Why am I knot surprised that Terry new 3000 knots at one time when he was
younger.

Regards to all "bunny loopers," an elegant sub-concept to the making of the
Bow.

Jerry


On 8/18/07 6:49 PM, "Terence" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Ken,
>
> Before you apologize too well, it might be worth having a re-think. I feel
> your intuition about the issue is correct and makes your point connecting
> design research and everyday issues, and that many everyday issues are
> matters of design activity.
>
> Something you perhaps missed is that there is already a well established
> subfield of professional design to do with knots and knot typologies. It's a
> significant if hidden design research area and of contemporary as well as
> historical significance. Many countries in the world that produce textiles,
> such as Bangladesh, depend for a large part of their GDP on the output of
> contemporary knot design research. Knot design research contributes for
> example to automated towel making - the knots by which the loops are made
> are novel and complex (and the machinery for making them more so). Another
> key area of knot design is surgical procedures which require knots that
> achieve particular roles in difficult materials and environments and must be
> capable of being tied accurately and correctly under pressure. Fashion
> knitwear ( high fashion and automated) is another area of intense activity
> in knot design - particularly in the areas of automation and tuck stitches.
> You can imagine the complexity of knot and machinery design that enables a
> whole body suit to be automatically knitted/knotted in one piece in response
> to fashion design converted into software instructions, perhaps with ornate
> integrated stitchwort. I've a good research student working on this area on
> a combination of projects involving at one end the mathematics of designing
> automated knot-based garment shaping (will be published soon!) and at the
> other, integrating the processes of fashion knitwear design, textile design,
> and yarn design with the design of software programming for producing
> 'Wholegarment' (TM) knitted fashions. It's a fascinating topic area.
>
> Yes, of course it is possible to design a knot and to describe the design
> accurately and unambiguously. The bible is Ashley, C. W. (1947). The Ashley
> Book of Knots. [With plates.]: pp. x. 620. Faber & Faber: London. Many knots
> are patented and thus described exactly as you requested in your offer. A
> typical example is this one (United States Patent 5573286):
>
> <snip>A knot formed by providing a bight in a strand, then forming a lark's
> head in the bight so as to produce a pair of adjacent loops and a pair of
> free ends extending from the loops, then passing the free ends around the
> object and passing them through both said loops in series, and then tying at
> least one overhand hitch in the free ends to resist any forces tending to
> pull the free ends back through the loops. The knot is useful in orthopedic
> surgical procedures.<endsnip>
>
> Knot designers start with a design brief. They draw on experience,
> mathematics, stress analysis, current knot-testing data relating to a wide
> range of thread and cordage types, and the current knot design discourses to
> design or choose knots for particular purposes. Of particular interest is
> the strong connections between knot design and various areas of mathematics
> particularly Topology and Design Theory. This latter is a long established
> area of mathematics that only recently became connected with design research
> (in the 70s) through the work of Christopher Alexander. There is a strong
> connection between the pattern approach of mathematical Design Theory to the
> 'Pattern Language' of Alexander et al.
>
> Your offer was genuine and sensible. The material to respond to your
> challenge is readily available and makes your point. Perhaps a slightly
> better challenge would have been to ask for a description of the design of a
> new knot for a particular purpose.
>
> Arise sir ken - you are forgiven.
>
> Terry
>
> PS.
>
> For those who insist on designing objects rather than knots
>
> Device for tying double bow knot (United States Patent 4342557)
> <snip>
> A device is provided which can be used as an educational means for teaching
> young children how to tie a double bow knot, particularly in their shoe
> laces, or as an aid to the handicapped child lacking sufficient manual
> dexterity in tying such a knot. Basically the device is a planar body member
> in which is provided two pairs of spaced-apart openings in alignment with
> one another, the two intermediate openings being connected by a narrow
> opening or slit. The device allows "bunny ear" loops to be formed in the
> intermediate spaced-apart openings and to form the double bow knot by making
> a simple overhand knot with the two "bunny ear" loops. <endsnip>
>
> PPS. Both examples are from http://www.freepatentsonline.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
> Friedman
> Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2007 11:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Repentent Award Sponsor
>
> Gosh, Friends.
>
> When I put forward the competition, it was a pendant to a substantive note
> to Ben. I intended it as kind of a "put my money where my mouth is" comment
> on the jovial "I bet" phrase.
>
> Now I agree with Chris and others -- Ranjan, Jerry, Gunnar, Ben, Andrew,
> Norm, Juris -- on many of the comments and issues put forward here. The only
> two issues where I clearly disagree involve my assumptions and the purpose
> of the challenge. It was my intention to illuminate something about the
> boundaries of design and to show that an ordinary workaday event might,
> under some circumstances, qualify as design. I offered the challenge by way
> of proving that point, and demonstrating that the planning process for such
> an event might actually involve careful conceptualization and professional
> skill.
>
> Chris's last post suggested that we must not atomize holistic processes. I
> agree. The challenge did not atomize a large process, but attempted to
> describe a small one. It's a modest case, allowing us to shape what Andy
> diSessa calls "humble theory." Of course, that might even be too big a word
> ...
>
> At any rate, I am not going to wiggle out of the offer -- the offer stands,
> and I'll pay up if anyone wants to send a proposal to Chris that the three
> judges agree on as sufficient. Terry's interesting comment startled me. I
> didn't realize it was possible to describe shoelace tying in a way the seems
> to pass muster but doesn't. But I'm no expert. That's why I'll ask the three
> judges to look things over if anyone sends in a proposal.
>
> This thread has run its useful course here, at least for me, though others
> may have something to add. I won't be responding again on the competition.
> And Chris will get a dinner at Nonna's no matter what happens. I'm
> interested in the menu and I want some company.
>
> But I will be careful before I propose anything this provocative again.
> There have been hints that this was trick or something worse, an idle
> notion. As Paul says,
>
> Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels
> disqualify you for the prize.
> Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his
> unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.
>
> -- Colossians 2:18
>
> These are the words of a designer and craftsman, a tent maker by trade. Of
> course, he was ALSO a theologian. Go figure.
>
> Ken

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant

    Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
           and Community Service € University of Oregon
    2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
    € e-mail: [log in to unmask]
    € web: http://www.uoregon.edu/~diethelm

    € 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
    € 541-206-2947 work/cell