I wasn’t able to locate an Abok number for this structure, though it looks simple in its construction.
Besides a sharp turn at its right link, the two links are neatly interweaved, there are no overhands, plus it appears that it can handle multidirectional loading ( bi-axial, or tri-axial), with no observable jamming effects.
Maybe it resides somewhere in the forum archives?
It appears to me that Siriuso’s Mocha crossing knot based, end of line, eyeknot, finds the way to Tibness, with an extra tuck, although here is depicted and tied in the middle of the rope.
That’s what i call a quick neat and tidy, TIB tying method! Though, i would draw attention at the last tucking, illustrated in your third image, as you have to be careful in order to achieve the desirable final dressing state, but your proper hand placement, subserves tying errors circumvention.
Although your images speak on their own, i believe i have to appose my own TIB method of tying, in a descriptive and illustrative way.
Form a crossing knot with a slightly twisted collar, as shown in first photo. The bight component of the crossing knot, will be the final eye, so it might be good in this phase, to adjust its size.
Form an S loop on the left link, that is, the one which is a direct continuation of crossing knot’s bight component, and place it over the twisted crossing knot collar, overlaping it, as shown in second photo.
Pass the bight through this configuration, in the following order ~ over, under, under, over ~, as shown in third photo.
These type of knot structures are interesting.
There is a simple elegance to the original offering from tsik_lestat in his other thread topic.
I think the toggle mechanism is interesting and opens new lines of experimentation and discovery.
Its hard to beat the original #1053 Butterfly for simplicity and effectiveness.
But, if simplicity can be retained (to an extent) - there is merit.
There is room in my Butterfly paper to include a toggled ‘TLE’ knot
That’s true, it’s even hard to beat EHL, even though they share the same left link (with EHL 2 midline, not the one you are illustrating).
Generally, in my view, it might be hard to devise a midline eye knot, under the strict frame of characteristics that you had correctly advanced for the midline concept. It rules out many prospective TIB knot structures.
These “toggled tri-axially loadable midline eye knots” (love the term :)), might be one of the new lines of exploration as you correctly point out, adding stability, security and jam resistance in the equation.
Speaking of toggle mechanisms, here is Xarax’s variation, which somehow, smooths out right link’s sharpness of the previous knot, by transposing its two lines in the core nub, as shown in the next two images.
KC, i believe that with the term “tri-axial”, we are refering to a state where load is applied to all three directions, that is, to all three endings of the midline knot (two ends/links and eye).
We might also refer to the feasibility of loading midline’s eye, without observable jamming effects or radical geometry changes.
However, as Alpineer suggests, the term “radial”, sounds more accurate, because if we load the eye of a midline eyeknot, its two ends can hardly remain collinear to one other, they will rather form an angle, therefore, the sense of perpendicularity to the horizontal axis of loading, ceases to exist.
Xarax had proposed an 120 degree versatile eyeknot, where its three endings are equally loaded, and this occurs if and only if they are forming an 120 degrees angle, one with the other.
Right after this equilibrium state, where the knot takes its final geometrical balanced state, there would be no drastic changes to its geometry, if the knot was to be reloaded again in a midline, or end of line configuration.
“BI-axial” is the unwanted term, but as you note,
“tri-axial” is what one must get if all ends are loaded
(though one might quibble about insisting on the perfectly straight end-2-end loading even where
there’s a mere slight deflection).
Here, “radial” IMO is unhelpfully vague on number
of loading directions. (to which net knots pose a
challenge on seeing any particular one, regarding
that precision implied above --they shift)
Sorry, i really knew what you meant,
but am trying to smooth the lingo we use to proper geometry terms(self included);
that cross into and re-verify in other things, and more tangibly.
Not to be word picky, but to focus on force flow and correct imagery of what we are dealing with.
to see most clearly what is going on, so consistently, even extending to other things all around as nothing unique.
So, prefer to see a full ‘axle’, not just a half axle(of 1 side) for axises(sorry, tree folk tend not to use formal plural axes in writing..)
so axle, implies balance side to side to me; from other lessons all around this.
.
Most all my references are to force loaded, not tying mode prescriptions.
