Nautile aka Charles Hamel's personal pages
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 18     Page 19  Page 20  Page 21   Page 22    Page 23   Page 24   Page25   Page 26    Page 27  Page 28   Page 29   Page 30  


Added 2010 June 3rd

COMPARING HERRINGBONE K. with herringbone-PINEAPPLE K. for dummies.

Only the blind can hope escaping to see at first glance how different  HERRINGBONE Knots are from (Herringbone)-PINEAPPLE Knots !

Here is a comparison between the two types of knots made each with identical turk's head components :  7L 4B and with the same number of components = 3-PASS.

This is the proof in coding that those two sorts are mathematically, structurally, visually VERY different one from the other and only a wooden head will say otherwise.

Starting from the outermost bight on one side and following the strand then you get:

U1 - O3 - U3 - O3 - U3 - O3 - U3 - O1               for the Herringbone
        O3 - U3 - O3 - U3 - O3 - U3                        for the Herringbone-Pineapple

As can be so easily seen, " as the nose in the middle of the face" to take an old Gallicism : there are more crossings in a Herringbone than there are in a Herringbone-Pineapple of same dimensions (number of THK components and number of PASS).


simple enough Mr De La Palice ( " a quarter of an hour before dying he was still living"  is a famous 'lapalissade"') would have said   :
the nested-bights create less crossings than the NOT-nested bights do
(nested-bights == bight keeping a parallel course with each other so not  able to cross
each other, that contrary to what  the NOT-nested bights of the Herringbone .

How on earth can one NOT see that and still be considered an ex-spurt by a countless
crowd ?
I DO wonder.


Added 2010 June 4th

HERRINGBONE versus herringbone-PINEAPPLE for those (apparently quite a
crowd ! at least if I am to believe what I see on  some forums and on sites all over) who find it impossible to make unguided, not 'held by the hand' , elementary visual
observations of those knots and so differentiate those two types of knots from each other.

In both cases I am showing here it is a 3-PASS knot, same order of colours in the making, (PASS-1= blue, PASS-2=white, PASS-3=red) the component THK are all  7L 4B ( the Herringbone-Pineapple has one set of 3 its other structural set of components being 'empty')

I do wonder why this egregious mistake of taking one knot for the other takes place.

The only explanation I could find after much pondering was  : mental blindness and/or
dull interest, or having been (still being) misguided by quite ill-chosen pseudo ex-spurt(s) .

A SIMPLE GLANCE is more than enough to see that one (the Herringbone-Pineapple
K.)  has Nests of Bights and the other (the Herringbone K.) has none of those nests since it has only a single Bight Rim instead of staged multiple Bight-Rims.

Both knots have (as have a lot of other knots that are neither HERRINGBONE K nor
Herringbone-PINEAPPLE K ) a herringbone PATTERN, but the pattern IS NEVER TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH the knot cordage route ! The pattern is the coding.


Added 2010 June 6th  (a rather long rambling but it may teach you something)

This angry (and a bit despairing) topic was prompted by a mail received from a person
swamped with 'disquiet' after reading some web page by a so-called ex-spurt or so
acclaimed on some forums.

Fortunately my correspondent appears to be one of those persons who 'readily engage their brain at all time' and that person does want to learn not only to "make" but also to
"understand the why" and "get the deep structure" of  knots.

This person certainly does not belong to the 'spider' club if only because he detected all by himself the "this cannot be and is not in accord with visual observation and simple basic pondering" in what he was dangerously exposed to.

He detected it but was so perturbed by what he had read that he felt the need to ask
someone else for confirmation : such is the destructive power of  words of ignorance out on the Web !

... The simple definition of a pineapple knot is a herringbone interweave with nested bights.

this above in green colour denoting a quote is the starting point of the cause of perturbation .

SIMPLE or rather being a lot nearer to be SIMPLETON's DEFINITION ?
No ad hominen intended by a real big '?' floating in my mind.

*** first and foremost
this is *not* for personal attack and fight *but for* warning and protection of those led astray by those egregiously mistaken words.

*** second,  in my experience it is no use to hurt people feelings even when they write or utter really stupid words ; ad hominem argumentation is one of the large collection of
fallacies available.
My stance ( 
despite possible 'contrary' appearances ) has always been :
attack the deed not the doer.
The doer will die eventually but not the deed !

***  third there is not only one, alas, person in this vast Realm of Ignorance who appears to be  Trying to Shine with Silly utterances so true it is, alas, that  'au royaume des aveugles les borgnes sont rois" / "in the realm of the blind the one-eyed are kings".

