Talk:Knot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Requests

Jamming definition

Can someone explain in the article what jamming and non-jamming mean? As in the Alpine butterfly knot is a non-jamming loop on the bight. --Audiovideo 02:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am in the process of writing a new section tentatively entitled "Knot Properties" which will encompass how knots behave after they're tied -- it will include a discussion of security, capsizing, jamming, releasing, etc. -- Dfred 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Knot Strength Citations

Most of the hard information in the Knot Strength section I recently added comes from The History and Science of Knots for which I added a ref at the bottom of the article. Specifically it comes from Chapter 10, "Studies on the Behaviour of Knots" written by Charles Warner. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so if someone more experienced could suggest (or implement :) a reasonable citation method to use here I'd appreciate it. TNX -- Dfred 20:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General

I noticed no reference whatsoever to the use of the word "knot" to mean a large wad of bills, generally kept in most urban street entrepeneur's front pant pocket. The wad of bills from a side view resembles layered fibers of an actual rope, while creating an impenetrable dense mass.



Are you spelunking?, having foolishly but voluntarily buried yourself pre-maturely under millions of tons of rock?

Whilst I doubt this has a place in a serious encyclopedia, it kept me amused...

I felt that the basic terms like "bight" were better included in the main entry, so I killed my brand new bight article and stuck it and a few other definitions (wiki not dictionary) in a bulleted list.

I started to do the same to the categories of knots, but backed off when I looked at loop. I still think these terms would be better defined within the main entry. Hearing no objections, I'll probably continue to make these changes, taking care not to make a mess.

Also, how about some sub-categories in that looooong list of knot names? Ortolan88 June 02

Just figured out how 'Talk' works. I am pleased to have the above observations either anonymous or from you Ortolan88.

I am very new to this endeavor and I am still learning the Wiki editing, such as how to embed my handle Satsun, thanks Ortolan88.

like "bight" ... I agree and hope the picture assists. We can keep a brief inline definition and add a link to a more replete link later.

The second observation is right on the mark. I would like to see the categories turned to links and therein will be sub-lists of knots that fall into those categories. Many knots, of course, will appear in multiple lists.

I feel that a comphrensive master list of knots needs to exist for our users. I am hoping to provide a standard look to the pictures. Later adding articles/pictures showing intermediate steps to tying each knot.

A useful list of reference materials is need: Ashley's Book of Knots... A short list of the most practical knots all should know: overhand, figure eight, bowline, constrictor...

Its knot to late to add more good ideas. Satsun, 18 JUNE 2002

Good luck to the person/persons who have taken it upon themselves to complete this part of the pedia. richhill

Hey, Satsun, I like moving the full list of knots out of the article, but how about a short list of knots for the main article, "the eight great knots everyone should know how to tie" or something like that, overhand, square knot (and its buddy the shoe-tying bow), sheet bend, two half-hitches, bowline, figure-of-eight (I knew you knew what you were doing when you didn't call it "figure-eight"), etc. Ortolan88

I have one problem with that. The 'should' in the title seems a bit too prescriptive for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. But that's nothing that can't be solved with a bit of rewording. -- Ellmist

Eight great knots. I don't know that anyone would really get upset by a "should", but ...Ortolan88

hi, Ortolan88/Ellmist,
Please go ahead and add your list. A comment and link to the fellow that has the speed record for tying the the "Scout" knots would also be interesting.
Satsun, Sunday, July 14, 2002

Hi Satsun. I modified your template a little bit to start with a sentence explaining that the entry is a type of knot. I had to read halfway down the Sheepshank page before I realized it was talking about a knot. -- Nate

This article really needs to be split, with a knot disambiguation at the top. Egil 09:04 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

You might try to move the top 7 or so knot properties into a table, and leave the main section for history, descriptions, tying tips, proper usage, etc. I do not like the header format - the headers are too large for such small bits of information. Also, the grey and black illustrations are very clear and easy to read. The unprofessional pictures of tightened knots i.e Trucker's_hitch can be somewhat unclear (my apologies to the photographer - those who can't do, whine & complain), although the properly lit shots i.e Figure-of-eight knot can be both attractive and informative.

bowline links to slip knot as part of directions on how to tie it "lighting fast". Unfortunately, this redirects to knot, which doesn't seem to have directions on how to tie a slip knot. *sigh* --Johnleemk 10:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article is accompanied by a beautiful picture of several knots, conveniently numbered, and I have no idea what any of them are (and since I'm moving, and haven't yet unpacked from moving here, I couldn't tell you where I've put Clifford Ashley). ♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:04, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • 2) I updated the caption. number 4 still has me stuck but it sure does look like a 'rosebud' stopper. TheHungryTiger 22:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Ortolan88 .. Dear Sir i think that your idea of eight knots or bends and hitches ,that every one should know is great,but please put in the safe ones, not ones like the blackwall hitch or midshipmans hitch,that will slip if there is any oil on or in the rope,allso, the easy ones,that you can tie in a force eight gale,on a black wet night, Regards Ratty876 ...

