International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum
General => Knotting Concepts & Explorations => Topic started by: agent_smith on October 28, 2017, 05:35:27 AM
-
Just announcing that I have finally got around to producing the first of what I hope to be a limited series of Knot Bio's.
To kick it off, the first Knot Bio is about the Zeppelin bend.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
This is a work-in-progress...and I of course welcome any comments, and constructive feedback.
The history of the zeppelin is unclear...and I am trying to present all the known facts. I am trying to find the Knotting Matters edition that features the report from Dr Giles Camlin (in relation to Charles Rosendahl dismissing any knowledge of the 'zeppelin bend'). Cant seem to find the report...
Mark Gommers
-
VER 0.2 (28 OCT 2017) is uploaded.
Added new images.
Added new content.
Received an amendment notice from Xarax - error fixed.
...
This is still very much a work in progress...
Contributions from interested persons are most welcome :)
Mark G
-
Hello 'roo',
I am hoping that you might consider commenting on the zeppelin bend - and perhaps making a contribution to the Zeppelin bend paper?
I imagine that the zeppelin bend is a favourite of yours?
I would be pleased to add any content/commentary that you might have re the zeppelin bend (so this is my 'RSVP' to you...ball is now in your court).
Mark
-
Hi Mark, Zeppelin Bend is not composed with interlocking loops. Please ammend your first paragraph.
yChan
-
Hi Mark, your third paragraph is talking about HB, it is not relevent to ZB. I suggest you should delete it and leave for further HB Bio. Here are some information from G. Budworth's "The Knot Book". I beleive the Poor Man's Pride is exactly as ZB.
yChan
-
Hi Mark, here are ... for reference.
yChan
-
> the first of what I hope to be series of Knot Bio's.
I wonder how many knots you think you can get a bio
for? --even this first attempt is highly dubious, but one
I'd have thought could be nailed, at least if the U.S. Navy
did indeed originate or even just insist on using the knot
(and might have some documentation...).
Alas, not yet known ...,
--dl*
====
-
Hi Mark, Zeppelin Bend is not composed with interlocking loops. Please ammend your first paragraph.
yChan
Hello yChan. Which version are you reading? VER 0.2 corrected a few typos (this one included).
Please ensure you review the most up-to-date versions otherwise we will be chasing ghosts :)
But thank you!
Mark
-
Hi Mark, your third paragraph is talking about HB, it is not relevent to ZB. I suggest you should delete it and leave for further HB Bio.
I wanted to include #1425A (Phil D Smith's) Riggers bend because it is based on inter-locking overhand knots - and because it is the closest knot structure to the zeppelin in ABoK. But, I may try to put most of the current info in a footnote, so as not to hijack the papers theme.
Here are some information from G. Budworth's "The Knot Book". I beleive the Poor Man's Pride is exactly as ZB.
yChan
Thanks for this...but, Budworth's knot book was first published in 1983.
The 'Boating' magazine article was published in 1976.
So the 'Boating' magazine illustration on the zeppelin pre-dates Budworths 'Poor man's pride'.
And yet, Budworth also refers to a Desmond Mandeville - who allegedly discovered the 'zeppelin bend' in 1961.
As for tying method, Budworth refers to Ettrick Thompson who discovered a better tying method depicted at fig 87 (B-D).
...
By the way, your attached images are a little hard to read - very compressed...I have to try a different way to see them clearly.
Mark
-
from Dan Lehman...
I wonder how many knots you think you can get a bio
for? --even this first attempt is highly dubious
A very limited number!
[ ] Zeppelin bend
[ ] Lee's link Bowline
[ ] #1047 F8 eye knot (and here I might even include your 'Lehman 8', + your 'strong/weak forms') - a lot to examine with this knot (also that it is not 'PET'). I will also address the attitude to adding a 'stopper knot' to 'enhance' security (which I think is of dubious benefit).
Not sure why you think this is "highly dubious"...I am inviting IGKT members to contribute.
I would have reasonably thought that you would regard the zeppelin bend as ripe for a new (fresh) perspective.
I see this as an opportunity to do some good work for benefit of all knot tyers... for our collective knowledge bank.
I have the motivation to do it - and I think I can get the photography right to do it justice.
Mark
-
There is a reference to the Zeppelin bend in 'Knotting Matters' #8 (July 1984) at page 22.
The article is titled: 'Hunting Zeppelins' and was authored by Percy Blandford.
Once again, the author refers to Charles Rosendahl.
There is also mention of the 'Poor mans pride' - and Budworths 'The Knot Book' and Ettrick Thompson's new method of tying the zeppelin bend.
There is also further reference to 'Knotting Matters' #4 (July 1983):
A Desmond Mandeville article titled 'The Alphabend' (starts at page 2) which includes the 'Poor mans pride' knot (aka zeppelin) illustrated at 'P'.
However, all of this was pre-dated by the 'Boating' magazine article authored by Lee and Bob Payne in Jan 1976.
Mark
-
I wanted to include #1425A (Phil D Smith's) Riggers bend because ...
Mark,
you could write "Parallel (knot) Bios", as Plutarch wrote "Parallel Lives"! ;)
Here are some information from G. Budworth's "The Knot Book". I beleive the Poor Man's Pride is exactly as ZB.
yChan
...
And yet, Budworth also refers to a Desmond Mandeville - who allegedly discovered the 'zeppelin bend' in 1961.
...
Mark
Mandeville, in KM #18 - Jan 1987 (On Tramble Territory with Desmond Mandeville p.11-15), re-named the "Poor Man's Pride"/Zeppelin (letter P) with "The Izzard" (letter Z) explaining in a note: "Izzard is the Old English name for letter Z. The bend is the Zeppelin Bend (Rosendahl Bend, Poor Man's Pride)". In the article there is a reference to Guild's Chart 55 too. You can find it at
http://www.surreyknots.org.uk/55-rosenthal-zeppelin-knot.htm
but there the name is: "Rosenthal Zeppelin Knot"!?
"Rosenthal"? ???
(By the way, at p.15 (last page of Mandeville's article) there is an interesting Appendix: "The category of Handedness")
Ciao,
s.
-
Thanks knotsaver.
But what I really need to find is anything on the zeppelin bend that pre-dates the Jan 1976 'Boating' magazine article authored by Lee and Bob Payne.
The earliest known published information I have is this Jan 1976 article.
Do you know if there is anything that pre-dates that Jan 1976 article? If yes, I would like to know about it :)
Also, I really need to know which 'Knotting Matters' issue has the content from Dr Giles Camlin which disputes the Joe Collins account (and in so doing, may cast doubt on the whole Lee and Bob Payne story).
As for #1425A Riggers Bend - no, I don't think I will write a separate/distinct 'Knot Bio' on this...
But I think that it should be compared to the zeppelin bend in a knot Bio - on account of their same /class/order/family (but differing 'genus').
[ ] #1425A belongs to a 'genus' that is inter-woven overhand knots
[ ] Zeppelin belongs to a 'genus' that is inter-linked overhand knots
I am waiting for Xarax to supply written content explaining the differences between these 2 bends - and to explain why the zeppelin is jam resistant while Riggers bend jams.
Xarax has previously posited that terminology and definitions are tricky with these types of bends...for example:
[ ] inter-linked
[ ] inter-weaved/woven
[ ] inter-connected
[ ] superposed / superimposed
So for example, #1425A Riggers bend is 'inter-woven (overhand knots)'.... while zeppelin bend is 'inter-linked' (overhand knots)?
English language is complex...and I am a native English language speaker...and I struggle :) !!
Mark
-
VER 0.3 (30OCT 2017) is uploaded.
Change-log:
Re-drafted wording on first page.
Added new content and images at page 4 (these are the most difficult images I have ever photographed...but I think I captured the 3D aspect reasonably well).
Added new image and content to page 10 (interesting comparison of prusik loops).
...
This is still very much a work in progress...
Contributions from interested persons are most welcome :)
I need to find that information from Dr Giles Camlin in Knotting Matters! Somebody please help :)
Mark G
-
This photo is very interesting:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c7/cd/cf/c7cdcf78601372964aec99219495e5e1--zeppelin-airship-friedrichshafen.jpg
It's labeled as Charles Rosendahl's Los Angeles ZR-3 with what looks to be a bunch of cruciform knots. :o It's too zoomed out to be sure. It could just be handles of some sort, too. Most of these old photos are taken from a distance, sadly.
(from: https://www.pinterest.com/jensvilly/gamle-fly/)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c7/cd/cf/c7cdcf78601372964aec99219495e5e1--zeppelin-airship-friedrichshafen.jpg)
-
Nice find roo...
It looks suspiciously like 'toggles' but only to my eye - because the lateral sides of the 'cruciform' appear too straight/rigid.
I would have expected to see less rigidity on these lateral extensions of the cruciform shapes (knot tails shouldn't necessarily be so straight)...
But - I would like to believe that this is the smoking gun we need to prove that the zeppelin bend was used as part of the ground-lines / mooring system.
Might need to recruit a few people from this forum to try and dig up some more detailed photos...
Surely this knot wasn't lost to history only to resurface in a 'Boating' magazine article in Jan 1976 ?
EDIT: I found this video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0chc_6HNR2g
(at 9:20 there is what appears to be rope join of some sort...similar cruciform shape as per your previous photo). I think it is only a matter of time till we track down some better images/videos.
Mark
-
VER 0.4 (30 OCT 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] added blueprint diagram for #1425A Riggers bend
[ ] fixed citation numbering
This is a work-in-progress...and I of course welcome any comments, and constructive feedback.
