You can also make the Working End pass from the other side of the "link", the nipping turn formed on the lower rim of the main nipping loop.
If you want to "improve" the other three Lee Zep loops, and turn them into secure, two-collar eyeknots, just add a second collar around a limb which is not yet collared.
Xarax, I can take high quality photos of these… would be helpful if you had some current images for me to work with. I’m starting to become time poor again…so any imagery of what you currently have will speed things up for me (sorry - but I just haven’t got the time to go searching every which way… Yes, I’m being lazy but its easier if I just ask and someone will assist).
I have a lot of data and images to collate before working up a draft paper.
Are we also including the tweedle dee bowline? If yes, what is the best available current imagery?
Are you using a medium format digital camera ? Because if you do, I would become jealous, indeed !
I do not have any other pictures of the Tweedledee bowline except some of those I had sent to you two years ago - and you never used them. Now that I have caught this TIB-mania virus, I do not tie or take pictures of not-TIB eyeknots any more !
Regarding the Tweedledee bowline ( or, for that matter, the Diamond loop, too ), I can not tell if they will be easy to untie after heavy loading - judging form the shape of the links, and the “globular” form of the nub which has no “appendices” to grab and pull out, I have some doubts, but I can well be mistaken, because we can never know in advance if a very tightly “closed” around itself knot can be untied by some trick ( by pushing some segment inwards, or by flexing a part of the nub relatively to the rest, etc ).
Chew & stew in your own keystrokes. Others can come to
wise conclusions on their own!
This eyeknot was presented along with the quick8 in some
thread, by me, within the past year? The latter, btw, was one
of some that I had tested in Dyneema, and it held (they all did),
which bodes well for conventional fibres. I chose it over the Lehman8 thinking it the less sure one re security.
And there are further tucks available to the Lehman8, as well
as a similar directional variation, which sees another diameter
stuffed through the main nip, and a doubled collar.
Before you try to show up your keystroking talent, READ :
We have discussed this many times in the past, but, evidently, you have forgotten it… The symmetric geometrically, overhand knot ( which is the ONLY beautiful overhand knot- the other looks like s… ), IS shaped like a figure “8” ( and not like a figure “7”, for example… ) - and when geometry, and not topology, matters, like it happens here, there is no difference between the shaped “8” overhand knot and the knot we use to call “fig.8”. I could well had placed a topologically fig.8 in the same place, as a collar structure : it would make no difference for the nub of this bowline.
Therefore, instead of 'teaching" the difference between the geometrical and the topological figure “8”, perhaps it would be better for you to think a little more and try to answer the crux of the matter- on which you remain silent :
OoahuaoO !!!
You now want to quote your post in another thread
entirely ?!!
I responded simply to what was in THIS thread,
which was without all the qualification given in that
other thread. When you write “F8” it will be so interpreted
–so “read” [sic [sic]].
But I’m glad to read [sic] that you are so attentive to what
the “geometry” and not “topology” [sic x2] is, so that you can
now be happy with the double-Gleipnir (a “turNip” by
any other name …) aspect inherent in the fig.8, though the
struggle between love & loathing therein must put your panties
in quite a mussed-up state!! :o
Have you guys ever met in person (ie face-to-face)?
I would love to be present at a meeting between you two guys. Is it possible to arrange such a meeting?
I would shout the first round of drinks (if you guys drink…?).
Indeed you did… by shifting the goalposts - again ! You had tried to “defend” the primordial, marlinspike-lover Lehman8 loop, by HIDING the issue under other matters…
I was talking about the fact that, if we want to maximize our chances ( because nothing is certain with knots… They are too complex structures for us to analyse and predict ) to-tie an easy to-untie eyeknot, we should better avoid any overhand knot, or fig, 8 knot, or any other of those “closed” knots - on the Standing Part before the eye ( and this rules out all non-PET eyeknots ) AND on the Standing Part after the eye ( and this rules out all non-PET-2 eyeknots, too ). So imagine what this so simple rule of thumb does to your beloved Jam-prize winner - which has nothing but such knots !