On a force line/column , i look for 1 linear direction from a source point
like gravity loaded weight ball that could/has capacity to fall to ground (like a positive charge)
For axis, i look for the Equal & Opposite resistance against delivered squarely on that same line, but opposing direction to constitute axis
an opposing column against, a complete force set that may stop/control movement
whereby force line is 1 sided and must move
2 directions of lines , but opposing on single column/line.
But this single axis AND dimension, are not (as) side force stable tho..
.
Tri-axial to me is more like tripod support or 3 x 120degree increments of rope support holding lower weight ball very well to position
as can now take some side force in the now non-Single dimension support>>very critical change to note.
Whereby , B’fly loaded straight thru Starts, with eye pull across is against the main force axis of SParts.
But, a rose is a rose by any other name all the same;
except when try to take our ‘lingo’ and match to all else/other fields and lose connection/continuity and understanding
AND perhaps be more inviting, as more consistent to those other disciplines as well to join in this party/study.
As so like, i see 2 dim support/more side force stable constitution in 3 arcs on host as opposed to 1/mono or 2/linear arc 1 dimensional support lendings of not so stable against sideForce.
.
We tend to think in simpler straight line models of non-sideForce, non-radial forces
But the big joke on us is that in linear force persisting in 1 direction,
and randomly choosing another of the other 359 degree directions as choice against initial loading direction
only gives 1 in 359 chance of no sideForce/radial implications! (.0027 chance /pretty poor odds!)
doubles to 1 in 180 .005555.. chance if moving away from load/ruling out towards load as not support(half of 1%'r rule)
So, say again, that purely line defines more as a unique non-side force/non-radial
more so than sideForce/radials define as nonLinear , for they just exclude the single, unique line from all else
as linear support that we imagine/see most easily is much less than a 1%'r, as so unique vs. all others!
So, always look for the sideForce, as the magician’s other hand that can fool
if is unique instance of inline, still ref w/Zer0 placeholder, as circumstance is so unique
not to make Ancient’s mistake of empty/null non-numbers as Zer0
no telling what else they would have come up with if found Zer0 2 millenniums earlier!!
.
To my models, even if not PHYSICALLY/viewable as pure inline against load as physical axis
in passive/responding control against active loading imposed
the cosine lends a VIRTUAL/invisible force line against load to complete axis of ‘competition’ squarely against each other load/support.
As the load requires to not further displace against any other space; other than present/existing position
.
Once again, some of this perhaps small quibble chatter/matter of alignment to each other more easily so pivotally close to home
can make own ‘deals’/lingo on our island; but not so much to big sea of all else around to expand understanding
and be more inviting as common language to chance passer bys to draw them in/stay longer as inherently more relevance.
I am quite interested in these toggled tri-axially loadable eye knots that are TIB.
I have found a ‘simple’ tying method (simple enough for me…) - and I have also explored some corresponding ‘bends’.
The toggle mechanism is (as far as I am aware) a new line of development in TIB tri-axially loadable eye knots…(notwithstanding the toggle mechanism in the ‘Anglers loop’ which is not tri-axially loadable.
Definitely will make an appearance in my paper on the Butterfly eye knot.
I see that the corresponding bend is Bad Brother Bend.
yChan
?
Not sure why you felt it necessary to direct that piece of information to me personally?
I merely added it to my images because I intend to add it to my paper on the Zeppelin bend as an example of a toggled bend (it certainly was not a claim of originality) and because it was a derivative of the TIB TLE knot from tsik_lestat (note the use of the word ‘derivative’ and not ‘corresponding’).
In any case, it isn’t the ‘corresponding bend’ - for that to be a true statement, the tails would have to exit on the same side (not opposite sides).
Sorry for your concern. I did not know you are presenting a draft or something else. Though it is clear that it is not a corresponding knot to the loop knot, I think it is always best to have their names captioned or attached.
?
There is zero concern.
Think of it as more like a [i]curiosity [/i]as to your motivations.
I did not know you are presenting a draft or something else
?
I wasn't.
Its a free world that we live in yChan.
I can post whatever I please, and whenever I please - provided it doesn't break forum rules.
The derived bend that drew your attention was simply thrown in by me as an after thought.
It came with no attached dialog and no accompanying information.
Any meaning that you attach to it is solely your own imagination.
And thats fine too - its a free world - you can imagine whatever pleases you.