What I really need is the following:
1. The source of the Giles Camlin report which contradicts the entire Lee and Bob Payne story (which 'Knotting Matters' edition?)
2. Xarax to write how the zeppelin actually works - expanding on his 'rope made hinge theory'
3. Any historic photos showing the zeppelin bend in use during Rosendahl's command (clear images)
4. More info on the eye knot version of the zeppelin bend
Mark G
-
In paragraph 5, you refer to "Lee Paine," but the authors of the article are given as "Lee and Bob Payne."
In paragraph 7 you refer to the "Lee and Bob Payne article," but you have not at this point in the paper mentioned that the Boating article was written by Lee and Bob Payne.
-
VER 0.5 (31 OCT 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] fixed page 1 citations
[ ] fixed spelling error Payne (not Paine)
[ ] fixed Dr Giles Camplin spelling (Camplin...not Camlin)
[ ] added reference to Dr Giles Camplin re his doctoral thesis on ground handling and mooring of zeppelins
[ ] improved blueprint drawing of #1425A on page 5
[ ] added new content on page 10
...
Comments:
I dont need to locate any info from 'Knotting Matters' re Giles Camplin. This was all reported in a 'Wingfoot Journal' (according to Dan Lehman). So what I now need is to track down that 'Wingfoot Journal' which has references from Dr Giles Camplin.
I need Xarax to write about the structure of the zeppelin bend (how it works and why it is jam resistant) :)
Mark
-
But what I really need to find is anything on the zeppelin bend that pre-dates the Jan 1976 'Boating' magazine article authored by Lee and Bob Payne.
The earliest known published information I have is this Jan 1976 article.
Do you know if there is anything that pre-dates that Jan 1976 article?\
If yes, I would like to know about it :)
...
VOICI! (Very sadly, by the now --2017-02-07-- *late* Bob THRUN.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=983.msg6685#msg6685 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=983.msg6685#msg6685)
My favorite bend is the Rosendahl Bend because I re-invented it and published it in 1967.
I published in a local caving club newsletter. The club had about 70 members and a bunch
of exchanges with other clubs. I would guess that the press run was over 100 copies.
I think that I had the first publication of this bend. The exchanges were free to reprint my
article, but did not do so. At the time I wondered why none of the exchanges picked up my
article. It is not often that a knot that is new, simple, compact and useful comes along.
The Rosendahl Bend was later described in an article by Lee and Bob Payne in the March 1976
Boating magazine. Boating has a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. My method of tying
the bend was the same as given in the Payne article. I can't remember the supposedly easier
method that Budworth gives.
I use the name "Rosendahl Bend" because that name has priority. My article did not give any name.
My article was entitled "An Easily Untied Bend". Biologists have a rule that the first person to describe
a species gives it its name. A particular dinosaur was known for decades as Brontosaurus was found
to have been named earlier Apatosaurus. Scientists switched to using Apatosaurus. The Paynes
learned the knot from Joe Collins who is clearly quoted in the article "I called it the Rosendahl Bend".
The name "Zeppelin Knot" was invented by some Boating magazine editors who wanted a snappy title.
The article may be found at www.motherearthnews.com/Homesteading-and-Self-Reliance/ .
The Mother Earth article reprint is identical the the Boating article except for references to dates.
As for #1425A Riggers Bend - no, I don't think I will write a separate/distinct 'Knot Bio' on this...
But I think that it should be compared to the zeppelin bend in a knot Bio - on account of their same /class/order/family (but differing 'genus').
[ ] #1425A belongs to a 'genus' that is inter-woven overhand knots
[ ] Zeppelin belongs to a 'genus' that is inter-linked overhand knots
This displays an unhealthy bias. Not only does one have a fairly
UNcontested/unconfused history for "SmitHunter's bend" --and
I can toss in "1973" for my self-discovery of it (and a year or few
later for the zeppelin, btw, which I too initially #'d (my then
*naming*) as a derivative of the former!)),
BUT also the knot has firmer published presence,
AND also a definite result --it's the knot that (figuratively)
tied together the IGKT (and SHOULD be(come) the logo,
and not some darn --non-practical-- mat knot!) --as #1425a
has 4 right-angle ends which nicely thus can be taken as the
major compass points indicating the "I" of "IGKT" ! IMO !!!)
I am waiting for Xarax to supply written content explaining the differences between these 2 bends - and to explain why the zeppelin is jam resistant while Riggers bend jams.
Note that a version of that latter end-2-end knot
is pretty resistant to jamming. (Asher --sic-- sadly
rejected it as uninteresting(!?), which the original
does because the collar is able to constrict around
the SPart tightly --which mostly doesn't happen in
the zep. because of that latter's geometry in which
the it must swing wider for all it does (and nevermind
any bit about "hinge"!).)
Oh, the "false zeppelin" --i.e., where the b & q are
instead d & q (shaped SPart turns)-- can be made
more stable by a similar version twisting of tails,
AND if set from trying to make it an offset knot
--i.e., tails hauled hard for setting.
BTW, good catch on transforming#551 into that
lookalike-to-1425a structure!! (I believe that Hansel
& Gretel/EKFRopework show it in the obvious form,
but I don't want to wade into their swamp to confirm.)
And you should omit the fanciful conjecture about Ashley
knowing ... but disguising. There is way too much obvious
evidence that things are simply overlooked. (#1031/1048
e.g. have also a single-strand correlate, and also neither
of these led to the *proper* (loading-wise) shakehands
though smack before Ashley. (And I can attest to like
overlooking of what might be considered obvious, alas.)
--dl*
====
-
This photo is very interesting:
Dang, you keep swinging and getting runners on base;
and we're hoping for a home run, or some runners
scoring, at least.
GOOD SHOW!
It's tantalizing to think that somewhere we'll be able
to find ... .
Do note that toggled attachments are a part of ballooning,
which might have been a direct reference activity for the
airships.
:)
-
We need to keep in mind that if indeed Giles's intriguing
information of alleged note from Lee about Rosendahl's
absence of knowledge of the knot is correct (and to this
we'd want to assert that then ret'd Adm. R. was in decent
mental capacity and not forgetful ...),
THEN the Paynes' article is . . . what? Clearly the assertion
that Joe asserted ... is false, as then Cmdr. R. didn't insist
one what he didn't know (and further from Giles, that such
a knot made no sense anyway).
Was Collins for real, and looking to make a legend for something
he might've come up with and wished to make popular?
(Roo did some research to suggest that "Collins" existed.)
Or was one of the Payne's making things up ... ?!
.:. One can't just believe Rosendahl's claim to ignorance
and swallow the article's assertions.
Now, Bob Thrun's assertions even w/o publication **I**
will attest to : Bob was honest, far from a showboat.
--dl*
====
-
My favorite bend is the Rosendahl Bend because I re-invented it and published it in 1967. I published in a local caving club newsletter. The club had about 70 members and a bunch of exchanges with other clubs. I would guess that the press run was over 100 copies. I think that I had the first publication of this bend. The exchanges were free to reprint my article, but did not do so. At the time I wondered why none of the exchanges picked up my article. It is not often that a knot that is new, simple, compact and useful comes along.
The Rosendahl Bend was later described in an article by Lee and Bob Payne in the March 1976 Boating magazine. Boating has a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. My method of tying the bend was the same as given in the Payne article. I can't remember the supposedly easier method that Budworth gives
Okay - wow...
All righty then, so now we have Bob Thrun pre-dating the 1976 Boating magazine article.
Bob claims he 're-invented' it in 1967 and published it in a caving club newsletter.
What are the chances of tracking down a copy of this newsletter from 1967?
Dan, do you have any ties/connections to caving clubs?
...
By the way, I have this link: https://www.scribd.com/document/313411893/The-Official-Newsletter-of-the-Naval-Airship-Association
Perhaps someone can write to Naval Airship Association to find out more about ground line handling of airships and whether the 'Zeppelin' bend was used?
...
From Dan Lehman...in relation to my reluctance to write a Knot Bio on #1425A Riggers bend:
This displays an unhealthy bias. Not only does one have a fairly
UNcontested/unconfused history for "SmitHunter's bend" ...BUT ...
Dan, I'm not sure if you realize how much work goes into researching and writing this kind of material? Its not an easy exercise.
It consumes a lot of my time, energy and resources - and I dont get a lot of thanks for it in return...and I certainly remain poor - not getting any monetary reward for my time and effort either. Mind you, being financially poor has its rewards :) Its hard for people to sue me - they wouldn't get much from me (maybe my rope collection).
I tell you what, if you promise to help me (ie co-author) a Knot Bio on #1425A Riggers bend, I'll agree to do it :o
Mark G
-
My favorite bend is the Rosendahl Bend because I re-invented it and published it in 1967. I published in a local caving club newsletter. ...
Okay - wow...
All righty then, so now we have Bob Thrun pre-dating the 1976 Boating magazine article.
Bob claims he 're-invented' it in 1967 and published it in a caving club newsletter.
What are the chances of tracking down a copy of this newsletter from 1967?
Dan, do you have any ties/connections to caving clubs?
Better, I have a copy of the newsletter(s),
which are in the 1st case UNdated (Vol. IX? #7)
and in a followup correction/note --Bob was upset
that his drawings were replaced w/editer's (which
look good, IMO!)-- the info is "Vol. IX (whatever)
#8 and dated December 1966 --sic : '66' (perhaps
date of receipt was in the next year, but I doubt
that the publishing was all so fouled that it was
in fact '67 that Bob got it and yet the newsletter
carried '66 as a date. (The follow-up issue though
did try some sort of catch-up, reading "#8-12" as
though sweeping up a supposed monthly for 1966
in one fell soup?!))