The topology of the “collar structure” on the eyeknot I had shown does not play any role. It is only the geometry which matters, and that geometry IS figure “8” shaped. I could well had tied a same-shape knot with the topology of the fig.8 knot, without any difference on what I had tried to point out : The shown “nipping structure” of the two not-interlinked nipping loops keep the “8”-shaped “collar structure” elongated, and facilitates its untying, although it is a “closed” knot.
Now, I did not want to analyse this matter more, because I was afraid that my main point would be missed - but I could nt predict that it would be missed voluntarily, by yet another proud “knot-tyer-father” of ( how to say more politely…) a not-a-Nobel-Prize-of-untiability-winner “knot-child”… Because a “closed” knot can also be a knot topologically equivalent to the unknot ! I had seen that in the case of the Tweedledee bowline, and even more clearly in the case of the Diamond bowline - the later is very difficult to untie, although it is made of two interlinked unknots. And Mark Gommers had seen it even before, in the “reversed” Clove hitch and the “reversed” Constrictor, when they are used as nipping structures of secure bowlines. Tied around compressible materials, “closed” knots can become difficult to untie, even if they are topologically equivalent to the unknot, and not to the overhand knot, the fig.8 knot, etc. This is why I had not raised this issue before, and I was as vague as I could about what I meant by “closed knots” - but you had not got it, and you started teaching me a lesson the difference between an overhand knot and a fig.8 knot - because the Lehman8 is not only “closed” from all sides, and “locked”, but you had also chewed and stewed in yours, and its, key !
Yes, I do like the beautiful fig.8 bend and loop, although it is difficult to untie. Same happens with the beautiful Double Cow hitch, which is also difficult to untie. However, the only thing I feel about this poor ugly tangly Lehman8 eyeknot, in a desire to FORGET it !
There is a thing in long dead and buried knots ( like the infamous primordial Lehman8 eyeknot, or the so-called “Zeppelin loop”, for example…), which we can call a second life - but which, in fact, is only a desperate short-lived resuscitation or resurrection from the land of the dead… When all people start to learn that these knots are difficult to untie, because they are made from interlocked “closed” knots ( like the overhand knot, the fig.8 knot, etc. ), their brave discoverers create yet another myth : that they may be lousy knots when tied on ordinary materials, but they will become good knots when tied on Dyneema, on fishing line, on quintessence, and on any other material in this or in any other Universe one can imagine !
It is just a matter of common sense ( and, of course, hardly worth of a Nobel prize…) that when a knot is difficult to untie or even jams when it is tied on ordinary material, it will become easier to untie, and will not jam as easily, when tied on more slippery materials. However, this does not mean that the frogs of the ordinary-material-land, will become princes in the Dyneema-land ! Those most slippery materials demand another approach right from the start, because of their low friction and high strength. I do not buy the attempts to sell to me those difficult to untie eyeknots, with the excuse that they may be interesting when tied on Dyneema. ANY ugly tangly can claim that it will be secure and easier to untie when tied on Dyneema - and it is a small step from this for their creators to claim they had deliberately tied it like this, because they had the Dyneema in their minds right from the start…
Of course, there is a onscious or subconscious method in that : the fact that a knot is bad and difficult to untie on one material, but may be better, and may be easier to untie, on another, is attempted to be used as an indication, or even a proof, of the theory of materialistic fundamentalism in knotting : Anything goes, there are no knots, there are only “knotted materials” - so there is life after death, there are frogs who are are turned into princes, and the Lehman8, the so-called “Zeppelin loop”, etc, will live forever !
I support the right of some knots to be forgotten, even if their creators wish to force them to live a sad, vegetarian, artificially supported life… We have all tied many such knots, there is no meaning to try to preserve them by inventing less or more stupid ad hoc, post mortem theories.
Let them fade out of our memory, and let us go forward, and tie some better ones. There is plenty of room in this life, let us try to explore and enjoy it before we turn to the lives before or after that.
I am sure you would had wished I would miss this specimen of your faux bizoux, would nt you ? Surprise ! I did not… What we demand from the “nipping structure” of a fixed loop or of a bend, is very different from what we demand from the corresponding structure of an adjustable loop or of a binder !
In a Gleipnir-like nub, but also in any other nub which is meant to nip /grip without the help of more turns ( O-turns=nipping loops, or U-turns=collars ), we demand an as tight nub as we can get ! ! We may even go as far as to risk the danger of an almost jamming nub ( as I did, with the Clove X adjustable loop, for example ).
