International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: barasingha on October 18, 2012, 09:51:59 PM
-
New to the group, Hi.
I have been searching for instructions for a Zeppelin loop on a bight and have been unsuccessful thus far in finding one I liked. The ones I found were bulky or had loops all over the place. So I quit looking and figured out a way myself and here it is.
Perhaps this is not a Zeppelin loop on a Bight, maybe it is another knot; if so, let me know. Surely someone else has tied it before, but I haven't seen it. If anyone has seen this before, or it is not as advertised, please feel free to correct me.
Looks a little complicated but is actually fast and easy.
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/image.jpeg)
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/image_1.jpeg)
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/image_2.jpeg)
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/image_3.jpeg)
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/image_4.jpeg)
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/image_5.jpeg)
Enjoy,
Taggert
PS. There is alternate way that starts from a slip knot but this was easier to document and I think simpler to do. You can also modify this to have two adjustable size, but locking loops,one from each side.
-
I have been searching for ... a Zeppelin loop on a bight
and have been unsuccessful thus far in finding one I liked.
The ones I found were bulky or had loops all over the place.
Can you share URLinks to these unaccepted ones (if possible)?
There is a general way of associating an eye knot with an
end-2-end knot : fold one of the lines so joined back around
(i.e., making a bight in what was one of the two SParts
--so, yes, this assumes two lines, not one joining itself)
and trace its path through the knot --which makes the end-2-end
joint now a tying of a single strand to twin strands--; there will
be now a 3rd tail.
Conceptually, fuse the 1st line's tail with one of the 2nd line's,
and you have an eye knot. In the case of the zeppelin bend,
this corresponding eye knot is TIB (Tiable In the Bight). And it
is "bulky" in having twin strands for half of itself vs. the one,
but otherwise preserves the "Z." mechanics.
There are some ways of tying 2-eye, mid-line eye knots that
also have Z. mechanics, a bit more purely than does yours;
but I'm not sure of what use such eyes-on-opposite-sides
knots would serve!
I can't say that I've ever fiddled the variation you present here,
but I like your approach and thinking it shows. Not sure I'm keen
about the result, over such knots as the butterfly and some
others like that. (This (OP) knot takes some work to get into form
in the 6mm nylon kernmantle "accessory" cord I'm playing with
right now.)
--dl*
====
-
I do not see anything in this loop that has even a remote relation to the Zeppelin bend, I am afraid ...
(Perhaps there is a confusion of the Zeppelin knot with the particular p and q ( 6 and 9 ) method of tying it... Here, too, we have two parallel nipping loops and something ( a bight ) that penetrates both of them, but the similarity, if any, stops there. Neither the rope-made hinge mechanism that characterizes the Zeppelin bend, nor its high, two sides symmetry... We have many single and double loops that are much more symmetric, and can be tied in the bight, like this one. On the contrary, one can argue that the loops shown at (1) do bear some resemblance with the Zeppelin bend.
I suppose that the loop of this thread is similar / identical to one of the loops shown at (2) and (3), suggested for the Trucker s hitch.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=c9eb1b707d52970fc9cab8ddb4bd0809&topic=1870.msg21210#msg21210
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg21216#msg21216
-
Can you share URLinks to these unaccepted ones (if possible)?
Can't find it now. It was from a google images search and was as you described. 2 main loops with another loop sticking out of the 'fourth' side of a typical zeppelin loop. Everything was doubled up so the bulk was increased. And the standing line pulled from opposite directions out of one side of the knot, when used as loop along a taught line such as in a truckers hitch,.
Twin eyes on opposite sides of a knot make fantastic hand holds for pulling a rope. Like tug-o-war, or rope ladders, etc.
On the knot I demonstrate above; if both bights are passed through the round turns in opposite directions as is the case in a typical zeppelin bend instead of one through the turns and then through the other bight, the knot ends up with two loops, one from each side. These loops can be adjusted while loose but seem fixed when taught. At which point the knot looks identical to a zeppelin except for the fact that one side has a round turn in between the two loops.
I do not see anything in this loop that has even a remote relation to the Zeppelin bend, I am afraid ...
Fair enough. It shall be the "False Zeppelin on a Bight." I think the 'rope hinge' is present but I acknowledge obvious differences between front and back, a problem for which I know no solution.
I have yet to jam it using 550 paracord, a material which jams easier than most (for me). And I enjoy the perperdicular nature of the loop and ease of tying it. The paracord metioned above is the only medium I have tested this on, but I have experienced no problems forming the loop, as pictured above, by simply pulling the ends and loop tight. For me it will become just another alternative to the butterfly when one or two loops are needed on a bight.
taggert
-
Here is the 2 loop version of the OP knot tied on the bight:
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/DoubleZepBight.jpeg)
Here is how I tie a Zeppelin Loop with a tuck:
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/ZeppelinLoopTuck.jpeg)
taggert
-
I suppose that the loop of this thread is similar / identical to one of the loops shown at (2) and (3), suggested for the Trucker s hitch.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=c9eb1b707d52970fc9cab8ddb4bd0809&topic=1870.msg21210#msg21210
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg21216#msg21216
Thanks for the links. I had time to analyse them today and concluded the following: Identical, Negative; Similar, Perhaps as (dis)similar as my knot and the zeppelin.
-
I ...concluded the following: Identical, Negative; Similar, Perhaps as (dis)similar as my knot and the zeppelin.
Thank you Taggert,
I believe that the tying procedure is similar, indeed. There are also many single and double loops similar - in this sense - to those, in ABoK.
I still do not see any relation to the Zeppelin bend, although I have tied and examined your knots a number of times. I am glad you tie the knots I am referring to, so, please, have a look at those double loops : (1), (2) . I hope they will inspire you to tie something new.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3571.msg20407#msg20407
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3571.msg20408#msg20408
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3783.msg22116#msg22116
-
At last --after some peculiarly unhelpful Search results(!?)--
I found where I've posted an image of some zeppelin eye knots,
including one that most directly matches z. mechanics and it
"TIB". --to wit:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12798#msg12798 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12798#msg12798)
--dl*
====
-
one that most directly matches z. mechanics and it is "TIB".
It does not - neither directly nor indirectly, simply because no loop knot ( 3 limbs knot ) can match the Zeppelin bend s mechanics - the rope-made hinge, where the pivot is made by the two tails. The particular knot looks more as a double line overhand knot, that works more like a water bend and/or an overhand bend, not as the Zeppelin bend. However, it is a very nice TIB loop, indeed. ( AND the drawings are nice... no comparison with some relevant exercises on knottoloquence.)
-
no loop knot ( 3 limbs knot ) can match the Zeppelin bend s mechanics - the rope-made hinge, where the pivot is made by the two tails.
I disagree. The zeppelin loop photo (not the OP knot) I posted above is indeed a true zeppelin knot. Instead of the loop evolving from both the side and bottom of the knot; I tie the knot such that the loop emerges from opposite sides of the knot--the hinge pins, if you will. Because this arrangement leaves a tag on the bottom of the knot, I choose to tuck the tag alongside the standing part. The hinge you refer to allows the knot to fold up along the axis of the loop ends causing the symmetry and zeppelin visual identity to vanish while exposing another side of this unique knot.
