Nautile aka Charles Hamel's personal pages
MENU
 _______________
MY BAT'S BELFRY !
page 18
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    page 15    page 16   
page 17   page 19  page 20

 
 _______________

CAVEAT : I AM NOT THE CREATOR OF ARIANE AND GET NO MONEY FROM IT. THE AUTHOR IS CLAUDE HOCHET


Added 2012 December 18th 

THE  SIMPLETONS GANG  STRIKES AGAIN


They are doing it again  6 MONTHS  AFTER THEIR FIRST BLUNDER OF STELLAR MAGNITUDE at the beginning of 2012  (  read in French    read in English  topic from beginning of March)  

simpleton == in French it is not an insult but a description.
'Simplet' it is in in French which according to CNRTL means :
a bit simple-minded, missing the complexity of reality.

Simplet is in French the name of one of the 7 dwarves, I think
it is Dopey in America ; I prefer Simplet to Dopey that evokes a bit too much : "dazed with drugs".)


Those dull persons
(as opposed to "bright" or "brilliant" or "shining") are quite unable to really go forward making notable evolution, progress.
They appear to me to be quite Dodgsonian or Alician or Carrollian :
they run faster and faster just to remain at the same place ( or about).
Chapter II - The Garden of Live Flowers in Through The Looking Glass
[open quote]
 'Well, in OUR country,' said Alice, still panting a little, 'you'd generally get to somewhere else—if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'

'A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. 'Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'
[end quote]

As an encouragement I gladly offer to them this and also  that to serve as
encouragement and friendly advice.



It has now been a year and a half that ARIANE is publicly available to knot-tyers as a fully functional software but the gang is promising ( 'promised, sworn, spat' as goes a popular French expression ) again and again  a 'Oh! coming real soon" U.S equivalent.

God, whose ways are said to be impenetrable, alone knows why they are doing that since their Grid Maker is already so terribly inferior to RKnot Builder. RKnot Builder handles REGULAR CYLINDRICAL KNOTS of the FOUR TYPES OF CODING
(not at all the case with their Grid Maker "thing" ) and it is for me readily understandable why they don't dare to offer their produce for a pricing other than for FREE.
Actually it is not worth much, neither as an item to be purchased ( My old HP48-GX program or EXCEL worksheets are wildly more powerful ; alas with no pretty image, just the HP coding of any type of coding ), nor in term of REGULAR CYLINDRICAL KNOTS scope.
Those knots include the THK that have a Row AND Column coding 
strictly O1-U1,
but also, on the same cordage route as THK knots : exclusive COLUMN coding,
exclusive ROW coding and NEITHER Row NOR Column coding..

Just try, 
using Grid Maker,  to do ALL that  RKnot Builder empower you to do and tell me what happened to you.
I feel that I am not finished pissing my pants while laughing !



The public release of their other software for their so-called """"interweaves""" is still pending after months and months  and........and months and... !!!
BUT REJOICE, REJOICE, REJOICE!  IT IS FREE !



The public release of their ALL-AMERICAN PSEUDO-Ariane, always promised and 
promised again and again but always postponed, is still "coming any day soon" -unless one counts their lamentable present results as a valid copy, in which case it is either being a fool of the worst kind or knowing nothing about the capabilities of Ariane, or both!

Their ambition is to get a free software
for their so-called """"interweaves""".

They revel in the use of  this magical and 'gri-gri'  word : """interweaves"""".

A word that hides so well a vast vista of ignorance as their so-called """"interweaves"""" are NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL KNOTS and there exist quite a lot of those with specific names and specific (mathematical) characteristics allowing to separate one from the other without being arbitrary.

 Saying """"interweaves"""" propos of those knots is like saying " something that cuts" to precisely identify : surgeon scalpel, surgery scissors,  dressmaking scissors, wood chisel, kitchen knife , glass cutter, nail cutter, razor blade, razor, switch-blade knife, fixed blade knife, gravity knife, throwing knife, scimitar,cutlass, katana....


