Ashley's Bend #1452 and Its Ilk

[Dan_Lehman]

Tired of seeing the same latest post for a week,
I'll start another thread.  I had thought to just post a couple photos
of #1452 in nicely contrasting-colors ropes, but why limit things to
just one knot -- so, let me broaden the topic to include "its ilk" (by
which I intend #1408, 1425, and ... ).

Here are two perspectives on the same knot token, which I guess I
must have loaded to roughly 300 # or so (as its mounted on my
knot-stressing-by-pulley contraption; full body weight and some
bouncing should generate 800# or so, I'm guessing (guessing at
how much the clearly inferior pulley consumes -- a real pulley but
in deteriorated condition, i.e.)).

There are various ways to dress 1425; here, the collars were left large
enough that they draw snug to the body.  This seems to lessen the
deflection of the S.Part at the point of contact w/the collar, and I'm
guessing helps strength & chafe.  Note the nice roundness shown in
the first, "_bottom" perspective.  The "_side" shows some gradual
S.Part deflection in a different plane to this rounding.

The ropes are, resp. of black & yellow roughly 1/2" dia., a hard-laid
PP (polypropylene) and a firm old double-braid of either nylon or polyester.
(You wouldn't want to have to splice the black rope, though this piece
was found with a 2-tuck eye-splice in it (splicer probably said "eNUFF!"
at that point!).)
Which goes to the point of suggesting that were these ropes replaced
by some with pretty compressible cross sections, the knot geometry
would be different.  (The white-ish laid rope on left side is 5/8" CoEx
longline, soft-laid enough to easiliy accommodate tucks of that red
rope on the right, 11mm low-elongation PMI E-Z Flex.)

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

"and its ilk" refers to bends of interlocked Overhand knots.
(And I've corrected '1425' to '1452', now that I'm here to actually
present the former so-numbered knot in relation to the latter!)

Perhaps the more commonly known such knots of this ilk are the Butterfly
knot (mid-line eyeknot; less so qua ends-joiner) and Rosendahl's Zeppelin Bend.
In the former, the structure is asymmetric; in the latter, the Overhands are not
so much interlocked.

A knot that was brought to some attention by a fellow who invented it
(for himself) about a decade ago, and who named it the "Bulldog" bend,
is Ashley's #1425 (we'll get to "1425a", SmitHunter's bend, later).  I like
this bend.  It has some nice, semi-corresponding eyeknots (TIB), and
it seems secure-when-slack yet fairly easily untiable (with some work,
but still easy vs. jammed); it can be set in a loose form to make untying
very easy, sacrificing the sure security when slack.  And there are some
simple variants on the structure which also look nice.
So, here are two perspectives on #1425 tied in ("fat") half-inch pale blue
CoEx longline with ("skinny") 3/4" yellow soft-laid cheapish PP (so to
show the knot with diff-dia. ropes).

The bottom perspective shows the doubled wrap against which the
S.Parts bear upon entry, with some slight deflection, before making
the bigger deflection as seen in the side view.  The loading therefore
works to try to open the knot (rather than jam it), with S.Parts drawn
away from each other (but held by these twin wraps).  To untie the
knot, one can pull the ends in opposite directions to pry out some
opening at the "top", or push the aforementioned twin wraps away
from each other, then bring them back together while pushing in
some S.Parts simultaneously -- couple iterations and it'll be loose.

And, to use the other available two photo slots, I'll present images
of Rosendahl's bend, tied in different but similarly sized ropes.
the dirty white nylon(?) hard-laid rope tends to make for a rather
open Overhand, as seen from the "front" perspective (vs the collar
of this being more sharply bend around its S.Part).
The paricular orientation/dressing of this knot puts each Overhand's
end towards the other rope's S.Part, and this --as not all so well
shown by the side photo, alas-- makes for less deflection of the
S.Part vis-a-vis its line through the collar; but the 1dia bend around
the end is sort of softened by the slight deviation from right-angle
incidence at that point -- i.e., the S.Part slightly turns towards
being parallel to the end it turns around, which makes for a
broader S.Part curvature.

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

The first knot that I "invented" --discovered for myself-- was "SmitHunter's Bend"
(a knot not used particularly by riggers, hunters, or smiths, btw); that was 1973.
(And seeing "my" knot on the cover of The Morrow Guide to Knots just piqued
my interest no end, ... to the IGKT !)

