Half-hitch back up to flat bends

Chris K wrote:
More info here: http://topherdonahue.com/blog/2016/12/7/barrel-knot-for-tying-rappel-ropes-together

This is a good article, especially the part where Donahue outlines situations where a flat overhand may not be appropriate:

Donahue wrote:

• Simul-rappelling with two climbers at the same time on either side of the rope. A correctly tied flat overhand knot would hold the two climbers’ weight, provided they don’t shockload the anchor – for me, this would take the load too close to the limit of the knot and I would use a different knot when simul-rappelling.
• In situations where the rappelling climber may have to tie off during the rappel and climb with the rappel rope as protection against a fall – such as if the climber rappelled past the next anchor and climbed upwards, building up a loop of slack in the system that could result in a shock load.
• If a rappel is converted to a top rope where unusual forces could occur during the top rope, such as if an ice climber was to break a large icicle across the rope or a rock climber was to build up slack and take a longer fall onto the rope. While the flat overhand tests plenty strong enough to hold a body weight top rope fall, other knots are stronger and better suited for top rope use.
• If rappelling with huge haul bags.
• A rescue scenario with more than one person or a mechanical advantage system on the rappel ropes.
•  Rappelling in spindrift avalanche conditions where a small avalanche hitting the climber could dramatically increase the force on the ropes.

So is a half-hitch back-up on a flat overhand a suitable alternative to the barrel knot (or double fisherman's) in some, or all, of these scenarios? 

I believe it is a suitable back up to the standard situations where you would want to use the flat overhand. Donahue himself uses the flat overhand with an overhand behind it on one strand. But I would say adding a half hitch to most climbing knots would not add much, if any, security.

edit: To add, the article you originally stated that the EDK with a half hitch was suitable up to 7.6 kN until "the rope broke." It's important to say that the rope was the limiter and not the knot for the situation. It's in best interest to stick with the current standards such as a well dressed flat overhand with sufficient tail. If you encounter situations that Donahue listed, I would suggest use of the barrel knot or if you are going to combine two ropes for a toprope, use the flemish bend. 

In a recent issue of the Alpine Club of Canada's Gazette, this article describes a method to back-up flat 8 and overhand bends with a half-hitch. The article itself provides scant description of testing this method, and I can't find any other sources supporting this as an effective method to keep either bend from rolling and failing.  While understanding that a flat overhand with sufficient tail doesn't need a back-up has anyone tested this method or have experience with it?

In providing a direct answer to your question:
The additional of a half hitch actually disrupts the geometry of the knot and defeats one of the key ideas underpinning its use.
A key advantage of #1410 Offset Overhand Bend is that it will easily translate over a 90 degree edge from low anchors.
Adding the 'half-hitch' disrupts the knot geometry which in turn reduces its ability to translate around edges during a rope retrieval process.

This leaves the distinct impression that the author of the Canadian paper (Orvel Miskiw) is lacking knowledge about this key concept and offset knots in general.

In the first instance, he describes these end-to-end joining knots as being 'flat' - which is technically incorrect.
They are not flat - they are a 3D object with a specific geometry.
If you are going to publish a paper and make it available to the general public, you have a duty to get the facts correct (and not endlessly perpetuate myths).

It also appears that Orvel Miskiw is unaware of the effect of rotation on the stability of #1410.
A simple rotation can significantly boost the stability of #1410 (refer image below).
I would also point out that the threshold of instability does not manifest until loads approach 5.0kN (approximately 500kg) - typical 9mm ropes (+/- 1mm).
Given the nominal body weight of most humans is around 100kg (give or take a bit) - it is difficult to understand how a single person performing an abseil descent could exert a force of 500kg.
If you consider that in most retrievable configurations the ropes are doubled - so the actual force imparted to the joining knot (eg #1410) is only 50% of the weight of the person.

The reported failures of #1410 (or #1411 Offset F8) are difficult to pinpoint with precision because in post accident analysis - there is no remnant knot to investigate. And so this leaves it to witness testimony which is typically very unreliable (consider that 'surviving' members of a climbing party are traumatized by events and often don't have high level technical skills about knots). Generally, it comes down to simple human error (ie its not the fault of the knot - its the fault of the person selecting and tying the rope joining knot).