This is the knot prior to tucking the end:
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/ZeppelinLoop.jpeg)
I will follow the links you supplied when I next have time, thank you. Out of curiosity, what do you require to confirm a zeppelin hinge and do you believe my OP knot has this hinge? I believe the hinge is there and functional, however there is an additional exterior wrap present to stabilize the knot and allow tying on the bight.
I found where I've posted an image of some zeppelin eye knots,
including one that most directly matches z. mechanics and it
"TIB". --to wit:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12798#msg12798 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12798#msg12798)
During my searches I found that thread and read it thoroughly. I too enjoyed your sketches.
taggert
-
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3783.msg22116#msg22116
This link has a very similar knot. The first two pictures are of, what I would call, the hunter's loop on a bight equivelent to my zeppelin loop on a bight--when tied with two loops. Both have the communicating round turn through the hinge on one side of the knot; which is the only distiguishing difference between the bend and the on a bight varieties (other than the obvious fact that loops emerge from the knot instead of ends.)
Good find,
taggert
-
The zeppelin loop photo (not the OP knot) I posted above is indeed a true zeppelin knot.
Noope ! :) It is a reversed Zeppelin knot, where the standing end has taken the place of the tail, and vice versa. Moreover, both ex-tails are loaded ( they are not tails any more, they are the two loaded legs of the eye ).
At the Zeppein bend, the pivot is made by the pair of the tails. The two main bights of the two links of the bend are not hooked /interlocked to each other directly. They remain in place just because they revolve around the common pivot of the hinge, made by the tails. If one of the tails will be loaded - so it is not a tail any more - the mechanism will work differently, like the mechanism of an ordinary interlinked overhand knots bend ( the Hunter s bend, for example). The so-called "Zeppelin loop" , where the one - only, not both, as at your knot - tail of the ex-Zeppelin bend core is loaded, is also such a pseudo-Zeppelin knot : secure, easy to untie, with a core identical to the Zeppelin bend - but not depending upon the marvelous hinge mechanism around the pair of the tails of the unique, true Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend. When we see a knot we should not judge only by its appearence, its shape - we should follow the flow of forces alongside the segments of the rope within the knot s nub. A knot is a rope-made mechanism where the tension, the compression and the friction play a complex role. The fact that we can not see them, does not mean that they do not exist ! :)
" those two things, the Zeppelin bend and the "Zeppelin loop" , are really different things, because the strands in the knots are loaded differently in each of the two cases. When we think of a practical knot, not an ornament, when this knot is functioning, it is not only its appearance, but also its mechanical state that matters. If we could look closer, and we could see how the distribution of loads alter the rope diameters on different places, among other things, we would really tell the real differences that are hidden behind the looks."
( We are talking here about your knot before the aditional, final tuck, which complicates matters even more ).
-
one that most directly matches z. mechanics and it is "TIB".
It does not - neither directly nor indirectly,
simply because no loop knot ( 3 limbs knot ) can match the Zeppelin bend s mechanics
- the rope-made hinge, where the pivot is made by the two tails.
The particular knot looks more as a double line overhand knot, ...
You discredit yourself severely, here : such blatant non-seeing,
for some crazy worship of the "z" is a blindness unbecoming one
wishing to comprehend knotting.
For one without such dis-ease can clearly see the so-called
"pivot" of parts around which the SPart and the reciprocally
turning (the "b" to the "q" or "p" to "d") twin eye legs nip.
And, as for imagery, there should be no difficulty figuring out
how to proceed from the direction to tie the one end to a bight's
twin-ends in the manner of making a z. bend, and then seeing
what tails to *fuse* to make the similar, single-stranded eye knot.
(Coming for free with the 4th/rightmost image were a trio of
associated eye knots that have an economy of structure at the
price of *purity* to the z. workings.)
--dl*
====
-
You discredit yourself severely, here : such blatant non-seeing, for some crazy worship of the "z" is a blindness unbecoming one wishing to comprehend knotting.
For one without such dis-ease can clearly see
:) I knew you will bite hard to this intentionally blunt, but clear and fair criticism... :)
You should rather read my previous answer/post, and understand that the "pivot(s)" of the Zeppelin bend is (are) not loaded from its (their) one end - they are tails, not attached to something ! ( As they are condemned to be connected to a body that grows/feeds them, they could not be unloaded from both ends, could they ? :) )
The amusing/good thing s that, although you critisize the marvelous Zeppelin bend from time to time ( it will need additional manipulation/dressing to take its form, you keep saying...), you do like the additional glory the Zeppelin name offers ! :) OK, use it, it does not belong to somebody ! After all, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" in not more Zeppelinsque than your loops...
I have made a search in the Forum : It is unbelievable how many times one has tried to link the knot he tied with the Zeppelin bend, under various adjectives...To my view, only the Lee Zep bowline(s) (1) bear some - remote - resemblance with the Zeppelin bend - but, as loop knot(s), it is (they are) not similar to it.
P.S.
Trying to imitate the simple clever mechanics of the Zeppelin bend, one confronts the following three problems :
1. The "pivot" should be made by at least two lines, otherwise it could not be stiff enough to deal with the shear forces induced by the two not-interlocked, parallel bights - the parts of the two links of the ex-bend that remain adjacent using it. The one line being the tail of the loop knot, the other should necessarily be another segment of the 3 limbs ( the continuation of the standing end, of the eye leg of the standing end or of the eye leg of the bight ). However, this second passage of the line alongside the axis of the hinge cannot be inert, an inert pivot, as a tail : It would be loaded from both ends, so it will energetically participate to the linkage, pushing and pulling other parts - and the whole thing messes up in a not-so-clever tangle, where the hinges and the pivots cease to be hinges and pivots any more ...
2. At the Zeppelin bend, there is a marvellous balance between the pulling of the two loaded ends, the two standing parts. I say " marvellous" , because in the so-called "falsely tied Zeppelin bend" - which, incidentally, can be considered as more symmetric than the original knot...- this balance is not so perfect and effective. As the loading is transferred to the pivots through those two ends that remain always on the axis of the knot, the initial balance is preserved. If there is a second limb pulling through a second attachment point from the one link - because we have the two legs of the eye, so two pulling limbs ), and the distribution of the pulling forces is not steady ( the bight of the loop can be loaded in many ways, so the two legs of the eye, the two limbs will not be loaded neither with exactly the same weight, nor from the exactly same angle ), this balance cannot be maintained - so there are more forces - not perpendicular ones - acting on the pivots, and soon the whole thing degenerates ( meaning that we need more inner wraps around the knot s core to keep it in one piece - end of the symmetry and/or simplicity game).
3. Last, but not least : How we can keep the bilateral, two-sides symmetry and inner balance of forces in one thing that has three loaded parts ? Simple and easy answer : we cannot ! :)
I have once presented a most simple variation of the Zeppelin bend, the Zeppelin X bend, where the tails are arranged in a different way ( they are in an X : crossed configuration ) than they are in the original knot. It was argued by members of the Forum that Zeppelin X bend is a new knot, that should not even be called by an adjective using the Zeppelin name - and they had a point. Because, although the Zeppelin X bend cannot be considered "asymmetric" , it is clearly less symmetric than the original knot. - and symmetry is a main characteristic of the Zeppelin bend. If it is hard to accept the Zeppelin name for such a similar, indeed, knot, imagine if we can ever use it for a three loaded limbs loop knot...