They want a tool for free !  

Well they get what is available for free : not very much but still it feels as if each
failure or semi-failure certainly feels like quite an accomplishment for the gang
members !


Let us hope the stingy guys with pockets full of sea urchins - that explains why they are so afraid to  put  their hands in their pockets for a few Euros- will, in the months or years to come  -  get for free something that, hopefully, will be a wee bit closer to what ARIANE offers.
 
ARIANE V3 ( in the final polishing workshop with test users who don't even get a user's manual for the test) offers a wide scope and range of tools for the manipulation of  crossings and colours and also, completing the main automated process, a special mode of manual placing of PINS for IRREGULAR NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL KNOTS.

V2 has no manual PIN placing mode nor colour manipulation :  it was thought desirable to leave users time to fully train themselves on those knots, anyway it felt  foolish to reveal "all" at one go.
Buyers were never tricked : the purchase of any one version entitle them to all versions past, present, future at no extra cost, and that since the very beginning of going "public" (ARIANE had already been in existence as a private toy well before being put 'on line' for the general public)

ARIANE V3 offers to users a complete control over the crossings ( TYPE, inversion, standardisation ) and over the colours of those crossings and that with several mode : by single crossing, by full ROW , by full COLUMN, by full HALF-PERIOD and that is not taking in consideration the manual placing of PINS mode that is so easy to use once that you have conceived the complete "blueprint of the characteristics" of the desired knot.


Those slow-witted guys still have not realised that one must keep three essentials concepts  in mind when tackling those knots : CORDAGE ROUTE, PATTERN OF CODING, COLOURS PATTERN (see this pdf and the "allied" topics in this page)
ARIANE does conform to that so that on the same CORDAGE ROUTE you can apply the CODING PATTERN of your choice, and on a given CODING PATTERN you can apply the COLOURS PATTERN of your choice.


I do prefer to pay the modest sum of 40 Euros (for all versions past, present and future ; which in addition save me the purchase of a score of books ; as for the pricing just compare with some CD or "tube" tools ! ) )  to get a licensed  ARIANE to cluttering my PC hard-drive with junk like theirs, certainly "free" but with no interest as at the moment, it is still awfully  inferior in quality and power ; moreover it seems that nobody except its creators are able to use it due it seems, from what I understand, to the hard task of explaining in a simple manner how to use it with ease.


ARIANE, is a great tool for any interested person of normal intelligence and education who takes the small trouble of reading the manual during their training period and, of courses,who knows the different NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL KNOTS and do not globalized their appellation as """interweaves""".



 
Here is their marvellous and impressive grid.
(In my real opinion the  "marvellous and impressive" is actually quite 2nd degree and even 7th, may be more and much more ! )


At least  for this attempt to impress persons at large they were slightly less silly and, this time, they made sure
that the connection of the right side with the lefts is properly done and there exist "continuity" in a given strand  mouse click here !



First quick survey.
Their approach does not facilitates the dissection of this grid
even for someone used since quite a bit of time to the study of those NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL KNOTS.

One could even say that ithis approach really enjoys accumulating the  visual obstacles to deliberately ( or if not deliberate then they are even more limited in skill that I ever thought them to be ) interfere and hinder the quality control by onlookers.




Their PIN numbering is utterly inefficient and rather childish leading to it being not congruent with their table.
They are so desperately ignorant of the reality of the structure that their strands do not even close on themselves in their table : example pin 16 instead of joining with PIN 1 is said to be joining PIN 17 that DOES NOT EVEN EXIST ON THE GRID !
They do not give the smallest sign of being intellectually shocked by that absurd discrepancy.

This goes too for PIN  34, 51, 68, 85, 102 which are non existent.

