International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: erizo1 on March 26, 2014, 08:14:08 PM
-
Judging from past exchanges on the forum, I'm aware that there are some strong feelings about the zeppelin loop, so I beg for responses to the following questions that are based on practical experience with the knots in question, leaving aside for the moment issues related to its name, the nature of its structure, its relationship to the Zeppelin bend, etc. Also, please assume that the strain I'm putting on the rope stays way below its breaking strength, so for the purposes of this post, strength is not a concern. Again, I'm exclusively interested in the practical results of using these knots.
1. Has anyone ever used a zeppelin loop and had it fail or become compromised? I'm wondering if anyone has had or knows about an experience that could be used to complete this sentence: "The zeppelin loop is very secure, except _____."
2. Same question as above about the double dragon loop.
3. Assuming that the knot was tied correctly (leaving aside for the moment how easy it is to tie correctly and double check), is there any reason based on experience why the zeppelin loop should not be used as a tie-in when climbing? I am trying to understand why I see so many references on the internet to the impressive security and jam resistance of the zeppelin loop, and yet it is not mentioned on any climbing page that I can find. Does ease of tying and checking account for the disparity, or is there some other reason?
4. Is anyone aware of some kind of formal testing that has been done on the security of the zeppelin loop or double dragon loop?
Thanks very much!
-
is very secure, except _____."
ALL loops based on an overhand knot ( or, for that matter, on a fig.8 knot ) tied on the Standing Part ( so, loaded with 100% of the total load from the Standing End side, and with 50% of the total load from the eye leg side ) are NOT as easily untied as the bowline-like loops - which are based on nipping structures topologically equivalent to the unknot. Also, all these overhand knot- ( or fig.8 knot- ) based loops, should be untied in two steps : in order to get a clean, unknotted rope ( which will not run the danger to be caught somewhere ), one has to untie the "relic", remaining overhand knot ( or the fig.8 knot ) from the Standing Part, after he has already untied the loop itself.
When tied on ordinary materials, there is no issue with the slippage of this non-Zeppelin eyeknot - just as it happens with ANY other of the dozens of dozens interlocked-overhand-knot bends turned into eyeknots : on the contrary, one of the many disadvantages of this fake Zeppelin knot is that oftentimes, after the first overhand knot ( the one tied on the Standing Part ) "closes", the second overhand knot ( the one tied at the returning eye-leg / Tail End ) does not - so, one can see that the degree of the complexity of this second part of the eyeknot is redundant. Even if it would had been entangled on a simpler than an overhand knot "nipping structure", tied on the Standing Part, an also simpler than an overhand knot "collar structure", tied on the returning eye leg, would had been enough ( See an example of this, at (1).
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4736
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4606
"... as the "main" first overhand knot, which is tied on the Standing part, is loaded first and more forcefully, it also "closes" and "locks" first, well before the second overhand knot, which is tied on the Tail. Consequently, this second overhand knot can well remain slag, with half of its structure not participating / contributing in the locking mechanism of the knot at all. The most evident result of it is a very tight, compact, rock solid first overhand knot, that has immobilized the eye leg of the Tail without any involvement of the second loose overhand knot, which is locked before / without been able to lock."
"With the start of the loading of the eye-knot, the overhand knot tied on the Standing part, which is pulled by both its limbs, "closes" faster than the overhand knot tied on the Tail, which is pulled by its one limb only. Therefore, at some point, the main overhand knot "locks" around the secondary one, before the later has given the opportunity to do the same around the former... The original genuine Zeppelin knot works so well because the two links are in such a perfect balance the one in relation to the other, that they are loaded equally, they close around each other at the same time, they lock and they themselves are locked at the same time, and they suffer the strain of the tensile forces in tandem, re-distributing them along the common "pivot" made by the pail of tails. Nothing of the above is happening with the evil imposter of the Zeppelin family of knots - and its ugliness, its tying complexity, its asymmetric dressing... are only evidences of a knotting crime committed the moment some thought it would be so easy to kiss a prince, and do not transform it into a frog..."
P.S.
It turns out that an overhand knot ( or a fig.8 knot) can clinch too tightly, even when tied on the returning eye leg / Tail End - i.e., as a "collar structure", which is loaded only with 50% of the total load from the eye leg and with 0% of the total load from the Tail... If such a knot can be less easy to untie when it is loaded less, it will not become more easy to untie when it is loaded more ! :)
-
1. Has anyone ever used a zeppelin loop (http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html) and had it fail or become compromised? I'm wondering if anyone has had or knows about an experience that could be used to complete this sentence: "The zeppelin loop is very secure, except _____."
I haven't had any such problems. On a more theoretical level, extremely slick line would likely pose issues for just about any loop knot.
2. Same question as above about the double dragon loop.
I was doing some shake testing of the double dragon loop with some Bluewater II, and found that it popped open and untied much earlier than I'd prefer when compared with other similar size or complexity loops.
3. Assuming that the knot was tied correctly (leaving aside for the moment how easy it is to tie correctly and double check), is there any reason based on experience why the zeppelin loop should not be used as a tie-in when climbing? I am trying to understand why I see so many references on the internet to the impressive security and jam resistance of the zeppelin loop, and yet it is not mentioned on any climbing page that I can find. Does ease of tying and checking account for the disparity, or is there some other reason?
If you're fine with tying it, I'd recommend it. As more people use it, it may eventually get mentioned in more places, but that takes time, often decades.
4. Is anyone aware of some kind of formal testing that has been done on the security of the zeppelin loop or double dragon loop?
This forum is probably one of your best online resources, but I haven't done a recent web search. I have noticed that some of the search engine results have degraded quite a bit recently, as an aside. Don't be afraid to do testing yourself with the line type you use and conditions that you expect.
-
Hi erizo1.
" "The zeppelin loop is very secure, except _____."
To fill in the blank I will put that there is no evidence I can find to suggest or prove that the Z-loop performs adequately in a drop test for climbing rope. I am sure that it can survive a slow pull test to a degree sufficient for hanging around,etc., but should one fall while climbing and the rope snatch tight, this is when a climber wants to know as absolutely as possible that the security and strength is there.
Then there is that annoying tail that sticks out to the side, distractingly so. I just don't want or need any of that type of thing during an ascent.
Same thoughts and feelings with the Dbl. Dragon loop.
My experience having used this loop as a tie in for anchoring something I was hauling is that it is not so easy to untie and so I've relegated it to the interesting and not used section.
Both do not offer any ease of loop size adjustment as some proven knots. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but something to consider if there is a need for speed.
SS
-
Thanks, everyone. Shock-testing the zeppelin loop seems like it would be a necessary step in that knot becoming an accepted tie-in knot.
-
Shock-testing the zeppelin loop seems like it would be a necessary step in that knot becoming an accepted tie-in knot.
There is nothing that would be relieved by such a test ! The first overhand knot ( the one tied on the Standing Part ), which will be too tightly locked around the second knot, will not open up, and the second overhand knot, which is nipped and locked by the first, although itself does not nip and does not lock it ( so, it does not contribute in the security of the knot ), will not close any more ! The imbalance of the two parts, regarding their contribution to the security of the whole knot, will be maintained, and it will probably be amplified as well.
If the mere property that a knot just does not slip during shock-pulling would be enough to be "accepted as a tie-in knot", each and every ugly tangly composed by overhand knots tied upon overhand knots, fig.8 knots tied upon fig.8 knots, and half hitches tied upon half hitches, would be fine ! In particular, each and every interlocked-overhand-knot bend blindly turned into an eyeknot by this ingenious "paste" way, would be sufficient, because it will not slip... There are dozens of dozens such bends that will not slip - so, their corresponding eyeknots will not slip, too, because eyeknots are more "secure", in this sense, than bends. And there are dozens of dozens bowline-like loops that are much easier to tie and to untie, that will not slip either - why on Earth one would like to test one particular more difficult to tie and to untie knot, and not all the others, is beyond my understanding. Perhaps the attraction of this fake Zeppelin knot, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" to some people, is due to the mesmerizing, indeed hypnotic effect of the Zzzz ...zzz...zzz consonant, repeated over and over again. :)
The real Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, is a marvellous, almost unique bend, which does not work as most of the other bends we know. It is a rope-made hinge, and the security and easiness with which it can be untied even after hard loading is based on this fact. People that learn knots only by reading knot books and memorizing knot recipes were astonished, because it was not easy for them to understand how it works - and it was not included in their Bible of knots, the ABoK. So, they made the ingenious thought to use it as an eyeknot, too, so they would be able to kill both birds with the same bullet... Mis-using the Zeppelin knot this bad way reveals two things : First, that the person who does this has not understood how the true, genuine Zeppelin-like knot, the Zeppelin bend, works, so he does not understand that this imposter is NOT a Zeppelin knot ( For Zeppelin-like loops, see, among others, (1)). Second, that the person who does this has not understood how the bowline works, he does not trust it, and he does not know anything about the dozens od dozens secure bowline-like loops, which are more easy to tie and untie ( and untie in only one step ) than any eyeknot based on an interlocked-overhand-knot ( or, for that matter, an interlocked-fig.8 knot bend ).
This fake Zeppelin knot will NEVER become "accepted as a tie-in knot", albeit for the wrong reason ! :) Its difficulty to be tied will save the true Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, from this faux bijoux. So, people who had never understood how the real Zeppelin knot and/or the bowline works, will also not understand why this knot recipe will not be mentioned in many places - even after centuries ! :) A necessary ingredient for a popular myth is to be naive and simplistic enough, in order to be able to be rehearsed / reproduced by the believers easily - and, unfortunately for them, this knot is not so easy to tie ...
