Yet another "Zeppelin loop" - so to speak.

[X1]

  There are many contenders presented as brides to the G Zeppelin, some tied in the bight and some tied in the end, some more symmetric and less ugly / and some less symmetric and more ugly than the others. If it were to be a beauty contest in this Forum, we would probably/unfortunately have had more contenders than judges...
   The Zeppelin bend is a very symmetric rope-made pivot. It can be tied in the bight, if the both its tails are slipped. Trying to preserve as much of those qualities as I can, I have tied many Zeppelin-like loops, some more and some less stable - because the balance of the original bend is retained due to the symmetric loading of the two loaded ends, while, at an end-of-line loop knot, with three loaded limbs, that is not so easy. Of all those loops, the most good-looking, to my eye  , was the loop presented in this thread. It is not TIB, and it cannot be transformed in such a convenient type of loop knot without severe distortion to its present form. However, it is bowline-like, and it works like / resembles THE Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend, albeit in a somewhat remote way. Amother knot to which it bears some resemblence - in the mechansm, if not in the aspect - is the girth-hitched bowline, in its standart and its "Eskino" forms (2).
   I do not see any merit in a pseudo-Zeppelin loop, that a secure bowline-like loop ( which can be untied in just one step) can not offer. For another Zeppelin-like loop that is also bowline-like, see the parent bend at (1).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4090.0
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4009 

[X1]

   Ashley states that " the number and variety of loops tied in the end and in the bight, both single and double, are great - much greater than seems necessary..". That is true, and one understands it the moment he sits down and tries to tie a "new" loop knot - they seem to keep coming easily, the one after the other. However, if we are searching for bowline-like loops, that number and variety shrinks a little bid. It seems that the slipped tail "trick" helps us tie even more TIB loops than we would expect, so the probability to tie a bowline-like loop becomes greater.
   As shown to me by a friend, a slimmer that the previously presented contender of the beauty contest, who also has intentions to relate to the Zeppelin kingdom/mechanism, is the slipped version of the Tugboat B loop / Flying bowline. See the the attached pictures, the #14,#13 at (1), and a lengthy thread in this Forum about Tugboat B, and the related - but not bowline-like - Angler s loop ( Perfection loop / ABoK#1017, ABoK#1035), at (2)) She is a bowline-like loop ( actually, a crossing-knot variation), that can be easily tied in the bight. ( For a suggestion that attempts to draw a line between the bowline-like crossing knot loops and the proper bowlines, see (3)). Of course she looks like many other single end-of-line loops ( ABoK has a lot of them) - but she should be presented here, because she is, in a sense, the lighter and much easier to tie version of the more robust pseudo-Zeppelin loop shown in the previous post.
   Quote from (1) : Tugboat B benefits from a second wrap (of the end of the rope ). In place of a second wrap of the tail, the slipped version has a slipped tail. I believe that this second line - the second, not loaded axially leg of the tail which penetrates the pair of bights along with the first leg - is necessary, because it makes the rope-made "pivot" of the knot stiffer. A stiffer pivot of a hinge can withstand the great sheer forces acting perpendicularly on it without deforming - just as it happens in the case of the Zeppelin bend, with its pivot made by the pair of its tails. At a loop knot we have only one tail, so we should either wrap this tail around and drive it through for a second time, or we should do what is done in the slipped Tugboat B : use the axially unloaded second leg of the tail as the second segment of a two-line-made pivot. I do not know if the two-wraps Tugboat B loop and its slipped one-wrap version shown here are equally capable to bear heavy loadings or not.

1. http://daveroot.co.cc/Knots/Knots_SingleLoops.htm#PerfectionLoop
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=112
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg23929#msg23929

[X1]

   Thank you, Luca. I have updated my reference.
   The Tugboat B loop shown at the previous post is also known as "Tugboat bowline" , or as "Flying bowline". Although it is a bowline-like loop, indeed - in the sense it can be untied in just one step, leaving no knotted trace on the standing part - it is not a "proper" bowline, but a crossing knot loop - according the definition/distinction attempted at (1).
   There are two ways to dress the slipped tail - the second leg of the tail can pass in between the first and the two legs of the bight ( as shown in this thread ), or through the first and the two legs of the collar. I do not know which one of the two different dressings generates the more secure of the two variations.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg23929#msg23929

[Luca]

Hi X1,and thank to you!