Instead of those asinine numbers it should be ( in order to close the strand on itself )  
16 with 1 and not 17  ;
33 with 18 and not 34 ;
50 with 35 and not 51 ;  
67 with 52 and not 68 ;  
84 with 69 and not 85 ;
101 with 86 and not 102  

This is SO EGREGIOUSLY DUMB not to be able to use MODULUS with a proper PIN's numbering.
They give me the feeling that they are taking us for complete fools.
This is what someone with a larger dose of indulgence and compassion than I have would dub "a really screwed up" job and I prefer to refrain from giving my unadorned opinion. 


It would have been so easy, even using their childish numbering to give :
PIN 1 to 16 included to the first STRAND ( also first COMPONENT in this particular case
as the component here is not a multi-strand one)
PIN 17 to 32 included to the second 
STRAND
PIN 33 to 48 included to the third STRAND
PIN 49 to 64 included for the fourth STRAND
PIN 65 to 80 included for the fifth STRAND
PIN 81 to 96 for the sixth STRAND AND THERE IS NO MISSING PIN.

Had they had a modicum of basic intelligence applied to the study of the reality of those knots and the the smallest incipient beginning of a germ of an understanding of those knots then they would have, immediately and with no difficulty,  found the rather simple formula to get the correct results even when using their childish numbering of the PINS.

It is obvious that using, for the computations (the apparence on screen is another thing, just cosmetic) a numbering from 0 to 'N-1' for 'N' PINS would have been  a lot smarter than numbering from 1 to 'N' because it facilitates the use of MODULUS, still even with 1 to 'N' it suffice to adapt the formula and that is real easy..
The gang members have not yet fully integrated the essential cyclic or periodic nature of those knots which make MODULUS so useful.


Here is, using their reference for ODD-numbered HP going from TOP-LEFT to
BOTTOM-RIGHT, the proper numbering of the PINS (this numbering in this illustration, is not arbitrary like theirs but is dictated by the structure of the knots as the use of the proper mathematical formulas clearly shows).

The Number of a PIN is:
Number of that PIN on its own BIGHT-RIM - Number of the BIGHT RIM plus for  the dull brains the reference TOP / BOTTOM knot border but knowing the choice made for the ODD-numbered HP this is quite unnecessary and redundant.

The direction of the flow of the numbering of the PINS on a given BIGHT-RIM is given by the direction of the ODD-numbered HP : in the case here they go from LEFT to RIGHT (had they  -the ODD HP- gone from BOTTOM-RIGHT to TOP-LEFT then the numbering would have gone from RIGHT to LEFT)




A painful deciphering shows that  CONTRARY TO THE  ILLUSION CREATED BY THE
 VISUAL APPEARANCE AVAILABLE CERTAINLY
  IT IS NOTSINGLE-STRAND but a 
MULTI-STRAND
.

Theirs is an extremely poor presentation of the grid and saying that I am being really
generous, forgiving in the extreme to the sinner and carefully avoiding being too harsh.
Toiled like a work horse and succeeded like a donkey as a school teacher from the other
century, XXth, was wont to say.

Here is the imitation of their awful representation done using ARIANE with the isometric grid ( I was obliged to  "maim ARIANE"  in order to get such an horror).
Even with the superior ARIANE such a "parti pris" is staggering in illegibility.


The square grid made using   ARIANE immediately shows that it is a multi-strand knot.  Plus ARIANE put on screen all the characteristics of the knot such as the number of STRAND - (The number of component your have in the grid.)


 Just compare the two grids, theirs and the one from ARIANE, and decide which one of them is superior to the other.
This in spite of the poor choice of the square grid (once again the isometric grid is what is to be favoured if your intent is the study of the knot structure).

The square grid can only be useful when printed and put on a cylinder (vertical frame of reference)  or mandrel (horizontal frame of reference) to lay the cordage route (but then you well be needing a greater length than on an isometric and the strain to make a flawless dressing will be higher )


 The isometric grid is superior (this one is from ARIANE ) in offered opportunities of
analysis of the true structure of the knot to what a square grid allows.