Offset rope joining knots based on #1841 Anchor bend are interesting - I had published a 3 coil version several years ago. It has a smaller footprint than the default 4 coil version (obviously).
My personal favourite is #1410 with one extra binding turn (refer image with yellow + blue rope). It has a small footprint and maintains the offset geometry so it translates easily around a 90 degree edge. I would comment that the need for an extra binding turn would only be warranted in situations where the ropes have become super slick or slippery (icing/slime) or you are intending to perform an accompanied (ie assisted) abseil descent with an injured person.

For information about Offset knots, it is worth having a look at the paper at this site: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #3 in the table).

Thanks Mark for the analysis, and your detailed diagrams. Climbing ice there is ample opportunity to encounter wet, icy ropes with slippery dry treatments and some of the other loading factors outline by Donahue.

The article set off warning bells because of the inclusion of the offset 8 bend, but I had hoped someone else had done a more thorough analysis. For what it’s worth Orcil is a former editor the ANAM so some weight was goven to that experience.

I’ll look at some of the alternatives presented here - including your locking turn on the offset overhand.

Nathan Sullivan wrote: If I'm reading correctly, the Petzl RAD Line page shows the flat figure 8 taking more force to capsize and generally being stronger in that particular cord versus the EDK.  Interesting.  They do point out the advantages of the EDK in getting stuck less, being less sensitive to proper dressing, and being easier to untie after load.  And, that their results are only valid for that cord, of course, not other ropes and cords.

The issue with the fig8 is that (as the petzl results show) it is more sensitive to not being tightened by the climber. If you compare at what petzl considers tightening (4 separate steps) and what most climbers (just pull the knot once) you can see the issue. When a fig8 rolls, it also eats more tail.

I once tested a poorly tightened fig 8 with body weight to see what would happen. It rolled. The poorly tightened overhand didn't

David Coley wrote:

The issue with the fig8 is that (as the petzl results show) it is more sensitive to not being tightened by the climber. If you compare at what petzl considers tightening (4 separate steps) and what most climbers (just pull the knot once) you can see the issue. When a fig8 rolls, it also eats more tail.

BRAVO for pointing this out!  (For the most part, generalizations rule the day w/o regard to the detailed facts.)

Indeed, though I am among those who propagated a call of DANGER for the offset fig.8 knot, I came to realize that in my personal playing around with various candidate solutions to this abseil-ropes-joining problem --using a crummy 5:1 (and variously just 2:1) pulley-- I'd NOT been able to show the supposed problem.  But one can set the knot incorrectly (for this offset loading); and one can realize the need and set it appropriately, in which case it will take an unreasonable force to capsize it.

In addition to the plain lousy adjective "flat" --as Mark notes, as Clyde Soles introduced in his 2004 book--, the right-on descriptor is "offset" (from axis of tension); it is a disposition of knot that noticeably lessens the risk of the knot snagging on protuberances during retrieval.  And a key to security/stability of such a knot is the ability of the "choking strand" --that single strand of the knot that binds the two loaded ends at their common entry point-- to stay tightly binding.  In the EDK, this strand doesn't really make a full 360deg surrounding, as it must turn to exit its own loop.  In the knot shown by Mark at the bottom (in blue & yellow), the choking strand's tail part makes the extra wrap, and this gives it extra resistance to being pried out to loosen its choke.  One could achieve similar resistance in the basic Offset Water Knot[*] by tying off this particular rope's tail with an overhand knot around the other tail --which knot will jam into the EDK body on loading.  Contrast this to the knot shown by Mark above this with similar single & double-overhand strands ("3 coil") : there, it is the merely single overhand (white I think) that is choking!  Prefer the yellow-blue knot (which IIRC is Mark's recommended one).

If one were to make a full turn of the choking strand before joining it with the twin strand in exiting the initially formed loop of the EDK, then one will have good resistance to being pried open --as one would have to move double the material.  This extra turn makes what had been an overhand into a Fig.9, btw..  (Were one to go with a Fig.8 in this strand, the tails would exit in opp. directions; which looks kinda nice but somehow doesn't seem as stable/sure.