I have tied all the nice DL loops - and then some ( some with the pivot replaced by a slipped tail, a double line made by the same tail...) -, and I have only this to say : close, but no cigar... :).
I repeat : the Lee Zep loop(s) presented at (1) are, to my knowledge, the closest thing to the holy Grail of a non-Zeppelin Zeppelinsque knot...
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.0
-
Noope ! :) It is a reversed Zeppelin knot, where the standing end has taken the place of the tail, and vice versa.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I now understand your two arguements.
First, because of the ends and/or standing parts being utilized differently, mechanics of the knot change and therefore consistute a new knot. Example: When one of the ends of a granny knot is used as a standing part, the granny knot ceases to exist and two half hitches take its place. While this philosophy is justified, I think there is more to the story. For instance, what if the end (or standing part) is utilized differently but there is no flaw with the change in mechanics? Take for instance the bowline on a bight. Ofcourse there are two turns and two loops but we shall also find that what once was a tag end in a typical bowline, is now a leg of a loop. But because there is no flaw exposed in what is obviously a change in the role of the tag end, this knot is known world-wide as the bowline on a bight. Other examples are the butterfly bend and butterfly loop; one has tags and one has a loop (that can presumably be loaded from any dirrection) and is a go to knot for me when needing a secure loop on a bight.
Second, looks--symmetry in the case of the zeppelin--play a crucial role in determining a knot. For this arguement I refer to the carrick bend. Symmetrical and strong when the tag ends are siezed to the standing parts; asymmetrical, but just as strong, when the ends are not dressed. Either way, it is undoubtedly the carrick bend. This may also be used to demonstrate the first arguement again, for if the ends are treated differently, the mechanics change and the knot changes form; presumably it is because no flaw is exposed (other than its likelyhood to jam) that it is still the carrick bend.
Because of this discussion and much reflection, I am forming the opinion that tag ends may be utilized without a change in the parent knot if the parent knot is not jeopordized in the process. In many cases, tension on tag ends are beneficial to the parent knot and this probably led to the common practice of stopper knots, hitches and tucks placed in tag ends for added security.
Using your logic, would it be fair to say that if my zeppelin loop (not OP knot) was created with a long tag end that was used--picture a taught line with a loop created out of the would be tag ends of a zeppelin bend hanging from the middle--then a true zeppelin knot would appear and disappear inversely with the appearance and disappearance of a load on the loop? Or if a true zeppelin bend were created, would it cease to exist if I tied the tag ends together and hung a bird feeder from the newly created loop? I think not, but only because of a difference in our knot philosophy.
taggert
PS. My participation in this discussion is not meant to dissuade or persuade but only to understand the viewpoints of others and explain mine so that they may be understood aswell.
-
what if the end (or standing part) is utilized differently but there is no flaw with the change in mechanics?
Then we will have a different knot, that may be better or worse than the its reversed. I have not said that there is any "flaw" in your knots, they are just different from the Zeppelin bend. And the last one is looking like the reversed Zeppelin bend, which is inferior to the Zeppelin bend ( otherwise we would have been using it in place of the Zeppelin bend, would nt we ?)
(Incidentally, I have tied and posted a (now lost) picture of the "round" knot you show here, in the same thread about the pseudo-, so-called " Zeppelin loop". A member of this Forum commented on it, as being a more faithful rope-made representation of the circle than the Honda knot. :) )
There is a number of different bends, neither of them being " flawed" , that are the reversed knot of each other. Have a look at tw0/four of them :
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3670
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3939
There was a comment on the symmetry of the bends on a previous post.
Generally speaking, symmetric beds are stronger than asymmetric ones, because both links are loaded equally, so no one is much weaker than the other. Of course, that does not rule out the theoretical possibility of an asymmetric bend where the weaker link would be stronger than any symmetric link of any other bend... :) I would be glad to stand corrected in this, and learn such a miraculous bend ! :)
I suggest you continue to tie good, simple knots as those you have presented here, and not be concerned too much with their names. It is the mechanics that is important, and it was the unique mechanics of the Zeppelin bend that made it the best bend we have, not its name. Yes, the true Zeppelin bend would disappear, if you burry it underneath more tucks and wraps - like the so-called "Zeppelin loop" . Otherwise, ANY tangle of ropes that has a Zeppelin bend tied on a corner of it would have the right to be called Zeppelin whatever knot, would nt it ? :)
The use of the "Zeppelin" name does not, by itself, offer any glory...It has been attempted many times in the past, with no result. On the contrary, it leads to automatic comparisons, that would be most probably unfavorable for the new diecovery - which might well be a very useful and nice knot.
-
And the last one is looking like the reversed Zeppelin bend, which is inferior to the Zeppelin bend ( otherwise we would have been using it in place of the Zeppelin bend, would nt we ?)
If this is the reversed zeppelin:
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/ZeppelinLoop.jpeg)
Then what is this?
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/RevZep.JPG)
As far as the reverse zeppelin bend being inferior to the zeppelin bend, probably so because of its ease of snagging.
taggert
-
I will answer to the rhetorical question as I would if it were not ( rhetorical and/or question )
Neither the first, nor the second is the Zeppelin or the reversed Zeppelin bend - simply because in the Zeppelin and in the reversed Zeppelin bend we have two loaded and two free ends, while at those end-of-line loops we have three loaded and one free end.
If we wish sooo much to establish some hierarchy of even the most remote relationship ( like people that wish so desperately to be linked with some member of a royal family, that are prepared to go back 100 years, or to Adam and Eve, to find a common ancestor with a king ), we can say this : To retain the symmetry in loading as much as possible, the two opposing ends of the would-be knot that are equally loaded should be in the place of the equally loaded standing ends of the knot they are eager to imitate. Based on this, the first is an imitation of the reversed Zeppelin bend, and the second an imitation of the reversed Zeppelin bend - but neither one of them is a Zeppelin knot, any more than the pseudo- so-called "Zeppelin loop", which has occupied the place before any new client.
Let us examine the mechanics of the knots themselves, and leave the question of names and relationships to posterity...
Have a look at a knot that I, too, wished to believe it has some remote relationship with the Zeppelin bend, even if it does not even look like it (obviously !)
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3741
-
Then what is this?
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/RevZep.JPG)
As far as the reverse zeppelin bend being inferior to the zeppelin bend, probably so because of its ease of snagging.
Any loop that places 100% of the applied load on what would ordinarily be the free end of the Zeppelin Bend is going to be prone to jamming and is therefore typically avoided. The standard Zeppelin Loop (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html) keeps load on the free ends of the Zeppelin Bend (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/Zeppelin.html) at 50% and 0% of the main load.
Don't worry too much about coming to some agreement with X1. He won't even acknowledge the simple correspondence between a Sheet Bend and a Bowline. (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.msg22469#msg22469)
-
Hi Taggert,
For what it's worth, I follow the opinion of Dan for the idea about your OP posted knot, which I like, and I follow the opinion of X1 in believing that this knot has not really much to do with the Zeppelin knot.For as I see it the knot that you have presented,actually has more to do with this(IMHO):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeDQWDRkU44 (The author of the video calls it IRRESPONSIBLY "Alpine Butterfly Knot")
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1892.msg13064#msg13064
What is certain is that there are differences (the two loops through which passes the bight which will form the loop are not symmetrical in the case of your knot, not to mention that:
there is an additional exterior wrap present to stabilize the knot and allow tying on the bight.