On the contrary, in bends and loops we demand less tight nipping structures, which can be untied easily, because they will be accompanied by more turns after the main one. That is the lesson of the bowline : a single nipping loop, which can not accumulate and store any tension, is enough, when, during its nipping / gripping action on the returning eyeleg, it is accompanied / helped by the collar. It is not-so-lever to use, in a bowline-like eyeknot, or in a bend we wish it should be untied easily, the most tight knot we can imagine ! Because that knot will be a “closed” knot, and then it will be difficult to untie. Even a reversed Clove hitch, or a reversed Constrictor, are not clever choices for a bowline-like eyeknot : when those hitches are tied around compressible materials, like the segments of a rope are, they can become difficult to untie, although they are topologically equivalent to the unknot.
THIS is what happens to the fig.8 bend and fig. 8 loop. Due to the fact that their structure is “closed”, and their double Gleipnir-like extreme tightness you mention, they are NOT easy to untie ! When you want to tie a new, better eyeknot, do not imitate the worst properties of the previous one ! We try to tie secure bowlines just because, and only because, we want to escape from the fig.8 loop, which is a “closed”, self-locking, tension-ratchet rope mechanism - we should not imitate its form, and combine overhand knots and fig.8 knots, as it happens in the so-called “Zeppelin loop” and in the Lehman8 loop.
It is acceptable, and, indeed, often necessary, to use “closed” knots in binders and adjustable loops, like you did in the quick8 adjustable loop, and Dave Poston did in its even more secure “Eskimo”-like, fig.8-based adjustable loop. However, tt is NOT acceptable, and it is NOT necessary, to use those knots in bends and fixed loops ! We have dozens loops which are PET-2, and are as secure as any other interlocked-overhand-knot-based bend turned into a loop, and the like.
I am happy with the Gleipnir aspect when it is used on binders and adjustable loops, and unhappy when it is used on bends and fixed loops, indeed. You were unhappy with the Gleipnir aspect when it was first presented in this Forum as a mechanism of a binder ( I guess you will allow my right to remember… ), and you are now happy with the same mechanism ( in its “doubled” form, that is, twice as happy ! ) as a mechanism of a bend or a loop ( the fig.8 bend or loop, and their companion-in-the-desire-for-marlispike, the Lehman8 loop…) Some difference !
[i]What we demand from the "nipping structure" of a fixed loop or of a bend, is very different from what we demand from the corresponding structure of an adjustable loop or of a binder ! [/i]
In a Gleipnir-like nub, but also in any other nub which is meant to nip /grip without the help of more turns ( O-turns=nipping loops, or U-turns=collars ), we demand [i]an as tight nub as we can get[/i] ! ! We may even go as far as to risk the danger of an almost jamming nub ( as I did, with the [i]Clove X adjustable loop[/i], for example ).
On the contrary, in bends and loops we demand less tight nipping structures, which can be untied easily, because they will be accompanied by more turns after the main one. That is the lesson of the bowline : a single nipping loop, which can not accumulate and store any tension, is enough, when, during its nipping / gripping action on the returning eyeleg, it is accompanied / helped by the collar.
Oh, what amazing irrationalizationage you spew!
Tell us, does this not-so-grippy, sub-Gleipnir nipping loop
need to be "helped by the collar" [sic sic sic] in the [i]sheepshank[/i]?
(Or the [sic]shank?)
Are you having bad dreams of untying [i]Gleipnirs[/i] perhaps?
(Did you knot your panty strings that way? :-X :-\ )
It is not-so-lever to use, in a bowline-like eyeknot, or in a bend we wish it should be untied easily, the most tight knot we can imagine ! Because that knot will be a "closed" knot, and then it will be difficult to untie.
How is it "closed" here and not in the binder?
And how is the [i]"reversed clove hitch"[/i] (more) closed
than unreversed (which doesn't usually jam)?
we should not imitate its form, and combine [i]overhand knots[/i] and [i]fig.8[/i] knots, as it happens in the so-called "Zeppelin loop" and in the [i]Lehman8[/i] loop
Rather, "we" --meaning "you" not me-- should get off
of our keyboard and actually TEST these things you so
quickly decry (ad hominen analysis, methinks). Because,
as Agent_Smith noted, even for a lousily tied [i]Lehman8[/i],
things can be untied! Jamming is a matter of *taste*,
per circumstance, too.
