"Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!

[Dan_Lehman]

In another thread** there was a search for a working
end-2-end knot for the high-strength, low-stretch,
and very slippery HMPE (Dyneema & Spectra).
Many thought-to-be-secure knots came to grief.
** cf.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=33c50dae35643514476b1012c83bcd8a&topic=4756.0

Among these was Ashley's bend #1452 re-tucked,
which I thought should work, as it nipped the tails
between the U-turns of the (heavily loaded) S.Parts
and not just once but (in the "re-tucked" version) twice!
Alas, my eyes were opened wider by its slipping!
Has this HMPE cordage no respect for a knotter's
hard efforts?

Beyond the structure of interlocked overhands's
nipping the tails I wanted to try also that of two
turNips (nipping turns) 'a la bowline --these, I reason,
differ from the former in making full encirclings of the
nipped tails, and so should each (each end) bind
the surrounded tails better --and enough to hold,
especially if the tails are re-tucked.

I began various ways of bringing two turNips together,
but settled on an interlocking, as it helped keep the
material in place for continued tying, and maybe
gives some shared nipping of S.Parts and smoothing
of their turns to boost strength?  Something told me
that in fact my supposed bowlinesque knot was also
related to Ashley's, and indeed one can see it as
simply furthering that knot's initial flow of S.Parts
into full turns and then the colloaring; so, I'm calling
it "Ashley Bowled Over", with "-1452" & "re-tucked"
as qualifiers.  (There should be similar versions for
other interlocked-overhands end-2-enders #1408 &
zeppelin & ... .)

Attached are photos of my initial sketch of two stages
of forming the knot, and a photo of the knot tied in
some handy but not-already-tied-up-in-*new*-knots
PP ropes (yellow laid, orange kernmantle).  (The sketches
are intended to be helpful; that latter, colorful.)


--dl*
====

[allene]

I will test this knot tomorrow.  But I do want to point out that there were two knots on the previous thread.  One I called my first bend and it slipped but was nonetheless fairly strong and could be untied.  But you may have missed the second one which I called the variation on my first bend.  It did not slip, was stronger, but could not be untied.  My point is, a reasonably easy to tie knot that did not slip was also presented in that thread.  This knot was not difficult to tie either.  It is much bulkier than either of my first bends, however.

I tested it with Lashit, not the best but easy to test.  It was very strong and did not slip.  I test it by comparing two knots. I put this knot up against my first bend variation and my knot broke first.  I will see if we can get some more testing on it.

Allen

[allene]

I find this knot interesting.  The tails are in the center of a spiral constricting loop which causes them to be held very tight well before there is any force that would tend to pull them out.  Also, there is a lot going on in the center so the standing ends come in and make a most gentle bend making a large full circle before they experience a sharp bend.  It is really big though :-)

[Dan_Lehman]

But I do want to point out that there were two knots on the previous thread

Oh, goodness, two-per-minute via Xarax!*   
Yes, I think I'd inklings of that, though got to the
"coming back full circle" to an original suggestion.

(*One or more of what Xarax has newly posted under
the "Rectangular Bend" thread look to offer a way
of employing double nipping loops to lock the tails.
Some of the dressing & setting can be tricky.)

The tails are in the center of a spiral constricting loop
which causes them to be held very tight well before there is any force
that would tend to pull them out.

Yes, that's my design goal, here.  Among the
versions that might be devised are altering the
particular comings'n'goings / directions to try to
avoid *sympathetic* pulling on adjacent parts
that would aid their movement to slip.  I was
working in a braided B&W line that made it esp.
hard to tell what was what (in contrast to the
clear images w/contrasting-colors rope shown
by Xarax, e.g. --though even then, it can be
difficult if the knot's not "exploded" for view).
I think that one part has potential "assist" in
such adjacency, but the tails go opposite this.

But, yes, again, the thought was that in the
mere U-turns, although tails were trapped
--by virtue of both "U"s-- there was less
compressing about them than will come if the
binding is opposed "O"s that contract.

