ABoK 1408, 1409 & what it means for the Ashley Bend

[dmacdd]

To my eye, it looks much more like a minor variation on the so-called Ashley Bend.  I've attached an image so others know what you're referring to.  Reading a little further in the Ashley Book of Knots we find something of interest:

1408: Here is another bend with the same untrustworthy features as the "Whatnot", yet in the form shown here it ranks among the securest of bends known.

1409: But in this second form it is one of the least secure knots known, its only rival being the Whatnot.  The change from one of its forms to the other may occur accidentally or intentionally.  So the knot is quite untrustworthy.

Tying this in more elastic material, you get a dramatic demonstration of what Ashley is talking about.  It rolls apart.

Interesting.  ABOK 1409 is precisely I call the "inverted Ashley bend" on my page on Ashley's bend,
http://davidmdelaney.com/ashley-bend/ashley-bend.html
I will revise the page to call it ABOK 1409.

[roo]

Interesting.  ABOK 1409 is precisely I call the "inverted Ashley bend" on my page on Ashley's bend,
http://davidmdelaney.com/ashley-bend/ashley-bend.html
I will revise the page to call it ABOK 1409.

Just recently I realized that we we're talking about the same knot in rec.crafts.knots no so long ago, which is related to the link you have.  It makes me realize that this thread is overdue.  I just don't usually give much thought to the Ashley bend.

[Dan_Lehman]

I just don't usually give much thought to the Ashley bend.

Clearly.

Your Fixated Griper Not hex on #1452 jumps off the page from
that Not-able Knot Index -- to wit:

. . . the jam-prone Ashley Bend*
...
*Clifford Ashley did not name this bend.  He merely listed it in his book as entry #1452.
He remarked that it was more complicated than could be wished.

Maybe you could cite Cyrus Day, who did name the knot,
and quote his extolling its (apparently yet to be realized by you)
virtues of seeming "to jam less than any other bend than the
Carrick bend (no. 51)."  As to what Ashley says, it is that "the
method of tying is more complicated than could be wished,
but this can probably be remedied."  He shows a "d/p" method;
hmmm, what complicated knot does that bring to mind?!

And re the BushWalkers reference, that is to a knot that someone
(& echoes) took to labeling "the Butterfly" in contradistinction
to then "the Alpine Butterfly" (the muddle thickens),
and which is a Slip-Knot w/bight having the slipping end cast
a Half-hitch nipper over it.  Not everyone is as afraid of this
mid-line eyeknot as the words of warning would suggest.
(Testing would probably show that the perceived problem
only obtains with greater force than one should want to
experience -- and maybEven the feared capsizing would
serve to ameliorate impact force, a benefit (!).)

--dl*
====

ps:  Re

Interesting.  ABOK 1409 is precisely I call the "inverted Ashley bend" on my page on Ashley's bend,

1452 when pulled by tails inverts to ... itself.
There is a "lanyard knot" that is a mid-capsized equivalent.
And 1408 inverts similarly to itself, by that way.

[roo]

I just don't usually give much thought to the Ashley bend.

Clearly.

Surely this snide rejoinder is given because I don't give the bend's jamming a pass like you do.

Your Fixated Griper Not hex on #1452

???ibid

Maybe you could cite Cyrus Day

Because he has outdated and erroneous comments on the bend?  I'll decline.  This issue has been put to rest with numerous tests by numerous people, and fiddling with the ends isn't the cure- it's an indication of the problem.   Its (other) impostor issue is just another nail in the coffin.

He shows a "d/p" method;
hmmm, what complicated knot does that bring to mind?!

I don't think ABoK 1452 is extremely complicated, but it is a bit or two of information more complicated that the bend you're thinking of (direction of interlinking & [related] free end tucking side).

And re the BushWalkers reference, that is to a knot that someone
(& echoes) took to labeling "the Butterfly" in contradistinction
to then "the Alpine Butterfly" (the muddle thickens),
and which is a Slip-Knot w/bight having the slipping end cast
a Half-hitch nipper over it.

Are you saying the half-hitch loop as a bend is the impostor bend Bushwalkers referred to?  Can you give a source?

[dmacdd]

I just found the following YouTube video

Knot Class: Ashley's Bend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qLUP3XjYcY

It ties 1408/1409, characterizing it as

"Used to join two lines together, it's simple, fast, very strong and reliable and it will never jam. It can seem confusing at first but it is simply two overhand knots with a common center. Trust this knot and it won't let you down. When a friend makes an awkward overhand with two lines that jambs and slips, you can tie an Ashley's and show him the difference"

Even though I signed into YouTube, I could not leave a comment on this video. I'll try again later.