Bob's "re-inventing" presumed some prior inventing
about which we, well, have some doubts.
And I now have some less then fully certain feeling
that then Adm. R. meant that he knew nothing about
the >>knot<< vs. about its being named for him!?
The latter is IMO a longer stretch, but possible; he might
have said more, afterall, if he knew zilch about it
AND considering Giles's opinion that regardless of
the name, the very function/nature of the knot
didn't well fit the supposed application !?
(And in re-reading the Paynes' article, they have it
that Joe Collins asserted that the knot was to be used
ALL OVER, not only for mooring. And THIS sounds a
bit odd in not allowing of some hitch or eye knot,
for SOMEthing!?)
.:. We've a lot of puzzles to solve!
By the way, I have this link: https://www.scribd.com/document/313411893/The-Official-Newsletter-of-the-Naval-Airship-Association
Perhaps someone can write to Naval Airship Association to find out more about ground line handling of airships and whether the 'Zeppelin' bend was used?
You mean like "someone" who's trying to write a knot bio? ::)
Does your internet reach all the way to there?!
Meanwhile, I found an airships historian who even was
then going to [suspence build-up ...] Lakehurst; but he
has been kind enough to reply only to ack my msg.,
and not all so reassuringly let me know that he's going
to actually address the matter --I re-"bump"ed my query
for the now 2nd time (1sTime = May) gently letting him
know that our curiosity is no less w/time.
Dan Lehman...in relation to my reluctance to write a Knot Bio on #1425A Riggers bend:
Dan, I'm not sure if you realize how much work goes into researching ...
Well, my point was that you have a target that
requires all that much work, and spurn one that
would be much quicker to do, as its history is
pretty well known --to the extent that we're not
being deceived, and there isn't something else
to pop out of the unknown such as ancient illustrations
of the knot.
As we have at best NO inkling of where the zeppelin bend
came from even if we find it simply noted as being
used by the USNavy --i.e., assuming that Collins is
right, where did Rosendahl get the knot?! He surely
didn't sound like a (assuming the Lee quote is right ...)
proud inventor.
--dl*
====
-
As we have at best NO inkling of where the zeppelin bend
came from even if we find it simply noted as being
used by the USNavy --i.e., assuming that Collins is
right, where did Rosendahl get the knot?! He surely
didn't sound like a (assuming the Lee quote is right ...)
proud inventor.
--dl*
====
It may be that neither Rosendahl nor Collins came up with the knot. The ZR-3 Los Angeles was made by a German company. I could imagine Rosendahl instructing duplication of pre-existing conditions found on the airship and its various rigging.
If it is ever established that Rosendahl couldn't remember the bend, that circumstance would explain why it made no lasting imprint on him.
Any German-speakers may have better luck tracking down the origin of the bend.
-
It may be that neither Rosendahl nor Collins came up with the knot. The ZR-3 Los Angeles was made by a German company. I could imagine Rosendahl instructing duplication of pre-existing conditions found on the airship and its various rigging.
If it is ever established that Rosendahl couldn't remember the bend, that circumstance would explain why it made no lasting imprint on him.
Any German-speakers may have better luck tracking down the origin of the bend.
Yes, though if it has that sort of history,
then all the more puzzling is a lack of any
sightings of this, and the then loss of knot
knowledge!?
Going back to Collins's assertion of the knot
to be used everywhere (even allowing some
soft reading of this --to every end-2-end joint)
and Giles's questioning the use in the main,
for mooring ... :: these are problems (but as
I note, why not then re the latter any objection
from Rosendahl in his supposed note?).
:)
-
New version uploaded...
VER 0.6 (03 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] fully amended page 1 - added an 'anatomy diagram'
[ ] fully amended page 2 - citations and history is improved based on new info received.
[ ] amended page 3 - 'A trail of breadcrumbs' - also added #1062 from 'knotsaver', and the 'false' zeppelin
[ ] pages 4-6 are all a 'work-in-progress'
I need assistance to progress this paper further...
Mark G
-
I need assistance to progress this paper further...
Mark G
For example, an examination
of illustration #582 is remarkable in that it could have been a "blueprint" for tying a zeppelin bend.
Xarax first noticed this illustration and brought it to the attention of the IGKT
in Jan 2012.
Ashley simply named it a
"lanyard knot".
Uh, no. ABOK #582 has long been recognized as a relative of the Zeppelin Bend (well before 2012) and is often called the Blimp Knot.
-
reply from roo in relation to #582...
ABOK #582 has long been recognized as a relative of the Zeppelin Bend (well before 2012) and is often called the Blimp Knot.
Happy to amend the paper.
Have you got any references or anything that I can cite?
Same goes for Zeppelin eye knot...do you have any historical info on this eye knot?
MG
-
reply from roo in relation to #582...
ABOK #582 has long been recognized as a relative of the Zeppelin Bend (well before 2012) and is often called the Blimp Knot.
Happy to amend the paper.
Have you got any references or anything that I can cite?
Same goes for Zeppelin eye knot...do you have any historical info on this eye knot?
MG
Hi Mark,
about the Blimp (please, notice the name!), it should be in a book of G. Budworth...
about the #1062, please notice that the connection of it and the "false" Zeppelin was noticed (I don't know if for the first time) by Mandeville in KM #18 p.12 and it was in his Alphabend the letter/bend "N" ("the Neat 2c New ( Cf. A(BoK) 1062)".
Please, say somewhere that the 2 Overhand knots are of different chirality or that they are "unlike-handed" (Mandeville, cited above), whilst the "false" Zeppelin and the Hunter's comprise a pair of "like-handed" Overhand knots.
I liked the Parallel Bios (the Zeppelin in comparison with the Hunter (sorry I continue to call it in that way))... but you removed the reference to ABoK#551 (= #577 too).
Thanks.
Ciao,
s.
-
from knotsaver...
Hi Mark,
about the Blimp (please, notice the name!), it should be in a book of G. Budworth...
I need references to cite...also hoping roo can help.
I am a bit overwhelmed at the moment and it is taking too much time and energy to be a blood hound. It would ease my pain if interested persons could just give me the citations - with all the info in one place :)
from knotsaver...
about the #1062, please notice that the connection of it and the "false" Zeppelin was noticed (I don't know if for the first time) by Mandeville in KM #18 p.12 and it was in his Alphabend the letter/bend "N" ("the Neat 2c New ( Cf. A(BoK) 1062)".
Okay - will amend paper and cite Mandeville - thank you.
from knotsaver...
Please, say somewhere that the 2 Overhand knots are of different chirality or that they are "unlike-handed" (Mandeville, cited above), whilst the "false" Zeppelin and the Hunter's comprise a pair of "like-handed" Overhand knots.
I am already working on it...am organizing photos tomorrow of the starting base for tying the Zeppelin bend, false Zeppelin bend and #1425A Riggers bend. Will show chirality (handedness) of loops. Thank you for pointing this out, it is interesting and relevant and is necessary for a complete understanding of the Zeppelin bend.
...
I also need details of the background of the Zeppelin eye knot. I know Xarax always points out that if you have tied a bend you by definition have also tied its corresponding eye knot. I have never quite agreed with this position...I think the eye knot version of a bend is a related derivative. For a start - one is an eye knot while the other is an end-to-end joining knot. Loading profile is also different. Hoping that roo can assist - he seems to know a lot about this corresponding eye knot (and it is also featured on his website).
...
As for #1425A Riggers bend - I will agree to write a Knot Bio on this knot only of Dan Lehman agrees to co-author and make a substantial contribution! I feel that I am always doing the lions share of the work and as a result, drawing criticism and attention... I pulled some of the content about #1425A because I am leaving it for a separate paper...
Mark G
-
from knotsaver...
Hi Mark,
about the Blimp (please, notice the name!), it should be in a book of G. Budworth...
I need references to cite...
Sorry Mark I remembered it but I didn't remember where...
Here it is, I found it:
G. Budworth, The Complete Book of Decorative Knots, (Reed Consumer Books Limited 1998) p. 34.
It is interesting what Budworth says in the History section:
"The pre-eminent knotting writer Clifford W. Ashley, whose monumental The Ashley Book of Knots is every avid knot tyer's bible, does not single this knot out either to state to that it is original (so presumably it was already known when he published his book in 1944), or to name it. I call it the Blimp* because it resembles a Zeppelin bend (see The Hamlyn Book of Knots) but is smaller and softer. *Blimp: a light, non rigid aircraft such as a barrage balloon."
Ciao,
s.
-
from knotsaver...
Hi Mark,
about the Blimp (please, notice the name!), it should be in a book of G. Budworth...
I need references to cite...
Sorry Mark I remembered it but I didn't remember where...
Here it is, I found it:
G. Budworth, The Complete Book of Decorative Knots, (Reed Consumer Books Limited 1998) p. 34.
It is interesting what Budworth says in the History section:
"The pre-eminent knotting writer Clifford W. Ashley, whose monumental The Ashley Book of Knots is every avid knot tyer's bible, does not single this knot out either to state to that it is original (so presumably it was already known when he published his book in 1944), or to name it. I call it the Blimp* because it resembles a Zeppelin bend (see The Hamlyn Book of Knots) but is smaller and softer. *Blimp: a light, non rigid aircraft such as a barrage balloon."
Ciao,
s.
Thanks knotsaver. That may not even be the first time "Blimp Knot" shows up. It can be hard to nail down "firsts" especially in knotting.
Mark, I think you'd like reading Budworth's works. It's definitely worth your time.
-
from knotsaver...
about the #1062, please notice that the connection of it and the "false" Zeppelin was noticed (I don't know if for the first time) by Mandeville in KM #18 p.12 and it was in his Alphabend the letter/bend "N" ("the Neat 2c New ( Cf. A(BoK) 1062)".