I deleted my post because at this point it had become unnecessary.In fact,unfortunately,typing "the most useful rope knots .. etc"on Google, the Southee copy is indexed  much earlier than the original site.
OK,but now my curiosity is this:

  a crossing knot loop - according the definition/distinction attempted at (1).
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg23929#msg23929

How you consider the classification of the Tugboat knots as crossing knot-based loops with respect to the (so-called) Eskimo bowline? [Eskimo loop(no-Bowline)?, or perhaps even better, since the Inuit people do not like this term, Inuit loop? (and Sami knot/bend?)] In the light of the one of the criteria that you expose in the post that you link, then one really must exclude the Inuit/(Eskimo) and other loops with the crossing knot constructed in the same sense SPart/loops, compared to the Tugboat knots(loops?), within which the crossing knot is constructed in the opposite direction?Or maybe we should talk about something like "inverted crossing knot-based" loop?or maybe these Tugboats are more like a Bowline?[However,even if the collar is "where it should be", there is the difference that the two legs of the loop emerge parallel from the"not entirely nipping"crossing knot,instead of the tail emerges parallel to one of the two legs,(one could build a "real" crossing- knot bowline "cutting" the loop of the Tugboat and "melting" the tail with the appropriate leg of the cutted loop,but the resulting loop is not a big deal, at least in the "ring loading", because, from what I've seen, I think the knot is at serious risk of spilling in this case).]

                                                                                                         Bye!

[X1]

   ...the Inuit people do not like this term, [so] Inuit loop ?

   I simply write the usual term in quotation marks, and dispense with the burden to re-write history...

   In the light of the one of the criteria that you expose in the post that you link... one really must exclude the Inuit/(Eskimo) and the other loops, [where] the crossing knot is constructed in [one direction], compared to the Tugboat knots(loops), [where] the crossing knot is constructed in the opposite direction ?

  My aim was to make a distinction between the "proper" bowlines, with a "proper" single or double nipping loop, from the crossing knot bowline-like loops, with the crossing knot nipping loop, so we keep the class of bowlines small enough - without excluding the "Eskimo" bowlines, which, traditionally, are thought as belonging to the bowline class of knots. Mr Lehman has another view on this, and distinguishes the bowline-like loops to " (+) bowlines"  and "(-) anti-bowlines", taking into account the direction the working end follows in order to stabilize the nipping loop, as you do. If you go a little back ino the same thread, you will read my argument about the structure of the knot of the symmetrically loaded "120 degrees bowline", which is " Eskimo" and non - "Eskimo" at the same time ! 
  Of course, one can classify all those loops in many other categories as well. But my main purpose was the isolation of the "proper" bowlines from the other bowline-like loops, not further distinction within the set(s) of those other loops...The bowline is our king of loops, the other are merely contenders, that would never sit on the throne !  The most cunny of them, the so-called "Zeppelin loops" ( yet another one of which is presented in this thread ), try desperately to utilize the glory of the other king ,- of the kingdom of bends -, the G Zeppelin, to aquire the desired royal status... ( but in vein, I am afraid.)

   However, even if the collar is "where it should be", there is the difference that the two legs of the loop emerge parallel from the "not entirely nipping" crossing knot

   Yes, indeed, this is another difference - but I prefer not to refer to directions and orientations in that area, because everything depends upon the relative angle of the two legs of the bight - a variable.

[Dan_Lehman]

   The Zeppelin bend is a very symmetric rope-made pivot. It can be tied in the bight, if the both its tails are slipped.

As can some others, but I question the need for such a knot!

... Of all those loops, the most good-looking, to my eye  ,
[is] the loop presented in this thread. It is not TIB, and it cannot be transformed
in such a convenient type of loop knot without severe distortion to its present form.
However, it is bowline-like,

Ah, yes, this likely wins the "beauty contest"!  But it's clear
what beauty does to your adherence to zeppelin principles.   
I should add, though, that when loaded, there is some slight
imbalance to the beauty shown in the dressed & set knot here.

By "bowline-like" I believe you mean what I call "PET (post-eye tiable)"
--i.e., the knot is able to be tied to form an eye run though a ring
completely after such reeving, no partial knotting   [<<- edited]
needing to be done beforehand.

I'd sought such a PET version with the *pure* z. mechanics I found
in an infamous other eyeknot, which I present here.  (Definitely not
in for a beauty prize, and I'm not so sure about its more practical
aspects, either.)

For the beautiful one by the OP, I'd exchange the slip-tuck finish
for a wrap around the knot and then 2nd tuck, for stability/security.
(No, it doesn't enhance beauty, but there is much of that already.)