Knots, Splices and Rope Work on Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg recently posted Knots, Splices and Rope Work, by A. Hyatt Verrill which has many illustrations which could be used for the knot pages. -- Jim Regan 19:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reorganized this discussion in an attempt to make it more readable. Hopefully I have not distorted any of the comments, etc.--my sincere apologies if I have. BoomHitch 03:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting for subtopics

Knot name is a type of knot.

Canonical Name:.
Variant Name(s): None.
[completed picture]
Category: bend.binding.coil.decorative.hitch.lashing.loop on the end.loop on the bight.noose.plaits.stopper.seizing,sennit.whipping.
Origin: Ancient.Modern.Old.Unknown.
Related knots: to other knots
Releasing: Jamming. Non-jamming.
Efficiency: Unknown%.60%.
Caveat: None.spills.slips.secure if wet.not secure if wet.Low efficiency.Difficult to tie.
Uses: Forming other knots, Boating, Fishing, Climbing, Caving, Securing objects, Securing to objects.
Comments:
Structure: ex. Figure-of-eight knot
Tying: article/pictures

Proposal: Template

Reef knot
Image:Sqrknot.png
Names Reef knot, Square knot
Efficiency 80%
Origin ancient
Typical use Sailing

Other wikipedia pages use some type of template for information which is laid-out in the same way across many articles, leaving the page itself freeform for writing about that specific item.

Wiki guidelines on information boxes has a few examples

Howabout something like that for knots? Ojw 19:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I like it. Thanks for the work. It can always be modified for aesthetics later (that's the beauty of templates--no pun intended) (I would prefer a different color for the top line, perhaps some color added to the knot picture (sorry, I must be asleep)). BoomHitch 07:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Would anyone be intereted in reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Knots? Samw 03:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Knots are really hurting for an infobox. I'm mildly interested in reviving the project, but I don't see it as anything more than a standards committee. --Smack (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


For lack of comment, I think I'm going to start converting knot articles to the infobox format. --Smack (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but have spent many years playing with and studying knots -- and there really is no such thing as a true "Canonical Name" for every knot — even just in English — let alone in worldwide usage. Some knots like the bowline are very close to canonical, but for most there are at least two or three in common usage (and sometimes conflicting usage) throughout the English speaking world. Really the closest anyone has to canonical identification for knots are the Ashley reference numbers. They are what are used in scholaraly works on knots to unabiguously idenitfy them. I'm not suggesting they be at the top in place of the Name or anything, but I believe there should be a field in the infobox for them. And often multiple Ashley numbers will cover the same knot for different uses, so the field description should be "Ashley Numbers" rather than the singluar. And, also, I just added a section on knot strength detailing some of the pitfalls of assigning specific values to knot efficiency. Clearly some knots are better than other and I would propose that a coarse rating scheme be used like good/average/poor rather than putting specific numbers in for efficiency. Just my initial thoughts. Since I do have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the subject I've decided to be bold in my editing. If anybody thinks it's out of hand, just let me know.  :) --Dfred 22:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Your edits have been fine. And in case you didn't notice, the post about an infobox effort was several months ago, so I wouldn't hold your breath at this point. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote about a score of knot articles to the infobox format, but then I realized that the infobox has serious problems, so I stopped. However, I think that I can address Dfred's confusion about the "efficiency": I believe that it measures how much the knot degrades the rope's strength. Thus, if you use a 100-lb-test line to tie a knot with an efficiency of 60%, you should expect the line to break at 60 lb. --Smack (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the massive scale of the needed work is beginning to dawn on me... I noticed one other person recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Knots and I've been trying to get my feet wet before contacting those folks who've expressed an interest in the past. Regarding knot efficiency, see the Knot#Strength section I recently added for the basis of my comments. A bulk citation for that section at the top of this talk page, but I wasn't sure what style to start using on this page since there really weren't too many cites in the body of the article. --Dfred 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backwards taut-line hitch?

Most pictures I've seen of this knot show the final half-hitch tossed in reverse of the way the photo (on the page linked to through this intro. article) demonstrates, in this case being thrown "over and under" instead of the "under and over" shown. Either way, it tightens pretty well, but I wonder which version is correct, and which holds better. Sfahey 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The instructions on how to tie a taut-line hitch conform to what you say. Furthermore, the two half-hitches article says that the two half hitches should face in opposite directions, but I don't know whether or not that actually matters for the taut-line hitch. --Smack (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I got a headache trying to follow those loops around. Sfahey 02:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Supposedly, the correct two half-hitches resembles a clove hitch rather than a cow hitch. --Smack (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe the main issue here is one of nomenclature, which is a big problem in general for knotting... Two similar friction hitches are often tied around the standing part of a rope resulting functionally in a "taut-line hitch", they are: the Rolling Hitch (Ashley #1734) and the Magnus Hitch (#1736). It is possible that BSA or some other organization considers the Rolling Hitch version "correct", but they are both equivalently secure if worked up properly. Personally I'm in agreement with Ashley that the Magnus Hitch (which is pictured) lays better and has somewhat less propensity to roll. I will also put this comment in Talk:Taut-line_hitch and attempt to clarify in that article that both forms should probably be considered valid. --Dfred 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is now occurring in Talk:Taut-line_hitch and further comments should probably go there.--Dfred 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've made a stab at trying to address the various tying methods at Taut-line hitch#Variations. --Dfred 05:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "How to" tie knots