Okay - will amend paper and cite Mandeville - thank you.
I'll note that Percy mis-illustrated (and more?) the so-called
zeppelin knot as the "false" in a book, which might have
pre-dated IGKT.
I also need details of the background of the Zeppelin eye knot. I know Xarax always points out that if you have tied a bend you by definition have also tied its corresponding eye knot. I have never quite agreed with this position...I think the eye knot version of a bend is a related derivative. For a start - one is an eye knot while the other is an end-to-end joining knot. Loading profile is also different. Hoping that roo can assist - he seems to know a lot about this corresponding eye knot (and it is also featured on his website).
Well, this is simply the case if one envisions that,
when tying by forming one end's part first and
then reeving into this the 2nd end, one will have
formed a potential eye knot if using the 1st
one's tail as the "2nd end" --a structure will exist
at least when devoid of eye-loading (when who-knows
will happen).
(I don't see this as other than obvious --hardly earth-shaking
insight (any more than "Asher's, Law of Loop, Hitch, & Bight").)
As for "reading Budworth's works," one must realize that
there are a whole batch of B.-authored books (for a while
it seemed like several-per-annum!), and some are not
really/entirely of his mind --he has both been called in
to substitute where another author went in communicado,
and to have someone finish for him when his health
sidelined him (and publisher had deadlines --goodness,
can't wait to get yet one more Knots-101 book out to join
the worthless masses!).
--dl*
====
-
reply from roo...
Mark, I think you'd like reading Budworth's works. It's definitely worth your time.
This may be true if I had the following:
[ ] time (which is rapidly running out)
[ ] money (to buy the books) - followed by the big delay in waiting for shipping/books to arrive by post
[ ] which of the myriad Budworth books to purchase?...there's many - and I would have to sift through a lot of content/material to find what I am looking for (which comes back to time...) I do have one of his books ('The Complete Book of Knots') - which is just so so and not very helpful to my cause.
A far better approach is to request assistance from the knotting community and to receive technical feedback with source materials to cite from. This would:
a) save valuable time (I don't have to go hunting for info that others already have and know about)
b) save unnecessary expenditure of money which is fast dwindling
c) be more efficient use of the networking power of the internet / social media
Hopefully, that all makes sense?
Mark G
-
reply from roo...
Mark, I think you'd like reading Budworth's works. It's definitely worth your time.
b) save unnecessary expenditure of money which is fast dwindling
Mark G
For item b, if you have convenient access to library, that may save some cash.
-
Hi all,
have you ever tied and compared ABoK #1453 and ABoK #584 (=#575)?
please, do it! ;)
(you could also want to tie and compare the Sheet Bend and Ashley's stopper :) )
Ciao,
s.
p.s. I continue to believe that Ashley didn't know the Zeppelin and/or the Hunter's Bend but who knows...
-
from roo (per being helpful and just providing info in good faith)
For item b, if you have convenient access to library, that may save some cash.
Oh dear me...
Hmmm - I guess what you are really saying is..."go do your own digging?"
-
from roo (per being helpful and just providing info in good faith)
For item b, if you have convenient access to library, that may save some cash.
Oh dear me...
Hmmm - I guess what you are really saying is..."go do your own digging?"
I didn't mean it THAT way. Libraries have saved me some cash in the past when I wanted to preview books.
-
New version uploaded...
VER 0.7 (05 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] added photo of Charles Rosendahl on page 2
[ ] amended page 3 - added new citation ref to Desmond Mandeville and false Zeppelin bend
[ ] new content on page 4 - showing 3 different bends and various starting bases (with chirality)
[ ] new content on page 5 - advanced a theory of how the Zeppelin works and image of a toggled bend
[ ] added content on page 6 (references to #46 overhand knot)
[ ] added a tying method to page 10
...
I need assistance to advance this paper further!
Mark G
-
New version uploaded...
VER 0.8 (06 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] amended anatomy of Zeppelin bend photo image (hopefully Xarax will stop shouting at me now :o )
[ ] amended page 8 (removed #1425A Riggers bend...inserted image of Zeppelin bend to enable side-by-side comparison)
[ ] added new content to page 9 (bends and their corresponding eye knots)
[ ] added reference from 'roos' website and supplied link to his Zeppelin eye knot
[ ] added new content to page 10 - tying methods
[ ] added new content to page 11 (symmetry) - this one was difficult since it involves complex geometry and its myriad of definitions
Hopefully roo will reply faster than you can say "roo'...and either instruct me to remove the link to his website or provide some sage words of wisdom re the Zeppelin eye knot.
...
I need assistance to advance this paper further.
I am struggling with geometry and trying to describe the geometric symmetry of the zeppelin bend....so anyone who is a wiz at geometry I'd like to hear from you :)
All other feedback/critique is welcome!
Mark G
-
VER 0.7 (05 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Changelog:
[ ] new content on page 4 - showing 3 different bends and various starting bases (with chirality)
[ ] new content on page 5 - advanced a theory of how the Zeppelin works and image of a toggled bend
Hi Mark,
first of all, it's growing nice! :)
oh you just posted another version...
but these 2 notes are still valid:
p.4 could it be interesting a lightly lateral view of the Zeppelin and the Hunter?
p.5 I think that the image of the toggled bend is wrong, as far as I know the toggled bends without the toggle are not bends! see ABoK #1494 [edit: (#1521 - #1524, but #1522 is a bend! ("Adjusted in this way, it never jams and is less liable to spills.")]
...
about the point of symmetry of the Zeppelin Bend, it is internal at the centre of the Bend...see Miles' diagram b8 p.88. [edit: your picture (left up) at p.11 is right because the transformation in that case changes the sign of all the coordinates (x,y,z) -> (-x,-y,-z). -z indicates a crossing change]
Ciao,
s.
-
New version uploaded...
VER 0.8a (06 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] added acknowledgements to contributors
[ ] added content to page 9 (reference to lack of historical data on Zeppelin eye knot)
[ ] added content to page 10 (more details about tying methods)
[ ] added content to page 11 (symmetry) - tried to improve the X/Y axis and added red dots to aid in interpretation of point inversion symmetry
also added information about Roger E Miles and his publication.
...
What I still need:
1. A copy of BobThrun's article in the caving newsletter from 1967 showing the Zeppelin bend (per Dan Lehman?)
2. More content for page 11 - need an expert in geometry to write additional content.
3. Need historical info for the Zeppelin eye knot (roo?)
4. An explanation of how the Zeppelin bends works (per Xarax?)
Mark G
-
3. Need historical info for the Zeppelin eye knot (roo?)
I think it was in the general knotting community awareness as soon as the Zeppelin bend became widely-known. The problem was that it was difficult to communicate a simple tying method to the average rope user who may consider even a bowline to be a little tricky. Difficult-to-tie knots tend to get ignored.
After a few private conversations about the Zeppelin loop, I tried to put together a follow-the-leader method that might be memorable (March 2003). A few years later (June 2010) I included another method that drew off the b & q technique for the bend in hopes of consolidating techniques for those who wanted to reduce the mental burden of memorization.
link: http://notableknotindex.webs.com/zeppelinloop.html
-
4. An explanation of how the Zeppelin bends works
This is going to be difficult. Many bends that have a very similar geometry have radically different properties.
-
Good day Mark.
I've not unearthed any history other than what has been proffered by others, but have have a tying method to offer.
Most tying methods show a p&q, etc., the standing parts heading in opposite directions, arrangement which seems to need to lay upon something. My method keeps it out of the dirt.
I tie the Z bend with both ropes held in one hand (s-parts), working ends on the same side. Take one end and tie an overhand around both s-parts. Then take the remaining working end, go behind its own sp and between both s-parts to dive through the overhand the opposite direction of the first working end.
Maybe a picture will say it better. Here's the layout.
SS
-
Most tying methods show a b&q, etc., the standing parts heading in opposite directions, arrangement which seems to need to lay upon something. My method keeps it out of the dirt.
???
The b&q method usually requires two hands, but it certainly doesn't require laying the rope down on the dirt or any other surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0a8TneP51Y
-
My method keeps it out of the dirt.
Just a figure of speech. But, there could be some truth to it.
The method I've offered allows for easy tying with gloves or cold hands.
Thanks for the video.
SS
-
New version uploaded...
VER 0.8b (07 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Only small incremental improvements...
Changelog:
[ ] page 1: further enhancements to 'anatomy' (per Xarax) - reaching limit of what can be shown with current image. Will take photo from different angle so another anatomy image can be shown.
[ ] page 8: added another variant of the Zeppelin bend
[ ] page 9: Added date for Roos Zeppelin eye knot (March 2003)
[ ] page 10: some new content and some enhancements to text descriptions of tying methods
[ ] page 13: new content...covering knot 'efficiency' - work in progress
...
Still need a copy of that darn 1967 caving newsletter from Bob Thrun!
Mark G
-
Hi SS369, I can not tie ZB by following your photo. Please post again. I love to try.
yChan
-
New version uploaded...
VER 0.9 (07 NOV 2017) is uploaded.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Paper is taking shape nicely...with the addition of response to load - the planned design/structure is virtually complete (just need to work on content).
Changelog:
[ ] page 9: added tying method for zeppelin eye knot
[ ] page 13: corrections made - kN figures advanced for some knot jamming thresholds
[ ] page 14: new content (response to load...work in progress)
Mark G
-
Hi SS369, I can not tie ZB by following your photo. Please post again. I love to try.
yChan
Here's a photo tying sequence.