There is a simple version of the original knot which I think makes for improved
strength and resistance to jamming.  The varied crossing of the ends puts some
of the end material into the opposite (of end) collar, and prevents that from
too tightening around the S.Part -- yes, I've had some quite jammed orig. knots.

Here are images of both versions.

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

In this photo of the variation of SmitHunter's Bend (something that Harry Asher
dismissed as being of "no great importance" in his A New System of Knotting,
Vol. 1 (1986), p.6, bottom, ref. Fig.19 -- which is too bad, as it is quite as
important, behaviorally, as the original)
I've taken a slightly biased "top" perspective to better show the bit of
the black-rope's end being in the circle of the blue rope's collar.

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

As discussion circa this date touches on this subject, it's worthwhile
to "bump" this thread into immediate visibility.  Also, I should be
able to add some further images to it, shortly -- perhaps of the
Butterfly bend in various versions/orientations, as well as more
of Ashley's bend #1452 and the so-far-neglected #1408, and even the
very-tricky-to-dress-symmetrically #1453.  And, hmmmm, maybe
I've something beyond these to fit under this Subject?!

But the main point to raise now vis-a-vis remarks under "Towing"
is that SmitHunter's bend has a version that is relativley easy
to untie after heavy loading, so far as I've experienced that.  In
this thread, the latest prior post (above) tries to highlight this
knot's difference and non-jamming aspect.

--dl*
====

[roo]

 I wonder if such a  loop has the same good qualities the Zeppelin supposedly has...

You don't have any idea?  You didn't do any testing before going to the trouble of taking pictures and posting them? 

[roo]

  Does the loop based on Ashley s bend (ABOK #1452) belong to that Subject ? I tried to tie this loop with the " Alternative method" one ties the Zeppelin loop http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html
   and, to my mind, it looks as easy, perhaps easier, to do so. I wonder if such a  loop has the same good qualities the Zeppelin supposedly has...

I'm not at this point seeing the ease of tying an Ashley Loop, but that may come with time if it has good qualities (more on this next).  But I would expect there would be more to remember, since there is more to remember in the corresponding bend.  There's not just the geometry of the b and q, but also how they initially interlink.

On to testing, I find that the loop, like the bend, is prone to jamming.  This may be mitigated by dressing a certain way, but this jamming tendency cannot thereby be ignored.  Tyers will randomly arrive at both configurations (assuming that there are only two).  Having a duality or multiplicity of stable knot forms for a single knot increases the odds that unfavorable attributes will arise and obviously increases the amount of investigation that must be done to ferret out the knot properties for all forms or shapes.

[Dan_Lehman]

  Does the loop based on Ashley s bend (ABOK #1452) belong to that Subject ?

No -- and the follow-ups here show that it belongs with the
discussion of the other, derived-from-e2e_knots threads.

Let's get these msg.s over there.

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

 P.S. (24 June). Dressing [EITHER eye or end-2-end knot], I discovered that
it makes a big deal how exactly the tails of the knot are crossed while they are coming out of it .
They are crossed like an X, so the loop is loaded differently if the one leg of the X, the loaded one leg of the loop, is coming above or below the other. ( The same can be said in the case of the original Ashley Bend also, but there the loading are different and it does not seem to matter much.) So we have here two similar-but-not-exactly-the-same loops, that I call Ashley Loop 1 ad Ashley Loop 2 , for the moment. Can we tie them with a common method, that produces the one or the other without much alteration? Which loop is more secure ? ( I tend to believe that the Ashley Bend 1, and the loop derived from it, is probably more secure, as the tail(s) is (are) nipped better by the first nipping loop(s) of the standing end(s). This Asley Bend1 looks also  prettier, to my eyes, because of this braid-like appearence...)

BEAUTIFUL COLOR-SPECIFIC IMAGES !!!

These show an important variable aspect, as you point out.
The crossing in the upper images is that that gives the greater
security under load, as the tails are drawn by the SParts into
and ever tightening twist.

The lower version however can give better security when slack
(and jam-ability) if the collars are left loose, so that these
collars will roll up around the knot body and lock tightly
--which can be jammed in some conditions
(how successful one can be w/tools will depend ..., but there is
at least promise, adding some lubrication and prying with a
marlinespike or screwdriver the collar off of the knot body).

