Quick one for StuM and other knot lovers

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, I see now that you have also tied the initial overhand the "opposite way round". Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right

Can you do the same if you tie initially exactly as per #526?

(Got to go now.! I'll look at it again this evening)

It was not two wrongs, my original set of photos were a mirror image of Ashley’s stopper flipped over. I just tie my slip knots this way so it was natural for me to start this way. A mirror image is the same knot.

When I redid it exactly as per #526, a mirror image of the original bowline flipped over therefore resulted. Both bowlines are equally valid, just as both Oysterman’s stoppers are valid.

Got to go here too, as it is nearly midnight.
Have fun playing with this .

SWL

[StuM]

Deleted, I'm getting confused here

[StuM]

OK, finally got it. ABOK# 526 does not collapse into ABOK#1010.


It does collapse into a mirror image of ABOK#1010 which is an equally valid Bowline, just not the way I tie it, so I had difficulty visualising the result


Similarly, I think your "mirror ABOK #526" collapses into ABOK #1010.


Fascinating - I've wasted far to much time on this

[Stu Jackson]

Fascinating.
Yet another way to tie a bowline.


Finally...


Thanks.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, finally got it. ABOK# 526 does not collapse into ABOK#1010.


It does collapse into a mirror image of ABOK#1010 which is an equally valid Bowline, just not the way I tie it, so I had difficulty visualising the result


Similarly, I think your "mirror ABOK #526" collapses into ABOK #1010.


Fascinating - I've wasted far to much time on this

That’s correct .
I usually don’t worry about whether a knot I am tying is a mirror image of the one shown in instructions, sometimes a certain movement of the hands just feels more natural so I do it that way rather than as typically shown. For some knots like the bowline and Carrick bend and icicle hitch and rolling hitch I try and get comfortable with tying them whichever way the line is presented. The Zeppelin bend I only ever tie one way and that is because 69 is so easy to remember and there is absolutely no need to learn variations.

Anyway, intriguing, isn’t it .

I wasted even more time trying to change a bowline into an Oysterman’s. The trick is to loosen the junction, then tug the tail in just the right direction and instantly a loose Oysterman’s appears. If the tail is pulled the wrong way, it just never converts properly. It is quite satisfying to find one knot transforms in seconds to the other if the right bits are pulled.

SWL

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Juho

According to the authors of this book there are 85 ways to tie a tie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_85_Ways_to_Tie_a_Tie

They used math to prove that. Maybe someone should make a study on knots in general. How many topological basic forms are there? (with transformations between different variants of each topological basic form) I guess there is an infinite number of them, but maybe we could at least allocate the basic ones each to their own topological basic form based family.

Hi Juho
Now that would certainly be a challenging excercise.

Dissecting knots and finding common factors and different ways of tying them helps me to understand what make knots tick and certainly makes tying them a more natural and easily remembered task. This aspect of knot tying interests me.

So many knots are based on overhands, or double overhands, or Figure 8s or clove hitches etc, but these are broad categories. There are a few knots classified more tightly, but not many. The four bends based on intertwining overhands are one clearcut group (Zeppelin, Alpine Butterfly, Ashley and Hunter).

Ashley frequently describes how one knot evolves from parts of another, which I find very useful. eg He notes a figure 8 is just an additional half turn over the standing part compared to an overhand, and a Stevedore is just an additional turn added to the figure 8, although I can’t find where he describe additional turns (these are elsewhere termed “heaving line knots” or incorrectly “Franciscan monk’s knots”).

Anyway, knots are intriguing and fun puzzles. Nice to learn new skills too .

SWL

[Juho]

I found it easier to do the trick when starting from the bowline. The other direction took more of my time. Anyone with similar experiences?

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I wasted even more time trying to change a bowline into an Oysterman’s. The trick is to loosen the junction, then tug the tail in just the right direction and instantly a loose Oysterman’s appears. If the tail is pulled the wrong way, it just never converts properly. It is quite satisfying to find one knot transforms in seconds to the other if the right bits are pulled.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Juho

According to the authors of this book there are 85 ways to tie a tie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_85_Ways_to_Tie_a_Tie

They used math to prove that.

Stale news, I'm afraid Juho!

Hirsch and others (including some from not that far away from you) published work in 2015 that came up with a figure of more than 4,000 ways to tie a necktie.

I should be able to attach it here (for about 24 hours): see Hirsch et al - More ties - 2015.pdf.

[Juho]

I think they used some criteria on which knots are accepted as proper tie knots (simple enough). There must be an infinite number of tie knots, if you are very liberal with what you accept as a tie knot. For example a common tie knot with some additional decorative knot at the working end could be classified as a new tie knot. Or one could add loops around the neck and call all these (infinite number of) variants new tie knots. I guess we need to set some limits to what we accept as proper tie knots.

In the "general theory of knots" maybe we should start e.g. from SWL's classification, from one overhand based knots, then double overhand based etc. to get a reasonable classification that can be used also to determine which knots are "reasonably simple".

Thanks for the link to the pdf.

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Stale news, I'm afraid Juho!