Here is a  comparison of the PINS disposition on a square grid and on an isometric grid.




9x8x5x8, this nomenclature, for someone who have the slightest knowledge about 
NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL KNOTS is most distressing  due to its acute
debility.( According to French CNRTL , debility : Extreme weakness of a thing, fragility.)



Moreover 6-PASS is not the "natural" rhythm of the knot  which by "nature" is a 3-PASS .

( There are 3 BIGHTS per NEST  - 3-PASS if you will - which gives A=3 and not A=6 ), but they are not even able to see that so afflicted are they by a vast and persistent ignorance!

Most often, in my eyes,  they are not even good "spiders"  (spider = brainless knot-tyer who can only imitate or copy using handed DOWN  "recipes" he is always hunting and begging for - spiders have just neural ganglia, no brain yet they do marvellous geometry about which they have not the slightest understanding ) most often using ill understood "recipes", they are not knot-tyers with solid and confirmed knowledge of the knots they profess, urbi et orbi, to master.

My depressing inner feeling is that they are just good enough to copy and imitate but not to understand, invent and create their own personal "recipes".




Their grid is so ugly and confusing that it is almost indecipherable and utterly unsuitable for the laying of the CORDAGE ROUTE if using it in printed form on a tool and ends confining the user (smothering him)  to the exclusive use of the table of HALF-PERIOD ( not a bad thing at all to use only the table but then you don't need the grid, just B*, A and offset, so why give a grid of so low quality).


The quality of the tracing is so horribly inadequate that it inevitably leaves you with  the impression that it is a single-strand knot, but this is not the case at all : it is a 6-STRAND but with them you have to wait to get the TABLE OF HALF-PERIOD to know that point while with ARIANE this perception is immediate with just the grid as this comparative image shows. (also ARIANE have fields to show the characteristics of the knot on the screen )



Their table does not comply with the "natural" direction , for a right-handed person, (85% to 90% of the population) ( read topic 2011 January 17th if interested
of the ODD numbered HP. ( Those HP  go, referring to Vertical Cylinder with the Knot Borders at TOP and BOTTOM from BOTTOM-RIGHT to TOP-LEFT)


Let us not speak again of their very curious numbering system.
Their table is also a compound of ignorance about "how to present visual data" and is really trying for eyes.

compare their table's disposition and typography with ARIANE's
With ARIANE you can check a case in front of the HP you just  did ( or the one you are doing, this is your choice ), you are never lost, with theirs it is visual wandering guaranteed.


Here an analyse with the "natural" direction for HALF-PERIOD N1
The numbering is according to established nomenclature !




Let us say it again  - it will never be repeated enough - their nomenclature is perfectly
ignorant of the bright studies and standardisation of the NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL KNOTS made SCHAAKE & TURNER so many dozen of years ago and that are so easily available to anyone curious enough to search for them ( just try Google with Schaake nested-bight in the serach field )
While Schaake's nomenclature  is enlightening on the knot structure and inner working theirs is absolutely dumbfounding and confusing.


9x8x5x8 !!! absolutely insane for me !!!  This is first class gibberish, nothing more.

Probably the American mania of "proprietary format" as they usually believe ( a chronic delusion it is with them) that everything  that originates from outside the USA, and especially if it comes from France or Europe  ( UK is not really in Europe you know ) is equal to zero.




We will now use the usual notation (usual that is for those who "know" and "understand" ).

B* ==  BIGHT-NEST

'A' denotes the number of BIGHTS (also called PASS for some knots) in a BIGHT-NEST.