[roo]

I just found the following YouTube video

Knot Class: Ashley's Bend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qLUP3XjYcY

It ties 1408/1409,

Oh my.  This shows the need  to check unfamiliar knots against other, independent sources.

This also shows that this evil impostor stuff is actually happening.  It should at least make people be more careful when they tie knots.  We all remember many times when we have mis-tied knots and had to start over because there's an obvious problem.  The insidious thing about the evil impostors is that they don't give you such a nice "start over, you lunkhead" clue.

Good eye, by the way.

[dmacdd]

A new video on YouTube on Ashley's Bend. It addresses the issue of 1408/1409.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x0fnQcWfXo

[dmacdd]

An amusing use of Ashley's bend for artistic purposes:

"THE ASHLEY BEND"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unmLKWZerDU

It's confusing as instruction -- it's difficult to follow without ignoring some of its "steps"-- but at least there is no hazardous error in it

[dmacdd]

Here's an animated instruction for Ashley's Bend that is just wildly wrong. It produces an unstable knot that collapses easily, but its not 1408/1409.  No one who knows Ashley's Bend would mistake this knot for it, however.

http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-tie-ashleys-bend-knot-with-animated-help-266034/view/

[Dan_Lehman]

I just don't usually give much thought to the Ashley bend.

Clearly.

Surely this snide rejoinder is given because I don't give the bend's jamming a pass like you do.

No, because you imagine this jamming for a knot known for
the lack of it, preferring to take any hint of it as some kind of
proof while ignoring (and not exploring) evidence to the contrary.
Which behavior is well enough decried by my snide ...

Your Fixated Griper Not hex on #1452

Maybe you could cite Cyrus Day

Because he has outdated and erroneous comments on the bend?  I'll decline.

Sure, Day's "outdated" but not the antecedent Ashley, whom you cite
in your attack on #1408/9.  Which, FYI, I've just loaded --the rumored
treacherous #1409, i.e.-- in nice, smooth, nylon-elastic 3/8" solid braid
tied to itself and then to 8mm (5/16") nylon kernmantle "accessory"
cord:  in both cases, I got my full shabby-5:1 pulley'd weight put to the
knots; there was none of the rumored treachery to behold.  Yes, there
is initial movement as the wrong-positioned tails are drawn by the joint
SParts' rotational pull into typically shown Butterfly-like abutting, where
they were securely locked by the opposed SParts' interlocking turns.
(I might surmise that this form could be a stronger geometry than 1408.)
And the knots untied reasonably easily, though less easily than 1408 &
Rosendahl's & 1452.  (The 8-to-10mm joint was harder to loosen, on the
8mm collar.)

This issue has been put to rest with numerous tests by numerous people,
and fiddling with the ends isn't the cure- it's an indication of the problem.
Its (other) impostor issue is just another nail in the coffin.

Yeah, right:  "numerous" !  And realizing that supposed fact suddenly my
own knots seize up (or is it spring free, spilled?) !!

And re the BushWalkers reference, that is to a knot that someone
(& echoes) took to labeling "the Butterfly" in contradistinction
to then "the Alpine Butterfly" (the muddle thickens),
and which is a Slip-Knot w/bight having the slipping end cast
a Half-hitch nipper over it.

Are you saying the half-hitch loop as a bend is the impostor bend Bushwalkers referred to?  Can you give a source?

No, were're talking about eyeknots in re Bushwalkers.  And what they have
for the dangerous version of the "Butterfly" is what dmadd just found shown
as a supposed #1452, on the WonderHowTo site.

It should be noted that this site has an interestingly aggressive copyright notice
--to wit:

Copyright @ Marinews Pty Ltd 2010 . All Rights Reserved.
All material displayed is the property of Marinews Pty Ltd.
All copyright violation will be dealt with firmly.
If you suspect our copyright has been violated, please email: copyright@marinews.com Thank you.

Frankly, I think that Fairlead should write to them and protest that "their"
copyright was violated by his own book -- published by Barnes & Noble
(one edition of various?) in 2002 !!  Imagine the foresight of his fallible
artist to do this!!  -- Marinews has directly copied that book's images and
put in the added (comp.graphics simple animation) glue to move between
them.  And to claim copyright for this great contribution to knot konfusion.

-- t y p i c a l !

--like this quick,generalized hearsay about dangers & jamming of Ashely's bends.

--dl*
====

[roo]

No, because you imagine this jamming for a knot known for
the lack of it

Right.  I'm hallucinating despite the jammed knot before me.  Same for David.  

preferring to take any hint of it as some kind of
proof while ignoring (and not exploring) evidence to the contrary.

Jamming is proof of jamming.  It does not have to occur 100% of the time.  A lightly loaded overhand stopper doesn't always jam either, but it is still prone to jamming when seriously strained.

Sure, Day's "outdated" but not the antecedent Ashley, whom you cite
in your attack on #1408/9.