The knot you submitted, in itself, seems to actually be more stable (and again, I like the idea) than that linked to me, but it's the exterior wrap that saves the stability of the knot,that it also seems to be the weakness, because if you think about it just a little to that,in some situations it can be accidentally moved,instantly making the knot unsafe.
Bye!
-
Don't worry too much about coming to some agreement with X1. He won't even acknowledge the simple correspondence between a Sheet Bend and a Bowline. (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.msg22469#msg22469)
Ah, yes, true, I do not, -and I am also glad I do not belong to the psittacoedea ... :) to repeat again and again the mistaken statement of Ashley, for another century.
If anybody wishes to learn which is the "Sheet bend bowline", i.e. the bowline-like loop that corresponds to the Sheet bend, he should better read ( and then think by himself) :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg23702#msg23702
See the attached pictures)
(There is a lenghty thread about bowlines, that might be useful to some people.)
The standard Zeppelin Loop (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html)
As I have said, it seems that the seat ( would-like-to-be-throne... :)) of the "Zeppelin loop" is taken.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1652&bih=781&q=throne&oq=throne&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2307.4800.0.5315.6.6.0.0.0.0.101.580.5j1.6.0.eaqth..0.0...1.1.ncC-en6m0FY
-
Generally speaking, symmetric beds are stronger than asymmetric ones,
because both links are loaded equally, so no one is much weaker than the other.
Of course, that does not rule out the theoretical possibility of an asymmetric bend
where the weaker link would be stronger than any symmetric link of any other bend... :)
I would be glad to stand corrected in this, and learn such a miraculous bend ! :)
In some testing the butterfly bend proved an equal
if not superior (in A-vs-B testing) competitor to the zeppelin
--and I can wonder if the dressing of the former might
not have been as good as could be. The Albright knot is one
among anglers' knots that tests strong; but anglers are so
often not tying like materials together. (And X would like
to regard the A.k. as a hitch --a bight hitch, in my
nomenclature.) But the above spurious reasoning stands
devoid of real evidence --and really of actual asymmetric
end-2-end knots to compare! (Among venerable, simple
knots, the sheet bend is usually shown as stronger
than the squaREef knot .)
We even don't have any evidence (nor real theory) that
a difference in end-2-end component *halves* implies
a difference in strengths --e.g., that a sheet bend
will always break in the bight (say) half, not the loop
half; or that the butterfly will do so in one side,
predominantly.
... this intentionally blunt, but clear and fair criticism...
That's partially true on the first part, and optimistic at best otherwise.
You should ... understand that the "pivot(s)" of the Zeppelin bend is (are) not loaded from its (their) one end
--they are tails, not attached to something !
Unattached & "tails" don't work together --they are
connected parts to SParts. And in the case of an eye knot
formed in the general manner I showed precisely for the
zeppelin those so-called "pivots" are in place, and one greater
in number --via the *twinning* of one side's cordage.
The amusing/good thing s that, although you critisize the marvelous
Zeppelin bend from time to time ( it will need additional manipulation/dressing
to take its form, you keep saying...),
you do like the additional glory the Zeppelin name offers !
Rather, I try to balance the irrational exuberance often found
in gushing mentions of the knot, which seems to shine with
such brightness in some beholders' eyes as to blind them
from reality. (The latest Knotting Matters contained one tester's
observations about the z.'s lesser stability getting to rupture.
He found it stronger than SmitHunter's & weaker than Ashley's (#1452),
which pretty much corresponds to some other testing.)
--to wit:
... it was the unique mechanics of the Zeppelin bend that made it the best bend we have
Ah, yes, "the BEST BEND ..." --whatever that means
(it means someone has got infatuation). "Best kept
secret" might go along with such a rating, given the
objective measure of frequency of usage --a knot soooo
good we save it for last (as in : "best for last") should we
ever need it.
But I have no such asserted "like for additional glory"
with the name, but simply the obvious association of
things and quick recognition of what is intended. Indeed,
given the recent revelations about the (1) unknowing of
the knot by the Naval commander once said to insist upon
it (!), and (2) doubt about how any end-2-end knot would
much figure in airship mooring, I find the name a potential
deception. But, given (1) I back off my once preference
for "Rosendahl's bend" as the name, and leave it to the
name invented by the SAILING author(s), who might have
invented its legend as well.
--dl*
====
-
no [eye knot] knot ( 3 limbs knot ) can match the Zeppelin bend's mechanics
--the rope-made hinge, where the pivot is made by the two tails.
Except that the one I've referred to --rightmost of my 4 sketched--
does this, as exactly as can be, with one of the tails *twinned*,
hence 3 parts (with added stability and potential for strength).
Fundamentally, an eye knot is a knot of 2 parts (hence 4 ends,
"limbs"?), with one end loaded in opposition to its tail and one
other end ; if there's to be a correspondence between end-2-end
(only one end of each part loaded, in opposition to each other)
and an eye knot, this difference of course will exist.
... is indeed a true zeppelin knot
What is "true" is a matter of contention.
But for correspondence between eye & end-2-end knots,
there are a few ways to see this:
Assume end-2-end knot with parts 1-2 joined to A-B,
ends 1 & A loaded and ends 2 & B being tails (unloaded).
Assume that this is a symmetric knot.
A corresponding eye knot can be formed as follows:
1) end 2 can extend and fuse into end A,
taking 50% of the opposition to 1 with A,
leaving B as the tail;
2) end 2 can trace the path through the knot of
B->A and then fuse into A (this is what I show
in my "best match");
3) end 2 can extend and fuse into end B,
taking ...,
leaving A as the tail. (You show this,
and this is the correspondence of the butterfly
--and, being asymmetric, there are two such knots
(beyond the various dressings, to begin with!).)
(Interesting : the fig.8 / overhand eye knots could be seen
as a happy merge of 1 & 2 where 2's fusing comes at the
very entry of knot.)
To my thinking, correspondence #3 is least close, in that
it reduces the load on A from 100% to 0%; in #1 & #2,
the reduction is to 50%, with the eye knot's tail being
a tail in the end-2-end knot also.
--dl*
====
-
the one I've referred to ... does this, as exactly as can be
I do not know if it is as exactly as it could be, because I have not tied all the possible pseudo-Zeppelin or the Zeppelin-like loop knots...but I agree that it does it as exactly as you could do it. I do not say that it is a poor knot, or that you have not tried as much as you could, but, to my judgement, it was, as I have said, " close but no cigar".
If you want to occupy the Zeppelin loop seat or throne, I inform you that it is taken :). Are you going to throw down the gauntlet to the present holder? :)
if there's to be a correspondence between end-2-end(only one end of each part loaded, in opposition to each other) and an eye knot, this difference of course will exist.
True, but this was not my only point in this argument. What I detest is that a so symmetric, almost minimal (as a two interlocked OH knot links) and so beautiful knot, as the Zeppelin bend, "corresponds" to such ugly messes as the various pseudo-Zeppelin loops that surface from time to time.