L == LEAD

COMPONENT == Unit "knot" in an assembly of knots yielding the full
NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL KNOT


An identification card suitable for this knot could be  :
IRREGULAR NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL KNOT 
( Irregular by definition because *all* the BIGHT-NEST on one knot border are not
"pinned" to BIGHT-RIM N 1 - those interested can see quick and dirty definitions in this document )

B*total = 16 (8 on Bight-Rim N 1 and  8 on Bight-Rim N 4)
Each of the two sets  B* has  A = 3 (so-called 3-PASS) which means that there exist
B* x A = 16 x 3  = 48B

Schaake's DELTA or OFFSET = 6

Distance 'x' (or 'spacing' for ARIANE) = 22

Ltotal = 'x' + ((B / B *) -1) x 4 = 22 + ((48/8) -1) x 4 = 22 + (6-1) x4 = 22 +20 = 42
Ltotal = 10 + 22 + 10 = 42


6-STRAND       6-COMPONENTS
ALL ARE REGULAR CYLINDRICAL KNOTS (made on the cordage route of  a THK but which are THK ONLY IF their coding type is strictly ROW AND COLUMN and strictly alternating O1-U1)

THREE are 9L 8B ==27L 24B
THREE are 5L 8B ==15L 24B
so 15+27=42 Ltotal    24+24=48 Btotal

( by the way this is the seed of their absolutely silly 9x8x5x8
Absolutely silly because this does not uniquely identify a 6 components 42 Ltotal  48 Btotal )
As you can see in this slide show those 11 grids (I could have tripled that number with ease)
ALL 11 grids CAN HAVE THAT ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH LABEL 9x8x5x8,
(
Their components are 9L 8B  and  5L  8B) , they have between 2-COMPONENTS and
4-COMPONENTS -I have not enough time  to squander it doing 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-COMPONENTS but I am sure that you can find them in the blink of an eye and those
11 grids are more than enough proof of the absurdity of this nomenclature of simpletons ! 


You can shorten to

42 Ltotal   48 Btotal  with both B*set having  8 NESTS,  each of each 3-PASS

or

42 Ltotal   48 Btotal  for TWO series of 8 BIGHT-NEST each with 3 BIGHT
in each NEST ( A = 3  or 3-PASS for some knots patterns).

A = 3 set of  B* means that the NATURAL number of PASS is equal to THREE.

If you are not really concerned about getting the best result then you may choose any
number appealing to fancy more than to intelligence (it is usually not very smart not
to follow the "nature" of the knot )  2, 4, 5, 6, 7, anything.



ARIANE so as to kindly accommodate all sort of knot-tyer offers 3 different types of grid and every possible orientation ( four ) for the ODD-numbered HALF-PERIOD. 


Let us insist again on the extreme visual confusion induced by their grid and add a remark.
Their rendering is so deplorably deficient in quality that with it it is about totally impossible to get a swift and clear perception of the COLOURS PATTERN.

That perception is immediate in all the illustrations generated in a few seconds by ARIANE the entire CORDAGE ROUTE of their knot is on screen in less than 90 seconds once you have done the analysis of the structure (image) of the knot to be drawn!


Their grid is so poorly illustrative that I had to "tinker" it to really  
 make things  evident  to be able to "get" the crossings on the knot borders. 


Following are four grids drawn ARIANE V3

6-PASS SQUARE (6 is not really consistent with the natural structure of the knot)

6-PASS ISO (same remark as just above)

3-PASS SQUARE (consistent with  A = 3 for each the two sets of  B*)

3-PASS ISO
  (same remark as just above)


Added 2012 July 6th

A PROPOSAL OF NEW "TYPES" OF NESTED-BIGHT CYLINDRICAL
KNOTS


Those NBCK wereextensively studied by Schaake who made their reasonned
nomenclature.

In this document I am explaining why I am proposing two new "types" for this
nomenclature ( in a descriptive way but not in the strictly formalised manner that
Schaake used )
The pdf
 (it is a .pdf file but I have had a number of those stolen in the past-by robots?- and
put on some other site specialising in pdf  I now rename them to .fdp : so
after downloading the file rename it to .pdfor directly ask your .pdf reader to open it)





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

Url : http://charles.hamel.freeL .fr/knots-and-cordages/B