I cite the correct portions of Ashley.  It's not the source I'm concerned with, it's the factuality.

Which, FYI, I've just loaded --the rumored
treacherous #1409, i.e.-- in nice, smooth, nylon-elastic 3/8" solid braid
tied to itself and then to 8mm (5/16") nylon kernmantle "accessory"
cord:  in both cases, I got my full shabby-5:1 pulley'd weight put to the
knots; there was none of the rumored treachery to behold.

It never occurred to you that there are other conditions that show insecurity beside such a poor test as a steady load?

This issue has been put to rest with numerous tests by numerous people,
and fiddling with the ends isn't the cure- it's an indication of the problem.
Its (other) impostor issue is just another nail in the coffin.

Yeah, right:  "numerous" !  And realizing that supposed fact suddenly my
own knots seize ...

 Realizing it?  No.  But maybe pulling knots beyond 11% of the rope's breaking strength might do the trick.  Testing wet ropes is another good idea.

[roo]

No, because you imagine this jamming

Right.  I'm hallucinating despite the jammed knot before me.  Same for David.   

Looking back in rec.crafts.knots, it looks like Dan himself was also hallucinating regarding the Ashley Bend jamming:

You CAN tie it such that it becomes quite secure-when-slack, and can jam

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.knots/msg/646d9aa28d604870?hl=en

[Dan_Lehman]

No, because you imagine this jamming

Right.  I'm hallucinating despite the jammed knot before me.  Same for David.   

Try using rope and not some silly little string.
Geesh, bowlines jam, for all that, in some cases, I've read.
But not in most uses, and not in reasonable working loads.
(Knots that jam somewhere towards their breaking point
aren't facing the worst of their issues, then!)

Looking back in rec.crafts.knots, it looks like Dan himself was also hallucinating regarding the Ashley Bend jamming:
You CAN tie it such that it becomes quite secure-when-slack, and can jam
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.knots/msg/646d9aa28d604870?hl=en

Goodness, who needs to look back there?  I've said as much here -- that
the structure offers a version that would suffice in some springy PP rope
which is a fairly common material.  "Jamming" in this case means "being
secure when slack"; loosening and untying are still possible in such cases
of light usage.  Put in some gnarly dock line for a trawler to lean into as
the tide ebbs & flows, untying might take a helping hand to pull the tails
in opposite directions and pry the collars off -- or some vegetable oil, mallet,
and marlinespike/screwdriver !  (now having finger fun (not) w/that 8mm
just putting the pry-w/tails tactic to test; hmmm)

I cite the correct portions of Ashley.

 

Ha, yeah.  "... the least secure knots known, its only rival being
the Whatnot" !!  Right, and you can tow a truck with it.

And, of course, all this comes from botching the tying,
which is easy to do given the too-clever-by-half tying methods
artfully crafted by armchair knotters.  I bet you could write a book
about this!

It never occurred to you that there are other conditions that show insecurity beside such a poor test as a steady load?

Not that my load was completely steady, as even the initial standing in
the pulley puts a surge into the rope; the SParts draw, the tails yield a
little and shift, and the binding occurs.  Then one can "bounce", to up
the force (overcoming sheave friction) and give some "shock".  What
do you want, a UIAA drop test?

 

[roo]

Try using rope and not some silly little string.
Geesh, bowlines jam, for all that, in some cases, I've read.

I do use rope.  What were YOU using when you noted the jamming of the Ashley Bend long ago?  Old 1452 jams much easier than a bowline (which you've only "read" about jamming).

It should come as no surprise that David's scaled-down nylon-based tests echoes my experience with larger diameter rope.  Scale testing is an accepted and commonplace practice in engineering fields.  Besides, using bends in small cord or rope is not of itself invalid.

Looking back in rec.crafts.knots, it looks like Dan himself was also hallucinating regarding the Ashley Bend jamming:
You CAN tie it such that it becomes quite secure-when-slack, and can jam
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.knots/msg/646d9aa28d604870?hl=en

Goodness, who needs to look back there?  I've said as much here -- that
the structure offers a version that would suffice in some springy PP rope
which is a fairly common material.  "Jamming" in this case means "being
secure when slack"; loosening and untying are still possible in such cases
of light usage.  But not in most uses, and not in reasonable working loads.
(Knots that jam somewhere towards their breaking point
aren't facing the worst of their issues, then!)

It's like pulling teeth to get you to admit jamming.  You insinuated/stated above that others are just "imagining" it.  I needed the 2X4 of your own words to remind you.

And not everyone treats their rope as gently as apparently you do (although I won't be so petty as to call you an armchair knotter).  I can easily get the Ashley Bend to jam well short of breaking the rope.  In the countless times the Ashley Bend has jammed for me, I never once broke the rope.  In fact, I don't think I've ever broken a rope in field usage even during accidental overloading.