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4095
-
Judging from past exchanges on the forum, I'm aware that there are some strong feelings about the zeppelin loop, so I beg for responses to the following questions that are based on practical experience with the knots in question, leaving aside for the moment issues related to its name, the nature of its structure, its relationship to the Zeppelin bend, etc.... Again, I'm exclusively interested in the practical results of using these knots.
There is nothing that would be relieved by such a test ! The first overhand knot ( the one tied on the Standing Part ), which will be too tightly locked around the second NOT, will not open up, and the second overhand knot, which is nipped and locked by the first....
...why on Earth one would like to test one particular more difficult to tie and to untie knot, and not all the others, is beyond my understanding. Perhaps the attraction of this fake Zeppelin knot, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" to some people, is due to the mesmerizing, indeed hypnotic effect of the Zzzz ...zzz...zzz consonant, repeated over and over again. :)
The real Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, is a marvellous, almost unique bend, which does not work as most of the other bends we know. It is a rope-made hinge....
This fake Zeppelin knot will NEVER become "accepted as a tie-in knot", albeit for the wrong reason ! :) Its difficulty to be tied will save the true Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, from this faux bijoux....
Xarax, I'm pretty sure I've read all of what you wrote above in other posts where you've expressed your opinion of the zeppelin loop. I'm hoping that by focusing on just a couple of things about the knots I mentioned, we can avoid needing to talk about all of the things about them.
Have you used the zeppelin loop for some practical application? If so, what was the result? I'm looking for information about what people have used the knot for and what the knot actually did or didn't do when it was used (hold, deform, slip, jam, etc.).
-
Judging from past exchanges on the forum, I'm aware that there are some strong feelings about the zeppelin loop,
And there are various knots that can lay claim
to that title (or to some part of it). We'll presume
that you mean the most commonly known (echoed)
one (but I recently discovered another TIB/PET one
which is holding my interest).
3. ... I am trying to understand why I see so many references on the internet
to the impressive security and jam resistance of the zeppelin loop,
and yet it is not mentioned on any climbing page that I can find.
One can find things occurring all over the Net that
turn out to be echoes of some initial item.
(E.g., ca. 2008-10 there was an article claiming that some
testing of the then-new $500 list Canon G10 compact camera
showed that medium-sized (big, really, for many (13x19"))
prints made with it couldn't be distinguished from ones
made with a $40k Hasselblad medium-format camera
(as judged by experienced persons w/photography,
examining them on photo-viewing light stands)!!
I cannot find any challenge to this, but lots of echoes
citing it and presuming its truth. --incredible.
Not quite two years later, the very same site had an
article asserting that one could readily distinguish even
small prints (let's say 8x10") made with a MF camera
from even top-end DSLR (35mm) cameras at 30' (!!!).
Now, this one did draw fire, but only a slight retreat from
the general assertion.)
Your question might as well be put for a great number
of eye knots, though it's not the case that these have
gotten into the echo chamber.
Do you think rockclimbers & cavers & SAR folks are interested
in experimental knots vs. the old tried-&-true ones? Why
would they be?
4. Is anyone aware of some kind of formal testing that has been
done on the security of the zeppelin loop or double dragon loop?
... or on ANY eye knot?!
I don't know of a test method for this.
--dl*
====
-
Do you think rockclimbers & cavers & SAR folks are interested
in experimental knots vs. the old tried-&-true ones? Why
would they be?
I can think of at least one or two climbers/spelunkers who are interested and have shown their interest either here in this forum or some other forums. Sometimes the tried and true lack in some way to the user(s).
Or they have an adventurous spirit about them and like to explore new things.
Or they are just a knot tyer.......
4. Is anyone aware of some kind of formal testing that has been
done on the security of the zeppelin loop or double dragon loop?
... or on ANY eye knot?!
I don't know of a test method for this.
--dl*
====
There have been numerous tests done in a formal format on a few eye knots. Whether these tests are formally recognized as the final words on the topic, that remains contested or not accepted.
The Fig. 8 loop is basically tested every time a climbing rope manufacturer does a drop test, which is generally daily.
Most climbers that I know and climb with are comfortable with their knot knowledge and usage needs and don't feel it necessary to change how they do things. They want to climb, etc...
Erizo: Go to a climbing gym if you can and try out some of these ideas you have >>> close to the ground <<< and see if they inspire confidence. See how easy or difficult your chosen "test" loops are to tie, adjust or feel as they scrape between you and the wall and holds. Bounce on them hard and determine if the results are acceptable to you. Get some experienced opinions there as well.
I personally feel better with an eye knot that has its eye's legs that are normally in line (as they exit the nub as much as can be) with the standing part when they are unloaded because the majority of the time, when the eye knot is needed to work , this is most likely the load profile.
I just don't personally care for the open-ness of the Z loop or the added complexity to tie the Dbl Dragon as tie in loops. (Both with their tails sticking out like they do.)
SS
-
Erizo: Go to a climbing gym if you can and try out some of these ideas you have >>> close to the ground <<< and see if they inspire confidence. See how easy or difficult your chosen "test" loops are to tie, adjust or feel as they scrape between you and the wall and holds. Bounce on them hard and determine if the results are acceptable to you. Get some experienced opinions there as well.
I personally feel better with an eye knot that has its eye's legs that are normally in line (as they exit the nub as much as can be) with the standing part when they are unloaded because the majority of the time, when the eye knot is needed to work , this is most likely the load profile.
I just don't personally care for the open-ness of the Z loop or the added complexity to tie the Dbl Dragon as tie in loops. (Both with their tails sticking out like they do.)
SS
SS, that's a great idea, somehow I had not thought to try it at a climbing gym. I don't have any kind of rig set up to test knots, especially to test something like a fall in climbing, so I've had to rely on whatever other people could tell me. Not sure where I'll find a climbing gym, but it's an option I can pursue.
I know what you mean about having the legs of the loop in line with the standing part, and in general, I do prefer loops like the angler's and double dragon when I can use them, for that reason. But looking for a loop that's secure enough to trust with critical applications, and easy to tie and untie, narrows the field way down.
None of the bowlines I have seen have the legs of the loop coming out in line with the standing part, and the ones that people generally agree are secure enough are also the ones that seem most convoluted to me (e.g., the end-bound single bowline). Maybe I'm just lazy. I have to admit, I have an inexplicable prejudice against the rethreaded figure eight. It's a simple enough knot to tie, but the whole thing seems needlessly laborious to me for some reason. The double dragon has that nice alignment of the legs and standing part, but Roo has tested it and found that it came loose too quickly.
This is why the zeppelin loop appeals to me so much. I find it a quick and easy knot to tie; I'm faster with a bowline, but the difference isn't big enough for me to care about. The alignment isn't what you and I prefer, but when it's weighted, as compared to the bend, the weight on what would be the working end doesn't pull the knot all that far out of its natural alignment. And it clamps tight, there's no creep, and I can always undo it easily. I've never seen any creep in the knot, which makes me tempted to say that you could just tie it with a really short tail and not worry about it getting in the way. Of course, I wouldn't rely on having absolutely no slippage without some good tests first.
-
SS, that's a great idea, somehow I had not thought to try it at a climbing gym. I don't have any kind of rig set up to test knots, especially to test something like a fall in climbing, so I've had to rely on whatever other people could tell me. Not sure where I'll find a climbing gym, but it's an option I can pursue.
The gym is the best idea for it will allow you to be the test subject in a fairly controlled environment that is mostly representative of what you may find in the wild.
Or if you have the wherewithal to set up on a low tree branch at a suitable height, with say an old mattress directly under it, you could do at least something. ;-) But beware, if you go to the gym, you will be addicted. ;)
I've never seen any creep in the knot, which makes me tempted to say that you could just tie it with a really short tail and not worry about it getting in the way. Of course, I wouldn't rely on having absolutely no slippage without some good tests first.
Just plain forget this line of thinking! Short tails are a good way to get hurt. They can actually find their way to being pressed into the knot's nub and loosen it to the point where the rope's springiness takes it from there, all without you knowing it. On the rocks, you most likely will not being reviewing your tie in.
I personally tie in with a bowline now. One that incorporates a simple lock for the tail. I offered it here> http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.15 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.15) Reply #19. It performs excellently with consideration to the #1010's purported shortcomings, e.g., ring loading and capsizing. It is very easy and simple.
There are other offerings there that seem to be good too.
Whatever you select for your use, be sure to test it to your satisfaction using the actual rope you'll be defying gravity with! So many ropes out there that don't share the same performance characteristics.
Ultimately, you are responsible, (even though your climbing buddy(ies) should be backing you up), so make it right.
SS
-
4. Is anyone aware of some kind of formal testing that has been
done on the security of the zeppelin loop or double dragon loop?
... or on ANY eye knot?!
I don't know of a test method for this.
--dl*
====
There have been numerous tests done in a formal format on a few eye knots.
Whether these tests are formally recognized as the final words on the topic,
that remains contested or not accepted.
The Fig. 8 loop is basically tested every time a climbing rope manufacturer
does a drop test, which is generally daily.
...
Whoa, this is misreading : the "security" I'm looking
towards is that of an unloaded, jostled knot,
not that of a heavily loaded one. (I also doubt that
folks are daily or even weekly using test devices
--an expensive proposition, I think (time & labor).)