And a sort of "in-between" pre-load position where the tails
abut and exit w/o crossing each other; with the draw of the
SParts under load, this should tend to move towards the first
geometry; but with deliberate dressing & setting, one can get
the collars up around the knot and then tighten it so that
the tails remain as dressed as the collars become tight around
the knot body -- which mild jamming might be desired, either
w/o concern about untying and simply wanting this knot's
decent strength, or with need for security against loosening
with shaking/rubbing when slack, maybe w/o fear of becoming
jammed beyond recall.

This crossing difference, btw, for (yet to be presented here) #1408
is much more significant, and Ashley cautions against the mis-tying
as it can simply crawl out, spill.  This danger doesn't exit for #1452.


Again, this is a LOVELY use of colored cordage to highlight structure!


 

[Dan_Lehman]

I tie Ashley's bend #1452 (one that I "invented", btw, along w/Shakehands
& SmitHunter's & #1408 & the Zeppelin (from Hunter's)) by making
one Overhand and inserting the opposite end into the appropriate point
in the (what H.Asher called the...) spine.
And that is the same point to bring the tail out, to get one particular
form.  It doesn't have be thought of as left up to voodoo or whim.

And, as I noted in another thread (which I'll not quote lest it confuse
someone), the jammable forms have some hope of forcible loosening
by pulling ends apart -- YMMV.  (Whereas Rosendahl's & #1408 pretty
much just open; Shakehands, too.)

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

  A method for the Ashley Bend 1 AND for the Ashley Bend 2, similar with the 6 and 9 ( b and q ) method for the Zeppelin Bend.  

Above, I said
Again, this is a LOVELY use of colored cordage to highlight structure!

Alas, no "again", here, where it would serve as well:  did your orange rope
get lost?

 

[Dan_Lehman]

In some other threads, there have been assertions of Ashley's bend #1452
jamming.  This is behavior that I've not experienced with it when tied for
the purpose of not jamming (as opposed to purposefully varying the
dressing so to get jamming); but maybe one person's jamming is just
another's "loosens easily enough" ?!

Here are photos of the knot dressed to be easily untiable and tied in
some 5mm-ish non-new marine kernmantle cord, tensioned about as
much as I felt comfortable with (via pulley) -- surely up beyond the
normal working load.  The point is to examine the structure that
obtains at such loads (and in such material -- there are slicker and
stretchier materials).  Note the position of the collar(s).  I can see
that the knot will have sufficient grip to hold this form upon release,
but in this material it was an easy matter to push back the collars
and untie.  Maybe in some large rope this pushing-back might take
the help of a marlinespike or whack with a mallet?  How much the
knot can lock depends on how much the collar can get pulled tight
and roughly opposite the turn of the opposing SPart around the
collar's SPart -- if the collar can get well opposite than it can build
and hold pressure on the SPart and be more difficult to pry loose.

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Here is a knot that arguably belongs in this thread on account
of its being non-jamming and having some similarity to the
Carrick bend, which can be seen as a seed for discovering
the interlocked-overhands knots shown above.

This end-2-end joiner is completely non-jamming, and it seems
to give a nice gradual curvature to the SPart.  It will be good
to see how it does in a strength test.

It's downside is obvious : it is awkwardly bulky.  Still, there
are cases where that has only minor significance.  In a case
where one will be putting heavy load for a short duration
where bulkiness doesn't matter, and untying the knot does,
this one might be a happy solution.

The ropes in the photos are a blue, retired "gym rope" from
a rock-climbing facility (around 11mm), and a much older
climbing rope, well worn, and slightly slimmer (for those who
count fractions of millimeters).  The first two pics are of the
knot when it had been loaded to a couple hundred pounds
force and tied off; then I try to open it to reveal better its
structure.  (And, yes, alas, I reversed the up/down orientation
of the knot in the bottommost photo.)


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

   On the same idea, 3 rope diameters, with fewer crossings. The DL 2, Pretzel+Pretzel bend.

But note that the "same idea" vis-a-vis thread topic is Ashley's #1452...
and not a number of rope diameters.  These look to be wandering off topic,
in this regard.  --don't see easy untying here.

 

[Dan_Lehman]

   The DL 3, is not the same idea, you are right...It is the same knot ! (+one motre tuck) 

"same knot"   --not at all same as #1452, nor any other I see
in this thread.  The bigger half of this asymmetric knot must
come via the Fig.8 component, but the start up to that extra
tuck doesn't match anything.

--dl*
====