( by the way : despite some really sore points those Hypothetical's pages can otherwise be considered  far from being the very worst on the Net - mind you they could be a whole lot better minus the theoretical giberrish, their authour should stay basically practical and not adventure where he cannot hope to survive : theory-  at this condition his pages could be, somewhat, in some cases, be of potential useful to 'learners' provided those keep their brain 110% ready to discern and then discard the theoretical piffle and balderdash they will find in heaps)

[open quote)
... The simple definition of a pineapple knot is a herringbone interweave with nested bights.
To achieve this in a pleasing manner we will interweave two odd part knots with an equal number of bights and differing in parts by two to make the bights nest.

[end quote]

Well, quite sadly that person who has the pretension to be able to give a simple definition of
PINEAPPLE KNOTS in his web pages appears to be  unaware that  :

---  there are PINEAPPLE K. that DO NOT HAVE  a Herringbone pattern .

--- there are PINEAPPLE K. with THK components of EVEN number of LEAD

--- the PINEAPPLE nature does not rest on the CODING of the pattern ( herringbone or other ) but on the mathematics of the cordage route. ( proof with images given lower in this topic )

I could add for his information that

--- there are nested-bight  knots with herringbone pattern THAT ARE NOT PINEAPPLE

--- that In My Opinion And Knowledge he is missing the mark with a number of his
affirmations.( from imprecise to false : all shades are available !) 
Still I am not here to try and help  him make  better pages ; he just need, if he can do it, to study the knots and Schaake's work. 
This last author being a much safer source than me.

This hypothetical site may happen - I really refuse to go there because I have no proof in either direction - to be a good practitioner, but surely the author has at least some faulty knowledge and should refrain from disseminating this false knowledge and seed disquiet  in readers' minds.  (if your are troubled by that plural possessive - I received mail telling me of 'mistake' where there is apparently no mistake - just study your own language   )

Most probably there are persons giving him (I wonder why on earth, if only because *no* one can hold such a position permanently but rarely and atthe very best only for a transitory moment) the position of an ex-spurt.

Seems to me, seen from my chair, that some will not have engaged their sharpest  brain or will not have enough personal verified and validated knowledge  to filter what is said to them by this alleged ex-spurt.

In principle it is laudable to 'make things simple' but I personally find it quite worrying when they are made SIMPLISTIC AND EGREGIOUSLY MISTAKEN by doing so.
You do need to be awfully 'good' on a topic to make it 'simple'. 

Never make things simpler than is absolutely necessary
= =
never make things simple at the cost of their validity.

 If I am to believe the appearances he has given in his writings,  the web site's author is sorely in need to learn quite a lot of things that are missing in his knowledge store about Herringbone-Pineapple K. and  Herringbone K. just to mention  a very few of the sore points.

Mind you he may readily be forgiven for being mistaken if only because he is not the only one ; being mistaken is a right ( under the provision that it is not a permanent state ! but a very transitory phase) .
What cannot be forgiven, in my world, is the wanton contamination of others
with one's own mistaken ideas
and, in a lesser measure, the complaisance vis à vis one's own ignorance leading to not searching enough and so enlarge sufficiently one's VERIFIED and VALIDATED  knowledge before risking leading others astray )

*** PINEAPPLE K.  WITH EVEN Number of LEAD in their THK components

    *  definition of the above

*** NESTED BIGHT K in general


*** Another regular nested which is NOT a Pineapple

*** GRANT ( nested bight) K NOT a Pineapple

*** Another regular nested K. which is NOT a Pineapple

*** ASYMMETRIC nested knot cordage route
    * ASYMMETRIC nested knot with code

*** PERIODIC nested knot

BUT WHAT TAKES THE PRIZE IS another funny point, courtesy
of same source,  this time about Herringbone Knots.

By now it is obvious that we are "nesting" the bights of the interweave behind the crosses between the bights of the foundation. This is one level past the nesting we used for the simple pineapple and some would contend that this is a pineapple also. This is probably a matter of semantics*** and I will not dispute the matter. In fact when the knot is properly tightened the bights of the interweave will be partly or completely hidden by this nesting depending on the material used to braid the knot.

Remind me of my youth-looong ago-  in London


OH  !


This is *not* about bookish knowledge BUT IT IS INDEED about SIMPLE VISUAL
followed by engaging one's brain to draw conclusions from

It is beyond my imagination to imagine an intelligent and knowledgeable person going
about in such a way....

...Unless that guy wants to use the same word (nest/nested...) for two different concepts?