If it were just a common - less unique, in its mechanics, and less beautiful, in its aspect - bend, and it was this bend that "corresponded" to a loop knot of the same quality, I would not be so strict in my judgement. However, with the Zeppelin knot, I can offer no sales, I am afraid.
Anyway, it seems that for the loop knots, too, the Zeppellinqueness lies in the eye of the beholder...Would you call me as a second to the field of honour of the duel that is going to decide the holder of the throne ? :)
... is indeed a true zeppelin knot
What is "true" is a matter of contention.
True ! :)
To my thinking, correspondence #3 is least close, in that it reduces the load on A from 100% to 0%; in #1 & #2, the reduction is to 50%, with the eye knot's tail being a tail in the end-2-end knot also.
You could possibly see like this... but this option destroys the symmetric loading of the standing ends of the bends (any bends, but in the case of a most symmetric bend, like the Zeppelin bend, this destruction hurts more...), 100 % - that is, the reduction of symmetry is infinite ! :)
Unattached & "tails" don't work together --they are connected parts to SParts. And in the case of an eye knot formed in the general manner I showed precisely for the zeppelin those so-called "pivots" are in place.
You have not understood my reasoning... I have argued that it matters a lot that, in the case of the unique Zeppelin bend, the pivots are tails, hall-inert segments of rope that are loaded only from the one side. If the pivots are segments of rope that are loaded from both sides, like the second and the third in your knot, they are participating in the integrity of the knot in another, "common" way : they hold the two bights together ! So, they are not pivots any more, they are binding bights, for Zeppelin sake ! The pivots of a hinge should be loaded mainly by shear forces, and this is what is happening to the rope-made hinge that is the Zeppelin bend. Otherwise, ANY bend could be considered as a hinge, if a tail would penetrate a bight of a link ! ( and that is necessarily happening in ANY bend ! :))
Why you keep ignoring the obvious, is a great mystery to me ! Let me say again that :
1. To have a rope-made hinge, the two bights should not be hooked to each other, they should not be interlocked, they should be parallel to each other .
2. To have a rope-made hinge, the two links of the bend should be connected by almost inert pivots, segments of rope that do not connect the two bights directly, as binding bights. In the case of the Zeppelin bend, this pivot role is played by the tails, that are loaded only from the one side. I have said that, being tails, they are the less loaded segments of the knot, and they are the only ones that are loaded only from their one side.
There is another point that I have not mentioned, that shows how inert, pivot-like are the tails in the Zeppelin bend : even this minimal, in relation to the other parts of the knot, loading of the tails, is cancelled to a large degree by their opposing orientation. The friction between those two tails, which are squeezed upon each other by the nipping action of the two bights, is great, so it can absorb the greater part of their one-side loading. So the bights are left without any intervention of the tails, free to revolve around the pivot(s), as in any hinge. Try to rotate the two bights, one to clockwise and the other to counter-clockwise direction, to see what I mean. A hinge ! :)
Now, as I said, I have tried to use, as pivot(s), only one slipped, two-lines tail - i.e. a first half-loaded and a second unloaded segment of rope, but I had not found anything stable. The sheer forces at a self-stabilizing hinge should be confronted by two, at least, lines, but the balance of the hinge is very sensitive to unequal, oblique loadings...May be you can find something if you try this road.
Ah, yes, "the BEST BEND ..." --whatever that means (it means someone has got infatuation). "Best kept secret" might go along with such a rating, given the objective measure of frequency of usage --a knot soooo good we save it for last (as in : "best for last") should we ever need it.
I sincerely wonder if you could ever free yourself, and agree that something, anything, is better than all the other ( that "something" being a knot, or whatever else, EXCEPT a knot tyer ! :))
Yes, the Zeppelin bend is the best bend we have, and this has nothing to do with how many times it is used by people ! It is a statement judging quality, not quantity - and it is not hgoing to be submitted to a vote, I am afraid. General Relativity is the best theoy of gravity we have, yet it is not used so much - in fact, it is used much less than the Newtonian theory.
I know the two bests hitches we have, able to withstand lengthwise loading. The first was not even known to the best knot tyer we have ( :)) , but known and used in a daily basis by the worst sailor of any commercial ship. The second is probably known to a handfull of people, and only two had ever spelled a word about it. Remember those facts the next time you will attempt to humour the best whatever...
I would be glad if my profession would be to defend the Zeppelin bend :) - but I am afraid the best of anything does not need any defender !
-
Don't worry too much about coming to some agreement with X1. He won't even acknowledge the simple correspondence between a Sheet Bend and a Bowline. (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1902.msg22469#msg22469)
The moment I was copying the pictures of the Sheet bend bowline, to respond to this wise advise ( offered with a lamentable/laughable self-confidence that always accompanies a complete lack of any understanding, knowledge or doubt), I noticed something I should have noticed in the first place, but it was hidden under my nose ! :)
Obviously, the loop knot of the Sheet bend bowline is but the untucked Zeppelin X bend ! ( If we tuck each one standing end of the Sheet bend bowline through the same bight the other standing end goes through, we get the Zeppelin X bowline). Just another tuck, and a frog can be transfigured into a prince - a not uncommon transformation in the world of knots.
At just the same moment, I realized that I am talking to three proud fathers, that present their daughters as brides to share the Zeppelin bend s throne :) - so what am I going to do ? Be the fourth musketeer ? :) Noope. I decided that there are already too many nominees, and I do not wish to present yet another pseudo-Zeppelin loop...( I only mention that, the Zeppelin X being not so symmetric a knot as the Zeppelin bend, there would be less love lost if one would destroy its symmetry by loading one of its tails and transforming it into a loop knot - so the destruction that happens in the case of the original bend and which I detest, would be not matter so much here...).
I only wish to present here this relationship between the Sheet bend bowline ( which is a poor loop knot, because the collar can be easily loosened if the loop is not under constant tension ), and the Zeppelin X bend ( which is the cream of the cream... :)).
-
Hi Taggert,
(EDIT:Initially I put the wrong photo, then I corrected)
If this is the reversed zeppelin:
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/ZeppelinLoop.jpeg)
This is the "real" Zeppelin loop!, In the sense that this knot corresponds to the Zeppelin bend , such as the Butterfly loop corresponds to the Butterfly bend;in fact just cut both loops, to obtain the respective bends; starting from the bends is then quite intuitive to be able to realize the end-loop versions, as reported by roo as regards the Zeppelin, and as shown in this site also as regards the Butterfly:
http://davidmdelaney.com/alpine-butterfly-loop/Alpine-butterfly-bend-loop.html
http://davidmdelaney.com/zeppelin/Zeppelin-bend-and-Zeppelin-loop.html
The beauty of the Butterfly, is that it is a knot usable in a profitable way in all three of these "positions/uses" [mid-line loop, bend, end-line loop "derived" from the bend (it could be that the Butterfly, due to the its partial asymmetry, may be a more suitable knot, compared to the Zeppelin, about this " position/use", but in fact I like the idea of the practical use of the Zeppelin (end-line) loop, because, while on the one hand the fact that during use is loaded a portion of rope that corresponds to one of the tails if the knot was a bend makes a sort of "offense" to the symmetry of forms and forces of the Zeppelin bend, on the other, I see this as at the end to be a tribute to the value of the knot, which remains stable and easy to untie even in the condition of this asymmetry of forces present when using it as a loop)].