You were unhappy with the Gleipnir aspect when it was first presented in this Forum as a mechanism of a binder ( I guess you will allow my [i]right to remember[/i]... :) ),
For my prior fiddling with it showed that it's
--in some circumstances-- difficult to deliver
the force to the nipping turn, going all the way
around the bound object(s) first. (Your simple
inversion/flipping of the [i]turNip[/i] goes some way
to redress that.)
You mean if someone swallows your keystrokes w/o thinking
or trying the knots for themselves, as you do (k)knot?!
( like the [i]overhand knot[/i], the[i] fig.8 knot[/i], etc. ), their brave discoverers [i]create[/i] yet another myth : that they may be lousy knots when tied on ordinary materials, but they will become good knots when tied on Dyneema, on fishing line, on quintessence, and on any other material in this or in any other Universe one can imagine !
OuaoahhoaoU !!! [sic]
No one has said that the [i]Lehman8[/i] was good for
HMPE, but it might be; rather, I had the [i]quick8[/i] actually
tested (rather then keyboarded, which must be like
waterboarding :: you can get whatever result you want!)
in Dyneema expressly to check on the security of this
fairly slight entanglement --a "tucked" [i]quick8[/i] maybe
it should be called, leaving the unqualified knot to be
that with the tail passing straight through with 2 tucks.
(The turn and 3rd tuck serve not only for loaded security
--though the Dyneema didn't show much force on this
part, IMO!?--, but for giving the knot slack-security
against idle loosening, which is a rockclimber's concern.)
It is just a matter of common sense ( and, of course, hardly worth of a Nobel prize...) that when a knot is difficult to untie or even jams when it is tied on ordinary material, it will become easier to untie, and will not jam as easily, when tied on more slippery materials
//
ANY ugly tangly can claim that it will be secure and easier to untie when tied on Dyneema
.
It might be common belief, but whether it's entirely
good sense remains to be seen. I can say that some
knots that are relatively easily untied in common media
can become jammed in HMPE, because forces flow so
far into the structure! Your assertion shows how little
you've understood about this.
I do not buy the attempts to sell to me those difficult to untie eyeknots,
with the excuse that they may be interesting when tied on Dyneema.
OM(K)G no, YOU go on & on about your amazing
(decorative, sometimes) knots being possibly valuable
without regard to ANY known material, but maybe will
work when an alien brings outerspaceema cordage down
to earth!! Just tie knots to tie knots to tie more knots
and decry the other knots as not knotty enough.
- and it is a small step from this for their creators to claim they had deliberately tied it like this, because they had the Dyneema in their minds right from the start...
You really cannot can your confessed confusion over
this, or you hope to make confusion by reiteration.
Let's set it straight:
the [i]Lehman8[/i] was one of few knots that I had
a specific design goal (vs. fiddling What if...?) for,
and that was [u]kernmantle[/u],
and the knot to somehow get the magic strength seen
in (some form(s) of) [i]fig.8 eyeknot[/i]
and to bring along the easy-to-loosen-with-collar
aspect of the [i]bowline[/i];
the quick8 was simply something fiddled, and not
seen as soon as it should’ve/might’ve been by me;
it is also thought to be good for kernmantle with the
extra tuck, and was tested in Dyneema as a way to
give it a tougher challenge than it would have for
its intended domain of kernmantle.
Evidently, you have not understood any-thing … so how can I understand what you ask about that ?
The Gleipnir and the Sheepshank can not work without the mechanical advantage offered by the double line, Your Brightness ! ( How did you miss this, Watson ?) Next fake-counter-example / question, please…
( Under such a blinding light, even faux bijoux may look like priceless jewels ! )
Agent Smith had not said with what percentage of the MBS of the line he had tensioned the knot.
Of course, you refer to this single comment of a single trial, a century after you had tied this thing, and you feel proud ! Do you feel proud you had failed to mention my reply to Agent Smith s post ? Or proud about the recent invention of roo, of the "Working-load-untiable" knot ?
