knot then
set firmly to secure that positioning, … it would’ve held, to rupture.
HERE --after searching through a LOT of HN2 videos-- is the case,
at about minute 25:54
Just one more thing to worry about … .
–dl*
Still amazes me to watch this!
(-8 !!
Hi all, just starting to learn how to use the new forum.
Seems like we lost some of the later posts on
these treads.
Here is the repost of the lost knot. thanks
alanleeknots
1 Like
Hi Alan
Your newly presented bend Enhanced Abok #1439 Bend was presented by you by the name Interlocked Crossing Hitch V1 Bend. Please confirm and which name would you prefer. I will included it to my folder.
yChan
Hi Chan, thank you very much, you are right.
Most of my bends here kinds of look alike. I am getting confused by myself too.
Also, the Enhanced Abok #1451 Bend is an Interlocked Crossing Hitch V4 Bend.
The only thing different is the tail tucked in differently.
Will check it out and give you the name.
Just wonder if anyone knows anymore Interlocked Crossing Hitch out there?
Hi Chan, sure we can name it Enhanced Abok #1439 Bend and Enhanced Abok #1451 Bend. Thanks, alanleeknots.
Hi Alan
You have presented 4 bends namely Interlocked Crossing Hitch V1 Bend, Interlocked Crossing Hitch V2 Bend, Interlocked Crossing Hitch V3 Bend and Interlocked Crossing Hitch V4 Bend. Bends V1 and V4 are renamed. How about Bends V2 and V3?
yChan
per Dan Lehman:
How much to value “first”?! --which attribute can be hard to determine. (One might see more insight-to-be-valued by looking at the *reach* a discoverer made to find the knot.)
This topic category is titled “New Knot Investigations”. Presumably, the intent of this section of the IGKT forum is for making new claims of discovery. I would posit that it is becoming more common for people to skip introductory words such as: [i]“I am making a claim of originality”[/i]. It is becoming less clear as to what is actually being claimed.
It is argued that all knots exist, and are not to be created=originated but (merely) discovered . To this end, I’ve just found (!) some old knot papers in which I illustrate what for me were new things, including the –or much like it– e2e Joint tsik_lestat admires (post #78 [nb: new forum has post #s of which OP =#1; Old forum had Replies, OP #=0]) 2001-01-xx –along with my “inventing” Ashley’s #1425, a similar knot (!) (yeah, I made a corrective note for that. :o) . And my discovery diminishes others’ same discovery?
What I sense here is some seen competition to invent knots. I suspect that among some of the here-known figures a Alan = eric22? Lee, yChan, Xarax, me, we have put into images some 3_000 knots or more –-about a double-ABoK knots count (ABoK ~= 1950). Of which just the other night I spent a lot of time trying to find where yChan had his “Teepee” knot cited above but after scrolling through listings of 100? or more files, I gave up. I have like troubles given my poor organization (not yChan’s problem!) in finding things, which I’m hoping I can get through and at least pull out some organized set of decent things. There yet begs the question as to So What?! Does anyone need to have so many good tie-in knots as to use a different one on each climb for a year or N years!?
More clearly “discovery” comes in my finding in actual-factual PP arbor tape tying up newly planted saplings the what-I-call “Tail-Loaded Bowline” (‘ TLBwl’), where, yes, it is a BWL #1010 loaded on the Tail, in such a way as to convert the 1010 Collar into a Nipping Loop –not an arc, which naturally occurs and gives that “Crabber’s Eye Knot” sort of running & locking structure.
–dl*