This, at least, is the "security" of concern to most
of the cordage-using world,
although as some recent discussion about HMPE
cordage showed, there is some serious security-loaded
concern for that extreme material.
Now, one might suggest that the regular (daily,
even) usage of Fig.8 eyeknots goes some way
towards the sort of security testing I intend;
but that's not a formal method.
--dl*
====
-
4. Is anyone aware of some kind of formal testing that has been
done on the security of the zeppelin loop or double dragon loop?
... or on ANY eye knot?!
I don't know of a test method for this.
--dl*
====
There have been numerous tests done in a formal format on a few eye knots.
Whether these tests are formally recognized as the final words on the topic,
that remains contested or not accepted.
The Fig. 8 loop is basically tested every time a climbing rope manufacturer
does a drop test, which is generally daily.
...
Whoa, this is misreading : the "security" I'm looking
towards is that of an unloaded, jostled knot,
not that of a heavily loaded one. (I also doubt that
folks are daily or even weekly using test devices
--an expensive proposition, I think (time & labor).)
This, at least, is the "security" of concern to most
of the cordage-using world,
although as some recent discussion about HMPE
cordage showed, there is some serious security-loaded
concern for that extreme material.
Now, one might suggest that the regular (daily,
even) usage of Fig.8 eyeknots goes some way
towards the sort of security testing I intend;
but that's not a formal method.
--dl*
====
Misreading? There were no qualifiers in your statement.
To me and maybe another out there, security of a knot is its ability to stayed tied, loaded or unloaded. I personally am more inclined to think about it staying tied while used and loaded, doing some work so to speak. I do tend to view the usage from a personal point of view, how I use them. But, I do investigate other's usage as well.
I reckon one could assemble a specimen in short rope or cord, chuck it in a drill and spin it up while shaking and slamming it against something. Perhaps that would simulate worse case scenario.
Ashely described and illustrated his method of cyclic testing and it has merit.
But, in a real world, if a knot is dressed and firmly tightened the actual chances of it losing its security and coming undone when unloaded is minimal. imo And it behooves the user to check their project along the way.
Should we truly be concerned about the rogue knot tyer who drags his knot down the road unwittingly and then uses it unchecked?
Shall we grade a knot based on sensible application and attention or not?
The local rope manufacturer does scheduled testing at a frequent level based on product demand, production, machine changes, etc., and sometimes it can be daily. Their test cell and drop tower are used extensively.
Given there are more than one rope manufacturer out there that operate similarly, I feel safe enough to say that it would be daily. For that kind of security test.
No, they are not specifically testing a knot exactly, but then again with the drop test they are. At least one knot type.
The HMPE challenge is out there to be worked on. We have seen so far that normal knotting rules/techniques are not necessarily applicable.
SS
-
Hi All,
We talk a lots about zeppeline loop here, when you have a over hand knot pulling 100% force by the standing part,
in my mind the over hand knot bound to jam, it is not just a common sense? I am confuse.
Any way I have a few simple load test here to share with everyone.
This 7-16 inch nylon braid(very soft rope) the tensile strength may be around 3000 to 3500 lbs no so sure,
I test it with 1/4 of it tensile strength, I found it can be untie with a lot of effort, when I top up another
200 lbs. to 1000 lbs. now you need tool to untie it. and the rest of test just jam so bad, even with tool is very
difficult to untie.
謝謝 alan lee
-
More photo here.
-
More photo here.
-
More photo here.
-
Hi All,
We talk a lots about zeppeline loop here, when you have a over hand knot pulling 100% force by the standing part,
in my mind the over hand knot bound to jam, it is not just a common sense? I am confuse.
Any way I have a few simple load test here to share with everyone.
This 7-16 inch nylon braid(very soft rope) the tensile strength may be around 3000 to 3500 lbs no so sure,
I test it with 1/4 of it tensile strength, I found it can be untie with a lot of effort, when I top up another
200 lbs. to 1000 lbs. now you need tool to untie it. and the rest of test just jam so bad, even with tool is very
difficult to untie.
謝謝 alan lee
Alan,
Have you considered that you're exceeding the working load limit of this rope?
3000lb / 5= 600 lb
:o
-
define : difficult to untie
A knot is difficult to untie, if it is difficult to untie - provided that the rope on which it is tied is not loaded with more than the one fifth ( 1 / 5 ) of the load it can be loaded.
define : jammed knot
A jammed knot should NOT be considered "jammed", if the load under which it is jammed is greater than the one fifth ( 1 / 5 ) of the load it can be loaded.
( The new edition of Oxford Dictionary, with a new word for a-jammed-knot-when-the-load-under-which-it-jammed-exceeded-the-working-load-of-the-rope, is coming soon ).
What one can learn in this Forum ! Not only new knots, but also new definitions about words describing knots ! A knotting thesaurus, indeed ! :)
I propose a new section of the Forum, with the title : Knotting sense : New definitions of words about knots.
-
...if the load under which it is jammed is greater than the one fifth ( 1 / 5 )...
Xarax,
If you want to break the first rule of ropework and disregard the safe working load limits of rope, that's up to you. When the rope recoils after rupture and leaves a nice hole in your face, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
-
In Reply#20
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4849.msg31804#msg31804
I was joking about the attempt of a certain would-like-to-be knot tyer,
to deny the fact that the fake, so-called "Zeppelin" loop is more difficult to untie
than either the genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, or any of the bowline-like loops,
that are not based on overhand knots or fig.8 knots tied on the Standing part.
To answer Alan's question, and redress this continued
opining, the "so-called" zeppelin eyeknot has been put
to some break tests and found to be, in the report of the
tester:
[ref. www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/the-zeppelin-loop-vs-the-f8-in-pulls.15928/#post-228947 (http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/the-zeppelin-loop-vs-the-f8-in-pulls.15928/#post-228947)
[ zeppelin vs. fig.8 eyeknots !
There is also similar discussion of the end-2-end knot on this site. ]
Now we have a reliable and strong loop [eye] knot
that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.
& also
the ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so
than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.
(I didn't see the remark that he was able to untie
the survivor-of-2, but believe that that was the case.
--new forum format has fouled the quoting, alas (at
least as I viewed it w/local system).)
There is some "YMMV" per particular materials (his
I think was 9mm kernmantle rope, or similar); one
can figure that in HMPE things will be different, and
if the knot holds to break, that it will be jammed,
so much force *flowing* around ... . .
Alan, note that the overhand component is oriented
like a minimal timber hitch, and this is what gives
it chance to avoid jamming.
--dl*
====
-
the "so-called" zeppelin eyeknot has been put to some break tests and found to be, in the report of the tester :
"In the report of the tester"(sic) ? ? ? I see this "conclusion" only as a reply to the report of the tester - a reply by some other author, who, I hope, is not you... :)
[ref. www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/the-zeppelin-loop-vs-the-f8-in-pulls.15928/#post-228947 (http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/the-zeppelin-loop-vs-the-f8-in-pulls.15928/#post-228947)
[ zeppelin vs. fig.8 eyeknots ! ]
Now we have a reliable and strong loop [eye] knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load. & also the ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.
First, as the title itself tells, the test was about the so-called "Zeppelin" loop, in comparison to the retraced fig. 8 loop - so irrelevant with was claimed by the cited "wise" pseudo-conclusion...
Second, the test was about the strength of those knots, not about the easiness to untie them - which was not measured with any means. It is true that, to measure it, one would had needed some sophisticated laboratory instruments - but that does not mean that, in the absence of such instruments, one can say anything it happens to cross his mind !
Third, "security" was examined in its narrow sense, as something that is related only to slippage. In fact, in the real world, in order to speak about security, in a broader sense, we should also take into account how easy is to tie or to untie a knot, because, in some dangerous situations, time can play a major role.
Fourth, the "most" bowlines is a joke ! I am sure that the "wise" knot tyer, who replied in such a superficial way, does not know more than a small fraction of the bowline-like knots, and that he had tested not more than a small fraction of this fraction !
In short, the above reply of what was really reported in the article by the tester, is but a wishful thinking of its author, and nothing more, I am afraid.
-
the "so-called" zeppelin eyeknot has been put to some break tests and found to be, in the report of the tester :
//
& also the ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so than
most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.
"In the report of the tester"(sic) ? ? ?
I see this "conclusion" only as a reply to the report of the tester
--a reply by some other author, who, I hope, is not you... :)
Touche' --as I whined, the visible '[ quote ] ' ... markers
instead of their intended effects made sorting out who
wrote what troublesome.
BUT, the 2nd quoted-by-me testimony to easy
untying of the zeppelin eyeknot IS from "Ron", tester.
Meanwhile, we can note differences in knots' behaviors:
After using it [zeppelin end-2-end knot on a tightline with a 5:1
it was fairly hard to untie but a trace 8 would've been welded.
//
[And elsewhere "Moray" reports breaking round-sling
"loops" in which 2 pieces of utility cord were joined
at both ends w/same knots --to ensure that there
would be a survivor knot--, and that the z. survivor
was "ridiculously easy to untie" !! So, some *YMMV*.]
As for the remaining rabble, what more can be said?
First, ... the cited "wise" pseudo-conclusion...
Second, ... which was not measured with any means ... .
Third, "security" ... .
Fourth, the "most" bowlines is a joke ...., and nothing more, I am afraid.