SS
-
All of these whiz-bang-both-ends-at-once tying methods
are too clever by half, and go some ways to obscure the
differences among these related interlocked-overhands
knots.
.:. IMO, best to show ONE end tied (fully) into an overhand
AND THEN the other reeved into it appropriate (to whichever
of these knots one desires). Pretty much, once the initial
insertion & U[turn of the 2nd end into the knotted first is made,
for the zeppelin, then the making of a symmetric completion
dictates the rest of the tying. Why keep things obscured in some
whiz-bang (but only after some tedious care in setting up!) tying]
method, like the bowline's been obscured by showing it
from the wrong side?
(Yes, Roo, it is a stretch, I admit, to calling your tying all
that I just vented; but, still, I prefer for ALL of these ...
to share a common tie-the-one-side beginning and
then to take their distinct paths. The knotted differences
vs. the tying differences are better driven home, IMO.)
--dl*
====
-
But what I really need to find is anything on the zeppelin bend that pre-dates the Jan 1976 'Boating' magazine article authored by Lee and Bob Payne.
The earliest known published information I have is this Jan 1976 article.
Do you know if there is anything that pre-dates that Jan 1976 article?\
If yes, I would like to know about it :)
...
VOICI! (Very sadly, by the now --2017-02-07-- *late* Bob THRUN.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=983.msg6685#msg6685 (http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=983.msg6685#msg6685)
My favorite bend is the Rosendahl Bend because I re-invented it and published it in 1967.
I published in a local caving club newsletter. The club had about 70 members and a bunch
of exchanges with other clubs. I would guess that the press run was over 100 copies.
I think that I had the first publication of this bend. The exchanges were free to reprint my
article, but did not do so. At the time I wondered why none of the exchanges picked up my
article. It is not often that a knot that is new, simple, compact and useful comes along.
These are prime sources, in that they found daylight
via publishing --one vastly more visible than the earlier.
(Recall that Burger published lineman's loop only to later
see Wright & Magowan's Alpine Journal make it more well
known as the butterfly.)
And you can know that I too discovered the zeppelin and
saw it as a SmitHunter's/1425a variation, circa 1976.
And I can try to check on Desmond Mandeville's claimed 1961
self-discovery of it; Budworth should be credible on this if
he's got it somewhere among his numerous books (or in KM),
which I can seek.
.:. So, you have this end-2-end knot that was found by several
knots fiddlers following various muses?! We don't really know
about the main one --i.e., whether Rosendahl discovered it or
got if from elsewhere (which hasn't shown up to us!), or if it
might've been a Joe Collins (or Bob Payne!?) invention wanting
an impressive legend. I'll guess I speak for Mandeville in thinking
he like I was just fiddling around; Bob Thrun might've been more
directed in his looking.
(And probably Xarax & Allen would produce it in their moving
though the knots universe, too.)
--dl*
====
-
All of these whiz-bang-both-ends-at-once tying methods
are too clever by half, and go some ways to obscure the
differences among these related interlocked-overhands
knots.
The method of tying diagrams aren't trying to show the final structure in detail, nor do they dictate that both ends be tied at once. They are meant to show a clear, unmessy, highly-memorable blueprint.
Now, once the knot is tied, it can be inspected or photographed from 1000 different angles. But as a substitute for a blueprint for memorization and execution, such photographs would confuse people and drive them away.
-
Dan, I am requesting an electronic copy of Bob Thrun's article from the caving club newsletter from 1967.
Can you do either of the following?
1. Scan the relevant pages (using a scanner/copier) and email them to me; or
2. Take a photo of the relevant pages using a digital camera and email them to me (this presumes you cant get access to a scanner/copier).
I would like to add these captured images of Bob Thrun's article to the Zeppelin knot Bio. I think this is of historical interest...and if nothing else, a tribute to his inventiveness and contribution to caving/abseiling techniques in general.
I have sent you a PM with my email address...
Mark G
-
The method of tying diagrams ...
AHA, lead me to wonder if somehow the subject knot
came about in altering the tying of the carrick bend
by the classic "lattice form" (my term),
where one also sort of lays 270deg turned loops
together (well, forms one and then interweaves
the other end, but ...) !?
And the carrick bend was something in the running
and known in zeppelin days & arena, yes?!
! :)
-
New version uploaded...
VER 0.9a (09 NOV 2017).
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] page 1: added contents
[ ] page 2: amended with new image (anatomy of zeppelin bend)
[ ] page 12: new content added (from S Lentini)
[ ] page 15: new image and content added (200kg loading with content describing effect of load)
...
Once Dan Lehman supplies electronic copy of Bob Thrun's article from a caving club newsletter, the main body/structure of the paper will be completed.
After that, its a matter of dealing with any typos or last minute additions to content.
Mark G
-
New version uploaded...
VER 0.9a (09 NOV 2017).
Comments.
0) Saying that nearly all known knots have an Ashley #
is saying implicitly that neither I nor Xarax nor ... know
knots :: IMO, I've sketched perhaps 2000 "new" knots
by now (and most weren't in ABoK but some were,
I later realized --quite the Sherlock I was!).
There are many known knots not there --as you should
know, most "friction/climbing/ascending hitches" are NOT
there, nor medical, nor fishing knots.
1) Asserting that the sometimes jamming of SmitHunter's bend
is "likely a result of the inter-woven overhand knots"
misses the point that Ashley's " " " -based #1408,
#1452, #1425a-with-"twisted"-tails, & #1425 do not
have this characteristic. (You're inflating your zep.knot
article with hot air!)
But I can see merit in your note, in that in #1425a's case,
the SParts *lean* towards each other and give the collar
a single-dia to wrap tightly around,
whereas the z. and other knots have ways to resist
this (Z. turns are trying to pull apart; so, too, #1425,
where tail wraps resist the opening; #1408 is most
z.-like in geometry here).
2) Asher's Eastern Z. w/crossed tails might not benefit
the parent knot, but such crossing does wonders for the
false zep., if tails are hauled tight (as though to set
it for an offset knot!).
And such crossing improves #1425a (#1425b, call it).
3) "Most bends can be converted into their corresponding
eye knot(s)" both tickles a noun-# issue (avoid by writing
"A bend has a ... knot" or some such),
and presumes one version of "corresponding".
I believe that this forum carries some of my images
of a quartet of corresponding, z.-like eye knots.
(Consider that presumed to correspond from eye
to end-2-end re the lineman's loop / butterfly :
THAT is a different relation (eye is chopped)!
=> "An eye knot can be formed by ..." and one can
give both the presumed but also an arguably more
direct correspondence, wherein one begins with the
end-2-end knot, *twins* one side's part, and then
fuses one tail end to the opposite side's tail.
(With the zep. one thus has 100% load of
SPart around X's "axis" opposed by 100% from
eye legs, but in the more voluminous form of
twin strands (2x50%) and that volume-wise
imbalance. We've fiddled versions to get the
SPart in between ... , with some success.
(( to tie the first-sort :: at point of making
final, tail-tuck of SPart's overhand (for eye knot),
TUCK IN A BIGHT and continue to tie the
opposite overhand backwards with this bight,
which of course emerges in the end-2-end's
usual SPart place with instead a bight-eye. ))
(((Suffice it to say that this method does NOT
like the grapevine bend !! --but came
to me upon seeing a blood knot presented
for joining a "leader" to a bight's legs --works
fine, for that knot.)))
3b) "The idea of converting end-2-end ... into eye knot
... by Harry Asher" !! Holy Hot Air Headaches, Bat Man!
This is as silly as Asher's Law of Hitch Bight ... whatever ::
it celebrates the obvious. (Looks like someone wanted
a bigger footnote count. ;D )
4) "tails ... crushed together ... limit slippage" :: One might
note that there is much LESS such crushing-together going
on in the z. than in the aforementioned other knots!
(And that these things don't hold in HMPE, egadz!)
[ ] page 15: new image and content added
(200kg loading with content describing effect of load)
It occurs to me that you might benefit from showing
like loading in some different rope/material. The knot's
been cited as jamming and I'd guess that might come
with firmer line in some cases, with SPart's turn not
compressing so much?! Do you have any "static"
kernmantle?
Re slack-security, you might have trouble convincing
folks that such a loosely open knot can be trusted to
get no looser --esp. with the grapevine de rigeur
for such tasks. You can play around with shake testing
#1408 & the z. to get some idea of how the latter might
be doing better --is it how there's (in more flexible rope)
a nearly right-angle bend for the center tuck,
and this doesn't enable easy *flowing* out?
--or that tails want to --from this angled bend--
spring into each other, which arrests them?
(Well, hmmm, ditto for SPart's somewhat sharp
U-turn, as contrasted with the roundness of a
bowline's turNip. !?)
--dl*
====
-
Hi SS369, thanks for the photos for the tying method.
yChan
-
New version uploaded...
VER 1.0 (13NOV 2017).
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] page 2: Contents page (now separated from page 1 intro)
[ ] page 4: Citations...link to Bob Thrun's claim of being first to publish the Zeppelin bend
[ ] page 10: Added content that crossed tails may benefit some knot structures (eg #1425A Rigger bend)
[ ] page 11: Citations...added reference to #1053 Butterfly eye knot that it is formed by linking both tails (rather than tail + SPart)
[ ] page 13+14: Major rewrite and new content added about symmetry
[ ] page 17+18: New content and images for load testing. Also ddded images for Sterling HTP 11mm abseil rope.
[ ] page 19-25: Added Appendix section... Copies of 'Potomac Caver' newsletter and Giles Camplin response to 1976 Boating magazine article.
...