The most dummy proof and still quite simple of the offset joints is what I call --readily understood, IMO-- the "EDK-backed EDK".  This seemingly overdone knot was introduced on-line some decade or so ago.  While I initially thought it just what I said --"overdone"--, I've come to see it as something that can endure pretty much the whole variety of tying errors --and some errors can come understandably during times of stress (low light, chilling temp.s, storm approaching, gloved hands, haste-makes-waste...).  Mismatched diameters (either orientation --thin SHOULD be choking, as it will have harder time to roll over the thick strand), crossed-strands dressing, not well set (tensioned), and so on.  Note that after tying the intitial EDK, the 2nd one can be tied to lie on either side of the first --i.e., in the long-enough tails, or if they aren't ... , tied to come before the first-tied knot!

Oh, I find the proposed knotting in that Canadian Gazetter article to be bad --don't use them.  (And frankly I wouldn't expect the half-hitching to survive a variety of loading & surface irregularities.

kN*

[*]  I favor "offset water knot" vs. "offset overhand..." because "overhand" can mean so many things, but "water knot" pretty much nails it.

Bob Harrington wrote: Here’s another option that has the advantages of the overhand (simplicity, compactness, offset from the rope axis), but doesn’t capsize. Tie it by tieing an overhand, then pass the ends through the loop a second time.  It’s been tested on a slow pull machine, and does not capsize.  I learned this at a rope rescue course last year in Ouray, Colorado.  

DAV calls this the Paketknoten I believe.  I've been using it as well for both raps and joining threaded cord (Dolomites or Cordalete tie offs.  Eastern Alps use is common is my understanding).

​DAV Article on cord and knots​​​

FosterK wrote: In a recent issue of the Alpine Club of Canada's Gazette, this article describes a method to back-up flat 8 and overhand bends with a half-hitch.

I should remark that a better course to take than is shown in this article --which knot I doN'T like-- is to push the tied EDK **through the half-hitch** (thus forming one more overhand in the HH-ing strand).  Probably best is doing this with what is shown in the lower knot, where the golden rope is making the choking and purple rope is forming the HHitch, and so the pushed-through-HH added overhand will be in the purple rope which then has the choking duty, the pre-tied EDK bearing into it not with offset loading but as a double-strand stopper knot.  Call the structure an "overhand-guarded EDK", for quick comprehension.  German (Autrian?) Jost Gudelius presented this knot some decade or so ago, and repeated essentially a sometime prior recommendation of it by Austrian Heinz Prohaska (who was sharing thoughts w/Franz Bachmann, who'd suggested the offset grapevine bend.  Cf. [url] gudelius.de/spst.htm[/url]

One plus to this, plus the tying-off-choking-tail & EDK-backed EDK, knotted structures is that in each case they are 2-simple-knots structures in which each component can/should be tied and set well separately --no need to work a more complex knot snug and then set!  (In the trio just cited, one would first tie & snug the offset water knot (EDK) AND THEN work the next component snug to it.)

kN*

Mark Gommers wrote:In the first instance, he describes these end-to-end joining knots as being 'flat' - which is technically incorrect.
They are not flat - they are a 3D object with a specific geometry.
If you are going to publish a paper and make it available to the general public, you have a duty to get the facts correct (and not endlessly perpetuate myths).

Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, but that's not what "flat" means in this context. When you call a knot "flat", that doesn't mean it's flat as in a sheet of paper, it means that it's a knot which can be tied with the end of one strand, but in the case of the flat knot, is tied with the ends of two strands with the ends pointing the same way.

So an overhand knot tied with two ropes with the ends pointing the same way is a flat overhand. A figure 8 tied with two ropes with the ends pointing the same way is a flat figure 8. The knot Bob Harrington posted is a flat double overhand.

The "ends pointed the same way" bit is important: a Flemish bend is also a figure 8 tied with two ropes, but the ends of the ropes aren't pointed the same way, so it's not a flat figure 8 (and has very different properties).

I'd venture a guess that all flat knots are offset knots, but not all offset knots are flat knots, but my knowledge of knots isn't broad enough to be confident in that claim. I'm sure that an alpine butterfly bend is not a flat knot (there's no corresponding single-strand knot), but I'm not sure you'd consider it an offset knot (depends on how you're defining "offset" here).

