Nautile aka Charles Hamel's personal pages
page 14
page 1    page 2     page 3    page 4     page 5    page 6    page 7   page 8
  page 9   page 10    page 11   page 12   page 13    page 14


Added 2011 Feb 5th

ON the influence of the TRACING PAPER used on the quality of the

This is a companion file to the precedent article just here under. ( note added 2013 oct 25th
2013 oct 25th : I just received a mail from Gilles Caron ( QUEBEC  )in reference to Fig 2 in
this document
[open quote]...Anyway, here is the link to the different drawing for the Ashey 2217 that you
were/are looking for in page 14 on your site.      ...
[end quote] )

Download it and rename it to SomeName.PDFor open it with "open
Due to the fact that several of my documents ( pdf, jpeg) have been stolen by other sites I
now use a trick ; instead of SomeName.PDF I put for download SomeName.FPD
It is a less than 700Ko  file (download so mere seconds of download time even with a
1.024Mbps connection)


Added 2011 January 17th


Here  is a more than 45 pages pdf. A remark by Jan VOS about a Nono's grid is the
starting point of it. 
Download it and rename it to SomeName.PDF
It is a 3.8Mo file (download time less than 10 seconds on a 10Mbps
connection and  less than 50 seconds with a 1.024Mbps)
Due to the fact that several of my documents ( pdf, jpeg) have been stolen by other sites I
now use a trick ; instead of SomeName.PDF I put for download SomeName.FPD

Please, keep in mind a very important caveat :
Usually when writing I do it from a formal point of view,  with (hopefully) " the general" as
target and not "the particular".
That is the way I was trained.

I have written several digital programs for cylindrical knots and I can tell you that the only
notation that make sense is exclusively the one using digits and numbers and certainly no

From a pragmatical, expedient, 'go as you are pushed' and personal point of view the best
notation most often is not the 'most pure and robust", the one that can be computerized but
it is the one the user will feel more at ease with.

In that sense there is no good or bad notations, just notations that work or do not work.
Personaly when doing a knot in the cordage I don't even bother with labelling the PINs :
I just need to identify the START pin on each edge and compute the PIN-STEP. 
I just have to give my full attention to the coding of the HP.

Problems arise, with those non-general, particular, expedient  notation, when a knot is
to be "transmitted" to someone else, then the only safe ground is "general convention just
as for a computer".

I studied alone for months on end before getting my hands on The Braider and later on the
At the time of my lonely exploration it was not rare that I used half a dozen stenographic
blocs and several pencils per week. (results are in my web pages turkshead prior to N° 10
or 11 IIRC.)
Reading Schaake a Turner when I finally got my hands on those works made me realize
my approximation in tracing and notations procedures that had been hiding several important
facts from an easy and almost immediate perception.

We need to distinguish TWO different logical levels of discussion here if we are to hope
for mutual understanding :

--- one logical level is : 'personal idiosyncratic pragmatical notation, the one favoured
because it is clearest for me IN ACTION'

---second logical level is : 'I want to be able to transmit that knot to persons who each
have their "own personal clearest system" '.
Then it becomes evident that a formal common ground is to be used.
This common language *must* cover *all and every* personal particular system.
This common ground is a computerisable one using only numbered reference that even
a computer can use !

Let us suppose that I am to discuss the possible pharmaceutical drugs treatment of a
particular diagnose with medical collegues from all over the world.

We have no common language for the whole of us.
This will not be a  conversation it will just be a bedlam!

How can we proceed without risking a communication break?

Simple enough:

--- specify the diagnose using the OMS coding : CIM-1O Revision 10 in French  or
ICD-10 in English as in International Classification of Diseases.
Each of us can have a language version he understands.
For exemple codes beginning by A00 to B99 pertain to infectious or parasitic illness.

if I send J02.0X-001 then every one of us will KNOW FOR CERTAIN withou any
possible ambiguity  that it is Angine àStreptocoques or Streptococcal sore throat
Now we know what we have to treat while if each of us has given the diagnose in
his own language it would have been impossible (name change from country to country
for many illness!).
Still we are not yet out of the woods.
If each of us gives the commercial brand name used in his country nothing will be possible.
So how do we proceed.
Use the chemical CID  (Common International Denomination)

Beginning to see why personal, localized system are always vastly inferior to a
generalized system?

Same thingit is here, the numbered notation (Schaake's) is a sort of INTER-PERSONAL
(trans-personal) notation that has "general meaning".
It is so general that even a computer can use it through economic command lines directly
using digits  and numbers while letters have to be "translated "into digits and numbers" ;-)



Go to page 15 of  bat's belfry

Copyright 2005 Sept - Charles Hamel / Nautile -
Overall rewriting in August 2006 . Copyright renewed. 2007-2014 -(each year)

Url :