Per WP:NOT#IINFO: "Wikipedia articles should not ... contain "how-to"s." Thus, in order to comply with the official policy, we should think about removing all how-to and tying instructions from Knot articles. I personally wish it weren't so, but that is the policy. Dddstone 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But the five pillars include a policy to ignore any policy that doesn't make sense. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, we avoid how-tos because, in most cases, the way to do something does not intrinsically characterize the thing itself. This is not the case with knots. The sequence of manipulations that forms a knot describes its topology. However, we should follow this policy, at least in part, by only listing one procedure to tie any knot. --Smack (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this issue up... After reading WP:NOT thoroughly for the first time a month or so ago I must admit I was discouraged. I started to question whether my knot documentation efforts are best directed into Wikipedia. The WP:NOT policy clearly exists for some very good reasons, but understanding how exceptions are handled would make me feel somewhat better. As wrp103 and Smack noted above, it does seem like there's some room for interpretation regarding knot tying methods in WP. However I am concerned there are some folks who seem to take the no how-to policy quite literally and could later negate a great deal of effort on knotting articles. I think it would be much easier to entice new serious contributors (say, some IGKT members) if this issue can be hashed-out to a reasonable degree -- nobody wants to see their good faith work junked...
It does seem to me that full-fledged, properly referenced knot articles are indeed suitable for an encyclopedia. I definitely agree that common sense would suggest that the process of tying a knot is intrinsically connected to a full description of a knot and that an article should be considered incomplete without a basic tying description. I'd be interested in feedback from more experienced wikipedians regarding whether project-specific guidelines are an appropriate and reliable way to codify a project's self-regulation and justification in cases of a systemic borderline policy issue in the project's articles? --Dfred 20:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Even though I just proposed that we violate the how-to policy, I'm sure that much knotting information does belong on Wikibooks. I would like to discuss our options with some policy experts before we proceed. Should we post on the WP:NOT talk page? Village pump? Request for comment? --Smack (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and entries about knots in other encyclopedias explain or show how to tie them. The how-to clause of WP:NOT is a special case of the "indiscriminate collection" section. Explaining in a knot article how to tie that knot is no more "indiscriminate" than having the article in the first place. The purpose of WP:NOT is to keep the project directed toward making an encyclopedia, not to destroy the usefulness of encyclopedic articles. Gazpacho 01:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the method of tying a knot is integral to a description of it, I just want to make sure that we keep within the written policy, or else it may get out of hand and some deletionist will come by and have all of the content removed. Keeping the policy in mind will prevent having to rewrite in the future. Dddstone 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What if we ask for an exception? --Smack (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't a bureacracy. Don't worry about the possibility of someone messing up knot articles because of a weird policy interpretation until it happens. And certainly don't do it yourself in anticipation. Gazpacho 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a big bureaucratic hullabaloo. I'm just suggesting that we point out our situation in advance, so that we don't shock the policy nuts later on. I'm actually surprised that they haven't torn the knot pages apart already. --Smack (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I added Wikipedia:WikiProject_Knots#Writing about methods and usage to the draft guidelines. --Dfred 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fishing knots

Very bad idea to merge Fishing knots into Knots. Once the Fishing knots article is done it will be too large for merging, believe me. CyberAnth 10:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get an approximate date (range) on when it will be at least stub class? − Twas Now 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knot Theory

Regarding this sentence from the intro:

Knots have been the subject of interest both for their ancient origins, common use, and the mathematical implications of knot theory.

The knots in knot theory are different from the knots spoken of in this article. The mathematical "knots" refer to an abstract object that looks like a string joined at both ends. But the thing is that this article has no mention, and probably shouldn't have any mention, of such knots. (such knots are rarely used in practical knot tying). And the study of knot theory I'm pretty sure was not motivated by practical knot tying, and has nothing to do with it. Why mathematicians are interested in it I don't know, I think its something abstract, and was only called knot theory because of a very superficial resemblance. So I don't think knot theory is really at all related to this article, and the mention doesn't really belong. What does everyon think?Brentt 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should an article called "Knot" only discuss issues related to practical knot tying? I agree that mathematical knot theory should only occupy a small portion of this article, but a mathematical knot is a type of knot, after all. I think that the brief mention in the lead and the tiny paragraph toward the end are fine as is. VectorPosse 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
mathematical knots, sufficiently "nice" ones at least, are in fact knots pretty much in the sense of this article. so to say "it was only called knot theory because of a very superficial resemblance" is not quite right. however i do agree with Brentt that the remarks on knot theory in the current version of the article looks very much out of place. to go from rope splicing to a, however brief, discussion of the Alexander polynomial makes for an abrupt and awkward transition. maybe one can replace the remarks with a see also link to the knot theory article. Mct mht 05:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)