0
I tried the first one. It jammed like the I-405 in Los Angeles. >:(
I took one look at the file “Loop(front).JPG” and immediately thought to myself, “This is a very attractive knot.”
Then, I made the loop. A report follows:
Likes
- The knot’s appearance and size
- The quickness and ease of tying
- The knot’s ability to compress
- The knot’s ability to be decompressed
Dislikes
- Having the tail going into the loop
For the second making, I made the knot to verify that I got it right the first time.
For the third making, I determined whether the tail could be easily repositioned: It can, and not only are you left with it coming beautifully out of the side of the knot, but you’re left with an easier means of decompression. However, the knot dresses and appears different (when you tighten it by pulling on the loop).
Instead of crossing the working end over itself, simply run it parallel to itself, so that it goes, and stays, out of the loop.
I like it. Whatcha gonna call it?
JCS
After reading about your various comments on this in various places, I would have thought you’d want to get rid of the first overhand knot… where it’d actually make a difference in ease of tying.
How about a woman holding a rope that has a knot tied on the loose end of it? That sounds pretty dangerous to me.
For the second presented loop, shouldn’t “L(b)C(f)C(a)L(b)” be “L(b)C(f)C(c)L(b)” instead? (This might be a transatlantic translation problem with respect to “clockwise and counter-clockwise, and clockwise and anti-clockwise.”)
By the way, do you notice that the Bowstring Loop (a.k.a. Honda Knot) structure is inherent to the two loops thus far presented?
JCS
Some perspective: A Zeppelin Loop uses virtually the same amount of rope diameters as a Double Bowline (about 34 diameters each). The Zeppelin Loop is significantly more secure than the Double Bowline. The Zeppelin Loop is easier to adjust than the Double Bowline.
Get poetic or philosophical all you wish, but the proof is in the pudding.
The Fixed-Gripper Slide-and-Grip Hitch is easier to adjust than the Zeppelin Loop. ;D
"Get poetic or philosophical all you wish, but the proof is in the pudding."
Sorry, roo, I just couldn’t resist. 
JCS
Uh. OK. The size of the loop may be easier to adjust, assuming it stays put during hard load, but adjusting the length of the free end is going to take you forever and a day with that huge tangle.
Sorry, roo, I just couldn't resist. :DTell me about it. You're like a broken record with this Fixed-Derived-Multiple-Coil-Hitch-Loop-Gripper-Variable-Construct stuff.
I know. I did. I did it to show you that a two overhand knot loop (Zeppelin Loop) was accomplishing a lot with a little despite your earlier complaints of excessive rope usage.
Does it? The knot form uses the same amount of rope.
Loops tend to be at least a little more secure that their parent bend, but you seem to see this as a waste. Maybe it’s time to start comparing loops to other loops. Apples to apples. Then you can get a more solid idea of how rope is being used.
It would be nice if people would do some serious testing of the knots they present before posting them as if they are the finished product. I have to remind myself to incrementally load up these proposed knots, so when jamming occurs, I have a better chance of eventually getting them out.
My condolences to your rope and your fingers.
OK, I now see that L(b)C(f)C(a)L(b) is correct because going counter-clockwise–at least in this case–leads to the same result as going clockwise. The photo you presented appears to show the working end going clockwise, which is why I’ve been thinking clockwise. . . .
It appears that L(b)C(f)C(a)L(b) leaves out the crossing of the working end under itself. Is L(b)C(f)C(a)L(b) meant only to describe the working end’s relationship to the Overhand?
The Bowstring’s structure being inherent to your presented loops owes itself to your taking the working end through the overhand in the L(b) manner, before taking it to its remaining destinations.
JCS
I think you may be taking what I said a bit too personal. There is a time and place for having a knot that jams. Your loops are definitely in the jamming category. Accept that. Wouldn’t you want to advise people correctly? What if you have someone new to knot tying and the person ties your knot to haul something? Would you yell at them about how it’s their fault that your knot jammed up? Such an experience might scare that person away from wanting to know anything more about knots. (By the way, I’m relatively new, but I’m already hooked.)
The good thing is that your knot is in good company. When I want a knot that’s permanent and that nobody should ever adjust, then I’ll probably go for a jamming knot, like the Figure 8 or Overhand. How does your knot compare to other jamming knots? I don’t know. Let’s see, but I’ll be experimenting with trash rope or someone else’s rope.
I’m starting to understand your “[methods] [through] the madness.”
". . . let us keep walking!"
Lead the way!
JCS
It’s C(f)C(a)H(f), right?
Alternatively, it’s C(f)C(c)H(f), right?
This one holds very nicely. It can be adequately decompressed using the thumbs in the middle of the knot as a pivot, while pulling the bottom collar down with the fingers towards the standing part.
JCS
I was so into determining the labeling that I missed the labeling in the filename.
O(w): Over working end
U(w): Under working end
O(s): Over standing part
U(s): Under standing part
Using the appropriate one, of the above alternatives, we have this:
C(f)C(a)H(f)O(w)
Whaddaya think?
JCS
Are you certain that X(f) and X(b) will be able to handle all of the possible situations?
O(w) means “working end over working end.”
O(s) means “working end over standing part.”
Does X(f) mean “working end crosses over whatever comes next in the eye”?
Does X(b) mean “working end crosses behind whatever comes next in the eye”?
JCS
Well, I see that you like the idea of “regions,” and that what I presented before is inconsistent with that idea (i.e., broke from it).
So, in order to maintain the same high degree of detail that what I presented before has, but also to be consistent with your idea of regions, we could define the current working end as a type of region all its own:
W(f)
W(b)
These would be always for when the current working end is to cross ITSELF.
It could be argued that, before, my allowing for
O(s): Over standing part
U(s): Under standing part
is redundant and unnecessary, because the “collar” specifications already deal with the crossing of the standing part by the current working end. Right?
Alternatively, we could have these:
F(w)
B(w)
But these would be unnecessary:
F(s)
B(s)
Right?
JCS
Yes, I think that the above syntax would offer greater specificity to your notation. I’ve been throwing ideas at you in the hopes that you yourself would sense the need for something like the above syntax. The current notation is fairly good at sequentially describing a knotter’s actions and the resulting structure itself, but I sensed a need for more describing power. I think that the above syntax would do it. You need to be the one to decide the syntax, because only you know where you will want to take it as it evolves and all the possible combinations that you will want to be able to handle with it.
S(f): In front of the standing-part region
S(b): Behind the standing-part region
T(f): In front of the tail region
T(b): Behind the tail region
I like it.
I AM interpreting it correctly, now, right?
JCS
Loop.L(b)H(f)C(a)H(f)X(b)L(b)X(b).JPG is a good example that clearly demonstrates your current notation.
The “greater specificity” that I described in the previous post has to do with a type of “user friendliness” that can be exploited to win over, more quickly, to your notation, those knotters who are new to your notation.
In other words,
L(b)H(f)S(b)T(b)H(f)T(b)L(b) is a little more user friendly than L(b)H(f)C(a)H(f)X(b)L(b)X(b).
See what I mean?
These are all ideas to make you think, because thinking is good!
JCS