Since knot names are so colloquial, there's a lot of different ways to name knots. For example, all these knots are "bends" because they join two ropes. So a flat figure 8 and a flemish bend could both accurately be called "figure 8 bend", even though they're very different knots.

When you call a knot "flat", that doesn't mean it's flat as in a sheet of paper, it means that it's a knot which can be tied with the end of one strand, but in the case of the flat knot, is tied with the ends of two strands with the ends pointing the same way.

Your proposition does not hold up to scrutiny - and is incorrect.

I'd venture a guess that all flat knots are offset knots, but not all offset knots are flat knots, but my knowledge of knots isn't broad enough to be confident in that claim.

I recommend that you read the paper on offset knots - the link to which I gave in a previous post.

Please refer to the attached images to get an overview of what 'offset' means.

David K wrote:

Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, but that's not what "flat" means in this context. When you call a knot "flat", that doesn't mean it's flat as in a sheet of paper, it means that it's a knot which can be tied with the end of one strand, but in the case of the flat knot, is tied with the ends of two strands with the ends pointing the same way.

So an overhand knot tied with two ropes with the ends pointing the same way is a flat overhand. A figure 8 tied with two ropes with the ends pointing the same way is a flat figure 8. The knot Bob Harrington posted is a flat double overhand.

And I'm not --until now-- really disagreeing with what is intended by this (ab)use of "flat", just that there's an apt adjective --viz.,. "offset"-- doing the job w/o such dubious connection.
Now, your assertion of "it means that it's a knot [that] can be tied ... with one strand" is a novelty, IMO --and w/o importance.  My surmise is that "flat" was chosen to denote that the line can so lie against a surface away from the knot (because the knot is offset from the axis of tension); that can occur regardless of your new criterion.  And by that "lie flat" criterion (best connoted with "offset"), no, the butterfly & like end-2-end knots are NOT ... .

Your definition would exclude the offset (dbl)fisherman's knots as "flat"; but they are possible solutions to the general problem.  (And, as I just saw in a 1950 English pub of a Swiss Alpine Club mountaineering book, an offset (single) fisherman's eye knot was recommended as a end tie-in (in the days of tying around the body, not into a harness!).  --first time I've ever seen this.  (And the idea applied to the overhand end-2-end knot (aka "ring bend"/"water knot") would yield the "competition knot", which is a decent tie-in.)

For example, all these knots are "bends" because they join two ropes. So a flat figure 8 and a flemish bend could both accurately be called "figure 8 bend", even though they're very different knots.

Let's ditch the "bend" = "end-2-end" assertion : which wasn't true at the time it was promulgated by Ashley, and doesn't hold water with the use of "to bend" which was more popular back in the day.  Of course, all knots books parrot the same stuff, nonsense or otherwise (well, most all)!

kN*

Mark Gommers wrote
I recommend that you read the paper on offset knots - the link to which I gave in a previous post.

Which lacks the "Triple-T Fisherman's" knot as presented by Jost Gudelius (and I forget an Englishism for what Heinz called it), and is worth presenting as one of the solutions available --even tested(!).

In the case where rope-A makes the choking & finishing overhand, with rope-B in-between these two, one has a knot that can be seen as *guarding* the EDK/offset water knot with an overhand or one that ties off the EDK's (choking!) tail.  Though, in the former case, were ropes of different sizes, the implication could be that the orientation isn't good (as the choking OH of the EDK should be the thinner rope, and that would imply that the thicker were making the *guard* OH --not the better choice.

kN*

Mark Gommers wrote: Your proposition does not hold up to scrutiny - and is incorrect.

Why is that exactly? Because you said so? I assure you that the meaning I described is what people mean when they say "flat" in "flat overhand" or "flat figure 8". Which is more likely: there's some massive conspiracy to mislead the public into believing these knots are 2-dimensional when everyone can see they aren't? Or that the word is being used as a jargon word that has a different meaning in this context?