While I won't dare hope to overcome the self-delusion
expressed above, I have yet hope that others will be
able to see clear, and so post these words here.
--dl*
====
-
To answer Alan's question, and redress this continued
opining, the "so-called" zeppelin eyeknot has been put
to some break tests and found to be, in the report of the
tester:
[ref. www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/the-zeppelin-loop-vs-the-f8-in-pulls.15928/#post-228947 (http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/the-zeppelin-loop-vs-the-f8-in-pulls.15928/#post-228947)
[ zeppelin vs. fig.8 eyeknots !
There is also similar discussion of the end-2-end knot on this site. ]
Now we have a reliable and strong loop [eye] knot
that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.
& also
the ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so
than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.
(I didn't see the remark that he was able to untie
the survivor-of-2, but believe that that was the case.
--new forum format has fouled the quoting, alas (at
least as I viewed it w/local system).)
There is some "YMMV" per particular materials (his
I think was 9mm kernmantle rope, or similar); one
can figure that in HMPE things will be different, and
if the knot holds to break, that it will be jammed,
so much force *flowing* around ... . .
Alan, note that the overhand component is oriented
like a minimal timber hitch, and this is what gives
it chance to avoid jamming.
--dl*
Hi All,
Dan I don't quite follow what you trying to said here. but my nose is quiet sensitive, I felt guilty of my nose.
I smell something I shouldn't have to, your body release someone else's perfume. I don't like it.
I like this popular chinese phrase 真的假不了 假的真不了 I use google to translate
= Reality Bites can not really fake
Tomorrow I will post the rest of the test as Roo request
謝謝 alan lee
-
Tomorrow I will post the rest of the test as Roo request
謝謝 alan lee
I don't recall this request. Maybe you're thinking of someone else.
-
Hi All,
Roo,this is how you reply on reply #17 (Alan, Have you considered that you're exceeding the working load
limit of this rope? 3000 lb / 5= 600 lb),so realise my way is wrong, you way is the standard way,
and I automatically think I should do the test right way,
due to my poor English, I misunderstand it, I am sorry.
Since I already got it tested, I think some of reader may like to see it, what to you think should I post it?
謝謝 alan lee
-
I realised that my way is wrong, your way is the standard way,
There is NO "standard way" to test and measure the easiness or difficulty we can untie a knot ! AND, as I have mentioned many times, there is no "way", even considered as "best practice", other than just puling and pushing, bending two different parts of the knot s nub relatively to each other, etc.- i.e., some manipulation of the knotted rope we are not able to quantify or measure.
To take the various values of the "working" load of a rope, suggested by various organizations for various occupations and activities using ropes, and mis-use them as limits under which we should examine if a knot is easy to untie or not, is a <edited, by me... :)>. I have seen "working loads" ranging from the 1 / 4 to the 1 / 15 of the MTB... There are many situations where the ropes and the knots happen to be loaded, accidentally or on purpose, with loads approaching their MTB, so far beyond the recommended "working load" - and in those situations the need for an easy-to-be-untied knot may be even greater than in normal, everyday situations. To suggest that, iff a knot can be untied iff it is loaded with the 1 / 5 th of the MTB, it would be OK, is a DANGEROUS thing to do ! It reveals a total ignorance of what is happening in "dynamic" loading, or accidental loading, with loads far greater than those we had anticipated.
Of course, this stupid idea was nothing but an ad hoc pseudo-invention of somebody who tried to saved a mediocre knot that has been occupying his brain cavity ( of unknown volume ) from time immemorial. I had only COMPARED the difficulty to untie this knot, with the easiness to untie the Zeppelin knot, or the bowline-like, PET knots. ( I have no sufficient experience with the Double Dragon knot to have an opinion - I have tied it only a few times, and, until recently, I had confused it with another "similar" knot ! :)).
In boating, for example, one is confronted with such situations all the time ! Suddenly the mooring or the anchor line of another boat is entangled to yours, and both boats start moving towards a third one ! :) In general, one is seldom able to predict what will really happen in a outdoor activity - and ANY limits put on the "working" loading in advance will not help a jammed knot get untied !
It is true that we should better quantify the mostly subjective quality we describe as "easiness to untie", and one way would be to specify the different loads and loading patterns under which a jamming of a knot can occur. Some time ago I had proposed to sort the knots in five categories, defined by the maximal loading under which the knot can still be untied easily - whatever we decide that will mean. The 1 / 4, 1 / 3, 1 / 2, 2 / 3, 3 / 4 of the MTB of the rope ( to keep the ratios simple enough, and to compare the limit of the "easiness" according to a quantity/value/number of the rope, not of the knot ).
I am sure that almost ALL knots would be easy to untie, if the "working" load of the rope is sufficiently small, compare to its MTB... I imagine that NASA, for the space walk tethers connecting the astronaut with the space vehicle, uses "working loads" of 1 / 100 - under such "working loads", I am sure that there is not ANY knot, even worse than the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop", which will NOT be "easy to untie" - so, why should we bother to measure it ?
Of course, another thing we have to consider is the softness or the stiffness of the rope. When we claim that a knot is "easy to untie", we do NOT mean that it is "easy-to-untie-iff-it-is-tied-on-boiled-spaghetti" ! :) ANY knot can be untied easily, if it is tied on a soft enough rope ! AND, if the rope is veeery soft, any knot can be untied by itself, without us ! :) So, when we say that a knot is "easy to untie", we mean "it is easy to untie if tied on whatever rope" - provided this rope is not made from Velcro ! :) So, the < edited, by me > idea, that we can claim a knot is "easy to untie" when it is easy to untie iff it is tied on soft enough ropes, is < edited, by me >.
A knot tyer ( actual, or would-like-to-be, it does not matter...) wants to make some $ ( dollars ) from a site ( pathetic or not, it does not matter ) of his - and he sell commercials, which are paid according to the number of clicks / visitors of the site. That is not sooo stupid - people visit much-much more pathetic sites, and even pay for their visits to them ! However, when he USES a public Forum, like this, to advertise his own site, over and over again ( in almost ANY thread, he inserts references to the same pages of his web-site, again and again...) , that is starting to smell badly. And when he starts "INVENTING" new meanings, by twisting the meaning of words already in use by everybody, THAT is worse... AND when his pseudo-inventions are referring to SECURITY, and he claims that a knot is easy to untie, even iff it is only "easy to untie when loaded by the working load", THAT is dangerous ! When he will discover that in some other uses of ropes there are recommendations of "working loads" even smaller than the 1 / 5 th of the MTB ( like the 1 / 100 ? in space walking ... :)), he will baptise each and every pathetic knot as "easy to untie", and secure ! And he will be able to gain more $ by this !
I am not sympathetic to the vagrant knot sellers, not because of the occupation, but because of the low quality of their merchandise : most knotting sites and books are ruminating the same knotting myths - and, as we have seen, some of them are even producing new ones ! ( However, I am sympathetic to the difficulty of people, like Dan Lehman, who feel they have to defend them, somehow... :)) This new myth, that a knot is easy to untie even if it is easy to untie only when loaded by a fraction of the MTB ( fraction not specified, as the "working load" in the various activities involving ropes vary...), is DANGEROUS - because security, in the broad sense, is related not only to slippage of a knot, but to the easiness of tying and untying it as well.
As I had said many times, the difficulty of untie-ness is only the last from a long series of disadvantages of the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop". I will not repeat them here - the interested reader can "search" the words : fake, so-called, "Zeppelin loop", and read - BUT, what is FAR better, he can TIE this mediocre eyeknot, load it, and SEE for himself. Then, if he still wishes to buy whatever knot-sellers sell, he will have no one to blame except himself.
-
To answer Alan's question, ...
the ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so
than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.
...
Alan, note that the overhand component is oriented
like a minimal timber hitch, and this is what gives
it chance to avoid jamming.
--dl*
Dan I don't quite follow what you trying to said here.
but my nose is quiet sensitive, I felt guilty of my nose.
I smell something I shouldn't have to, your body
release someone else's perfume. I don't like it.
Alan, try reading with your eyes --if your nose
is hitting the screen, you're too close to it! ;D
What I said is quite simple : you thought that
any overhand in a knot must make it jam,
and I found evidence to the contrary --where someone
had tested the "zeppelin loop" to high forces (i.p.,
to where a fig.8 eyeknot on the opposite end of the
test specimen had broken) concluded that it was easy
to untie.
--dl*
====
-
NOWHERE did "Ron", the tester, said ANYTHING about the ...
"Zeppelin" loop being "easy to untie" ! The quotation in his second post,
is simply a quotation of the reply to his first post
... Read the SMALL print, with capital letters : "QUOTE".
So, next time, when you make such a understandable mistake,
as we all do from time to time, do not try to cover it up in your reply...
X., you're deep in the manure pit now, and
it's best to put a lid on that --and you, if you
that's where you prefer to stay.
Others, where is YOUR reply to this BS?
The cited reference is after all readable by all,
and it clearly says :
...
[ QUOTE ] #1
[ QUOTE ] #2
Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.
[/ QUOTE ] #2-close
!? But there is already quite a set of Bowlines for that -- old technology, complemented with various methods to secure the knot.
[/ QUOTE ] #1-close
[& here, RON's --the tester-- commentary]
The ZL is stronger or as strong as an F8 and can be untied much easier.
The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines
and it's just as easy to untie.
...
I hope that all unbiased readers can comprehend this.
In other cases, though ...