Also, there is a lot going on in the center so the standing ends
come in and make a most gentle bend
making a large full circle before they experience a sharp bend.

Whereas I think that greatest strength in some
materials might come from making compression
against the S.Part over a broad area, off-loading
force (so to speak) gradually, the slickness of HMPE
suggests that it's a joke to try for this --or to of
necessity use a huge quantity of rope & binding,
as each part will do only so little, given slickness--;
so, back to just going for a larger radius of bending.

It is really big though :-)

At least until push comes to shove, at forces way
higher than conventional materials experience.
(It used to be said, by way of explaining why hi-mod
cordage did poorly with knots in strength (this assumes
that the knots hold, of course), that the material,
the fibres, were "weak in compression".  I suggested
that this wasn't fair, and that the fibres sustained
forces higher than conventional materials, in
absolute terms --force per diameter, i.e.--, but that
they were sooo much stronger in tension that the
rupture forces worked out to a small percentage of
that.)

Incidentally, eyeknots have seemed to be stronger
than end-2-end knots in some testings : e.g., there
was a fellow using a truck's force to do A-vs-B testing
of end-2-end knots and he used fig.8 eyeknots (of
some orientation), and they never broke !!! (!?)
One way of mimicking the workings of an eyeknot,
where one might reason that the S.Part can be more
gently/carefully handled because the TWO eyelegs
oppose it and they can compromise as they need only
sustain 50% (together, 100%),
is to have each end begin an eyeknot and then reach
out to complete it in the other end's beginning,
reciprocally.  "Twin bowlines" as show in ABOK
is a paradigm of this.  Oddly, in the aforementioned
testing, this structure was tested with fig.8 knots
and yet ... the specimen-anchoring fig.8 knots
--and, IIRC, some other(!)-- survived, the "twin fig.8s"
end-2-end stucture being what brokef!  That doesn't
make good sense to me, beyond some statistical
anomaly, as such an end-2-end knot should have
the same behavior as the eyeknot!?
(I.e., the fig.8 eyeknots never broke and yet
some end-2-end knot was stronger than essentially
the same fig.8 tied in end-2-end function.  One
could surmise that in end-2-end knotting there was
some imbalanced loading not found in the eyes.)


--dl*
====

[xarax]

  Speaking only about the un-re-tucked bend shown in this thread ( which, somehow, "resembles" the Ashley s bend, that is true, but which is topologically different = its links are topologically equivalent not to the overhand knot, but to the unknot, as one can see in a glance ), I wish to point out that it is just one click simpler to tie than the re-tucked alt. Carrick bend tied by allene, and just one click more complex than the "parent" Ashley s bend (*). Personally, I do not like those bends where the tails are hanging between the legs of the Standing ends like this - but it is only a matter of taste, I guess. ( However, in this particular bend, the fact that the pairs of the continuations of the Standing and Tail ends have the same orientation, may be proved beneficial, as the author of the bend has noticed ). Also, although the entangled intestines of this over-bowled bend are not overhand knots, one can consider this topology not as a disadvantage ( the Standing parts are already over-convoluted ), but as an advantage, in comparison to the Ashley s bend - because it can be utilized to tie the PET corresponding eyeknot, if this will be ever needed. ( Eyeknots do not slip as easily as their corresponding end-to-end knots, so I believe that the additional security of this bend would be an overkill ).

  I had not the motive to show, among their simpler relatives, the first-collared-then-retucked ( though the central opening ) knots, based on the re-tuckings of a Carrick-like "base", in (1) :