Look, I'm not saying the terminology is perfect. Your criticism that the term is ambiguous holds some water. But to simply say that "flat" doesn't mean something that many people have used it to mean, is a bit weird. It's fairly obvious that Orville Miskew isn't saying the knots are two-dimensional, and it's a bit unfair to attack him because he uses the word "flat" in the same way people have used it for decades, instead of the way you decided everyone should use it.

knudeNoggin wrote: And I'm not --until now-- really disagreeing with what is intended by this (ab)use of "flat", just that there's an apt adjective --viz.,. "offset"-- doing the job w/o such dubious connection.

What I don't agree with is Mark Gommers deciding that the word means "two dimensional" and then saying Miskew is incompetent because he used the word "flat" to describe a three-dimensional knot, when it's clear Miskew didn't mean that the knot is two-dimensional. It's reasonable for Gommers to point out the problems with the existing term and propose better terms, but it's an entirely another thing for him to pretend the existing terminology doesn't exist.

The benefit I can think of to the "flat" terminology is that it tells you how to tie the knot. If you know how to tie a knot at the end of a single strand, you know how to tie the flat version of the knot: point both ends in the same direction and tie the knot, treating both strands as if they were the same strand.

In context, I think it's very rarely ambiguous whether someone is talking about a flat knot or a flat-dressed knot. Where are these people who are referring to poorly-dressed Flemish bends as "flat figure 8"? Is this actually something that is ever confusing in reality?

Now, your assertion of "it means that it's a knot [that] can be tied ... with one strand" is a novelty, IMO --and w/o importance. 

I think the importance here is what I said above: it tells you how to tie the knot.

It's improbable that you have come across the flat bowline, but if you know what "flat" means and how to tie a bowline, you know how to tie a flat bowline, without any diagrams or further description. That's the communicative value of the word flat.

Your definition would exclude the offset (dbl)fisherman's knots as "flat"; but they are possible solutions to the general problem.

Yeah, that's an example I couldn't think of previously: it's an offset knot that isn't a flat knot. Having now read the paper Mark Gommers posted, I can see that by his definition, "offset knots" doesn't include the alpine butterfly. Fine, maybe that's better terminology, but let's not pretend that now since Mark Gommers proposed this newer terminology, that it's the only terminology that has ever existed. People have been calling many of these "offset" knots flat knots for a very long time, and it's not because all those people were stupid and thought that the knots were two dimensional.

I haven’t examined this thread in great detail—just skimmed it—but is there any significant history of rappel knots failing? Have they failed because they weren’t strong enough? Or was it because they were poorly tied?

This discussion echoes the perseverations over 3-point cordaletted S.E.R.N.E. anchors that America is infatuated with. Seriously, How many anchor system failures have there been? I know of 2: both which were S.E.R.N.E. anchors.

Don’t we have more important things to worry about? Like how can we get everyone in the habit of checking that there’s a knot in the tail end of the rope.  Now there’s something that actually kills or injures someone every week.

Let’s discuss something that actually matters.

Climb safe,
Mal

David k,

As soon as this topic thread starts to derail into something other than informed debate about knot theory - it is at that juncture that I would depart.
The subject matter of knot theory is complex - and there are always new surprises lurking around the corner.

I would comment that climbers are (in general) users of knots... they aren't (in general) knot theoreticians (or knotting 'experts').
An analogy is a computer. Most people (in general) are competent users of digital technology. However, it is reasonable to argue that most people aren't knowledgeable about how computers work and how all of the hardware components work under the bonnet. If something goes wrong with hardware, it is normal to seek out a computer repair technician (or in the current era - throw it away and buy a new one).
The same can be said of cars...most people are competent users of cars but if something breaks down mechanically, you seek out a car mechanic to get it fixed.

And none of this is intended to be derogatory...it's simply a statement of fact.

Nobody likes to have their long-held belief patterns challenged. In some individuals - it can lead to anxiety and stress.
If you have conceptualized something as being 'X' and then someone comes along and declares 'X' to be something else (eg 'Y'), this can evoke a strong emotional response.

The concept of 'Offset' was first published by Clyde Soles in his book (in consultation with one of the world's experts on knotting theory).
So its not my invention/discovery.