Unfortunately, unlike the Butterfly (mid-line) loop, the "real" Zeppelin loop (regardless of the type of use that one might imagine for this strange, circular, perpendicular to the line, loop) I think that is not possible to achieve it tying in the bight, and then nobody uses it!
Maybe also from this comes the inspiration to make the knot originally posted by you?
After my banalities, I would still allow me to get out a small inaccuracy that you have written earlier about the Carrick bend: this (beautiful) bend remains symmetrical even when is closed without seizing the tails, allowing them to tip over: look at the knot,holding it in front of you in the position where the standing parts are horizontal, and then you rotate the knot on the vertical axis to see the other side (harder to write down than done!):you'll see the same shape!
If you want, continue to observe how intersect the two Munter hitches/crossing knots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munter_hitch
that have come to form ... I like this bend!
If you want, you can do the same thing with a Zeppelin bend: when you rotate the knot on the vertical axis, to see the other side, you will not see the same image, but a"mirror"image of of the other side;and, if you rotate the knot on the horizontal axis,you will see another mirror image of the shape of the knot,mirror image on other axis(it is always harder said than done);or, you can try to make a mirror version of the Zeppelin bend,in respect of the way you usually realize it, but ... you fail!Because the Zeppelin bend is so symmetrical that it is impossible to make a symmetrical version, will still be the exact same knot! ... I love this bend!
Bye!
-
I have found some ruins of a deleted post, that I thought they were lost for ever :
The "other" Zeppelin Loop.
What happens when we use the Zeppelin bend as the base of a loop, using the tail of the original bend as the standing end of the loop ? We get another Zeppelin loop !, probably as good as its major relative, but me, for one, I have never read something about it. In its loaded form it looks quite different from "the" Zeppelin Loop we have been discussing about on this thread, but it is more compact, and perhaps, as an end of one line loop, an even better knot ! Who knows ? It might be an easier knot to tie... :)
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12812#msg12812
-
The particular knot looks more as a double line overhand knot, that works more like a water bend and/or an overhand bend, not as the Zeppelin bend.
You discredit yourself severely, here : such blatant non-seeing,... is a blindness...
For one without such dis-ease can clearly see ...
Picture 1 : I see an overhand loop ( ABoK#1009), which is the loop knot " corresponding" to the water bend(ABoK#1412), and/or to the double line overhand knot / the overhand bend ( ABoK#1410).
Picture 2 : I see the same overhand loop - that has shaken its tail a little bid...
Picture 3 : I see the same overhand loop + an overhand knot : the standing end has been retucked through the double line overhand knot / the overhand bend, and has formed an overhand knot.
Picture 4 : I see yet another (would-like to share the throne of the Zeppelin bend) " Zeppelin loop" :)
Am I blind ? Do I suffer from some dangerous blindness-causing dis-ease, I wonder... :)
However, I do see an attempt to treat the disadvantage of the simplest TIB loop, the overhand loop - it jams too quickly -, with the addition of some material into the knot s core, in the form of a simple overhand knot. That could serve as a general strategy, to treat knots that suffer from quick janmming - and, at the same time, enhance the strength of the knot - because, by increasing the volume of the knot s core, we can achieve wider curves of the standing part(s) turning around it.
-
Am I blind ? Do I suffer from some dangerous blindness-causing dis-ease, I wonder... :)
That has been answered with ample evidence, for most
readers, already.
I wonder why you didn't invent this progression earlier,
where, instead, you managed to see a zeppelin knot
in Ashley's #582 single-strand lanyard knot!?
--to wit:
My point here was that the ABoK#582 is a knot with
so similar a structure with the Zeppelin bend,
that makes me wonder if/how Ashley knew the stopper, but missed the bend.
And now you demonstrate missing so well!
Question : given #582, how would you make an eye knot from it,
to realize the Great Z. you worship?
--dl*
====
-
[edit to close quote mid-way of "You have not understood my reasoning..."]
the one I've referred to ... does this, as exactly as can be
I do not know if it is as exactly as it could be, because I have not tied all the possible pseudo-Zeppelin or the Zeppelin-like loop knots...but I agree that it does it as exactly as you could do it. I do not say that it is a poor knot, or that you have not tried as much as you could, but, to my judgement, it was, as I have said, " close but no cigar".
If you want to occupy the Zeppelin loop seat or throne, I inform you that it is taken :). Are you going to throw down the gauntlet to the present holder? :)
You have not done squat in producing some presumed
zeppelin eye knot --and pointing to Mr. Lee's knot really
goes wide of the mark.
To my thinking, correspondence #3 is least close, in that it reduces the load on A from 100% to 0%; in #1 & #2, the reduction is to 50%, with the eye knot's tail being a tail in the end-2-end knot also.
You could possibly see like this... but this option destroys the symmetric loading of the standing ends of the bends (any bends, but in the case of a most symmetric bend, like the Zeppelin bend, this destruction hurts more...), 100 % - that is, the reduction of symmetry is infinite ! :)
What you say only supports my dismissal of "correspondence #3"
but you act as though you have misunderstood me as favoring it?
(And Luca comes out with it as "true" [correspondence], no less !) ::)
Unattached & "tails" don't work together --they are connected parts to SParts. And in the case of an eye knot formed in the general manner I showed precisely for the zeppelin those so-called "pivots" are in place.
You have not understood my reasoning...
I have argued that it matters a lot that, in the case of the unique Zeppelin bend,
the pivots are tails, hal[f]-inert segments of rope that are loaded only from the one side.
If the pivots are segments of rope that are loaded from both sides,
like the second and the third in your knot,
they are participating in the integrity of the knot in another, "common" way : they hold the two bights together !
So, they are not pivots any more, they are binding bights, for Zeppelin sake !
The pivots of a hinge should be loaded mainly by shear forces,
and this is what is happening to the rope-made hinge that is the Zeppelin bend.
And it is so in the rightmost/4th corresponding eye knot I've
presented and discussed previously & above, respectively.
The "pivots" are three, now;
that from one of the eye legs is indeed the eye knot's tail'
that from the SPart and from the other eye-leg have
conceptual/non-extant tails, but each has its nipped
entry into & through the nipping turns of the knot
--i.e., it's not that the SPart's former-in-end_2_end-knot
tail is "supported" but that it's not present, and what is
in its place is the corresponding eye-leg's closing collar,
whose would-be tail is also vacuous, its place taken reciprocally
by the SPart's collar. The collars, after all, must be nipped
and supported; the absence of unloaded tails is no loss (like
not adding 0, twice, to some sum).
Why you keep ignoring the obvious, is a great mystery to me ! Let me say again that :
Perhaps it's time for you to consider non-"obvious" things.
1. To have a rope-made hinge,
the two bights should not be hooked to each other,
they should not be interlocked,
they should be parallel to each other .
And so they are unhooked, non-interlocked, and parallel.
2. To have a rope-made hinge,
the two links of the bend should be connected by almost inert pivots,
segments of rope that do not connect the two bights directly,
as binding bights.
