One critical observation that popped out at me is in respect to the "Butterfly" - a favorite knot of mine.
As I read it, the knot was not referenced as ABoK "lineman's" and it was attributed to W&G.
A recent thread on this forum has shown that it was published a few years before (1917)
in a paper by Burger at Iowa State Univ. Also, there has been a thread here where Alpiner showed
an extremely easy alternative to tying it that seems to give easier control over the sizing of the loop.
Will be awaiting Dan L's reaction.
Capt.Larry, about the Lineman's Loop aka "Butterfly knot" aka "Alpine Butterfly",
what we have is a case where a knot was discovered in two separate places (at
not all so different times). One can postulate that there must've been many other
like discoveries, but who knows. (I was remiss in missing CLDay's note, and am
quite glad that Bob Thrun read more attentively, in addition to pursuing that lead
so well (and now having not only e-copy but also --courtesy a link from Nautile--
hardcopy of the earlier work. (It was Bob also who had gotten W&G and put
it into e-form, which Charles Hamel has kindly put up on-line for access.) And
we can reflect on the multiple discoveries --over a 2-3 decades-- of SmitHunter's
Bend: Smith, Hunter, Lehman (and ... ?). Despite Phil Smith's publication in
a book (limited circulation, but still ...), it was a "new" knot to many, taking
Edward Hunter's revelation via the Times & perhaps also IGKT-informed authors
to become more public. (resp. circa 1955, 1964, 1973, for S-H-L, I think)
So, I think that W&G deserve both merit for discovery (not exclusive, but
authentic) and publication, and perhaps their efforts were what can be
traced into the acceptance by rockclimbers, and thus into other disciplines;
whereas, despite use & publicity, perhaps --I don't know-- the knot's life
waned in the lineman world (or can we find in then-current & following
years/decades published guidance for such workers to continue it use?) !?
And I concur in your assessment of Alpiner's (initial, at least -- were there two?)
improved tying method. In fact, that was put out to some rockclimbers and
got a bit of a nod of approval; the other methods are simply not so neat.
And, now, I have found a sort of *brother* to the Butterfly, in which there
is one seeming superfluous wrap of one eye leg around the body of the
knot (whereas in the original the eye legs flow into
collars; this extra
wrap is quite helpful if the orientation of eye loading can be foreseen, as
it fairly well prevents the (effective) end's collar from collapsing around
it -- i.e., in a case where one end is loaded (so is "S.Part") and the other
completely slack, the collar on the slack end has no resistance and can
be drawn tight around it, to the point of jamming. (And I've discovered
a great many similar but
"directional" eye knots, using a Slip-knot
base, as well as a #1408 equivalent to the Butterfly (which comes about
also with that eye-leg wrap).)
--dl*
====
postscript:
How Creation Works (one case)I just conceived a **New & Improved** Directional Fig.8 eye knot,
led to such fancy by mulling over this topic and then the formation
from the Slip-Knot and so on. Had to keep closing my eyes to "see"
this, to double-check that it wasn't illusory, and then to manifest it
in rope. Ta-da! doesn't look bad.
Partly what led me into invention was reflection on the
CMC Rope Rescue
Manual data in which the usual, Fig.8 eye knot tested a few %-pt.s STRONGER
in end-2-end loading than the Directional Fig.8 (!!) -- quite surprising, as both
the former is deemed bad as a knot, and even too bad to even sustain pulling
by two persons(!), and the latter's raison d'etre is supposed fitness for such
loading (where, however, I've noted that it has the form of a SquaREef knot
w/one slip-tuck) !? I think that CMC might've gotten lucky on their test,
and would love to know how their Fig.8 was dressed & set (since I believe
that those accounts of its failing to how qua bend --and here the only
difference is whether the eye is cut or not (irrelevant if holding)-- are not
jokes. TMoyer's testing of the Offset Fig.8 bend (the so-called "EDK"-like form)
show it holding and not holding, variously; though it didn't seem strong.
(Hmmmm, now it occurs to me that this recent invention might be one
I have previously done -- rather behind on recording, or if done long ago,
forgetful of it (or perhaps the knot form then came about not by tying in
the bight (or even if doing so not considering it for "directional" use),
and not being aware of the potential).)
((double-HmmmMMM: Moreover, this variation of the Fig.8 is what
I think some rockclimbers tie as a sort of "backed-up" and easier to
untie version (and it might be more vulnerable to ring-loading),
similar to another such version.))
argh: now it's getting to be work ...