Poor Ron, he made some pathetic kitchen-located tests,
on three ( THREE ! ) samples, he does not even report all the other details
of the experiments as he should had done, and, suddenly, he has fans,
and he became a wise "tester" we should respect ! :)
.
.
.
There is NOTHING in the post you cited that tells something about the easiness of untying,
neither the absolute one, nor the relative one ( = comparatively to ANY bowline,
.
.
.
Poor Dan Lehman, he reads the quotes of the replier to the tester as quotes of the tester himself
Again, with the lamentable BS from one who
has done nothing but whine about what others
have or have not done when whichever does not
serve to support his claims! EStar did not do good
enough testing on the entire spectrum of knottable
materials and all possible knots ...,
and Ron did only "pathetic kitchen tests" (funny how
this someone's own kitchen cannot produce even such
tests!), and yet he broke ropes and was able to see
that the "zeppelin loop" was able to be untied, easily,
in the kernmantle rope he used.
>:(
-
What an interesting test! I pulled an F8 against an F8 tied in PMI 9mm (I had formerly posted 10mm; it was in fact 9mm)EzBend to get a baseline and one of the F8s failed at 3465 lbs. I think that's a bit low, but....
This is the version of the Zeppelin loop I tested:
[IMG]{ See the attached picture }
I then pulled a ZL (Zeppelin loop) against an F8 loop and the ZL failed at, 3601 lbs. I told you that F8 vs F8 seemed a bit low!
I repeated the test - new rope and knots of course, and guess what? The F8 failed at 3397 lbs!
I repeated the test a third time and the F8 failed at 3536 lbs!
So in summary:
1- F8 vs F8 - failure at 3465 lbs
2- F8 vs ZL - ZL failed at 3601 lbs
3- F8 vs ZL - F8 failed at 3397 lbs (notice how close that failure is to the F8 vs F8)
4- F8 vs ZL - F8 failed at 3536 lbs
Ron, May 24, 2010
-
Alan, try reading with your eyes --if your nose
is hitting the screen, you're too close to it!
--dl*
====
Dan, Yes my nose is close to the screen, but I am not afraid to look at myself.
謝謝 alan lee
-
THAT, re-posted in the previous post, was the post by Ron, which you though it could offer you something to defend the paroosites... Poor Dan Lehman, I really feel sad for you !
The cited reference is after all readable by all,
and it clearly says :
...
[ QUOTE ] #1
[ QUOTE ] #2
Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.
[/ QUOTE ] #2-close
!? But there is already quite a set of Bowlines for that -- old technology, complemented with various methods to secure the knot.
[/ QUOTE ] #1-close
[& here, RON's --the tester-- commentary]
...
? ? ? Ooops, seems X. cannot quote this far,
as it puts the lie to his BS!
You are really desperate, are nt you ?
You cite the SAME two quotes, as you have done already TWO times now,
while they are BOTH quotes coming from the replier, NOT the tester - and when you had not yet lost your nerve, as you did now, you had acknowledged that ...( "Touche", is something the person who received the hit says, not his opponent ! You start to lose it, and forget... :))
Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.
Read my lips : THAT is what the replier concluded / said ( and you, obviously ), NOT the tester !
The tester has not mentioned anything about the easiness to untie the knots he "tested"
Quit being such a flaming ass, X.
You cannot be so stupid, but you surely are
again resorting to an ugliness and deliberate
bias in these forums that is unforgivable.
SOB, you cut off my prior post OF RON'S COMMENT
exactly where he does conclude what I said (and,
yes --unlike you--, I acknowledged my misreading
regarding the prior quote, which was from Moray
(who, mind you, is one who also does knot testing)).
So, one more time I will post this. If Alan gets his
nose out of the way (I will not even hope you get
your nose back in joint) and stops looking at himself
he can see it for himself.
...
[ QUOTE ] #1
[ QUOTE ] #2
Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.
[/ QUOTE ] #2-close
!? But there is already quite a set of Bowlines for that -- old technology, complemented with various methods to secure the knot.
[/ QUOTE ] #1-close
[& here, RON's --the tester-- commentary]
The ZL is stronger or as strong as an F8 and can be untied much easier.
The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines
and it's just as easy to untie.
...
--dl*
====
-
Quit being such a flaming ass, X
I will not follow in THAT kind of discussion, dL...
I will make a last attempt to summarize the issue, for those who would like to learn something. Now I am sure dan Lehman had read my posts related to his false claims, I will delete them - they are no more useful to him, than his posts are useful to me. I will leave him alone in his raving ( to use another term of his -normally, I would had used the term "delirium" ). Evidently he needs it, more than the truth. No wonder - the truth can not be afforded by all people, and it seems that, among knot tyers, this happens more often than one would had expected by people who are supposedly interested in tools.
This thread was about the so-called "Zeppelin loop", and the Double Dragon loop. So far, nothing has been said for the later. I am not qualified to have an opinion about it, because I fo not know the Double Dragon loop well enough : I have tied it only a few times, I have not (yet) studied it, and, until quite recently, I was confusing it with another, "similar" loop !
About the so-called "Zeppelin" loop, Alan Lee presented some pictures of tests made by him, and he concluded that, under heavy loading, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" can not be untied easily. He explained this as a consequence to the fact that the so-called "Zeppelin loop" uses an overhand knot tied on the Standing Part, which "closes" around itself, and becomes difficult to untie.
In response to this, a member of the Forum I would prefer not to repeat his name, replied that Alan Lee loaded the knot above the "working load" of the rope he used, so he was not allowed to conclude anything about how easy to untie this knot is, because one is not allowed to load the ropes and the knots so much. So, he implied that the "working load" should be considered a limit, regarding strength AND easiness to untie : When a knot is tied on a rope loaded with a load equal to the "working load", and it does not break, we can say that it is a strong knot. Also, if a knot is loaded with the "working load", and then it is easy to untie, we can say that it is a knot easy to untie. So, we should examine, regarding hoe easy we can untie it, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" only when it is loaded by the "working load", not more.
I have questioned this, on many grounds, as one can see if he reads my replies. In summary, I think that knots and ropes are often loaded by loads well above the working load, either accidentally, or on purpose, when the situation demands it, and the risks coming from the heavy loading are more than the risks of not using the knot at all. In those situations, it is even more important to have a knot really easy to tie and to untie, because these are, by definition, dangerous, critical situations, and the easiness to tie or untie a knot under such conditions is a matter of security, in the broad sense. In boating and sailing, for example, I have repeatedly found myself in such emergency situations, where I was forced to load a knotted rope far beyond the "working load" recommended by the manufacturer, and then I had to untie it in a hurry.
Neither the member of the Forum who first "invented" this restricted definition of a knot easy to untie even if it is it easy to untie when it is loaded with no more than the working load, nor dan Lehman who tried to defend whatever this member says ( as he always does, for unknown to me reasons, which, I want to believe, they are NOT financial ), nor anybody else, ever replied anything to this. However, the definition of the load under which a knot is easy to untie each time, is a debatable issue. I had, in the past, proposed five distinct classes of loadings, as percentages of the MTB of the rope, and the classification of knots in the corresponding class of the higher load under which each knot is easy to be untied.
Then Dan Lehman though that he could defend his mate in another way, and shifted the goalposts again...He discovered a post in an arborists site, where a member had presented a comparative test about the strength of the so-called "Zeppelin" loop, in comparison to the fig.8 loop, and presented numbers of loadings under which those two loops broke. On THIS test, and on THOSE numbers, on subsequent posts there were conclusions about how easy is to untie any of those two loops ( no number was offered, of course, not any description of the methods of the test which has supposedly lead to the examination of how easy is to untie those two loops - a test which was concluded after it produced four ( FOUR !) numbers, regarding strength, and strength only ). Notice that the comparison was about those two loops, an issue which was not raised in this thread - but which was though by dan Lehman that it could be utilized somehow, for his knotting or other purposes.
Never ever had I claimed that the so-called 'Zeppelin loo" is more difficult to untie than the fig.8 loop ! I had said that the so-called "Zeppelin loop" is not so easy to untie as the genuine Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, or any of the bowline, PET loops which do not have an overhand of rig.8 knot tied on the Standing part. Also, I had said that, even if this overhand or fig.8 knot is tied after the eye ( Post Eye ), on the returning eye leg, the loop may become difficult to untie. The fig.8 knot has, obviously, not one, but two fig.8 knots tied on it, so it should be expected that it would be difficult to untie.
However, this is irrelevant to the subject of this thread, and it was only used by dan Lehman for his own purposes. He cited a phrase, in this irrelevant thread in the other Forum, which I have to repeat :
The ZL is stronger or as strong as an F8 and can be untied much easier. The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.
WHO actually wrote this sentence, we do not know - we can not judge from the texts ( but he does - perhaps he wrote it by himself, and he is afraid, for unknown to me reasons, to admit it...). However, THIS is not the issue - as the poor man tried to present...
The issues were, and still are :
1. If THIS "conclusion" is corroborated, in ANY way, by the four ( FOUR !) numbers on strength ( STRENGTH ) presented by the "tester" .
2. WHERE, on earth, had this "most of the bowlines"(sic) came from ! The "tester" and dan Lehman never ever spelled a word about HOW are those four (FOUR!) numbers tell anything about the "most of the bowlines". They had never ever explained which of the DOZENS bowlines they mean, and in which calculation, of which numbers, does this quantitative adjective "most"(sic) refers.