And I concur in X1's questioning the value of such "z." eye knots,
as the many bowlinesque ones have greater material and tying
efficiencies.


--dl*
====

[X1]

I question the need for such a knot!

It is a bonus ( your word, for a similar knot ).

 

Ah, yes, this likely wins the "beauty contest"! 

   However, it is difficult to remember how to tie, and to tie it quickly...So I am afraid it runs the danger to be characterized as " Decorative" , and get the boot, not the other sandal !  ( See the attached first and second picture, respectably )
  Its balance is fine, I believe - even the G Zeppelin has not a 100% perfect balance...) -, it is an easy way to tie it that I have not figured out, that worries me much more...

   By "bowline-like" I believe you mean what I call "PET (post-eye tiable)" --i.e., the knot is able to be tied to form an eye run though a ring after completely after such reeving, no partial knotting needing to be done beforehand.

  Yes, as you know it. And, I repeat, the MOST important characteristic of such a knot is not how it is tied, but how it is untied ! It can be completely un-tied even before the tail has been pulled out from the ring. The moment the working end has been de-tached from the standing part, one member on board ( not on the dock) is able to pull the free now standing end out of the ring, not worrying about any remaining knot on the (mooring) line (that, due to the bulk of the knot, could run the danger to be re-attached somewhere in between the dock and the board...)
    I have asked Derek Smith to search for a suitable term, and he has found something - but I do not wish to refer to it before he writes about it himself. I do like the term PET - it is sweet... - , but you have to repeat it many more times, to imprint it to the audience s memory !

   Of the greatly-many-more-than-needed bends, I am only interested in the most symmetric, most simple of them ( THOSE are the most beautiful). Of the greatly-many-more-than-needed hitches, I am only interested in the ones that can withstand lengthwise pull ( THOSE are the most difficult ). And of the greatly-many-more-than-needed end-of-line loops, I am only interested in the ones that are bowline-like (PET)( THOSE are the most convenient ).

[Dan_Lehman]

[X1, nb : I edited/corrected a part you quoted >>"after completely after"]

And, I repeat, the MOST important characteristic of such a knot
is not how it is tied, but how it is untied ! It can be completely
un-tied even before the tail has been pulled out from the ring.
The moment the working end has been de-tached from the standing part,
one member on board ( not on the dock) is able to pull the free now
standing end out of the ring, not worrying about any remaining knot
on the (mooring) line ...

No, that cannot be : such "worry" might exist and need attention to,
but at least one is free and can manage that ; in contrast, it could well
be that the tying was made possible only because there was no
initial, partial knotting to be done --where the information about where
to do this was not available (and could only be accommodated by making
a huge donation of material to the uncertain-in-size eye)!
.:.  To be able to size the amount of material in the eye, to check, to adjust,
and then to tie the knot, surely must count as a greater good
than being free of a knot upon removing the tail!

I do like the term "PET" - it is sweet... - ,
but you have to repeat it many more times, to imprint it to the audience s memory !

Better, note how I wrote it, by hand (and would *improve*
this graphic by NOT extending the top of the 'P' left of its vertical
stem.  (Though, yes, the upper, closed part of the 'P' can be seen
as a 'D' ... .  Eh, to believe is to see ... : the "P"'s stem runs down
through all!)

I see that I have made some small step towards further documentation
of the piles of *new* knots lying about, and these were grouped as
being zeppelin-like eye knots (a quartet that includes the one above
shown by me).  I like the shape of the leftmost one.  The rightmost
one is a guide to some asymmetric interlocked-overhands end-2-end
knot that might prove stronger than the zeppelin --to an issue
raised elsewhere : does one see this as proving asymmetry betters
symmetry as such, or might there be yet another symmetric knot
that can be seen as the superior one to be associated with it (as
one might think with the butterfly and Ashley's #1408
--though maybe the former, properly oriented, proves stornger?!) !?

(Looks as though I need to make headway on XXXIII by at least 3
or 4 more rows!  Then, beyond that, at least as many more pages!!)


--dl*
====

[X1]

I'd sought such a PET version with the *pure* z. mechanics I found in an infamous other eyeknot, which I present here.