I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. I made a mistake, (apparently Ychan did it too), confusing the term “corresponding”, with the term “derivative”.
Moreover, the lack of a bend identifier, impeled me to hasten knot regognition, without seeing that indeed this toggled symmetrical ‘bad brother’ bend, can be derived from a toggled asymmetrical, inline, TIB, EHL, eyeknot, as illustrated in your image.
A mystery wafting this bend structure, is that many knotters have tied it, with their own hybrid methods, independently, (happened to me too), without knowing its existence, therefore after this fiddling, its pattern becomes in a sense, immediately/easily recognisable.
May i propose, Xarax’s Hugo bend A, as a compact symmetrical, toggled, Zeppelin-like, bend/eyeknot structure as well.
Yes - the Hugo bend is another example of a knot that employs a toggle mechanism.
The 2 types of toggle mechanisms that seem to appear are:
Brace
Axle
And some knots employ a toggle mechanism as a critical support element; and when that toggle is removed it triggers total collapse.
In the case of the Anglers loop - removal of the toggle does not trigger total collapse.
The toggle therefore was not a critical support element.
The Anglers loop loses structural integrity when the toggle is removed but, it does not trigger total collapse (to the unknot).
The Hugo bend employs a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - when removed, it triggers total collapse.
The toggle acts as a brace. Its interesting because it is based on the integration of 2 Crossing hitches (so is the ‘Carrick bend’ - however the Crossing hitches are inter-linked and there is no ‘toggle’).
In the Zeppelin bend, the toggle is employed as an ‘axle’, and it is a critical support element.
When the toggle is removed, the Zeppelin bend collapses.
The so called ‘EHL’ employs a toggle mechanism as a brace. It is a critical support element (removal of the toggle triggers total collapse).
I think I am a fanboy of the ‘EHL’ - but wish it had a more fitting name!
Anyhow, this is all very interesting.
This whole idea of a toggle mechanism is opening up new lines of thought and how some knots are jam proof, or jam resistant.
The Zeppelin bend is jam proof (no jamming - even up to its MBS yield point).
I’d like to see some serious testing of the so called ‘EHL’ - to investigate if it is jam proof or only jam resistant.
The EHL needs testing along different axes…ie bi-axially as a through load from SPart-to-SPart but also eye loading.
It would be interesting to test a hypothesis that knots that employ a toggle mechanism that is a critical support element - are jam proof?
I know that if the toggle functions as an axle (per Zeppelin bend) it = jam proof.
But what if the toggle functions as a brace - does that also = jam proof (or not)?
But is not same axle/pin/toggle/bitt in Rigger’s high tension jam?
just with more direct, interlaced focus of the trapping?
rather than the side by side ‘hooks’ of Zepp.
.
i think of Rigger’s harder locked/coupled box cars on same track as direct/inline unconverted force
Zepp more of side by side tracks, couplers bound together sideways/after force conversion as less direct.
Both would be continuous torque direction if BE’s fused together as one
B’fly has direct , interlaced , ‘coupling’ of ‘hooks’ of Rigger’s, but side relief/open side not in Rigger’s
AND if BE’s/eye fused as one,
present more of an anti-jam counter-torque of off host crossings/ Backhand Turn as exemplified in basics of Muenter/Cow etc.
.
Those are direct pressures on axle/pin/toggle (toggle so appropriate as is in circuits: on or off /1 or 0)
Then there is more of a ‘chained’ series of same dependency, only buffered.
more of a main toggle/axle/pin who’s position is more simply stabilized w/less force by next slip pin/axle/toggle
besides slipped daisy chain, perhaps most classically (now) shown simply as:
As usual, this is now morphing into an entirely different and vastly more complex subject area.
I am not a moderator and I dont speak for the IGKT but, it does seem that a new thread topic should be started if discussion is to continue to probe into the complexities of knots that employ a toggle mechanism which is a critical support element and also is an effective axle or brace to confer jam resistance.
(#1425A does not have an effective toggle axle - obviously - since it jams).
…
Somewhat more in line with the original knot that was presented by tsik_lestat, i would sincerely like to see some load testing on this to probe its level of jam resistance along different axes.
Maybe Alan Lee is still active as usual (and safe and healthy without the damn Corona virus)?