If that then THAT is very bad communication.( see ***  at the bottom of this topic )

It does not demand that much clarity of mind to realize  that:

---  it is NOT a matter of semantic (and not semantics as spelled by that guy who does not seems to have a good handle on words in his own language if I believe what I see written)
but of

--- very different mathematical structure

it is not from
--- personal quirks in attribution of meaning to words (semantic which pertain to the words -semantics which pertain to the science ) but from objective constraints and criteria ( alas not only one criterion )

Such  intellectual fault really anger me when it is put to use to lead other persons astray.

Just look here and you should get it easily first time !

If I were not having the uneasy and quite disquieting notion -- I don't like appearing as feeling superior but... - -that this guy is already attempting to understand things several steps above what he can easily manage *alone* and is exploring well beyond the outer reaches of his wits and ken I would tell him to write command lines for the computation of Herringbone Half-period and for Herringbone-Pineapple Knots Half-periods.

We would then see if he can do that while holding the absurd idea that Herringbone have nested- bight and that all the differences are """""just about semantics"""" 
How stupid  this notion is indeed cannot even be hinted at! 
Believe me (at your own risk)  if you cannot analyse the mathematical formulas involved and given somewhere in those pages of mine ; taken from Schaake's works).  

One more thing :
The author of those gems seems to me to belong to the rather large crowd of persons who for all intents and purposes appear to believe that "showing" (describing if you want) is "explaining".

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxa little diggressionxxxxxxxjump it !xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I do use that trick myself = "showing" but I do try to take care to put in the "what is shown" what will be necessary to the readers for them to be able to built their own explanation using their brain and not just their visual sensors.

Faulty logical reasoning it is to equate 'describe' with 'explain' !
This is making the confusion between axioms and phenomenology.

To explain one needs to turn  a 'particular' into a 'general'.
THIS is not done by showing pretty drawings more targeted at impressing the viewer than at expressing a formalised reality ! 

One can only show, that is offer to acquisition  through our senses,  a 'particular' while a 'general' can only be acquired through the application of superior ( superior in the meaning of the word in neurology)  intellectual processes and abstraction.

One  does not  need to analyse in order  to 'show' but just need to observe ( I can draw
something that I am not able to understand for lack of intelligence or lack of education or both.)

To explain one must analyse, understand and formalise to get a  'general' statement.
Observing and describing == stopping at appearances which are 'a particular'.

A description needs to be thoroughly analysed ( an enumeration is not an analyse ) and
interpreted , it is not a finished, a readily usable product, it is just 'building material'.
That is why a 'classification' even one as good as Linnaeus's does not explain any thing !

Do you think that describing (even perfectly) a volcanic eruption is the same as explaining volcanism?

One can describe to the perfection the retrograde movement of planets and yet be unable to explain it ( Ptolémée did that, yet he could even make useful predictions with that !)

One can make a perfect description and be utterly unable to explain or really understand what one just described .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxend of a little diggressionxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Explaining = = going well BEYOND appearances and attaining 'a general'.
To explain is not always to understand fully !  ( just thinks about 'gravity' )

A sensor (an adequate one) can describe in the range of  its 'sensing' ; only a fully functioning human brain can explain.

Mind you, observation (to look at is *not* to observe) description and depiction are building material for attaining an explanation.

Still having all the plans, the authorisations, the  bricks, cement and whatever  is no use to get a house built  if you don't have masons !
Masons 'explain' the material 'into' a house. ( or a bridge or...)

Of course instead of "showing" I could do it the simplest and fastest way =
just a line of mathematical formulas.

Those formulas establish the magnitude of the difference between

* a knot with a herringbone pattern  being a Herringbone-Pineapple Knot with nested-bights


* a knot with a herringbone pattern  being a Herringbone Knot withOUT nested-bights!

A tip to you readers =

till Mr Hypothetical HIMSELF - or one of his friends-
can write us a computer
application using same formulas and equations to do Herringbone K.  and 
Herringbone-Pineapple K. Half-Period coding (using his absurd notion that both
knots have nested-bights) just conservatively consider that  what I say is right and that he is desperately wrong

Stupidity, error, illusion, delusion, whatever you do for and with yourself is an inalienable personal freedom but NO one may attempt (and succeed at that alas ! ) to propagate mistaken ideas and pollute other brains. There is a notion that is often forgotten in the 360° defence of "free speech" : it is the abusing of free speech by dissemination of stupid notions to the unaware.

Only when you have made your utmost to be as certain as possible of what you transmit may you offer your words without warning readers/hearers that there is a lot of chances that you are giving them malarkey !

