One can imagine a case in which someone “invents” something
that on some later archeological research is then shown to have
been previously discovered ages ago. This would be an interesting
case of something having become known but then lost to
knowledge, and becoming re-known; and the ways in which
it is known might be interestingly different.
So, I concur in Sweeney’s praise for you making the discovery
yourself. (OTOH, in some cases --thinking of my own “invention”
of several of Ashley’s prior inventions–, one can just as well
fault the new inventor for lousy/lazy(lack of) research! In my
case, I had [u]ABoK, but simply hadn’t recognized its numbers
#1408, 1452, and so “invented” them myself! )
You hardly had such easy confirmation of prior knowledge.
At the same time they don't allow me to use my [i]camera knot[/i] because I told them that I have discovered and [b]field tested it by myself[/b]. Burn the witch!!! :oNo[w] I can refer to Dr. Harry Asher and everything will be fine.
Academic titles are very impressive to german senior camp leaders.
Well, one can knowingly shudder at much of what you’ve just
uttered above!
-
I concur in official skepticism at out-of-the-blue, non-mainstream
knots : having precedent and other generally reputable backing for
the use of a knot is a safe bet, albeit ones that knowing folks might
see as giving an inferior product --but unlikely a dangerous one. -
Having a simple knot-author named support is hardly
something I’d brag about :: though it seems to address the
concerns noted in (1), I have seen WAY too many things said
–so often parroted/echoed-- in knots books to have confidence
in them, PER SE. The vetting of such information doesn’t exist;
publishers presume knowledge by simple claims … . -
And, alas, self-testing and analysis can be deadly incomplete
and wrong. I learned this myself, the hard way, though a quite
soft version of “hard way” ::
having discovered (re-invented, one might say, per my remarks
of re-discovering Ashely, above)
a seemingly nice offset end-2-end knot,
whose "nice"ness was that it capsized into very secure #1452
(I think it’s #782, one of the lanyard knots --that or nearby #),
and so even if it had a lower threshold of flyping
(presumably usually well greater than abseils would generate, though),
given that it would do so into a good, secure-in-tension knot,
I thought I’d found a winner/qualifier;
BUT, I happened to pull-test it in joining two slightly different
ropes, pulling with upper body vs. leg, and … BAM!! … it SPILLED
undone!! .:. I found that the flyping process could apparently
loosen it such that different rates of capsizing in the ropes might
let one slip out completely !!!
I can see that, absent that happenstance discovery, I might have
advocated the use of this knot (as one of possibles, at least),
and given the seemingly assuring rationale that if it capsized
it would do so into security --one would lose the benefits of
having an “offset” joint (which isn’t really critical), but not risk
joint failure. How surprised but glad I found wrong I was !
–just a note about the risks of thought-good but proven-limited
testing & analysis can be (alas) ! Yikes, we should really like to
have good ways of analysis and recipes for testing; I obviously
lacked those.
(And now, am having a h-e-l-l of a time getting some valid analysis
re the offset water knot understood to folks in a thread about
that & similar, life-critical abseil-ropes-joining knots; it’s so dismaying.)