What I have done is written a paper to try to bring together all of our collective knowledge and understanding of knot theory as it relates to #1410 (Offset overhand bend / Offset Water knot).

Quote from David K:

What I don't agree with is Mark Gommers deciding that the word means "two dimensional" and then saying Miskew is incompetent 

With due respect, I would reply that I never stated these words...you are extrapolating something you have surmised.
Please go back and carefully read what I wrote and you will find a different meaning.
Offset has a particular technical definition...and the underside of #1410 isn't a perfectly 'flat' projection - it has perturbations.
With regard to Mr Miskew, I'm stating that he appears to be unaware of the effect of rotation on the stability of #1410 and, he also appears to be unaware that adding a half-hitch alters the geometry of the structure which in turn retards its ability to translate around a 90 degree edge from low anchors.

Malcolm Daly wrote: I haven’t examined this thread in great detail—just skimmed it—but is there any significant history of rappel knots failing? Have they failed because they weren’t strong enough? Or was it because they were poorly tied?
[....]
Let’s discuss something that actually matters.

Climb safe,
Mal

Here are four accidents reported in the ANAM/ANAC that appear relevant to answering your question (either unknown knots or offset F8 bends without backups):

I noted that the ACC (a club which I'm a member of), has published a proposed method of securing knots like those described in the accidents above. The proposed method appeared to be novel and an internet search did not turn-up this method anywhere else. Given the expertise available on this forum and that this information was disseminated to over 11,000 ACC members, it was worth reaching out to see if anyone had analyzed the method, or had critiques of it. Doubly so since the original author did not include any meaningful analysis of testing. That meets my standard of being worthy of discussion.

But, if you want to discuss ad nauseum the benefits of end knots when rappelling, please enjoy that equally contentious MP discussion.

Edit: fixed third link

Thanks for the links. Incidences 2&3 appear to be the same. The fourth incident appears to be a case of the rappeller tying a knot we know is unsafe. The first two are probably just bad or inattentive knot tying. I stand by my above post: I still see no evidence of a well tied flat overhand ever failing. Rather than going on and on about all the various iterations of strong, backed-up and complicated knots, I think we’d be better served by getting everyone to tie the same knot— flat overhand—that is easy to tie, easy to inspect and strong enough.

The more time we spend discussing endless iterations of knot theory the less time we’ll have to pay attention to the things that really matter: like making sure that that flat overhand we’re tying is done right. Every time.

Climb safe,
Mal

Malcolm Daly wrote: Thanks for the links. Incidences 2&3 appear to be the same. The fourth incident appears to be a case of the rappeller tying a knot we know is unsafe. The first two are probably just bad or inattentive knot tying. I stand by my above post: I still see no evidence of a well tied flat overhand ever failing. Rather than going on and on about all the various iterations of strong, backed-up and complicated knots, I think we’d be better served by getting everyone to tie the same knot— flat overhand—that is easy to tie, easy to inspect and strong enough.

The more time we spend discussing endless iterations of knot theory the less time we’ll have to pay attention to the things that really matter: like making sure that that flat overhand we’re tying is done right. Every time.

Climb safe,
Mal

Fixed the links for you.

Some of us prefer to have the right tool at the right time. There are some situations - two person loads, avalanche, icy or dry coated ropes - which may reduce the security of the overhand offset knot. Teaching one method if great for beginners or people who will stay within a narrow context of climbing (saying, rock climbs in dry weather) - but ultimately, applying the right tool at the right time is as important to staying safe as knowing the preferred method for most contexts and executing it well.

I don't think any of the alternatives presented here added significant complexity - the locking turn on the overhand or the paketknoten are no more complex than any other knot a climber might use. They are certainly reasonable tools for more advanced climbers learn how to tie, and in what contexts they may be appropriate in. 

Mark Gommers wrote: I would comment that climbers are (in general) users of knots... they aren't (in general) knot theoreticians (or knotting 'experts').
An analogy is a computer. Most people (in general) are competent users of digital technology. However, it is reasonable to argue that most people aren't knowledgeable about how computers work and how all of the hardware components work under the bonnet. If something goes wrong with hardware, it is normal to seek out a computer repair technician (or in the current era - throw it away and buy a new one).
The same can be said of cars...most people are competent users of cars but if something breaks down mechanically, you seek out a car mechanic to get it fixed.