Judging from the absolute silence of dan Lehman about those issues, I have to conclude that, either the "tester" and Dan Lehman are the same person, or they are connected by some relation, unknown to me ( like the relation between dL and the other member of this Forum ), which I HOPE it is not financial. Dan Lehman feels the need to defend his mates by everything he is able to discover, and, in doing that, he hits below the belt anybody he finds in front of him. He recently tried to do the same thing to Alan Lee - but I am not going to defend Alan Lee, of course : he is a superb knot tyer, whose work speaks for itself. I feel sad for Dan Lehman s recent decent into the pit, because he could had been such a great teacher of knots, and, at the bitter end, he became the worst of all - but that is not the first time he disappointed me...
I would be glad to see REAL, scientifically sound tests of the so-called "Zeppelin loop" , in comparison to any other of the many loops we know - and iff it is proved, indeed, that :
The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie (sic),
then I would be the first proponent of this knot ! I have a great respect for the "experimental method" called science, and I will not allow myself be driven away from the TRUTH, for selfish reasons, as dan Lehman, unfortunately for him and us, did...
However, even before those test, I would be also glad to BET :) on this ! Whoever of those brave knot testers and their lawyers ( who, nevertheless, are afraid of loading the ropes more than the "working load", because they fear the rope "can recoil after rupture and leave a nice hole in their [pretty, I presume] face" (sic) :)) wishes to put his money where their mouth is, is challenged to join ! We will tie ALL the bowlines we know, each and every one of them, even if they are going to be a lot ! We will test them under ANY loading, be it the 1 / 4 or the 3 / 4 of the MTB of the rope. And we will examine how easy or difficult they are, regarding tying and/or untying, in comparison to the infamous so-called "Zeppelin loop".
Whoever dares to tell that I am talking BS, and that I am deep into the manure pit, and my ass is flaming, he should first be sure that the S or the M are not his, coming out of his A ! Oh my KnotGod, I am soo tired from the cowards !
-
I had decided to end this meaningless tit-for-tat, but there is something that made me think it should probably be more fair to give it another try...
I was really surprized by the language dL used against me. ( Not by his overall behaviour, where he always defend, by anything he can think of, right or wrong, anything my prominent opponents in this Forum say against me, right or wrong - roo and Inkanyezi, for example...). I had not expected from hit hits below the belt - although he did just that once, when he revealed/utilized publicly fragments of a PM I had sent to him.
Now, he accuses me of something I would never ever even imagine to do : to deliberately cut, truncate, censor a quote by somebody - that is, to twist his words, in order to prove something. He accused me of concealing a part of his post, where he wrote that the "conclusion" about the easiness of untying the ZL loop was coming from the "tester" himself, Ron, and not from the "replier", and that I had not revealed ( what he claims it was ) Ron s line.
I did not : I simply quoted directly the first part of his reply, where he, dL, stated that the line
Now we have a reliable and strong loop knot that is super easy to take apart even after a huge load.
was written by the "tester", Ron, and not by the "replier", for a SECOND time - although he had acknowledged his mistake, after the first time ! That was sooo silly, and was done in such an obviously stupid way, I thought I had to SHOW the part itself of dL s post, where he did it again, to laugh at it ! That was the most funny, hilarious thing about dL reply, and that was what I had wished to emphasize. So, that part was the only one where I used the [QUOOTE] - I did not wanted to use the [QUOOTE] for the whole dL post, with all the other things he has written - included the nice adjectives he had used against me...
dL tried to capitalize on this, telling this :
? ? ? Ooops, seems X. cannot quote this far,
as it puts the lie to his BS!
However, in the part of my reply he shows, HE DOES NOT SHOW the remaining, subsequent part, where I quoted the original post of Ron s="tester" s / "replier" s too, with the "conclusion" - and HE DOES NOT SHOW the remaining, subsequent part where I said that we simply can not be sure who wrote this "conclusion, because the [QUOOTE] labels, in the original post, do not help us in this, and that, in the end of the day, THAT does not matter, and it was not the issue of the discussion. ( The issue of the discussion was if that "test", with its four numbers, was about, and if it was telling anything about, the easiness to untie the ZL, or not...).
So, HE is the one who cuts, truncates and conceals part of his opponents post, not ME !
Now, I was frustrated sooo much with this nasty trick he used, and with his language, that I had deleted all my other replies and written a new one, the one at my previous post. Unfortunately for me, I had not kept a record of the post where I wrote what I say I wrote, so I can not now PROVE what I say...
However, the poor man is unlucky - because something happened that makes me be sure that I HAD quoted, indeed, the passage from his and "testers" = Ron s / "replier" s posts he claims/pretends I did not : I had re-produced the [QUOOTE] word, and the editor of our Forum interpreted it as a quote, so the whole remaining post was shown as a quote ! To fix this, I was forced to add a second O into the [QUOOTE] word, just as I do here...and THAT I remember very well ! So, I am sure, for a second, technical reason, that I had quoted his and "tester" s = Ron s / "replier" s line, indeed - because for a first, moral reason, I was sure right from the start - I simply am not a liar, and a crook , but I can not tell the same for my opponents !
So , I ask from the Moderators to retrieve and present my deleted relevant post, the one with the many [QUOOTE]s I had inserted. There anybody will SEE, with his EYES, if I had cut/truncated/hidden, and if I had replied to dL / "replier" s / "testers" s = Ron s lines, or not.
HOWEVER. this man who accuses me of not cutting/truncating/hiding his lines, DO IT ALL THE TIME with my lines :
He quotes THIS :
As for the remaining rabble, what more can be said?
First, ... the cited "wise" pseudo-conclusion...
Second, ... which was not measured with any means ... .
Third, "security" ... .
Fourth, the "most" bowlines is a joke ...., and nothing more, I am afraid.
While I won't dare hope to overcome the self-delusion
expressed above, I have yet hope that others will be
able to see clear, and so post these words here.
--dl*
====
Notice his "conclusions", and the words " rablbe"(sic) and "delusion"(sic) .
Although my post was THIS :
First, as the title itself tells, the test was about the so-called "Zeppelin" loop, in comparison to the retraced fig. 8 loop - so irrelevant with was claimed by the cited "wise" pseudo-conclusion...
Second, the test was about the strength of those knots, not about the easiness to untie them - which was not measured with any means. It is true that, to measure it, one would had needed some sophisticated laboratory instruments - but that does not mean that, in the absence of such instruments, one can say anything it happens to cross his mind !
Third, "security" was examined in its narrow sense, as something that is related only to slippage. In fact, in the real world, in order to speak about security, in a broader sense, we should also take into account how easy is to tie or to untie a knot, because, in some dangerous situations, time can play a major role.
Fourth, the "most" bowlines is a joke ! I am sure that the "wise" knot tyer, who replied in such a superficial way, does not know more than a small fraction of the bowline-like knots, and that he had tested not more than a small fraction of this fraction !
In short, the above reply of what was really reported in the article by the tester, is but a wishful thinking of its author, and nothing more, I am afraid.
The reader can compare the two quotes, and he can judge if what I have written my post was "rabble"(sic), coming from a "delusion"(sic), and if dL had the courage to reply to ANYTHING of what what I am saying to this post, or not.
To return to the infamous "test" , by which dL hoped he will be able to pronounce some words against what is shown by Alan s pictures and what I said by me :
ALL loops based on an overhand knot ( or, for that matter, on a fig.8 knot ) tied on the Standing Part ( so, loaded with 100% of the total load from the Standing End side, and with 50% of the total load from the eye leg side ) are NOT as easily untied as the bowline-like loops - which are based on nipping structures topologically equivalent to the unknot.
It turns out that an overhand knot ( or a fig.8 knot) can clinch too tightly, even when tied on the returning eye leg / Tail End - i.e., as a "collar structure", which is loaded only with 50% of the total load from the eye leg and with 0% of the total load from the Tail... If such a knot can be less easy to untie when it is loaded less, it will not become more easy to untie when it is loaded more ! :)
I had posted a reply, in two parts, on the Forum where this test was presented. The interested reader can read it, at :
http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/the-zeppelin-loop-vs-the-f8-in-pulls.15928/page-2
-
Hi All,
I don't understand this, I have heard lots of good things about this Zeppelin loop,
to me this is as someone tries very hard to persuade people to use it.
Here, I rig up three versions of this class of loops with the best way I can.
All three of those loops have U shape collars a little longer than the "Zeppelin loop".
Their nipping loops near the side of the Standing Part side have a more bow-like shape
which can push the collar a little more upwards. One has two rope diameters in the nipping loop,
the other two have three. Also, as they are tightening, they allow more time for the second
overhand knot to tighten up around itself, so the nub becomes more compact, and look more secure.
For now I can not test it, because the scale of the crane I use is not working properly.
In a week I will be at home, and I will see if I have time to build another heavy multiple force device
that can deliver 1500 lbs. of load.
Just by the look at it, and by pull test by my hand, all three are way better than the "Zeppelin loop".
Not that I like this kind of loops, I am just curious and I want to find out how much they can improve,
and how heavy the load can it support before they jam.
謝謝 alan lee
-
@ eric22
Hi,
I dont know about the loops efficiency; but your presentation is great :D
And exploded version and a closed one on the same image does the trick for me.
Thanks
-
I had decided to end this meaningless tit-for-tat,
but there is something that made me think it should probably
be more fair to give it another try...
I was really surprized by the language dL used against me.