Big thank you to Dan Lehman for supplying copies of the Potomac Caver newsletter, as well as the Giles Camplin response to Lee and Bob Payne article in Boating magazine.
I dont have the date that Giles Camplin wrote his response...nor do I know which magazine or Knotting Matters issue it appeared in?
Many thanks to 'knotsaver' for his work on the symmetry section of the paper... this was a very difficult subject to write (hopefully it is all correct?).
I will be sending copies of this paper to all those who contributed - with some security restrictions removed (eg ability to print), and 'thankyou' open doc password removed. The regular paper that is downloadable from the PACI website will remain locked down.
Mark G
-
Geoffrey Budworth wrote this in his IGKT short history,
Much Ado about Knotting :
| <cites Mandeville's invention, Paynes' Boating article>
| Percy Blandford (UK) confirmed that the knot
| continued in use by the US Navy for securing its
| lighter-than-air craft until at least 1962, ...
!?
I've highlighted two terms that imply some sort
of direct, specific information,
but which might be simply exaggerations of reality.
Perhaps Percy overreached in deduction by combining
the allegation from Paynes/Collins with some history of
airships' duration of use
(and didn't actually have some source to "confirm"
the use we question --or even knowledge of the knot!) !?
(Budworth also repeatedly across books refers to the life
of the airship Los Angeles as being in the 1930s,
but that Airships.net site has Rosendahl commanding it
from April '26 .. Oct '28.
I suppose that the curious "... at least until 1962" dating
might indicate an actual source who left the point of such
information --work in the USN?-- at that date and so could
not vouch for facts beyond then!?
I have found a small knots book by Percy published 1965
--late enough to have that "at least 1962" assertion--,
but it lacks any mention of the knot.
CAN OTHERS FIND OTHER P.Blandford KNOTS BOOKS
AND CHECK FOR HIS ZEPPELIN COVERAGE?
(Hmmm, where did I see one in which his illustration
was of the "false" knot?)
--dl*
====
-
.
CAN OTHERS FIND OTHER P.Blandford KNOTS BOOKS
AND CHECK FOR HIS ZEPPELIN COVERAGE?
(Hmmm, where did I see one in which his illustration
was of the "false" knot?)
--dl*
====
In Practical Knots and Ropework (1980) there is no Zeppelin coverage, instead Hunter's Bend is shown at p. 79 fig. 5-20 , but 5-20D and 5-20E are illustrations of the false Zeppelin (5-20C is wrong), perhaps did you refer to that, Dan?
You can find the book at
https://books.google.it/books?id=WUNG8qZWyxQC
Ciao,
s.
-
There is also an interesting reference in Knotting Matters #58 (Jan 1998) at page 26.
And also an illustration of a 'bend' is shown.
This is not in relation to Dan's enquiry but, it is still of interest...
Mark G
-
...and also KM #8 (July 1984) p.22 "Hunting Zeppelins" by Blandford...here there is the same error about the Hunter!?!? and in a postscript there is some historical notes, it is cited Mandeville...
(by the way in the same KM there is an interesting article by H. Asher "Linked Overhands Knots part II" p.2)
Ciao,
s.
p.s. @Mark, the paper is nice, I have to read it again and i'll tell you something...however it could be interesting a bibliography at the end
-
Hi dear all, would some of you try to review the drawings of the Hunter's Bend by Blandford on page 31 of the Knot Chart in IGKT. Sketches B and C are wrong for tying this bend, it comes out to be a False Hunter's Bend or something else. I have reported to IGKT, and got no reply. Am I wrong about it ?
yChan
-
Hi siriuso,
you just preceded me! :)
I was going to add this reference IGKT chart #56
http://www.surreyknots.org.uk/56-hunter-bend.htm
The sketches are for the false Zeppelin not for the Hunter's but the C is wrong!
It's strange but it seems that for Blandford the Hunter's was the false Zeppelin.
Ciao,
s.
p.s. @siriuso "Ciao" is the Italian word for bye ;)
-
Hi Knotsaver,
I would like to apologize for the mistake I made.
For this bend I name it False Hunter's Bend because it resembles the Hunter's Bend, and the HB has 2 loops interlocked, while the FHB has 2 loops unlocked. Also both bends have the collars facing at one side.
I do not think this bend should be named False Zeppelin Bend although they both are with non-interlocked loops. And for the reason that very obviously ZB's two collars are facing in opposite direction, but the false bend's are facing at the same side.
A small tucking mistake will lead you to the false bend.
In the case of the ZB and FZB, their tying starts are differed.
yChan
-
Geoffrey Budworth wrote this in his IGKT short history,
...
Here's a propitious time get ironical with the tired
old adage "hindsight is 20/20" --yeah, right!
;)
-
In the case of the ZB and FZB, their tying starts are differed.
--just a wrong side tucking mistake, in how *I*
tie it ("they're tying starts" presumes something
not assuredly true).
Which is good time to whip the too-oft'-quoted old
Ashley nonsense "A knot is never nearly correct:
it is either right or hopelessly wrong!" (my recall **)
Egadz, this uttered by Ashley, then echoed by so many
who should well know better. Desmonde Mandeville
even goes through his entire "Trambles" collection of
"nearly (alike)" knots much of which are fine.
(-;
** 2017/11/15 postscript with Ashley's quote:
"A knot is never "nearly right"; it is either exactly right
or it is hopelessly wrong, one or the other;
there is nothing in between."
-
Ha, take a gander at THIS --most interesting:
http://www.airships.net/blog/today-1927-uss-los-angeles-handstand-august-25-1927/ (http://www.airships.net/blog/today-1927-uss-los-angeles-handstand-august-25-1927/)
I recommend this site for further research; I feel
that we might be getting somewhere, here, even
if by roundabout --i.e., not knot-specific-- ways &
information.
Here's a good old film of an accident via changed
wind in which handling lines can be seen. (And I
think that it's for this airship, Macon, that there's
a photo again showing a line that goes down to
some ring(?) to which MANY short lines are connected
and held by MANY ground handlers.
http://www.airships.net/blog/uss-akron-accident-february-22-1932-video/ (http://www.airships.net/blog/uss-akron-accident-february-22-1932-video/)
So, ... fertile ground for inspection.
I've updated my 2009 posted query re the zeppelin knot
to convey Giles's information and challenge, to which
I question how Rosendahl could be ignorant of what
transpired under his command --and esp. he who'd
previously been "mooring" officer on the Shenandoah.
And how such a knot could be w/o so-far trace in the
US Navy --how did it appear (if so) and why not remembered!?
Btw, Giles has "... discussed many of the complexities
of ground handling generally in my book which is available
on Amazon
www.amazon.com/Ground-Handling-Large-Airships-Cinderella-Profession/dp/1785073621 (http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Handling-Large-Airships-Cinderella-Profession/dp/1785073621)
"
--dl*
====
-
At this point of "informations" (<- as some Europeans
have put it), I'm coming to the opinion that somehow
that "Joe Collins" is a, or is spinning a, myth for the
knot invented by him or Bob Payne (who then invented
Joe to play the historical anchor role). Although it's not
stated expressly that crew were trained at Norfolk --but
that Joe was stationed there, but maybe traveled (cheaper
to send him to Lakehurst than an entire crew to Va.)--,
everything in what I'm reading in Airships.net is of NJ,
not south --just one citing of an airship going to D.C.
and limping back north.
--dl*
====
MIGHT AS WELL HAVE THE MOST CONFOUNDING INFORMATION
POSTED --the easier to find, somewhere.
[Giles Camplin]
So there you have the story. Seemingly, a nice little
personal insight into airship history, and I personally would
have accepted it quite happily if I had not then immediately
read the Footnote that was appended to the article when it
was reprinted in the Wingfoot Journal.
The Footnote read :
[Presumably the Wingfoot Editor (1980)]
Lee Payne of Balboa, Calif., one of the authors, wrote to me
about this article,
[Lee Payne]
Admiral Rosendahl wrote to me [Lee Payne]
to say that the Los Angeles crew was trained at
Lakehurst rather than at Norfolk as stated in the article,
and that he had never heard of the Rosendahl bend
but that[C.Rosendahl!]
it is slightly possible that no one ever told me of it.
In any event I am glad you think so highly of it.
The story was told to me [Lee Payne] by my brother,
who was sailing as second mate aboard the President Madison.
Joe Collins was the helmsman on his watch. The fact remains
that this is an outstanding knot that is not listed in any of the
books on the subject.
Perhaps some of your readers will recognize it.
Yet, to date, none have, that we're aware of;
nor have we found any *residue* of the wonderful knot
at the cited places!? (I've wondered if perhaps some of
the Wash. D.C.-area cavers who got Bob Thrun's presentation
of "An Easily Untied Bend" [?] might yet show a bit of
"residue" from that --though not themselves making much
of any further promulgation of it, but yet traces of Bob's
exposing it could be found?!
This letter was almost his final act, as Adm. Rosendahl
died 1977-05-17; perhaps a "March" issue of Boating
was out in newsstands/etc. in February, as such
dating is commonplace w/periodicals such as this.
[edit :: oops, it's 1976-Mar vs. 1977-May]
Still, it's all rather just-in-time turnaround,
with no time to follow up.
[ Not quite so tight, now that I correct the years,
but still pretty close, and beyond our reach, now. ]
-
New version uploaded...
VER 1.1 (18 NOV 2017).
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
Changelog:
[ ] page 3: Contents page (added 'references')
[ ] page 4: amended citation for Giles Camplin article in a 'Dirigible' journal
[ ] page 23: added content to Giles Camplin article (identifying source)
[ ] page 26: new 'References page added
...
