Possble New Knot/Bend

[Matt53]

Hello Forum Members,  The knot described is similar to a Zeppelin bend or somewhat less so to an Ashley bend (at least in the manner in which it is tied).  The forum's posting system allows 4 attachments (and I have so I will attach the first 4 photos showing the forming of this knot to this post and the remaining 4 to a second post.  I have not seen this bend described in the Ashley Book of Knots or elsewhere but would appreciate the Guild members' expertise to determine if this knot has been previously described.
       It seems to be a very secure bend at least with normal (average) sized cordage and is symmetrical and has a handsome appearence.
       I appreciate the forum members' expertise in determining if this knot has been previously described.  Thank you!

[Matt53]

Attached are the remaining 4 photos to the previous post describing a possible new knot/bend.

[Matt53]

Roo,  I am very familiar with the Hunter's bend (Rigger's bend, ABOK 1425a) and this is a different configuration.  The reverse side of the knot IS identical to the Hunter's bend. The obverse side of the knot however is different. On a Hunter's bend the strands on this side (what I have labled 'obverse') lay parallel to each other while on the bend presented they form an overhand knot (ie they wrap around each other). I have checked this many times. If you lay this knot next to the ABOK 1425a (Hunter's/ Rigger's bend) one can appreciate how they are different. I agree, on quick inspection this looks somewhat similar to a Hunter's bend but on close inspection, it is not.  I appreciate your comments and urge you to tie both bends and look at them side by side and I think you will be able to appreciate the difference. Thanks!

[roo]

Roo,  I am very familiar with the Hunter's bend (Rigger's bend, ABOK 1425a) and this is a different configuration.  The reverse side of the knot IS identical to the Hunter's bend. The obverse side of the knot however is different. On a Hunter's bend the strands on this side (what I have labled 'obverse') lay parallel to each other while on the bend presented they form an overhand knot (ie they wrap around each other). I have checked this many times. If you lay this knot next to the ABOK 1425a (Hunter's/ Rigger's bend) one can appreciate how they are different. I agree, on quick inspection this looks somewhat similar to a Hunter's bend but on close inspection, it is not.  I appreciate your comments and urge you to tie both bends and look at them side by side and I think you will be able to appreciate the difference. Thanks!

Sorry.  I misinterpreted your directions on your images.  The pictured bend is different than Hunter's Bend.

[SS369]

Hi Matt and welcome.
Thanks for your contribution.

I just tied this using 6mm kernmantle cord, loaded it to approx. 300 lbs. and then bounced on it. I found it held and was easy to untie afterwards. No tools needed. ;-)

I also do not find it in ABoK, but then many knots presented in the Forum are not there either.
Roger Miles book has some that look like it, but the pictures are one side only and that makes a confirmation by half only.

We have a thread http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3670.msg21289#msg21289 in which a similar knot is presented and discussed.
So far I have not found it.

SS

[X1]

   Hi Matt,

   I believe that all the simple bends are already known - but I also believed the same thing just a few weeks ago, when I met another new bend nobody knew - and ( which is the bitter end of the story ) nobody was interested to learn !    So, there is still the possibility that a simple bend is "new", and it is hiding just under our noses - because we are still very far from a complete ( systematic and exhaustive) enumeration of all the possible configurarions. The simple bends are many more than we need, and certainly many more than the average human brain can remember. As a species, we have been evolved to remember many things, but not complex paths of convoluted 1D lines in 3D space. So, it should be expected that even competent knot tyers do not remember all the bends they had seen, or even all the bend they have tied.
   There is a way out of this limitation of our brain : We remember many more things, if we understand them : if we understand their structure, their patterns, their inner logic. If we do, our brain builds proper categories, and arranges/sorts all those things in little "tool-boxes", readily available to any future need.
   Which is the bend you show ? First, both links of the bend are topologically equivalent to the overhand knot - so it is an interlocked overhand knot bend. Then, its symmetry reminds the Hunter s bend, because the two standing ends are entering into the knot s nub from the same side of the collar bights, and the tails are exiting towards the opposite directions. Lastly, we see that there are two strands that are twisted around each other at the one side, but parallel to each other at the other side.
   That s all, folks !     
    Have a look at this bend, and at its relatives, at :
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.0

[kd8eeh]

I have not seen this knot.  However, I have tied a knot which binds similarly and has similar properties, and i believe to be somewhat related.  I think i described it somewhere else, but i'll put pictures here anyway.