( Not by his overall behaviour, where he always defend,
by anything he can think of, right or wrong, anything my
prominent opponents in this Forum say against me, right or wrong
--roo and Inkanyezi, for example...).
X., your continued casting of discussions into the realm
of heroic struggles against "opponents" --whom, it can
be seen, you often poke at with obvious barbs intended
to provoke (the most frequent of which might be your
ever-present "false zeppelin loop" decrying)-- became
wearisome long ago. Seeing everything as ad hominem
deprives you of seeing points, alas (right or wrong points).
I am sorry for my angry words, but they were honest
reactions to your continued biased writing; most obvious
was the mis-quoting and not-seeing of Ron's vs. non-Ron's
replies : you could tell the latter (and so caught my mistake
on the one quote), but somehow became unable to discern
the former (which is every bit as clear, as I laid out in
bracketing the start & end delimiters of quotations).
And even after I admitted my mistake on the first, you raised
it again as though an undressed wound (while ignoring the
valid quote, pretending it undeterminable).
And then all the imaginative ad hominem construction
of bias & persecution and ... --egadz.
- - - - - -
Let us return to the piquing point : that assertion that
all eyeknots with an overhand knot base are harder
to untie than the bowline(s). I reject this assertion.
Some have reported that bowlines can jam, and some
have here said the same for the zeppelin loop (by which
name of common usage --following a construction method
that is broadly understood (nevermind finer arguments re
merit of whatever title)), which others believe to be false.
Having recalled that there had been break tests using this
eyeknot, and that the tester found it to be easily untied,
I presented that report. Loading the knot to near rupture
is an ultimate test; it is one test, and of few instances,
but I don't find chance playing a role to somehow let
just those cases be easy ... . We do need to mind that
testing occurs in particular materials and particular
knot-tying and particular loading.
Roo's suggestion that going over reasonable loading
should be seen as stepping into a new region of use,
and maybe beyond the realm of expectations, strikes
me as worth regarding. Here, again, though, there
are such varieties of "safe working load" or "normal
working conditions" --but we know that they exist,
and that some extreme circumstances might not
be held to count against a knot; that everyday,
normal usage is of interest, and so How does this
knot in this application perform? is the pertinent
question to answer.
Now, Alan ("eric22") did not come to an opinion
en vacuo, but had some of his own testing to consider;
he found the ZL to be hard to loosen, if loaded
heavily, at least. Reflecting on this, I got some rope
and tried my own pretty heavy loading, and although
I wasn't able to replicate the loaded geometry that
Alan's knots have, I too found that the knot was
less then easily loosened --and could wonder about
e.g. the probably heavier loading that would come
in an FF1 ("fall factor 1" : falling the length of rope
in system --in rockclimbing, it's possible to fall about
double this, as an extreme) with an adult male's weight.
So, this left me on diminished island of support
against the challenged assertion! But I am not
wedded to defending the ZL (or allegedly for some
the Divine Z!). And I tried the end-2-end knot
of interlocked overhands that I would favor for
making an eyeknot : the "Ashley's bend" #1452
(correctly dressed for being easy to untie). THIS
eyeknot is pretty easily loosened, although there
is the potential for the SPart to pull the collar
around it tightly as the SPart strand in high
tension shrinks in diameter (elongating) such
that the collar pinches it and then holds tension
upon relaxing of the SPart, which enlarges
outside of this pinch and has a stopper effect!
--such effect I have found in a bowline, btw.
Still, one has good hope to be able to overcome
this jam, as the collar holds much room for
loosening.
First, as the title itself tells, the test was about the so-called "Zeppelin" loop,
in comparison to the retraced fig. 8 loop
--so irrelevant with [what] was claimed by the cited "wise" pseudo-conclusion...
Not at all : it hardly matters what testing delivered
the near-rupture, severe force to the ZL, only that
it was sustained, and yet found to be unjammed.
Second, the test was about the strength of those knots,
not about the easiness to untie them
--which was not measured with any means.
It is true that, to measure it, one would had needed some
sophisticated laboratory instruments
--but that does not mean that, in the absence of such instruments,
one can say anything it happens to cross his mind !
By your logic, we should all be silent --you, first
of all in your original assertion, as you have not
done this well-instrumented testing of all possible
knots ... !
In fact, the general claim is one that can be
evaluated with manual effort at untying, where
the test is more of a pass/fail one, and not really
concerned with matters of degree : "easy" or "hard"
(or "jammed/'welded'") are the choices.
Third, "security" was examined in its narrow sense,
as something that is related only to slippage. In fact, in the
real world, in order to speak about security, in a broader sense,
we should also take into account how easy is to tie or to untie a knot,
because, in some dangerous situations, time can play a major role.
What matters to one application might not to another.
The issue here regards ease of UNtying; of the tester,
it was mostly strength & loaded-security (which ought
to be pretty obvious on examination alone, for the ZL).
Fourth, the "most" bowlines is a joke !
I am sure that the "wise" knot tyer, who replied in such a superficial way,
does not know more than a small fraction of the bowline-like knots,
and that he had tested not more than a small fraction of this fraction !
And yet he had tested the ZL, and per the choices
of easy/hard/jammed made a finding. --without doing
the impossible of testing ALLLLL .... !
--dl*
====
-
...you often poke at with obvious barbs intended to provoke ( the most frequent of which might be your ever-present "false zeppelin loop" decrying
I have not denied THAT ! :) I sometimes try to use ( without much success, I have to admit, because I am not used to it... ) the same time-honoured technique of knot tyers : repetition ! I hope that, by repeating over and over again the same thing, I will succeed to implant a seed, at least, of doubt, deep inside the souls of the "Z"L believers - where I have seen that no reasonable argument had ever reached... It is boring, I know - but I think that it is no more boring to others, than the repetition of the "Z"L propaganda is to me - so, we are even. :)
What else can I do ? There are dozens of easy to tie and untie PET loops out there, but, all of a sudden, a certain mediocre overhand-knot based loop becomes the bread and circuses of knot tyers, to satisfy their appetite for fast-knot-rumination... And here comes a lamentable 4 (= four ! )-numbers "test" about the strength of the "Z"L, in relation to the fig.8 loop, and the "conclusion" which states the most silly thing I had ever read about the bowlines :
"The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowline and it's just as easy to untie." (sic)
Notice the ridiculous use of the words "more" and "most" - the "most" been more ridiculous than the "more", indeed.
which is every bit as clear, as I laid out in bracketing the start & end delimiters of quotations
(while ignoring the valid quote, pretending it undeterminable).
NOOO ! It is not ! because you NEVER had seen, or admitted, the obvious : that, in Ron s post, where the infamous passage is repeated, the ORDER of the QUOTES is WRONG ! Which tells me that we can not be sure who said what ! The first "QUOOTE", should hade been a [QUOOTE] ( = start of the quote ) - but, instead, it is a [QUOOTE/] ( NOTICE THE "/" after the word !)(= end of the quote ). ALSO, the second "QUOOTE" should had been a [QUOOTE/](= end of the quote ) - but, instead, it is a [QUOOTE]( = start of the quote ). KnotGod, Why, on earth, had You abandoned me ? :)
[/ QUOTE ]
The ZL is stronger or as strong as an F8 and can be untied much easier. The ZL is stronger and just as secure, if not more so, than most bowlines and it's just as easy to untie.
[ QUOTE ]
The QUOTE is NOT valid, and I had not "pretended" it is undeterminable ! IT IS undeterminable !
Simple common sense would tell you - if you have enough of it...- that is improbable, for Ron, to repeat, for himself, THE SAME EXACT WORDS said by somebody else - which words, also, tell something sooo false !
However, the crux of the matter was not there ! You said that I had hided Ron s quote, on purpose, as a f... liar, ( the "word "lie", which may mean nothing very important to you, means MUCH to me - and you dared to write it with capital letters, big fonts, and red colour ! ! ! )( not to mention anything about the BS, and the manure pit where it was best for me to put a lid, so I will not miss anything precious :) ).
I had not ! I replied in two things, in two separate paragraphs, the one after the other, and I had repeated the rest of Ron s (or whatever else s) quote, word to word, AFTER the first quote - but you failed to notice that ! Instead, you were quick to call me a liar - which was something that makes any ad hominem response by me not only justified, but deserved as well.
( However, I appreciate the fact that you had admitted your words were "angry", and that you are sorry for this - I will not continue this vendetta any longer ! Peace on Earth ! :))
-
...the piquing point : that assertion that all eyeknots with an overhand knot base are harder to untie than the bowline(s). I reject this assertion.
OK ! And "I" reject the opposite ! ( even if it is not so clear, and uses the "most", instead of the "all". I believe that a 100% wrong thing remains too wrong, even if we are only talking about "most" of it...)
So, tell me, WHO is less wrong ? Who rejects a more wrong assertion ? :)
Some have reported that bowlines can jam
WHO ? WHERE ? HOW many tests had they performed ? I hope more than 4 ( = four ) ! :)
And WHICH bowlines ? There are dozens of secure bowlines out there - we are speaking about bowlines, in general, of course, and not about THE bowline ( the "common" bowline ).
