Hello yChan,
My comments were specifically in relation to ‘page 1’ of that pdf document.
If a lay person was reading your document and noticed the words “neat and new bend” - they will apply the ordinary meaning to it.
They wont know anything about the history of that particular structure or anything about Desmond Mandeville.
Thats because you provide absolutely zero context.
So the words “neat and new bend” have no historical context when read in isolation on your ‘page 1’.
You should use footnotes to explain what is going on.
You could add a footnote stating that Desmond Mandeville presented ‘neat and new bend’ + the ‘Poors man’s pride’ in Knotting Matter issue 4 July 1983.
This would provide historical context for the reader of your paper.
As it currently stands, readers of your paper would simply think that you invented a ‘neat and new bend’.
In my Riggers bend paper - you will see that I use footnoting and try to give the reader historical background.
Does this make any sense yChan?
Also, your superposed loops is a trick tying method of the Riggers bend.
It belies the true underlying geometry - and I think this will then be confused with the Zeppelin bend (Poor man’s pride).
The Zeppelin bend is actually created from 2 superposed loops…
Either your paper is presenting a series of trick tying methods - or its trying to be a technical thesis on various end-to-end joining knots… which is it trying to be?
Also, I note that I am the only person that appears to bother giving you feedback…
Your paper - in its present form - is a confused jumble of information.
Your trick tying methods overwhelm and obfuscate the real underlying geometries and principles of how the bends are created and their inter-relationship to other bends.
The information is hard to find and hard to make sense of - in terms of a concise theory.
With regard to Mandeville, it is possible to reach a conclusion that he was the original discoverer of the Zeppelin bend (if we take his literal word from Knotting Matters #4).
In that issue, he states that he named it poor mans pride in 1961.
We can extract from this that he tied it in 1961.
This pre-dates Bob Thrun - who presented his ‘An easily untied bend’ in 1966.
The problem is that we have no proof other than Percy’s word for it.
In Bob Thrun’s case, we have printed evidence dating back to1966 (a caving newsletter).
Rigger Cross East Bend - I refer to the book ?A New System of Knotting? by H. Asher, at page 13. You may also find and compare my tying methods of Rigger?s Bend and ABOK#1426.
yChan - I have tried to explain that the notional concept of 'east' and 'west' is [u]meaningless[/u].
There is no east and west - and even if you wanted it to be 'east' - I could just as easily make it 'west' via mirror reflection or by holding the knot in an opposite sense.
All of these knot tying notions that people have tried to introduce make no sense...because they can only have meaning to the person who creates it - within their [u][b]reference frame[/b][/u].
And this is where they all come unstuck... because they fail to consider the concept of a reference frame.
Harry Asher did break new ground in his book - The Alternative Knot Book.
But - it is not the final definitive word on knot tying notation and reference frames.
Asher missed an opportunity to explain and fully demonstrate what is going on with loops and associated bends.
He also confuses and mixes terms such as ‘loop’ and ‘turn’… there are instances where he trips a little and suddenly speaks in terms of loops - when earlier in his book he uses the term ‘turn’.
Anyhow, I think you can cite Asher but I think it unwise to heavily lean on Asher as an authority.
EDIT NOTE:
In a quick glance of your “Legends of loop chart” - I notice a technical error.
RE: Your image at “4” - RB / 1426
You suggest that #1426 is also Riggers bend via the initals “RB”.
This is incorrect.
Have a look at my paper on the Riggers bend - and in particular the Riggers X1 bend as tied by Xarax.
Ashley’s dressing state is different.
You can say that #1426 is topologically equivalent to Xarax’s Riggers X1 bend (which he presented in 2011).
But, you cannot state that #1426 is the Riggers bend (that would mislead the reader).
Xarax’s discovery is a natural orientation of the rope segments and is a tails crossed variant of #1425A.
Ashley’s illustration is different - and requires some manipulation to achieve that final dressing state.
Furthermore, there are in fact Z/Z and S/S orientations…
yChan, I am spotting these technical errors with only a quick glance of your paper… this leads me to believe that you don’t get your papers peer reviewed?
How do you expect to correct all these errors on your own if working in isolation?
I appear to be the only person who bothers to give you feedback… why is this so I wonder?
Part of the problem is that your work constitutes what I call ‘BIG data’.
They way in which you present and organize the content is confusing to a casual reader.
You have done a marvelous amount of work - it just needs to be re-organised and presented in a way that the reader can more easily understand it.
You also need to delete all of your ‘trick’ tying methods - as it only serves to confuse the true underlying geometry of the bends you present.
2nd EDIT NOTE:
-
In virtually all of your base loop images. the SParts are visually represented too small in length.
The casual reader will find it hard to discern which part is which.
You should re-draw all of the base loop pairs with longer SParts (ie drawn longer in reference to the tails).
-
The page titled “Cruise to bends”:
Its good to see that you have started to apply the concept of chirality.
For example, #1425A Riggers bend can be tied as either S/S or Z/Z chirality.
Same goes for most of the other bends - eg Zeppelin can be tied as either S/Z or Z/S.
-
You again identify 'RB" (Riggers bend) as being #1426. It isn’t.
-
#1452 Ashley bend and #1425A Riggers bend are both interesting base loop pairs to compare.
Ashley bend can be conceptualized as an axially rotated Riggers bend.
You should show these 2 base pair loops next to each other to draw the readers attention. There is also another axially rotated version of the Riggers bend (shown in my Riggers bend paper).