yChan,
Again - one last time in the hope that you understand!
In point form:
#1426 should not be identified as the Riggers bend.
It is not technically accurate to indicate #1426 as being the Riggers bend.
If a casual reader looks at your paper and sees “#1426 = Riggers bend” and then checks “ABoK” - they will be confused.
Riggers bend is illustrated at #1425A (not #1426).
#1426 as drawn by Ashley has a different dressing state.
Xarax had tied his Riggers X1 bend in 2011 - which is a natural orientation of #1426 - and results in a the form of a tails crossed Riggers bend (X1).
On your paper - there is no context and no footnoting to explain anything.
A casual reader can’t glean any of this information from each of your isolated pages.
There is no context for them.
Its all what I refer to as “BIG data” - and for the average person - its an overwhelming amount of information that is presented in a way that is not user friendly.
-
On the page titled “Variations and Features”:
You use descriptors such as overhand, underhand, Twist clockwise, twist anti clockwise, cross over and cross under.
All of the descriptors rely on a reference frame.
The notional concept of ‘over’ and ‘under’ is dependent on the reference frame of the user. ‘Under’ can become ‘over’ depending on your perspective.
This notion also wrongly assumes that a bend can only exist in one orientation - lets say S/S. It can also exist in mirror form as Z/Z.
However, you can make reference to “tails being opposite” and “tails being parallel” as this requires no reference frame (which you have done).
If you absolutely insist on using up/down/left/right etc… you would have to clearly indicate the reference frame from the point-of-view of the knot tyer. I think all these approaches are doomed - and indeed they have all failed in the past (eg Asher’s ‘new’ system never really took hold). Its sort of like being in orbit around the Earth in a space station. They is no ‘up’, ‘down’ etc. You would have to specify a clear and unambiguous reference frame for the user. -
On the page titled “List of my other tying method knots”:
On this page you correctly identify Riggers bend as #1425A.
And you identify #1426 as ‘twofold overhand bend’.
BUT, in other parts of your paper - you identify #1426 as Riggers bend.
This is confusing to a casual reader. -
On the page titled “Legends of loop chart”:
Here again you indicate #1426 as being Riggers bend.
This contradicts your other page and is confusing to the casual reader.
Here again you identify a “Neat and new” bend (NNB).
On that page, there is zero context or historical acknowledgment.
Its as if you have brushed history aside.
You should attribute that bend to Desmond Mandeville - or at least have a footnote reference.
A casual reader of that page will simply assume that “Neat and new” means that it is your personal discovery (which it isn’t).
Also, on that page, you show the RB (Riggers bend) with Z/Z chirality.
It can also exist as S/S chirality - both being valid.
A casual reader will simply assume that the orientation of the loops as you depict them is the only possible dressing state (when it isn’t).
I stand by my assertion that all of your images require longer SParts in comparison to the tails.
It gets confusing to the eye…the human eye can only discern so much…and then it gets confusing.
You are not making your paper user friendly.
-
The page titled “Types and sets”:
This page is meaningless to a casual reader.
Its BIG data - it needs to be presented in a way that a casual reader to find meaning and understanding.
I have at least a basic understanding of knots…and even I can’t glean anything meaningful from that page. -
On the page titled "Observations and Summary:
You again use terms such as ‘over-laid’ and ‘under-laid’ and ‘interlocked’ and then ‘inter-locked the other way’.
These terms can only have meaning within a defined reference frame.
Your term ‘interlocked the other way’ is meaningless in this context (eg which way?).
You again make reference to ‘NNB - Neat and New Bend’ but give the reader no historical background and no acknowledgement to Desmond Mandeville.
Because casual readers are given no information - they will apply the literal and ordinary meaning to that phrase.
They will simply assume that you are the original discoverer.
You use terms such as ‘inter-locked’ without a full and proper explanation.
You state that the Zeppelin bend is a “non interlocked bend”.
Depending on your notional view of the structure of a Zeppelin bend - one can view all bends of this ‘class’ as having an inter-locking mechanism.
I could present a different view - one stating that the Zeppelin bend is built from ‘linked’ overhand knots of opposite chirality.
In contrast, you state that the Riggers bend is ‘interlocked’. One could also argue that the overhand knots are interwoven.
And here again you make a reference to #1426. You state that it is differs from #1425A Riggers bend!
And yet, in other parts of your paper, you confuse the casual reader by indicating that 'RB (Riggers bend) is #1426.
So which is it?
You state that “9 patterns are found from 64 sets of loop formations”.
You then refer to “4 types”.
Its really hard for the casual reader to extract a meaning from this…
It sounds like you have made a significant discovery - and you need to make it easy for the reader to follow your theory.
Is “64 sets of loop formations” the maximum limit? Can there be more?
- Some of your “tying methods” are what I refer to as “trick tying methods”.
They deliberately induce instability - forcing the structure to rotate and capsize into its final energy stable state.
The starting positions for these trick tying methods obfuscate the true underlying geometry of these bends.
All the rotating, flipping, tumbling and capsizing tells us nothing - its just an illusion.
Is your paper trying to be a serious thesis on bends?
Or is it a paper on trick tying methods?
You should not include all the trick tying methods within the final data set analysis - because it would introduce a ‘false positive’.
You should find the simplest energy stable orientation of the 2 working ends - and begin to construct your bends from that starting config.
For example, the Riggers bend is built from 2 inter-linked loops of the same chirality (either S/S or Z/Z).
The Zeppelin bend is built from 2 superposed loops of opposite chirality (either S/Z or Z/S)… and so on.
…
yChan, my intentions can be characterized as being good will.
I am trying to provide constructive critique.
Your paper is BIG data - and it needs to be presented in a way that is meaningful to the reader.
In its current form, the content is confusing and non intuitive.
(minus one). However, nice entagled figure eights.Generally, the figure eight base system, has been expanded by other knotters. Double larkshead, is familiar to me too.