Error is a hazard any one can easily fall prey to (I know I have, often enough in my life, been its victim, but never for long and I always refrained from contaminating others with my own imbecility)  but  this stage of  'being  mistaken'  should be the shortest transitional phase available  and not a permanent state  ; only the most dumb deliberately let it be permanent .

There is NO NESTED-BIGHT in a Standard HERRINGBONE knots for the evident
reason that the bights are ALL ON THE SAME BIGHT BORDER !

Even the 'blind lame dumb ass at the fair' could see the difference on isometric diagrams
Herringbone == NO nested-bight
Herringbone-Pineapple == NESTED-BIGHT

How brain-blind can one need to be not to realise that  in a blink ?


Would seems simple enough for even the sleepiest mind to get that simple notion straight first time around  no ?

Not so it appears in fact!
(not that I am saying that this guy is intrinsically really stupid, no, what I am saying is that  his words are hugely mistaken and apparently he is quite pleased and fully satisfied to stay mistaken! Never had the simple courtesy to answer my 'for your information' mails in the past so I desisted from trying to open his eyes he wanted desesparately to keep tightly shut.

As so often is the case the ignorant wants to propagate the  ignorance just as drug addicts want to propagate their addiction : both behaviours are detrimental to other's health ( mental / physical ) )

(essentially, in essence) a single bight rim it is painfully evident that they ARE
Would you say that in a regular Turk's Head K.
there are NESTED BIGHT? No ! of course NO!
yet it is EXACTLY the conformation you see in a HERRINGBONE K. so why
accept to see NESTED Bights there in the Herringbone K. ?
 The nested bight are a bit like the seaweeds left by the tide.

In a pile of plates the plates are 'nested'  when "as a hand of cards' they are NOT nested.
In fact the pile of plates is not fully satisfying, one of them at least should have been of a smaller diameter.

Just for the sake of giving persons led astray by the nonsense they encountered here is a last occasion to open their eyes and use their brain on two diagrams :
 only the poor, blind, lame, dumb ass at the fare can miss seeing the evidence.

So much ignorance, so complacently exposed to the blind admiration of other persons
(some of which with a sincere desire to learn and make progress and are irremediably led astray ! ) 

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER blindly accept someone as an ex-spurt, NEVER, NEVER,
NEVER relinquish the sharp use of your own brain.
please! I ask, for your intellectual safety,
even if you don't want to make that favour to others sites ; in last resort you will be doing the favour to yourself not to me)

I would hate to see my words accepted without honest, open,sharp  intellectual examination and cross verification with independent validated sources. (the same parroting going around and around on some forum or in some books are NOT validated and independent sources so high is the plagiarism or copy-catting rate in this domain.

***** If I had to implement TWO DIFFERENT programs (in  HP48GX and in Excel
Worksheet) one for HERRINGBONE K. ( NO nested-bight)
and one for  Herringbone-PINEAPPLE K. ( WITH nested-bight)
it is because their very natures are quite different as far as the nested-bight or
no-nested-bight (Poor Yorick !) is concerned and that difference demands  a very  different calculation treatment.

***semantics : the whole body of study while IF one wants to refer to ' one word and the meaning attributed to it  - which is clearly the semantic content of that guy's words- it is 'semantic' without 's'.

semantics: the whole body  of study of meaning in a language
semantic ( or semantical)  : the meaning value/content attributed to a word

The Cambridge International Dictionary of English
nest [SET]..... a set of  things that are similar but of different size and have been designed to fit inside each other.
Operative words : designed TO FIT INSIDE each other.


Added 2010 June 7th

"A bon entendeur Salut !"
equivalent (or about equivalent) to:  "words to the wise !" :

Biological manure is an outstanding way to enrich, fertilise and make better a poor soil BUT intellectual manure is a sure way to rot and corrupt brains.

Beware the brand of manure you fertilise your garden with but *do not use any manure* on your brain's cells ;  if you carefully select and husband the seeds YOU accept to have sown there then you will prosper.

One's own brain if one respects it by using it every second of the day about *any* thing heard, seen, felt, read, experienced or perceived is a wonderful instrument given to each and all of us.

Alas some let it go derelict and/or keep it fallow.

BE PARANOID AND ALWAYS "EN GARDE" and do watch out for the contagious
ignorants (myself included in some domains  ;-D |  ignorant I mean, not trying to
contaminate) trying to contaminate you.

The ones you must avoid most are of the "healthy carrier" type : the guy to whom naive persons made a reputation of being an "ex-spurt, their favourable opinion being mostly founded on their own undiagnosed and untreated ignorance.


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

Url :