In the case of the Zeppelin bend, this pivot role is played by the tails,
that are loaded only from the one side.
This I've addressed above : one can negatively see a former
pivot being loaded on both sides,
or one can see that on the *other* side, it is no longer itself,
but a pivot rightfully existing from the other direction (and
only unloaded parts to these two --from each side-- pivots
are lost, the essential, knot-preserving parts manifest materially!).
Ah, yes, "the BEST BEND ..." --whatever that means (it means someone has got infatuation).
Yes, the Zeppelin bend is the best bend we have,
and this has nothing to do with how many times it is used by people !
Apparently, it has to do with nothing. Maybe you dreamt it. ;D
--dl*
====
-
That has been answered with ample evidence, for most readers, already.
You say that the Zeppelin bend is not very good, because it is not used by many people. I say that I am not so blind, because there are not many readers left , to see what I see. If " most" of the readers who see my blindnes is the one most of us know very well, I agree ! :)
I wonder why you didn't invent this progression earlier
Oh, I had, I had, the first moment I had saw the knot the first time, back in the good old days - during the infamous thread about the other contender of the " Zeppelin loop" throne. Because it seems even blind people can see with the eyes of their mind. It should have been obvious even to you, because the double line is sooo long ( the one line follows/retraces the other for such a long path inside the knot s path). that the structure of the overhand loop ( the double line overhand knot), is OBVIOUS - while the claimed structure of the Zeppelin bend is a " great " invention ! :)
Question : given #582, how would you make an eye knot from it, to realize the Great Z. you worship?
I do not know. I have not brought any daughter of mine to the beauty contest, you did ! :)
I say, let the Great Z remain bachelor, we do not need a greater royal family... :)
-
You have not done squat in producing some presumedzeppelin eye knot
But I had ! And not one, two ! (It seems that the Zeppelin-mania dis-ease is contagious...)
What did you say about
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12812#msg12812
and about the retucked Sheet bend bowline ?
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4084.msg24495#msg24495
Apparently, nothing. Maybe you dreamt it. ;D
I have not seen anything you had posted about those pseudo-Zeppelin loops - but sorry, I forgot, I am sooo blind, I would nt even if I had tried... :)
The "pivots" are three, now;
that from the SPart and from the other eye-leg have conceptual/non-extant tails,
The one pivot is there, true, but it could nt have been elsewhere :) - I mean, it is easy/natural for the one tail to penetrate both bights - this happens to many bends, not only to the Zeppelin bend. However, the other one is sooo " conceptually"- and only conceptually, unfortunately - pivot-like ( because it is, in the same time, also something else : a part of the obvious double line overhand knot structure), that I do not see it. The over-hand knot structure over-laps the claimed Zeppelin bend structure. And I have not said anything yet about the beauty of your daughter, had I ? Of course, it lies in the eye of the beholder - but only there, I am afraid. Come on, you too had somewhere ( I do not recall where ) said that this knot is unnecessarily complicated - to the degree it became ugly. We have so many good, nice TIB loops, do we really need this conception ?
need this conception ?
the absence of unloaded tails is no loss (like not adding 0, twice, to some sum).
Good try. But you do not add two 0 s, what you actually/materially do is to add a 0 and a -1 ( because the second, "conceptual" tail, is also part of something greater, something occupying a much longer portion of the total ropelength of the knot - the structure of the double line overhand knot.) So, you actually subtract the Zeppelinquence, in favour of the overhandloopquence of your knot.
one can negatively see a former pivot being loaded on both sides
That is what I see. You can call it negative-ness ( of which you have a great experience, indeed ), but not blind-ness !
I have not imagined/realized that you would be so eager to defend your knots - even more ferrociously than you offend anybody else s ! :)
It is a nice TIB loop, that addresses the problem of the most simple overhand loop, with the adition of a overhand knot. It has some similarity with the structure of the Zeppelin bend, indeed, which might be a further reason it will not jam early. It is not easy to tie in the bight, and it is very asymmetrical - so it is hard to be inspected at a glance. Let it/her queue with the other Zeppelin s throne brides, and let us proceed forward - if we really wish any of the "most" other readers to remain in place !
-
You have not done squat in producing some presumed
Unfortunatelly perhaps, I have - twice ! -, but I will recover from this dis-ease soon, I promise my doctor ! I will SEE, again ! :)
--and pointing to Mr. Lee's knot really goes wide of the mark.
I wish to make it clear, again, that I do not consider either one of the two Lee-Zep bowlines ( see the attached pictures) to be the "corresponding" to the Zeppelin bend loop knot !
Please, read my lips :
This bowline is one of the best I know. However, I do not see it as a bowline "corresponding" to the Zeppelin bend - but as a bowline where there are maximally interlinked nipping loops on both legs of its bight. The one loop serves as the "nipping structure", and the other loop as the (one-half of the) "collar structure" ( the other half is a "proper" bowline collar).
I had tried to enhance this "maximal" way the limbs of the loop knot are interlinked even more. with the " Lee Zep X bowline" , presented in the same post. ( This trial is not counted in the "twice"... :))
From a non-TIB end-of-line loop, I prefer a TIB one. And from a non-bowline TIB end-of-line loop, I prefer a non-TIB bowline !
-
I wonder why you didn't invent this progression earlier
... It should have been obvious even to you, because the double line is sooo long ( the one line follows/retraces the other for such a long path inside the knot's path), that the structure of the overhand loop ( the double line overhand knot), is OBVIOUS - while the claimed structure of the Zeppelin bend is a " great " invention ! :)
"Sooo long"?! "The one line" semi-retraces --nb: your own defined process
(for finding the zeppelin bend in Ashley's #582, a bend from single-strand
lanyard knot)-- the other precisely to your stipulation of half-way. Here,
to find the matching eye knot, not end-2-end knot.
Which was the point of my question noting this relationship.
Question : given #582, how would you make an eye knot from it, to realize the Great Z. you worship?
I do not know. I have not brought any daughter of mine to the beauty contest, you did ! :)
And you had no trouble finding the zeppelin in the lanyard knot,
to the point of musing admonishment for his missing --or, rather, musing
that he had NOT missed it but just declined to recognize it-- the knot,
to wit:
Ashley knew the Zeppelin knot, but decided not to publish it,
because it was invented by a (German) enemy : The proof that he knew it,
is ABoK#582 stopper - which is the Zeppelin bend turned into a stopper
!!! Your selective vision is a marvel!
Ashley's #582 is precisely the SPart's structure in the eye knot
at issue in our debate, and the completion by your prescribed
"semi-retracing" is there as well. And yet you mis-see in that
an overhand loop (which loaded geometry in fact doesN'T obtain).
If you insist upon (here, though not for the lanyard knot) unloaded
"pivots", one could form a gratuitous loop of what I see as the
"fused" tails (of the single-strand_tied_to_bight-ends) such that
non-tension could be observed in them (and "they" would be
materially plural, adding 1 additional part being nipped); this would
be of course merely a theoretical exercise to appease the recalcitrant.
(For an eye knot with such a reeve-the-bight formation into an
overhand knot base, I actually prefer one in which this reeving
takes an asymmetric path that put more pressure on the SPart,
and also gives a more rounded U-turn to it. It bulks well more
than the fig.8 eye knot, but might give the high strength with
ease of untying, for those selective uses in which such attributes
can be seen compelling.)