I cite the correct portions of Ashley.

Ha, yeah.  "... the least secure knots known, its only rival being
the Whatnot" !!  Right, and you can tow a truck with it.

While I didn't cite that part on my page, towing a truck is, once again, a very poor test of security.  You know this, yet you're suddenly acting like you've forgotten how to test knot security.

It never occurred to you that there are other conditions that show insecurity beside such a poor test as a steady load?

Not that my load was completely steady, as even the initial standing in
the pulley puts a surge into the rope; the SParts draw, the tails yield a
little and shift, and the binding occurs.  Then one can "bounce", to up
the force (overcoming sheave friction) and give some "shock".  What
do you want, a UIAA drop test?

How about slack shaking of various rope types for the ABoK1409?  How about shaking with occasional light loading?

[Dan_Lehman]

I do use rope.  What were YOU using when you noted the jamming of the Ashley Bend long ago?  Old 1452 jams much easier than a bowline (which you've only "read" about jamming).

It should come as no surprise that David's scaled-down nylon-based tests echoes my experience with larger diameter rope.  Scale testing is an accepted and commonplace practice in engineering fields.  Besides, using bends in small cord or rope is not of itself invalid.

Okay, now, since you've decried my "gentle" loading of rope to a "mere 11%"
of breaking load (i.e., near a typical Working-Load Limit), how is it that you
have been loading your "rope" so that your (mis-?)tied #1452 knots have jammed?
(And it should be noted that I've used smaller sizes of cordage
which have been more heavily loaded, %-wise.)

Modeling behavior takes some careful consideration and scaling of factors;
I don't find David's results to be representative of what I have seen firsthand,
so I doubt its value as a model.  (And we haven't seen the actual knots.)

Looking back in rec.crafts.knots, it looks like Dan himself was also hallucinating regarding the Ashley Bend jamming:
You CAN tie it such that it becomes quite secure-when-slack, and can jam
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.knots/msg/646d9aa28d604870?hl=en

Goodness, who needs to look back there?  I've said as much here -- that
the structure offers a version that would suffice in some springy PP rope
which is a fairly common material.  "Jamming" in this case means "being
secure when slack"; loosening and untying are still possible in such cases
of light usage.  But not in most uses, and not in reasonable working loads.
(Knots that jam somewhere towards their breaking point
aren't facing the worst of their issues, then!)

It's like pulling teeth to get you to admit jamming.  You insinuated/stated above that others are just "imagining" it.  I needed the 2X4 of your own words to remind you

[/quote]

You continue to ignore my explicit speaking of distinct versions of a
knot known as "#1452".  I point out that jamming is possible in one
and --furthermore-- that such behavior might well be desired (and be
well shy of any permanence given reasonable, not ridiculous, loading!).

I can easily get the Ashley Bend to jam well short of breaking the rope.
In the countless times the Ashley Bend has jammed for me, I never once broke the rope.
In fact, I don't think I've ever broken a rope in field usage even during accidental overloading.

Sounds like you're tying the knot incorrectly.  But we're interested in
learning about the details of your "field usage" with those countless jams.
I've been putting various cordage to my 5:1-pulley stress test, and don't
see all this jamming you find rampant.
(I still recall your dubious assertions of VersaTackle actual MA, which I had
carefully, simply, repeatedly tested with weights.  Re-reading your moved
site, I see that assertion:  "The Versatackle has a high mechanical advantage
-- despite some demonstration of the opposite.  Time to revisit that thread
(before the fun(ny stuff) with loops folks make this place loopy!); I was
going to leave Knot4U's elation unbalanced, but I have some interesting
new data on this.)

I cite the correct portions of Ashley.

Ha, yeah.  "... the least secure knots known, its only rival being
the Whatnot" !!  Right, and you can tow a truck with it.

While I didn't cite that part on my page, towing a truck is, once again, a very poor test of security.  You know this, yet you're suddenly acting like you've forgotten how to test knot security.

It never occurred to you that there are other conditions that show insecurity beside such a poor test as a steady load?

Not that my load was completely steady, as even the initial standing in
the pulley puts a surge into the rope; the SParts draw, the tails yield a
little and shift, and the binding occurs.  Then one can "bounce", to up
the force (overcoming sheave friction) and give some "shock".  What
do you want, a UIAA drop test?

How about slack shaking of various rope types for the ABoK1409?  How about shaking with occasional light loading?

I'll just say that I've done the shaking, and see nothing remarkably
insecure about #1409 more than various other non-jammed knots;
and the security-under-load test is just what goes to the Ashley
likening to the WhatNot, which pretty quickly/surely rolls and
spills.

--dl*
====