   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086

  At that time, I had to confront somebody who tried to teach me English ( his English, to be more precise...), so me, the poor third world native would become able to understand his suggestion to move those bends to the Fancy and Decorative knotwork Forum  .
   Using the labels suggested in the above cited thread, that can describe the path of the Working end in all those bends generated by the re-tucking of this Carrick-like"base", I would had described this bend as uSE C - uSE C ( under the Standing End, re-tucked through the central ( C ) opening ). See the oSE C - oSE C, at (2), already mentioned AND shown at (3) - but it seems nobody listens to pictures !   
   The nipping mechanism may be seen more surrounding, but I am not sure that it would be more constricting. Apparently, a surrounding, more O-shaped nipping loop seems a safer bet than a one-sided, more U-shaped one - but is it ? We have seen exactly the same situation in the case of the "Link bowlines", and my impression was that the surrounding rims can actually "protect" the penetrating Tail ends, not choke them ! The added material tends to form a halo that can act as a shield, and absorb some of the nipping forces, before they reach the Tail ends at the core of the knot. Some portion of the nipping forces and the friction they induce would be distributed and absorbed within the contact areas of the two embraced O-turns, and they will never reach to their final destination, the penetrating Tail ends. Moreover, as the contact areas between the rims of those interlocked O-turns and the Tail ends are now more extended, the local deformation of the strands are less pronounced, less deep. The rims of the O-shaped nipping turns may be less able to bite hard and deep into the body of the Tail - so these Tails can slide out of the core more easily.
    Why I do not speak about the re-tucked version of this bend ?
    First, because there are dozens and dozens of re-tucked simple bends ( even much simpler than this ) that we have not tied. Many of the simpler, un-re-tucked bends incorporate locking mechanisms most knot tyers have never examined, and perhaps have never tied, or even seen. I think it is more prudent to start from the simpler bends and go to the more complex ones, otherwise we will shift the goalposts each time something catchy pops out.
   Second, because there are many ways one can re-ruck a bend, because the already formed base knot has many openings through which we can drive our Working end. The re-tucking-through-the-central-opening may even be inferior to others, because we do not know if it is better to confront slippage with the Tails as a pair of adjacent and parallel segments of rope, or as two segments going through different openings. So, we have first to test the un-re-tucked bend, and all the un-re-tucked simple bends we know, and only then run to take refuge under the shirts of this or that re-tucked fat lady s dress... Otherwise the proprosal of a re-tucked bend  may reveal that we are not sure about the mechanism we proprose, so we buy some insurance premium !
   Third, because re-tucked knot hasn't interested me enough to venture into its tying. The re-tucked bends may be more secure ( and we do not even know if this security is worth the added material, i.e., if they are more secure proportionally to the added material and to the added tuck ...), but they are NEVER more pretty ! They often become too fat, and they acquire a wide cross section that makes them unsuitable for many applications. With knots, if we do not follow the "Less is More" dictum as far as it can get us, we better start seizing, splitting, gluing, etc...
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18725#msg18725
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4756.msg30891#msg30891

( * ) The classic or alternative Carrick mat is one tuck more complex than this particular Carrick-like "base" / mat.

[Dan_Lehman]

   No, I would knot be dragged into the trap of paying back using the same coin - and one reason for it is that, doing this, we would inflate the value of the currency ( among other things, which are already inflated too much...) - and this added inflation would depreciate the value of $  Dan Lehman ow[e]s to me.

... IMO the knot shown is riduculous to proprose...

   However, I have to admit that the situation, and the particular word used for the "proprosal" of the beautiful Oyster bend ( M B5-D2 Threefold - Fourfold )[ of course, this bend was not "proprosed" because it is beautiful, it was "proprosed" because it is a most jamming knot, in a hope that knots which jam when tied on ordinary material, ...

Xarax, you'd do better to show the rationale given
for my assertion above, via a fuller quotation --to wit:

But IMO the knot shown is riduculous to proprose
at this time of results shown by EStar & Allene --there
is a way to clearly an easy slippage path for the well-rounded
turns and oblique tucks of this knot : I wouldn't expect it
to come close to holding.

THIS much analysis we should do before wasting away
one more precious bit of time, effort, & material.  Stop
and take stock of what has, what hasn't slipped (and
how!).  Re "how", we might be chary in some cases of
whether inaccurate tying allowed some transformation
of form --capsizing, such as can happen in normal materials
with the venerable bowline apparently (see the many
images of this in Knots in the Wild thread), or some
straightening of a part expected to by its curvature achieve
some effect.