--dl*
====
-
"Sooo long"?! "The one line" semi-retraces --nb: your own defined process (for finding the zeppelin bend in Ashley's #582, a bend from single-strand lanyard knot)-- the other precisely to your stipulation of half-way.
OK, the one end retraces the other s path alongside halfway, only, of the total path through the knot - but this iseems enough to destroy the balance, because what is derived after the retracing, does not remain symmetric ( as it happens in the case of the ABoK#582 and the Zeppelin bend ). Just LOOK at your knot, with the eye of the Great Z : Do you see a beautiful bride ? Do you see something related to you, to the Zeppelin kingdom, or to the kingdom of your enemy, the G double line overhand knot ?
!!! Your selective vision is a marvel!
Thank you my doctor ! Miracles do happen, after all ! My blindness disappeared overnight, and turned onto a marvellous selective vision ! :)
And yet you mis-see in that an overhand loop (which loaded geometry in fact doesN'T obtain).
Mis-see, but SEE nevertheless ! :) True, the loading is different, indeed, but loading can not be seen easily. Your knot does not have the loading of the double line overhand knot, that is true, but its half looks like it - and the other half looks like a single line overhand knot ! On the contrary, it does not have the loading of the Zeppelin bend ( because of the additional binding role played by one of its pivots, which, because of this role, can not play the role of the pivot simultaneously, i.e. be doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde at the same time... :)), and G Zeppelin only knows how much it has the looks of the Zeppelin bend !
I wonder what is your greater problem, that your knot should be seen as not-related to the double line overhand knot plus single line overhand knot, or that it should be seen as related to the Zeppelin bend... I have opened a second front to facilitate my line of argument, and it seems you have fallen in the trap. :) Two fronts are better for me and worse for you. And things at third, Western front ( that of the analogy between the two pairs, ABoK#582 -Zeppelin bend, on the one hand, and Zeppelin bend - your daughter on the other) are not going much better, I am afraid. The ABoK#582 and the Zeppelin bend are both symmetric AND beautiful, while the beauty of your daughter is not even skin deep...
one could form a gratuitous loop of what I see as the "fused" tails (of the single-strand_tied_to_bight-ends) such thatnon-tension could be observed in them (and "they" would be materially plural, adding 1 additional part being nipped); this would be of course merely a theoretical exercise to appease the recalcitrant.
The recalcitrant sees that " plurality" is the only thing that would characterize this compound knot ! We have gone from the humble 2 +1 ( 2 overhand knots, or 1 double line overhand knot, + 1 overhand knot ) to the the inflationary universe of this new monster.
For an eye knot with such a reeve-the-bight formation into an overhand knot base, I actually prefer one in which this reeving
takes an asymmetric path that put more pressure on the SPart, and also gives a more rounded U-turn to it. It bulks well more than the fig.8 eye knot, but might give the high strength with ease of untying, for those selective uses in which such attributes can be seen compelling.
I see ( ?!). It looks interesting. I , too, have already noticed the usefulness of this strategy, in this thread and elsewhere, to "feed" knots with retucked segments of rope, so to force the standing parts to follow wider / rounder curves. They would gain in strength, and in easiness of untying after heavy loading. I would be glad to see your conception in a picture or a drawing, if my blindness does not come back... :)
-
Hi Dan,
To my thinking, correspondence #3 is least close, in that
it reduces the load on A from 100% to 0%;
my dismissal of "correspondence #3"
...
(And Luca comes out with it as "true" [correspondence], no less !) ::)
I could not agree much more! So,in fact, when I wrote:
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/ZeppelinLoop.jpeg)
This is the "real" Zeppelin loop!,
I had no intention of entering into the merits of this your speech, and even less to argue against it[the no-correspondence (in the sense in which you intend it, regarding the load)];it is that my speech was an another, I apologize if I have not explained well, but that I wanted to say, in the core, was this analogy formula: if A is the knot quoted above, if B is the Zeppelin bend, if C is the[classical(/"real")]Butterfly loop, if D is the Butterfly bend, then
A is to B as C is to D
And it is only for this reason, I have argued that A="real"Zeppelin loop!
However, I wonder if,at this point, considering instead the loads that come into play within the knot during use, this can not be the nearest knot to be (ideally) designated as candidate to rise to the "status" of "real" Zeppelin loop (this is the photo that I for mistake linked in my first post):
Then what is this?
(http://crossbardesign.com/images/knotpics/RevZep.JPG)
That seems to me to be also the knot indicated by X1 in this post(is interesting the quote, and the link,and the roo's comment in the page linked in this post):
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4084.msg24498#msg24498
Thanks for everything Dan, a couple of times you complimented me for my good eye, if I do not do compliments to you is just because you do not need compliments from a little guy like me!
Bye!
-
I think I have an explanation why the DL s TIB loop is not so beautiful - to describe its ugliness as politely as I can.
It is because the overhand knot itself is an ugly knot ! I know that this statement would sound odd or incomprehensible to "pure" practical knot tyers, but it is true.
Compare the tight overhand knot to the fig.8 knot, or to the overhand knot itself in its loose fig.8-like fluid form. I do not wish to imagine how the world would look like if the living things, in general, and the humans, in particular, had such a form...
Then, why the Zeppelin bend IS beautiful ? After all, it (ot should I say "she" ? ) is not but two overhand knots hinged together around their tail pair.
Because of the symmetry of the con-figuration of the two overhand knots. Draw a curve as ugly as you can. Then, place near it a point- or a mirror-symmetric one. Even if your initial curve would look like a frog ( to describe it politely, once again...), the total sum would be aesthetically acceptable. How is this possible ? Because our brain recognizes the beauty of the pattern of the transformation, appreciates it, and ignores the ugliness of the individual elements.
In the Zeppelin bend, the two overhand knots are symmetrically placed ( composed ), while at the DL s TIB loop they are placed the one next to the other ( juxtaposed). In the former, the ugliness of the individual overhand knots is subtracted, while in the later it is multiplied. Not to mention that in the DL s knot the one overhand knot is fat ( double-lined) , while the other is slim ( single-lined) - that is, a Laurel and Hardy odd pair of overhand knots !
Now, if there was a clear, forced reason behind this juxtaposition, the brain would have had appreciated it, and would had persuaded the eye to delay its own judgement. I would dare to compare the DL s loop with the EVEN MORE UGLY "double crossed nipping loops bowline" I had presented in this Forum some time ago. There was a reason behind the construction ( to form a bowline-like loop knot that can hold even if its collar is cut ) which could not lead to any other, simpler, prettier knot. On the contrary, there is no compelling reason why we have to place the two overhand knots of the DL s TIB loop knot in such a position - and the "semi-retrace-the-Zeppelin-bend-to-see-what-happens", AT ALL COSTS ( material and formal) argument of DL does not sound convincing enough to me.
However, this knot IS new ( I would nt describe the Zeppelin - or the inversed Zeppelin - bend turned into an end-of -line pseudo-Zeppelin loop as ""new? knots - or as clever knots...), it is interesting, it is TIB ( although this is not a great comparative advantage - we have many much simpler TIB loops ), it is clever, and the general strategy it follows can be useful elsewhere.