Unless something major or significant pops up...this will be the last update for 2017 (although I still need a concise piece of writing from Xarax which summarizes his theory on how the Zeppelin bend works (to fit within the constraints of the text box on page 7).
Thanks to all who helped make this project a reality :) ... and now on to the next knot bio project!
Mark G
-
More re historical accounts of airship procedures,
this coming re the Hindenburg tragedy.
[underscoring & italics added by me]
The rigger named Neuhaus in the movie was a fictional character, invented for the film. The fact that he was called away from watching Cell 4 to ?come bear a hand? with a jammed cable does draw a slight parallel between him and Hans Freund, who was a rigger on the Hindenburg?s actual last flight.
During the Hindenburg?s final landing approach, Freund was standing at the aft end of the keel walkway, hauling a steel mooring cable up from its storage place in the lower fin so that he could lower it to the landing crew. The manila ?hauling-up? line he was using to hoist the cable jammed between a pair of bracing wires and Freund called to one of the crewmen in the lower fin to help him pull the rope clear. This was perhaps a minute or two before the fire broke out.
Further info re Freund is found here:
http://facesofthehindenburg.blogspot.com/2008/12/hans-freund.html (http://facesofthehindenburg.blogspot.com/2008/12/hans-freund.html)
And here's a long bio. for Rosendahl,
from http://www.nlhs.com/charles-e-rosendahl-manuscript.html (http://www.nlhs.com/charles-e-rosendahl-manuscript.html)
"CER" graduated the Naval Academy in the Class of 1914 and served in various seagoing assignments until he was accepted for Lighter-than-Air (LTA) training at NAS Lakehurst in 1923. Assigned to duty on the USS SHENANDOAH (ZR-1) Lieutenant Rosendahl made most of the flights of the Navy's pioneering large rigid airship; promoted to Lieutenant Commander and serving as Navigator, he free-ballooned the derelict nose section of the wrecked airship to a safe landing and, as Senior Surviving Officer, he was catapulted to national prominence as an outspoken advocate for Lighter-Than-Air.
Shortly thereafter, in 1926, Rosendahl was given command of the USS LOS ANGELES(ZR3) which had been delivered from Germany to the US Navy in 1924. Morale was low, funding was chronically short, and airships were held in suspicion by a skeptical Congress, other branches of the Navy, and the general public, but Rosendahl's unshakable faith and determination kept the LOS ANGELES flying and in the public eye.
In 1928, the AKRON and MACON were ordered from Goodyear-Zeppelin in Ohio; Rosendahl made the first transatlantic flight of the German GRAF ZEPPELIN that year and was also aboard for her round-the-world trip in the summer of 1929. Also around this time, Rosendahl was detached from the LOS ANGELES and given the title "Commander, Rigid Airship Training and Experimental Squadron, Lakehurst NJ."
In command of the new AKRON when she took to the air in September, 1931, Rosendahl flew her for nine months (including a much-publicized trip to the West Coast and back). He was assigned to Sea Duty when the AKRON was lost in April, 1933; a year later,with the rank of full Commander, he returned as Commanding Officer, NAS Lakehurst, a position he held for four years.
Rosendahl was in command of the Lakehurst Naval Air Station during all the HINDENBURG's 1936 flights and he was considered a key expert witness when the giant Zeppelin burned while mooring on May 6, 1937.
In between subsequent tours of sea duty, Rosendahl was instrumental in helping develop the Navy's non-rigid airship (blimp) anti-submarine warfare arm before and after the outbreak of World War Two. 1942 saw Captain Rosendahl in command of the heavy cruiser USS MINNEAPOLIS, where he saw heavy action at the Battle of Tassaffronga (Guadalcanal) and was decorated for bravery and superb seamanship. At one point, he badly injured his back while crawling through a hole in a bulkhead to assess damage; the back trouble was serious enough for him to be "ordered ashore" and he returned to NAS Lakehurst in early 1943 with the rank of Rear Admiral and the title of "Chief of Airship Training and Experimentation." Rosendahl retired as a Vice Admiral on November 1, 1946.
--dl*
====
-
Argh, this mystery keeps irking me!
So, just to say that I've found no perspective on this
history that reads well start-to-finish.
Consider Roo's reasonable point that ...
It may be that neither Rosendahl nor Collins came up with the knot.
The ZR-3 Los Angeles was made by a German company.
I could imagine Rosendahl instructing duplication of pre-existing
conditions found on the airship and its various rigging.
1) I might see if some German knotter can pursue this.
2) But were this so --and it's a good thought, but ...--,
why didn't CER just say THIS --and not that he'd never
heard of the knot?!
3) OTOH, why didn't CER react against the Collins assertion
that CER had required ANYthing?!
4) Now, why didn't Collins, who remarked at finding no
hint of the knot anywhere in his worldwide sailing & reading,
remark at what extent the fabled knot could be found --or
why NOT?!-- in the very USNavy where it supposedly
surfaced to his grand acclaim (and CER's, per him)?!
5) Btw, is it reasonable that CER could so easily disclaim
awareness of what his subordinates were doing, when HE
is in charge ... !? (Current military minds might be able
to shed some opinion on this.)
6) I must admit that I find Collins's *quoted testimony*
--yeah, we should keep in mind that this comes via Bob P.--
somewhat odd sounding were he making things up,
to build a legend for *his* knot.
Some of the given detail could be researched for making
the article, by the Paynes; but the part re issues concerning
USN acceptance of airships rings true.
. . .
Again, I find it hard to sustain any opinion on this
through all of what little we've seen.
.:. In any case, I suppose we should keep looking
for traces in USN records, esp. of Lakehurst airships base.
???
--dl*
====
-
Finding some more interesting words ...
at
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-airships-1932-visit-sd-brought-tragedy-2009dec05-story.html (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-airships-1932-visit-sd-brought-tragedy-2009dec05-story.html)
The Akron slowly descended through thick fog until it reached clear skies at 1,200 feet. But the morning sun was expanding the helium, making the ship too buoyant. The captain, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Rosendahl, ordered the propellers turned skyward to push the airship closer to the ground.
At 11 a.m., the 400-foot docking ropes were dropped to the ground between two landing crews of sailors. Each man had to grab a trail rope and attach it to ?spiders,? fixed ground lines with wooden toggles. A separate mooring cable dropped from the nose of the Akron, which was attached the mooring mast. A winch wound the mooring cable, pulling the airship down.
I'm not sure what "cable" means --steel or fibre rope.
The account continues with the sad fatality of some
hangers-on --who eventually couldn't--, and a harrowing
story of the 3rd, who did.
Oh, dear, it's captured on film.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHsVcDK42VQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHsVcDK42VQ)
Anyway, looking at this, I still don't see that one would be
tying on another rope --the landing action is something
anticipated with fully adequate gear. What seems to be
attached are the sets of man-ropes via toggles (and which
those two unfortunate men were manning).
Egadz, it gets better : close-up (relative) of the survivor
and all the toggles gear (but no filming of the supposed
on-board sailor who was lowered to tie some line to help
stabilize the dangling sailor and by which he was winched
up, later?!) !!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsGoRyheOkY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsGoRyheOkY)
--dl*
====
-
It is interesting to note that both the zeppelin & hunter's bends
came to their more broad popularity at about the same time,
circa 1977. The latter has an older published-in-book date,
but the influence of that book seems not much better than
that of Bob Thrun's Potomac Caver newletter article re the former,
in 1966!
Currently, to my awareness, it looks as though Geoffrey Budworth's
The Knot Book (1983) might be what crossed the former knot into
more popular knowledge --into books (from 2 magazines and 1
obscure newsletter).
--dl*
====
-
My reading of this most interesting bit of history
from the pen of CERosendahl himself (!) is that
mooring principally involved lines called "WIRES"
--which I do not see as anything remotely knottable
(whereas "cable" leaves one wondering).
And it seems by this reading, at least, the little knotting
was involved in standard mooring operations; connectors
of a mechanical kind were used, for the main wires.
--dl*
====
[
Popular Science Monthly, March 1930, p.40ff,
"Flying with an Airship Captain"
The Veteran Commander of Navy Dirigibles Tells
of his Experiences in Piloting the Los Angeles
by Lieutenant Commander Charles E. Rosendahl ]
.
.
.
"In an attempt to tie to the mooring mast,
rough winds had jerked the ship about so violently
that a nine-sixteenth mooring cable snapped just
in time to save the framework of the ship from damage."
.
.
.
" 'Stand by for Up Ship' ropes are cast off. "
.
.
.
[pp.159-60]
"The Los Angeles provides an impromptu fireworks display
when it lands at a mooring mast. She carries a Very light pistol,
as possible use as a distress signal, but principally used in the
mooring maneuver. When the main cable is dropped we fire a white star.
Dropping the starboard yaw wire is accompanied by a green star.
And the port yaw wire by a red one.
This calls attention to the dropping of the wires, which may be
difficult to see, particularly at night.
The ground crew respond with the same lights as they couple
each wire to the corresponding ground wire. The Very lights
are used both day and night, and the brilliant colored balls are
most easily seen in broad daylight.
[cf (long URLink) ]
https://books.google.com/books?id=HCoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22mooring+cable%22+airship+los+angeles+description&source=bl&ots=THldJAf9e3&sig=uwaYZjYiE9YtFLFVZ4dgA1LEh1M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ-4LLvtPYAhVIY98KHexVD-cQ6AEIVzAM#v=onepage&q=%22mooring%20cable%22%20airship%20los%20angeles%20description&f=false
Popular Science
books.google.com
Popular Science gives our readers the information and tools to improve their technology and their world. The core belief that Popular Science and our readers share: The future is going to be better, and science and technology are the driving forces that will help make it better.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_UzV1SWo_s
I came up with this method of binding loop based on the node Zeppelin. It demonstrates the isotopic similarity of the Zeppelin and reef knots.