Unless I missed it, this debated knot was untested,
so we are left at the state of analysis; I see no reason
to change mine.  I owed only a rationale and that was
paid, in full.

---------------------------

   Speaking only about the un-re-tucked bend shown in this thread

Yes, it occurs to me to realize that in relation
to Ashley's #1452 I have first proposed the
method of making more secure by re-tucking
the tails, and now have added to that the
*rounding* of the S.Parts' central nipping --and
that one might hope that the latter change alone
suffices to achieve security!

Still, though, the interlocked S.Parts form a Grief
knot / What knot and jam, alas.  (Yet one more path
a knots explorer might take to reach this knot.) Should
testing show promise for the nipping loops (not only with
security, but with strength --that broad curvature ...),
we might move on to seeking a non-jamming variation.

An obvious hope for a non-jamming variation on this
theme is the zeppelin knot bowled-over & re-tucked.
Yes, Allene has tested a simply re-tucked version
("the zeppelin slipped"), but not one that has been
"bowled over" --having the superior? nipping.
And whereas one might also wonder if the re-tucking is
superfluous for security given the "bowling over," there's
likely the need for extra diameters to round out the S.Parts'
curvature in order to get strength making the knotting
worthwhile (oh, it might be needed in an emergency
regardless, yes).

Looking further at the bowled-over & re-tucked zeppelin knot
in my hands now, I'm thinking that this is The Winner.
--definitely easier to tie than the Subject end-2-ender,
and I think will be able-to-be-untied-after-loading, too!
(As well as having a popular myth of superiority to fulfill.)

( which, somehow, "resembles" the Ashley's bend, that is true,
but which is topologically different = its links are topologically equivalent

The behavior of the material depends on geometry
not topology; "bowling-over" #1452 changes the latter
while retaining much of the former.  That is what I mean
to say in its naming.


--dl*
====

[xarax]

... this debated knot was untested,
 I owed only a rationale and that was paid, in full.

  The Oyster bend ( M. B5-D2, Threefold - Fourfold ) was also not tested ( and it is still not tested...), yet you dismissed it beforehand... And the 88 bend which was tested, and did not slip, was just ignored - as it happens too often, unfortunately.
  I agree you offered a rationale for this knot - moreover, I acknowledge the fact that this rationale, regardless of what I think about it, was also productive, and had lead you to this interesting knot - because, evidently, you had not read many posts of the thread where I had described the bends one can tie by re-tucking the particular Carrick-like mat ( shown there, and at the attached pictures ), one of which is the bend you propose here ( namely, according to the labelling used at that thread, the "Ashley Bowled Over" is the uSE C-uSE C, as one can see in a glance - "similar", in a sense, to the oSE C - oSE C, also shown at the attached pictures ). At that time, neither you nor me knew that the beautiful bend shown and discussed at the first posts of the thread was the "Illusion" (M. B 25 ) - you, because you had forgotten to do your homework, and me because I was not aware of Miles book.
   My point was that I had "proprosed" the Oyster bend for one reason, just like you do now, for another : The Oyster bend was the most jamming bend I could thought of, so it was very reasonable to expect that a bend which jams so tightly, when tied on ordinary materiasl, will slip less than others, when tied on very slippery materials.
  (  I had deleted the irrelevant re. the proposed knot, first part of my previous post ).

[xarax]

   An obvious hope for a non-jamming variation on this theme is the zeppelin knot bowled-over & re-tucked.

  Those "bowled Over" bends, are bends where the Standing Part turns 180 degrees more before it collars one of the two Standing ends - if, in the ordinary "parent" bend, the Standing Part collars the Standing End of the same link, in the "bowled over" version it collars the Stranding End of the other link, and vice versa.
   In the oSE C - oSE C bend shown in the previous post, those additional 180 degrees are achieved without a collar - at that time, I thought it was too much, regarding the amount of the required material, to turn the Standing Part 190 degrees more, AND to place a collar... and that was one reason I had not presented any pictures of the uSE C - uSE C bend. ( The other was the warm reception of all those bends by one of the self-appointed Keepers of the Practical Knot Temple  ).
   Is this "bowled Over Zeppelin bend" the bend we had discussed at (1), also shown at the attached picture ?