Hirsch and others (including some from not that far away from you) published work in 2015 that came up with a figure of more than 4,000 ways to tie a necktie.

I should be able to attach it here (for about 24 hours): see Hirsch et al - More ties - 2015.pdf.

[Juho]

I checked the instructions of ABOK #1010. It is not very clear if the (short) working end is supposed to exit the loop in one direction or the other. In the attached figure the middle image maybe tells us where the working end should go if it is very long. It is not easy to see if the working end goes below or above the segment of rope that the hand holds in its palm. If the working end goes below that segment (this seems more probable), then the knot is topologically similar to #526 (or its mirror image). If not, then the knots are different.

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, finally got it. ABOK# 526 does not collapse into ABOK#1010.


It does collapse into a mirror image of ABOK#1010 which is an equally valid Bowline, just not the way I tie it, so I had difficulty visualising the result


Similarly, I think your "mirror ABOK #526" collapses into ABOK #1010.


Fascinating - I've wasted far to much time on this

[44'cruisingcat]

A guy I've been doing some boatbuilding work for has tied his bowlines this way for decades. (He's 70)

Showed me it last year, been using this method on and off since.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Juho

I checked the instructions of ABOK #1010. It is not very clear if the (short) working end is supposed to exit the loop in one direction or the other. In the attached figure the middle image maybe tells us where the working end should go if it is very long. It is not easy to see if the working end goes below or above the segment of rope that the hand holds in its palm.

Neither. The downward working end exits "inside" the adjacent upward leg.


It's clearer in the third illustration (the arrow just show how the grip and tension the knot). It's also clearer in #1011, the seized version (Standing Bowline).


If the working end is longer than the loop, it is immaterial whether you tail it in front of or behind the loop.

[Juho]

If "inside" means inside / in the middle of the created bowline loop, I think that is how one should see the position of the short working end, when seen from the bowline philosophy point of view.

There may however be problems when we transform the bowline to an oysterman’s stopper. The (bowline) loop will be tightened, and depending on which side of the short working end the loop will be tightened, we will have two different kind of stopper knots (two alternatives).

If we say that bowline "doesn't care" on which side (of the loop) the short end is theoretically supposed to be, and we say that it can be transformed to a stopper knot, then it can be transformed to either of the stopper knots, and therefore also the stopper knots can be transformed to each others.

And now it appears that the transformation process can include also making an extra dive under one of the segments of the knot (that is the difference between the two stopper knots). That would be the same as saying that an overhand knot can be transformed to a double overhand knot.

Maybe that was not the intention of these transformations. Maybe the idea was to keep the ends in ones hand or otherwise tied to some fixed point when transforming the knot to another knot. And in the bowline that could mean, that one must decide from which direction (which side of the loop) the short end is "held", although from a working bowline knot point of view that is a quite irrelevant question. But if you want to define transformations, you need to decide which actions are allowed and which ones not.

In #1011 the end is tied to one other segment of the knot. The end of the rope forms a loop. Maybe this knot should be seen as a knot for a rope with a loop. Or alternatively the loop formation procedure is seen as part of making that knot, in which case the position of the end of the rope can be said to be "tied to the adjacent segment". I guess transformations do not allow untying that connection. If this is the case, the topology and classification of #1011 are probably considered different from #1010.

Originally Posted by StuM

Neither. The downward working end exits "inside" the adjacent upward leg.


It's clearer in the third illustration (the arrow just show how the grip and tension the knot). It's also clearer in #1011, the seized version (Standing Bowline).


If the working end is longer than the loop, it is immaterial whether you tail it in front of or behind the loop.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I am finding all this talk of Granny knots highly stressful. Would you like an introduction to a good friend of mine, the Zeppelin bend? I am sure I would be able to persuade you to switch teams.

SWL

Thanks Seaworthy Lass for the introduction. It is always great to learn something new everyday and be smarter for it.

A Zeppelin bend (a.k.a. Rosendahl bend) is a general-purpose bend knot. It is a secure, easily tied, and jam-resistant way to connect two ropes. Though its simplicity and security may be matched by other bends, it is unique in the ease with which it is untied, even after heavy loading, by pulling the opposing bridges away from each other.

Hey and the Zeppelin bend looks like it would work well for my boot laces as it will untie easier than my Great Granny.

There is a lot of science in knots, never new as I typically too often just make a jumble of it and revert to just a few known and tried types.

[Seaworthy Lass]

We have almost non existent internet in out new anchorage, so I apologise for the delay replying.

I rowed ashore and am having a beer in the local hotel while checking emails, weather, etc .

44’cruisingcat, my husband also ties a bowline in a similar manner (starting with an overhand slip knot), but the initial pass under the standing end is not needed.

Juho, I struggled transforming the bowline only because I was pulling the tail on the wrong side initially. It was frustrating that it did not produce the same stopper. As you have written, the side it emerges is critical in transforming one knot to the other. Stu is right though, in a bowline the side is immaterial. Imagine a big loop where the tail is shorter than half the loop’s circumference. The tail does not fall on either side then. If you form a bowline using an overhand slip knot, the technique can be simplified for this reason.

SWL