Я придумал такой способ вязки петли на основе узла Цеппелин. Он демонстрирует изотопическое сходство цеппелина и рифового узлов.
-
To kick it off, the first Knot Bio is about the Zeppelin bend.
Link to page: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table)
This is a work-in-progress...and I of course welcome any comments, and constructive feedback.
I am not knowledgeable enough that I can give constructive feedback, but here's my comment anyway: I'm stunned by admiration. Your "Biography" of the Zeppelin knot is most thorough and exhaustive, and what I especially liked about it is that even though you don't shy away from giving much technical detail, you also make it accessible to a layman by explaining all the technical details. Great job!
-
I came up with this method of binding loop based on the node Zeppelin. It demonstrates the isotopic similarity of the Zeppelin and reef knots.
Hi smirnov_wasilii,
your tying method is nice!
You are a magician too! ;)
I prefer other eyes, but I like your tying method!
Thanks for sharing it.
Ciao,
s.
-
smirnov_wasilii
your method of tying a zepplin loop is fantastic, thanks for sharing
andy
-
@ Mark,
Just found this wonderful bio. I love the history.
Of course, as you would expect I disagree with your structural and functional analysis, but apart from that, a truly excellent story.
Derek
-
Derek, you are welcome to disagree as much as you like.
And of course, you are welcome to tender your own theory of how a Zeppelin end-to-end joining knot functions.
EDIT: In fact, you are most welcome to have your theoretical analysis inserted into the paper - and be given credit for any contribution you choose to make.
I am thinking about an update... but at the moment, I am writing an update/revision to my 'Analysis of Bowlines' paper. I have many new images and a rich source of ideas to inject into that paper.
-
I have uploaded a new and revised version of the Zeppelin bend paper.
VER 1.2 (15 MAY 2019) is uploaded.
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table).
Added new images.
Added new content.
Added a conclusion.
Comments / feedback are always welcome!
Happy knotting to all :)
Mark G
-
Great project, great work.
Thank you Mark!
SS
-
[hoping not to be timed-out mis-composition (lost) this time!]
Just some quick remarks.
I'd try to soften the lawyer-debate aspect of history
with some notes:
1) Odd that the alleged Joe Collins made no enquiries <--[edit "no" vice "on"]
of his old place of skilled work (USNavy) about how
his favorite knot was doing!?
[Also that he didn't return from his edifying time
w/Cmd. Rosendahl to promote his (Joe's) admired knot
to his subsequent marlinespike-seamanship students, et alia. <--added]
2) Odd irrespective of any Joe Collins that USNavy
(or anywherElse) has NO HINT OF THE KNOT!?
((Recall that the Practical Boating article about a Speir
knot does find presence --though slightly varied knot!?--
in USArmy Field/Tech. manuals. ))
3) No hint from Joe about how Rosendahl came to know
and then favor / believe-in this knot, which he allegedly
valued for being best for his beloved airships!? (I guess
it makes sense to follow THIS point w/#2, that not only
was no source given, but none shows up today.)
4) Bob Thrun's discovery is pub'd and fact. So, too,
the Paynes' article, but later dated --and COULD have
come from Bob in roundabout way, but I don't think so.
--dl*
====
-
I have added some new content...
VER 1.2a (04 June 2019) is uploaded.
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table).
Changelog:
Added new content about using ropes of different diameters.
Added new content about the false Zeppelin bend.
That wraps up my creative work on this paper for a while...
Comments / feedback are always welcome!
Happy knotting to all :)
Mark G
-
I have added some new content...
VER 1.3 (10June 2019) is uploaded.
Link: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #4 in the table).
Changelog:
Page 14: Now showing all 4 corresponding Zeppelin eye (loop) knots
Page 15: Now showing all 4 corresponding eye knots from #1053 derived Butterfly bend
Page 16: Added other additional corresponding eye knots
Posited that #1053 Butterfly formed by linking the 2 tails from corresponding Butterfly bend is perhaps the only TIB knot formed this way? (ie from 2 interlinked overhand knots).
That is, when creating a corresponding eye knot from a 'bend' by linking the 2 tails - it appears that only #1053 Butterfly is TIB (from inter-linked overhand knots).
This needs to be verified.
Comments / feedback are always welcome!
Happy knotting to all :)
Mark G
-
Notes on latest version.
p.12 of 32, l00ks like you got careless on your
"tied with bights" variation : => Asymmetric
--see the non-mirror'd SParts (both are left of tails)!
If you're doing such a thing,
then the eye<->joint corresponding knot I've
presented fits in, happily.
Posited that #1053 Butterfly formed by linking the 2 tails from
corresponding Butterfly bend is perhaps the only TIB knot formed this way?
How quickly you forget about (nearby of your papers)
the offset water knot --which produces the most often
Found-In-The-Wild mid-line eye knot.
(But you might want to examine other in-line eye knots,
such as the fig.8 and so on.)
To my mind, though, you reach out of bounds
in claiming some of these corresponding knots
to be so for some particular end-2-end joint :
no, not when that knot's SParts are not one or
the other the SPart of the correspondent --then,
its'some other joint (one w/diff. SParts). You
are, in my thinking, going "same" at the *tangle*
not *knot* level.
p.21, top table of break-test results.
Isn't it puzzling that there is such difference
between some of these results!? It's about
a 9%-pt stepping on that for the bowline,
and then some oddity in the fig.8 <various>
results, too --where one can question what
orientation (and any setting) was made!?
(20 & 14 %pt.s for the later two testings
between eye & joint ! --vs. nil of 1st.)
((Btw, "Rhino..." sounds like CMC Rope Rescue
data, which (Ref. Man.) DO have butterfly
results. (Interestingly, pulled purely end-2-end,
it does little better than the fig.8, for them.)
))
p.22 (of 32). Oh, my, that "toggle axis" ... :-\ ::)
Bit much of X. coming through here,
but in any case, one can (also) see that
--and esp. where the material deforms more,
or wasn't dressed & set snugly--
the SParts can mimic the bowline's nipping turn.
(YMMV.)
--dl*
====
-
How quickly you forget about (nearby of your papers)
the offset water knot --which produces the most often
Found-In-The-Wild mid-line eye knot.
(But you might want to examine other in-line eye knots,
such as the fig.8 and so on.)
You should have hit your refresh button before jumping the gun!
If you read more carefully, I stated 'of this type' - meaning of the type formed from inter-linked overhand knots.
To clarify that remark - I then amended the paper to include words to that effect the next day after uploading.
Anyhow, thats the way the paper reads. Have another look to check this for yourself.
...
l00ks like you got careless on your
"tied with bights" variation
As for the alleged 'carelessness' in tying the Zeppelin bend 'with bights' - it doesn't appear to make any difference as to precisely how the tail segments lie with respect to the SParts.
What matters is that you begin with 2 superposed bights with opposite chirality.
The alleged 'carelessness' lies in the eye of the beholder.
p.22 (of 32). Oh, my, that "toggle axis" ... :-\ ::)
Bit much of X. coming through here,
but in any case, one can (also) see that
--and esp. where the material deforms more,
or wasn't dressed & set snugly--
the SParts can mimic the bowline's nipping turn.
(YMMV.)
Jumping the gun again...Xarax theory is based on the principle of a hinge - about which each 'half' of the Zeppelin bend pivots.
I substituted 'toggle-axis' for 'hinge' - but the principle is essentially the same.
The tails are crushed together and the SParts pivot about them. Because the SParts are not in direct alignment with respect to each other, there is a slant - which you can see in my photo.
The blue rope is displaced to the right, and the white rope is displaced to the left. When force is applied, it causes the 'toggle-axis' to slant.
I don't believe there is any 'mimicking' of the Bowlines 'nipping loop'. The Zeppelin bend functions differently.
Obviously, your alleged mimicking of a 'nipping loop' cannot be so because both ends would need to be loaded (which they aren't).
A nipping loop is loaded at both ends.
For example, in #1431 Sheet bend there is no nipping loop (because it isn't loaded at both ends).
-
You should have hit your refresh button before jumping the gun!
If you read more carefully, I stated 'of this type' - meaning of the type formed from inter-linked overhand knots.
Well, ... a puzzle to look at, sometime, maybe.
FYI, one can tie a variety --all?-- such knots with
twin eyes TIB !
(Or so I'm thinking, having done z., #1452, & #1408.)
The practical point of *twin* eyes --i.e., eyes to be used
together as one, not separately-- is to preserve knot
integrity, avoiding the eye leg leading to an unloaded
SPart --of a mid-line eye knot, i.e.-- pulling that strand
tight, as the twin eye leading to the loaded SPart
will hold the form.
As for the alleged 'carelessness' in tying the Zeppelin bend 'with bights'
--it doesn't appear to make any difference as to precisely how the tail segments lie with respect to the SParts.
What matters is that you begin with 2 superposed bights with opposite chirality.
The alleged 'carelessness' lies in the eye of the beholder.
... whose artistic sensibilities might be ruffled ... ! :P
p.22 (of 32). >>> Oh, my, that "toggle axis" ... :-\ ::)
...
I don't believe there is any 'mimicking' of the Bowlines 'nipping loop'.
...
Eh, in the *open* geometry indicated, that turn gets
to looking rather roundish like the bowline's; and one
can end up w/similar knots if starting with the goal
of having a bowlinesque such turn and then building
out the knot (and then realizing, "Oh, this is (like) the
zeppelin knot!".
--dl*
====