  You might try an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796

[Dan_Lehman]

   An obvious hope for a non-jamming variation on this theme is the zeppelin knot bowled-over & re-tucked.

...
   Is this "bowled Over Zeppelin bend" the bend we had discussed at (1), also shown at the attached picture ?

  You might try an in-between version, where the main loop goes not 180deg or your 540 but 360 degrees, to collar the opposite line.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1980.msg13796#msg13796

Quite so, and well shown there!

And if you combine the "doubling" manifestations
of your 1st & 3rd images in the OP you have by
the latter "bowling over" and the former "re-tucked":
QED !  (I do think that the doubled tail diameters
rounding the S.Parts' compressing should show
significant strength gain; I have struggled to get
the mere 2 diameters to produce curvatures that
looked good, IMO.)

Further, albeit inferior to your photos, are these four
of mine, showing the "bowled-over zeppelin re-tucked" (BOZr).
The materials are from commercial fishing : a hollow,
compressible braided side-by-side fibres polyester &
polypropylene (PS & PP), resp. white & black; and
a kernmantle rope of PP with 5 (I think) slightly
twisted core sets of fibres.  (This particular rope is
firmer and I'll presume stronger than a similar-looking
line in which there are simply parallel PP fibres, of the
same color (so far as I've seen).

The first image shows a recently loaded (detached) knot;
the S.Parts flow to the outside/exterior collars
(i.e., this is most of what one can see of the B&W rope).
The second image shows this knot flipped over and
slightly loosened, to try to see its innards (and the B&W
rope now shows the re-tuck's collar on the outside).
The third is of the tightened knot from the side,
to gain some appreciation of the curvature of the S.Parts,
of the bulk of the 4 dia. of tails being nipped/compressed.
And the fourth shows a loosened knot from its side.
(eh    )

This knot had been loaded via a pulley to about 100kg
(200+ #)?!  I loaded it further --800#?-- and was
able to untie it easily; but this is a zeppelin in some
traditional materials, not something subjected to the
diabolical static strength & slickness of HMPE!


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

... this debated knot was untested,
 I owed only a rationale and that was paid, in full.

...
 because, evidently, you had not read many posts of the thread
where I had described the bends one can tie by re-tucking the particular
Carrick-like mat ( shown there, and at the attached pictures ),
one of which is the bend you propose here ( namely, according
to the labelling used at that thread, the "Ashley Bowled Over"
is the uSE C-uSE C, as one can see in a glance - "similar",
in a sense, to the oSE C - oSE C, also shown at the attached pictures ).

The knots shown here (above) look obviously
vulnerable to slippage, as the movement of the
initial tuck will bring with it the re-tucked tail;
the collars, additionally, look more *broad* than
*U*-sharp, facilitating movement.  And I don't
see any of these befitting my knot-name well.

At that time, neither you nor knew that the beautiful bend shown and discussed
at the first posts of the thread was the "Illusion" (M. B 25 ) --you, because you
had forgotten to do your homework, and because I was not aware of Miles book.

You produce knots prodigiously, and I cannot follow
at your pace; and the degree of examination that
one might need in order to fully *know* a knot (!)
can be considerable --such as might be only shown
by hard loading as done in testing.  We should thus
hope to gain by careful testing and analysis of that
an improved understanding which will enable us to
make better assessments.

My point was that I had "proprosed" the Oyster bend for one reason,
just like you do now, for another : the Oyster bend was the most jamming
bend I could thought of, so it was very reasonable to expect that a bend
[that] jams so tightly, when tied on ordinary materials, will slip less than others,
when tied on very slippery materials.

No, I don't think it follows that a jamming knot
per se has a better claim to security under load
than any other; and given the results of the testing
presented to us, we could see some feared jamming
knots failing --a quadruple fisherman's (triple grapevine)
no less !!  (Whereas jamming indicates that the knot
grips the S.Parts to prevent their loosening, and such
friction might serve to reduce the transmission of
force through the knot ... to pull out tails, it's not
likely that HMPE has such friction on the S.Parts
to achieve much benefit in this regard?!)