They look rather dissimilar at first, but look moreso at the structure than the appearance.

[X1]

  I think i described it somewhere else, but i'll put pictures here anyway.

    You did, with the same pictures :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4016.msg24885#msg24885

   ( I suggest you better keep a record of your posts, knots and pictures, according to subjects, possibly labeled by some key words, so it will be easy for you to refer to them in the future.
   If the pictures of the knot(s) were taken against a solid colour background, it would be much easier for the reader to follow the paths of the individual lines. The details of the backgound are getting mixed with the outlines of the ropes, and this makes your pictures less easy to read...) 

   P.S. However, I have to thank you for this repetition of this series of pictures... It offered to me the opportunity to tie your knot again - and to remember why I did not like it the first time I saw it... The sharp curves that are formed when the standing ends pass through the collars, the way they pass through them, can not be retained for long. When the standing ends are tensioned, they are aligned, and so they drag the tails, and they force them to slip out of the central nipping structure - so, in the final tight form of the bend, the collars can not but remain elongated, and the knot settles in a non-compact, "loose" form. I always prefer the compact knots, which convey an impression of "rigidity" - although this has nothing to do with the security or not of the knot. So, I untucked the standing ends from the collars ( keeping the rest of the knot as it was), and then I tried to figure out a more direct, "straight"  way to drive them igain into the knot. The first thing that had crossed my mind happened to work : The standing ends now follow the same paths as before, pass through the same collars, but penetrate them and enter into the knot s nub coming from the opposite sides. Is the result a more compact knot as I though it would be ? Knot at all !  The bend that was tied this way is a very flat, loose, and most "springy"  knot - that deserves the name "Springy bend", indeed. In fact, it is almost a rope-made spring, a very interesting knot, that I have never seen before - or that I do not remember seeing it before... What did I say ? That "all the simple bends are already known" ? Well, I was wrong - again ! 
See : Springy bend :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4188

[roo]

Hello Forum Members,  The knot described is similar to a Zeppelin bend or somewhat less so to an Ashley bend (at least in the manner in which it is tied).  The forum's posting system allows 4 attachments (and I have so I will attach the first 4 photos showing the forming of this knot to this post and the remaining 4 to a second post.  I have not seen this bend described in the Ashley Book of Knots or elsewhere but would appreciate the Guild members' expertise to determine if this knot has been previously described.
       It seems to be a very secure bend at least with normal (average) sized cordage and is symmetrical and has a handsome appearence.
       I appreciate the forum members' expertise in determining if this knot has been previously described.  Thank you!

Attempting to steer this thread back to the original bend:

This bend does a very nice job of remaining easy to untie after heavy load.  This may be related to how difficult it is to work the bend into a compact form that doesn't let the two collars spring back open.  I feel like I don't have enough hands to work it snug, but pushing the outer bights toward each other helps.  The security of the bend isn't bad (it's better than a sheet bend), but for the class of bend and complexity, I would expect more.  The bend also tends to make a large protrusion from the line.

I do very much appreciate that you've put some thought into simplifying the method of tying.  It was only my misinterpretation of your "clockwise rotation" descriptor that let me astray at first.  I think I now have it, but the overall complexity may still be a bit of a stretch for the masses.

This may not make mainstream practical usage, but the jam-resistant geometry is worthy of study.