However, what made me angry, indeed, was the ridiculous word "most" ! If the "tester" had simply said : "the bowline" or "some bowlines", I would nt had started this vendetta ! :)
I had devised what I think is a new secure bowline just a few days ago ( the Ampersand bowline ) - and Alan Lee does the same thing, almost each and every week ! Had Ron included those bowlines in the sample, when he "concluded" that the "Z"L is just as easy to untie as "most" bowlines" ? If yes, then HE is the real Oracle, and you are just a speaker on behalf of him ! :) The man does not know yet the bowlines that will be devised, but he can speak about them ! He sees into the future ! I have sooo many things to ask him, other than the easiness or not of untying knots, of course ! :)
the tester found it to be easily untied
Compared to WHICH knot ? If he had simply said that he had compared it to the fig.8 knot, which he had also tested, I would nt had challenged his findings. I believe that the fig.8 knot, which uses an even more self-enclosing, more complex, topologically, knot than the overhand knot, is more difficult to be untied than the "Z"L, indeed.
However, he had NOT tested ANY bowline - so, not even FEW, and, of course, not MOST of the bowlines !
If he had performed a decent comparative test between "some", at least, bowlines, and the "Z"L, I would nt had destroyed the keyboard, by the angry way I type those replies !
I tried the end-2-end knot of interlocked overhands that I would favor for making an eyeknot : the "Ashley's bend" #1452 (correctly dressed for being easy to untie). THIS eyeknot is pretty easily loosened,
OK ! So, I should had said "All but ONE ! " :)
My word "all" was not meant to be exclusive, because, as I had said time and again :
"Topology does not determine geometry uniquely".
So, the fact that a knot uses a knot topologically equivalent to the overhand or the fig.8 knot, can not tell EVERYTHING about its geometry ! ( Which geometry, by its turn, is what determines the easiness or not of untying the knot ). My assertion was meant to be read in a general way - otherwise I would had been forced to DESCRIBE the difficult-to-be-untied GEOMETRIES - which is a pretty difficult thing to do ! ( Although, regarding the jamming geometries, I had attempted this, too, and I now believe that I can predict in many, if not "most" cases :), if a certain knot would be easy to untie, or not.)
I would be glad if somebody would test all the "corresponding" eyeknots of the end-to-end knots shown by Miles, for example. Then we would see if most of the eyeknots based on links topologically equivalent to the unknot ( the PET loops ), would be more easy to untie than the eyeknots based on links topologically equivalent to the overhand or the fig.8 knot.
My gut feeling, my present understanding of the rope mechanics, and my experience till now, tells me that, in such a competition, the PET loops will win the overhand and fig.8 knot-based loops hands down ! Am I sure ? Yes - to the degree I am ready to BET on this... :) If I will be proven wrong, it will not be my first time - but I am not trying to persuade people about this, by 4-numbers irrelevant tests, or by just remaining silent, or even by hiding, all the loops that may prove me wrong !
It is almost a fashion for supposedly knowledgeable knot tyers, to systematically remain silent about the dozens of fine bends and loops we know, and promote some faux bijoux, like the "Z"L. I, for one, will not buy those BS ! If somebody comes and tells me that he tested a loop corresponding to a certain bend, and he found it as easy to untie as a certain bowline, then I would be the first to take this into account - because, contrary to "most" knot tyers, I was not so lucky to have been offered or found the Holy Grail, either of the bends, or of the loops ! :)
it hardly matters what testing delivered the near-rupture, severe force to the ZL, only that it was sustained, and yet found to be unjammed.
Of course, if the test of the easiness to untie was done at near-rupture forces, it would suffice - but we had NOT been told this, had we ? :) We do not know in which, exactly, stage of the loading, under which percentage of the MBS, the supposed testing of the easiness-to-untie has been performed. I had mentioned this in my reply to Ron, but I have not received any convincing answer - perhaps because I had not received ANY answer whatsoever ! :)
HOWEVER, listen what you say ! "found to be unjammed" (sic) ! WHO told that a knot that is not jammed, is easy to be untied ? Neither Alan Lee, nor me ! A knot can be difficult to be untied - and can be more difficult to be untied than the bowline-like loops (that was my assertion...) - even if it does not jam !
And yet he had tested the ZL, and per the choices of easy/hard/jammed made a finding. --without doing the impossible of testing ALLLLL .... !
You are quick to try to escape, but I am not soooo slow as you wish to believe ! :)
I will repeat it : It was NOT his finding that the "Z"L was "easy-to-untie"(period) that made me angry !
It was that he "concluded", without ANY test, that " the"Z"L is just as easy to untie as most bowlines ".
He had NOT said in which percentage of the MBS or his rope he tested ( IFF he tested...) that "easiness".
He had NOT said HOW he tested ( IFF he tested...) that easiness.
He had NOT said that he had tested ( IFF he had tested...) EVEN ONE bowline.
He had NOT said WHICH bowline he had tested ( IFF he had tested any ).
Last, but not least :
He had NOT said WHAT he means by this ridiculous "most bowlines" !
The fact that he can not test ALL bowlines, does not mean that he should not test ANY ! And it also does not mean that, if he had tested one or two ( when, how, which ones, under what load, he fails to report...), he could claim that he had tested "most" !
I rest my case. It was NOT difficult to pulverize such a ridiculous claim, based on 4 irrelevant tests, of course. However, I guess it had been as difficult as it was shown, for you, to defend roo, and his faux bijoux - and it WAS difficult for me, to write thousands of words, in a language I do not know well, trying to defend common sense...
If I was the one who had performed those "tests", and had been so foul to publish them, and so silly to "conclude" such nonsense, based on no knowledge of the bowline-land, and on any testing on any of them, I am sure that you would had decorated me by all those nice, polite words you use, even against much more sound claims.... :)
In fact, I feel really sad for the poor people that are tying mediocre knots all their lives, and will never feel the joy of a GREAT knot, like the bowline or the Gleipnir... because they will never spent a few hours studying them, and so they will never UNDERSTAND them. If they miss this joy, I, too, do not understand why they are tying knots in the first place...
-
Hi All,
Have some free time and got these 3 double overhand loops tested, loop 1 jam at around 1700 lbs.
loop 2 jam at around 1900 lbs loop 3 jam at around 2300 lbs.
Just to make sure to have more accurate reading, again I carefully tested the Zepplin loop,
for soft rope after loaded 1200 lbs. is manageable to untie and it jam at around 1300 lbs.
for blue water rope after loaded 1400 lbs. also managerble to untie and it jam at arond 1500lbs.
All 3 loops can support more load and the second overhand knot are more tighter then Zepplin loop.
There are no good reason for me to like all theses loops here. For Zepplin loop is the worst worth one among almost all,
beside the name "Zepplin" really have no much to offer.
謝謝 alan lee.
-
One more picture here.
-
[The] Zeppelin loop... besides the name "Zeppelin", it really has no much to offer.
And yet it has - a soft pillow, for the believers ( and the ignoramuses of the many much better secure bowlines ), to sit on ! :)
-
Hi All,
Have some free time and got these 3 double overhand loops tested, loop 1 jam at around 1700 lbs.
loop 2 jam at around 1900 lbs loop 3 jam at around 2300 lbs.
Just to make sure to have more accurate reading, again I carefully tested the Zepplin loop,
for soft rope after loaded 1200 lbs. is manageable to untie and it jam at around 1300 lbs.
for blue water rope after loaded 1400 lbs. also managerble to untie and it jam at arond 1500lbs.
Could you let us know the working load limit of the rope you are testing?
-
Roo,
The Bluewater safe line is 7663 lbf minimum breaking strength,
the soft rope is 3000 lbs. breaking strength and 300 lbs. safe working load.
謝謝 alan lee
-
the soft rope is 3000 lbs. breaking strength and 300 lbs. safe working load.
If you take 1/5 of the 3000 lb as the safe working load, it'd yield 600 lb. So it seems all the loops you're testing recently are performing well.
-
If you take 1/5 of the 3000 lb as the safe working load, I'd yield 600 lb. So it seems all the loops you're testing recently are performing well.
Of course ! Go to sleep now - but, be careful, do not sleep only 1/5 of the time you slept last night, because, if you do it for long, you would nt be able to write so interesting things as this ! :) :) :)
The idea that anything we say, has to be true only for the 1/5 th of everything, is a solution to my country s debt problem, but it is not a cure for ignorance, I am afraid.
P.S. Whoever believes that things actually do, or should better do, the 1 /5 th, only, of what they can do, and given that "... an aircraft with an overall safety factor of 5 would probably be too heavy to get off the ground ", he should only travel by car - and because cars would presumably obey the same rule, so they will not go faster than horses, he should better find a nice horse, and gallop straight back to the dawn of civilization - a prudent thing to do, indeed, for us all ! :) If my sailboat s ropes were 5 times heavier than they actually are, I would had been dead and buried ( in the sea, i.e., eaten by the fishes ) a long time ago, because it would had sank - but I suppose THAT would be a good thing for everybody who tries to sell this low-quality merchandise, the fake, so-called "Zeppelin loop" - which, although its quality is the 1 / 5 th of the quality of any of the many safe bowlines, it is attempted to be sold at 5 times the price it deserves ! :)
.
-
A knot that jams at the 1 /5 th of the rope s strength, and breaks at the 1 / 5 th of the rope s strength, and slips at the 1 / 5 th of the rope s strength, does almost the 1 /5 x 1/5 x 1/5 of what a 100% knot could do - so, its REAL valueis, say, about the 1 /125 of a 100% knot s value ( that is, it is almost worthless ). Of course, no knot ( not even the fishing knots ) simple enough to be practical can achieve this ideal 100% - but if one is content with less than 1% of that, he should better go back to pre-history... galloping, if necessary ! :)