--dl*
====

ps : Hey, at least I've put up some photos!

[xarax]

...the collars, additionally, look more *broad* than*U*-sharp, facilitating movement. 

  They do not look like "collars" at all. They look more like ( parts of ) secondary nipping loops, placed on top ( or better : around ) the previous main ones.  In the uSE C - uSE C retucking of this particular Carrick mat you show, when the Working end passes under the Standing End ( so : uSE ), it makes a sharper U turn ( because it turns around the Standing End, and the Standing End only, at some distance from the main nipping loop ), so this U turn looks more like a proper collar, indeed.
   However, if you insist in the "Ashley"- based moniker, you have to characterize "collars" the "collars"(? ?) of the Ashley s bend as well... We have seen such a not-bowled-over collared Ashley s bend, where the Working Ends make collars around the Standing Ends of the same link before they are rucked through the central opening ( in the bowled-over version you show, they make collars around the Standing End of the other link ), at (1). See the attached pictures.

   I mentioned this technique, of driving the Working End around the Standing end before retucking it, and I described it as an easy to remember and to tie way to enhance the security of simple bends :

 

  If a known simple bend slips when tied on Dyneema, the most easy to remember ways to enhancing it are :

1. Re-tuck its Tail Ends once more through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
2. Retuck its Tail Ends through the central opening of the bend.
3. Un-tuck the Tail Ends once, drive them turn around the Standing ends ( so they make a 180+ degrees turn, a collar, around the Standing ends ), and re-tuck them through the same openings they were tucked in the first place.
4. Use the Tail ends to tie half hitches around the Standing ends.

   When the individual links of the bend follow a certain easy to remember and to tie pattern, we can enhance the anti-slippage capabilities of the parent bend by just following this same pattern once more. Even very simple bends, when they are modified this way, can become disproportionally more secure, in comparison to the complexity and/or material such a modification has added on them.

  Your "Bowled-Over" versions can be described as fruits of yet another method :

5. Add 180 degrees at the turns the Standing parts make around each other.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3251.msg19547#msg19547

...I don't think it follows that a jamming knot per se has a better claim to security under load than any other; and given the results of the testing
presented to us, we could see some feared jamming knots failing --a quadruple fisherman's (tripe grapevine) no less !!  (Whereas jamming indicates that the knot grips the S.Parts to prevent their loosening, and such friction might serve to reduce the transmission of force through the knot ... to pull out tails, it's not likely that HMPE has such friction on the S.Parts to achieve much benefit in this regard?!)

   Perhaps...but I thought that it was a reasonable and falsifiable assumption, from which one could start testing the dozens of dozens bends we already know - before we proceed to their retucked versions. So, there was a method in my "proprosal" after all !

[xarax]

  Hey, at least I've put up some photos !

  Great ! Now you have seen how easy it is ( even if you had to insert "some strangeness in the proportion" - or was it "wildness", to counterbalance the glossy floor ? ), please, do it again ! It does not bite !

  As the parent Zeppelin bend requires one only tuck ( the Working end penetrates the two parallel bights of the two links in one go ), we can say that this Double Zeppelin bend is as easy to tie as the re-tucked alt. Carrick ( mat or bend ) tested by allene. My preference for the Zeppelin-like, rope-made-hinges makes me bet on the Double Zeppelin ! 

[allene]

Interlocking figure of eights.  I thought it might not slip because figure of eight loops do not slip.  But I was wrong.  It slips.  I still think you need to grab the line in two places.  The first reduces the load on the second and the second prevents the slipping.  I do not think a single grab can work.

[allene]

On this thread I tested the initial bend.  Strong and did not slip.  I also tested the bend in the pictures just above where I gave my test results.

[allene]

May I refer you to reply #1 where I said I tested the knot and also to reply #10, just before my reply to it, #12.