[Matt53]

Thanks to all!  I  have reproduced the bend described by kd8eeh and although similar, it is distinct from the current bend.  Same for the 'springy bend' described by X1.  My apologies to Roo for not making the instructions less ambiguous- the 180 degree 'rotation' was in the axial plane not in the horizontal plane.  This might have been better described as a 'twist' (ie a 180 degree rotation along the axis of the loop).  Sorry for the confusion.  Thanks.

[X1]

it is distinct from the current bend.  Same for the 'springy bend' described by X1.

  I had NOT said that the bend you had shown is the same as the "Springhy" bend !
  I said that is the same bend that ihad been described at the reference I had mentioned at Reply#5, which I hope you will visit...
 
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19163#msg19163

   The falsely tied Hunter s bend has two distinct "sides"  - just as the Hunter s bend. ( The Zeppelin bend is symmetric regarding this aspect ). I had characterized the one as the "top side" and the other as "bottom side". The bend you have  shown is the one where the two strands of the "top" side are twisted around each other - so I had called it "top side twist". See the attached pictures.

[Matt53]

X1,  I agree- the knot you have shown is the same (identical to) the knot I described.  Does this bend have a name besides 'top side twist variation of the falsely tied Hunter's bend'?  Thanks

[X1]

  Imagine a planet some billions light years away from us, where an intelligent being has tied this same knot - would it be of any interest to "it" how "we" had named "its" knot, here on Earth ? I guess not. So, why on Earth should it be of any interest to us ?
  Knots are like mathematical theorems : they exist, they are not depending on the particular point in space and time they happen to be discovered. They are the same all over the World ( with capital W), and all we can do is to try to discover them. Why ? Because they are there.
   If our brain had evolved differently, perhaps we would have been labeling knots by other means, through haptic or olfactive memories. If we were living in a culture that uses pictograms, we would  simply carve the diagram of the knot on the wet clay, and so we would not had aby need for an intermediate agent. I do not believe that names offer much to knots, and probably do as much harm to them as they can...People are parroting names very easily, and they are parroting the names of knots, too - so they do not try to study the topological and geometrical properties of them, and they remain knot users, at best, or even knot consumers. I believe that we knot tyers should declare a war on this useless tradition, this relic of the past, the labelling of knots by silly "names" that do not reveal anything of their true character. So, I am happy this bend does not have a name - and I hope that the existing names of the already named knots would be forgotten some day !  We will then be forced to inagine the knots without the need of any intermediate agent, and I believe that, this way, we would be able to understand and remember them much more easily and deeply than now.

[SS369]

I have the view that knots should have name's. Not such as Doohickey's knot, etc.,  but something meaningful.
The name could be a succinct descriptor with possibly a number and/or alphabet letter.
If we could come up with this it would go a long way to organizing the Library of Knots.
Not an easy answer I am thinking..

SS

[X1]

something meaningful.
The name could be a succinct descriptor

 

   If "Dances with wolves" counts as a "name", I agree ! 
   In modern civilizations/western societies, "names" have ceased to bear any descriptive power long ago...
   Most knots have silly names, that reveal absolutely nothing of their form or structure.
   What you have in mind is not a "name", but a legend.
   See the periodical table of elements. There, each and every individual configuration of protons and neutrons, each and every chemical element, occupies a certain place in a well organized, meaningful grid. If one knows the place of one element in this grid, he can deduce a great number of its physical and chemical properties. If he only knows the traditional name/symbol, he knows next to nothing.
   The Clove hitch, the Strangle and the Constrictor, for example, are hitches based on a riding turn that secures the ends of the round turns underneath it. If we had a way to denote the existence and the number of riding and round turns, and their relative entangling, we could have had a meaningful "name", a tool that will reveal the similarities and the differences between those hitches. Now we have nothing more than three more meaningless names. Knots are tools, and they could be labeled by words/numbers that also serve as tools. Most present names belong to kind of knot-tyers slang, so the proud speakers of this strange language would remain few, and satisfied in their loneliness...