   Nice ! Congratulations.( I night even say that it is not sooo ugly ! ) It is a version utilizing the "pure" ( = genuine) Zeppelin knot mechanics - and only them -, indeed. In the workings as well as in the looks, it belongs to this thread 100%.
   What I have found disturbing just a little bid, is that the segment you show as a red dotted line, has a tendency to be pulled towards the core of the knot - and when this happens, the eye leg that is depending upon it can not complete a whole round turn around the 3-line pivot... and runs the danger to slip under heavy loading. One can see if that has happened or not just by looking at the tight knot : when he sees the three parallel segments emerging from the top collar, he can be sure that this segment is in the right position. ( At your dressing, this position is not so right ! One can hardly see the third segment. Of course, this does not have any consequenses there, because there is so much friction around...). It seems to me that one has to pay attention during the tightening phase, so this segment will be locked in the right place. Your picture shows a knot tied with a non-slipping material. On the contrary, the material I use for the pictures is one of the most slippery I have - because I want to rest the knots on slippery materials, and because these materials can form tight knots. With this rope, I had to be careful and dress the knot properly, otherwise the third segment would have disappeared inside the knot s nub, and the turn of the hinge where it participates would have shrined a little bid.
   I have tried to cure this problem by passing the legs of the eye or the tail through different paths, even trying the X (crossed tails) version. I have met nothing better, which might suggest that it this knot is as good as it can be, under the circumstances.
   Another debatable point is the three-line pivot. I guess that the nipping action of the nipping loop / the pair of the opposed bights, in this case, would be shared now by three, not two, so it will be lighter ...but I do not know if that is true. Three lines encircled by a nipping loop is a good thing in relation to geometry ( rounder en-circling ) and to strength, but is it a good thing in relation to slippage ? Or will the tail slip easier, riding on the rails of the other two parallel segments/pivots ??

P.S. I see that you have posted a whole new generation of similar knots  ! Good ! I will examine them soon.

[X1]

  I see that I have made some small step towards further documentation of the piles of *new* knots lying about, and these were grouped as zeppelin-like eye knots (a quartet that includes the one above shown by me).  I like the shape of the leftmost one. 

   Yes, go on ! Publish anything you have, because time flies, and we do not know yet if there is an after life - and/or if there are any ropes in the after life, which counts as the same thing ! 

  The "leftmost" is a crossing knot + overhand knot / hitch bowline-like loop. A fine little bowline-like loop.
 
  I believe I had published all the possible such loops in this Forum , but I can not find where ! - and I would not be surprized if it turns out that I have deleted them, because I have processed copies of the pictures, but not the final labelled and published ones. The only thing I remember from tying and trying all the possible variations, is that many of them seemed to suffer from ring-loading. At the attached pictures below, see the ones that I believe could withstand ring-loading better than the others - they differ from the rest in that the "spine" of the overhand knot / half hitch passes in between the two legs of the bight. When the two legs of the eye "open up", during ring-loading, they will not drag any overhand knot / half hitch segment with them, and so untighten its grip a little bid. At the attached pictures of the next post, see the tightly-crossed-legs variations. 

[X1]

  Crossing knot + half hitch / overhand knot bowline-like loops ( both legs of the bight at the same side of the overhand knot / half hitch "spine" )

[X1]

   If we wish to go as far as to tie the third and the fourth dL s TIB loops ( in terms of volume and rope length ), I think we should decide to go all the way, and tie the "Full" loop, shown in the attached pictures. Frankly, I do not see what we gain if we omit one turn/tuck, among so many, in an already overweighted knot. On the contrary, the symmetry and the fluidity of the lines of the "Full" loop makes it look slimmer than it is ! 
   I am sure that climbers are already tying this loop. preferring it from the standard double eight loop. (I do not know how they call it).  I guess it should be among the safer and easier to tie and untie loops that exist - at some cost, as we see...  

[X1]

   Poll related to the beauty contest : Is it a bulky / portly / plump / overweight / fat eyeknot, or knot ? 
   ( I do not like the redundant second collar around the standing end, but what else can I do with the slipped tail ? )

[Dan_Lehman]

   Poll related to the beauty contest : Is it a bulky / portly / plump / overweight / fat eyeknot, or knot ? 
   ( I do not like the redundant second collar around the standing end, but what else can I do with the slipped tail ? )

But you might consider that the dual collar
will mitigate the deleterious effects of friction
at this first-contact point --i.e., that the SPart
in being, by loading force, drawn outwards
from the nub will contact the inner collar first
but this will have less effect of deflection as
the outer collar demands *attention*, too.
(I have at times sought to have a 2nd collar,
though also disliking the bulk/appearance.)


--dl*
====