And none of this is intended to be derogatory...it's simply a statement of fact.

Nobody likes to have their long-held belief patterns challenged. In some individuals - it can lead to anxiety and stress.
If you have conceptualized something as being 'X' and then someone comes along and declares 'X' to be something else (eg 'Y'), this can evoke a strong emotional response.

I would suggest that you're being rather generous to knot theoreticians by comparing them to computer technicians and car mechanics. It's true that, as a computer user, if I have a problem with my computer, I go to a computer technician. It's also true that, as a car user, if I have a problem with my car, I go to a car mechanic. And it's also true that, as a knot user, if I have a problem with my knot, I go to myself, because a) the handful of knots we're discussing here aren't nearly as complicated as a computer or car, and b) because if I don't fix the knot, I fall a long ways and probably die. In your analogy, climbers are the computer user AND the computer repair technician, the car user AND the car mechanic. In your analogy, the knot theoretician isn't relevant.

Incidentally, I worked as a computer repair technician and currently, as a computer scientist (for over a decade). In my career, it has never been appropriate to treat users as if they were stupid because they didn't know computer jargon. In fact, some of them have almost certainly smarter than me and many understood what was going on with their computers, even if they didn't know the specialized jargon of my field. Instead, I have to understand what they were saying in their terminology. If you want to be the person people go to for help with knots, a good place to start would be trying to understand what people are saying, instead of talking down to people as if they're stupid because they don't use your terminology.

And none of this is intended to be derogatory...it's simply a statement of fact.

Nobody likes to have their long-held belief patterns challenged. In some individuals - it can lead to anxiety and stress.
If you have conceptualized something as being 'X' and then someone comes along and declares 'X' to be something else (eg 'Y'), this can evoke a strong emotional response.

Before you get angry at me for how condescending the previous two paragraphs are, consider that they're copy/pasted from your own post.

The original section I originally was disagreeing with you on is this:

In the first instance, he describes these end-to-end joining knots as being 'flat' - which is technically incorrect.
They are not flat - they are a 3D object with a specific geometry.
If you are going to publish a paper and make it available to the general public, you have a duty to get the facts correct (and not endlessly perpetuate myths).

Which is more likely?

1. Miskiw is perpetuating an endless myth that obviously three-dimensional knots are actually two-dimensional!
2. Miskiw is using "flat" to mean it's colloquial meaning, which is not confusing to his audience because neither Miskiw nor his audience are confused about what "flat" means.

The car theoretician says:

"In the first instance, he describes these tires as being 'flat' - which is technically incorrect.
They are not flat - they are a 3D object with a specific geometry.
If you are going to publish a paper and make it available to the general public, you have a duty to get the facts correct (and not endlessly perpetuate myths)."

This is why people go to car mechanics instead of car theoreticians--car theoreticians are intolerable!

The concept of 'Offset' was first published by Clyde Soles in his book (in consultation with one of the world's experts on knotting theory).
So its not my invention/discovery.

Clyde Soles doesn't get to decide what the "correct" terminology is for everyone either. "Flat overhand" predates his term by decades and is much more widely used, and I'm not convinced that there is any widespread confusion about the ambiguous term "flat", nor am I convinced that "offset" is significantly less ambiguous. If you can define "offset" to make it clear, you could spend that time defining "flat" and be just as clear, and use terminology that people are already using.

What I have done is written a paper to try to bring together all of our collective knowledge and understanding of knot theory as it relates to #1410 (Offset overhand bend / Offset Water knot).

And I much appreciate the parts of your paper where you act as a knot scientist, who experiments and collects data, which is very useful--that's actually knowledge you have which I didn't have before I read your paper. However, your opinions on what the correct terminology is aren't "knowledge", they're your opinions.

With due respect, I would reply that I never stated these words...you are extrapolating something you have surmised.
Please go back and carefully read what I wrote and you will find a different meaning.

You literally accused him of not knowing the difference between two dimensional and three dimensional objects, dude. Maybe you didn't actually call him the word "incompetent", but this is another case where the words already used aren't ambiguous.