You mean that you had tried the begging-to-be-forgotten Lehman8 thing ? And you still remember what you found, after a century ? Or that you simply keep kissing it all those years, with the hope it will be transformed into a princess some day ? Keep trying !
The Clove-hitch based Gleipnir ( which I have tied and tried ) is a very tight knot - it almost jams., although it is not “closed” topologically. The Clove X adjustable loop, is also an almost jamming knot, but this should perhaps be expected, because it is a “closed” knot.
The reversed and the unreversed Clove hitches have a great difference, which you would had understood, if you had read my posts more carefully, instead of trying to show up to your beloved imaginary audience. I have seen that the self-locking property of the mechanism of the Clove hitch, when tied around compressible materials, is due to the fact that its two limbs are squeezed upon each other, while, at the same time, they rotate towards different directions. This does not happen in the case of the Girth hitch.
So, the answer is simple : when the limbs are pulled towards such directions which force them to be squeezed upon each other less, or even separate them, the Clove hitch will not jam.
My remark was crystal clear - but if you really wait your frog to become a princess, you will start to invent any not-so-clever excuses, and not realize, and admit, the simple rule of thumb I had told you : Beware of the “closed”, overhand knots, fig.8 knots, etc, tied on ANY side of the Standing Part, before or after the eye.
Let your Lehman8 be forgotten - It will be good for it, for you, and for my keyboard !
Phew !
The re-tucked quick8 is an altogether different knot ! Are you going to attempt to validate this mediocre, even dangerous, adjustable quick8 loop, by properties that could had, had it been re-tucked ?
Tie the Pretzel TIB adjustable loop, the Clove X adjustable loop, the double overhand knot adjustable loop(s), the recet adjustable loop tied by Alan Lee, and WAKE UP ! And if you dare to boast about your 19th century long-dead and buried quick8 ( NOT for its re-tucked descendants ! ), hic Rhodus, hic saltus ! I would love a 1000$ wager, because there are so many beautiful ropes out there I wish to buy… ( No ? You would nt except it, because your material “can not be so knotted” ? Then, keep keyboarding … )
Just do not tie knots because you can not tie knots because you have put off your knot-tyer hat, and you had put on your knot-caster hat… Those who can, do, those who can not, decry others !
The frog-ish Lehman8 is knotty enough ? To my eyes, it is froggy enough, that is for sure - and, given that I tie “decorative knots”, as you and your buddy roo keep telling to your clients 6 years now, I can distinguish between a frog and a princess ! Keep kissing it ! Miracles do happen !
An unsolicited advice : Forget the Lehman8 - the most simple TIB bowline you had tied, and the Mirrored bowline, are much better and notable knots. Forget the quick8 adjustable loop - the Dave Poston s loop consumes the same amount of material, it can be tied as easily and quickly, but it is a much more secure solution - for GodKnot sake, even your buddy roo has understood that ! Of course, the Pretzel TIB, the C Clove X, the double-overhand-knot-based one(s), and the recent Alan Lee s adjustable loop, are years ahead of them- but that is a problem I guess you will manage to solve the next century.
Hi Mark,
Edit: Here are images of the Tresse Bowline with barrel “coil over S.Part” geometry for you to do your camera magic. I’ll edit this post with beta later.
This Tressecoiled S.Part bowline is a nice, easy to remember, and easily tiable in-the bight and in-the-end TIB loop ( it ibecomes TIB, when the Tail End is re-tucked through the collar, everything else remaining the same ). Personally, I prefer it from the similar Barrel bowline, because it does not have this very sharp turn at the first curve of its returning eyeleg.
It is a pity that it does not have a more convoluted collar ! As I had said some time ago, its “nipping structure” is sophisticated, but its “collar structure” remains naive - and I believe that we should try to keep a balance between those two essential components of the bowline…
I had thought of replacing the collar, too, with a braided one : an idea is to use the very simple crossed-legs collar of the Cross-gartered bowline : http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4283.msg35800#msg35800
??? Please interpret your phrasing for me. Do you mean the curve at the base of the barrel“coil over S.Part” nipping structure? And if so, why? Are you implying the blood“coiled S.Part” form is the stronger of these two Tresse Bowline geometries?
(sorry - but I just haven’t got the time to go searching every which way… Yes, I’m being lazy but its easier if I just ask and someone will assist).
