Zeppelin Bend: Security and Strength

[roo]

Apparently you don't read Knotting Matters !

In it, Dr. Giles Camplin, with a PhD. focusing on airships history,
recounts how he came to know about the "zeppelin" knot
--from a reprint of the 1976 Payne brothers' Boatingarticle
reporting what some "Joe Collins" is supposed to have said.
But in this particular (Wingfoot Journal) reprint, there was
a most intriguing footnote, which Giles recounts:

<<Lee Payne of Balboa, Calif., one of the
authors,  wrote to me  [Presumably the
Wingfoot Editor (1980)]  about this article,
?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 'it is slightly possible
that no one ever told me of it.  In any event I am
glad you think so highly of it.'?
>>

--just in the nick o' time, given Rosendahl's life!
Enough said, though?
We must still wonder about the "Joe Collins" account.
Research can check to see if he exists as a bona fide
person in Naval files, as well as to check on the
alleged stations of sailors & training.

How many layers of hearsay do we have here?!   Has anyone verified the contents and authenticity of this letter from Rosendahl that supposedly was sent to Payne which then was supposedly written about to the Wingfoot editor?  I'm betting that neither of these two letters even exist anymore.  This is so bad, it makes me wonder if anyone can track down the Wingfoot article.

Even if this Rosendahl letter is found and verified, who is to say that at the age of 84 he simply didn't recall a bend he may not have thought about for decades, and which may have been presented in a different way?

[youngknot]

All to the point, thanks to xarax, Dan and roo, although I might add the only thing at all young about me is my knot knowledge. (Perhaps "young,NOT" would be more appropriate).
My claim to be keying out the four knots I listed was based on reading other web sites; now that I am surrounded by more knowledge, perhaps I have obtained a modicum of slack.  History has always fascinated me, but years ago I noticed that it often depends on who is telling it, so my life has more nearly pursued the sciences, but never knots except when life or tree limb were in the balance.  I will certainly pass on Mark's bowline analysis to my young grandson, Ambrose, whose penchant for inventing (and later reproducing) knots has his parents mystified and myself chuckling. 
Re negotiating overhand knots, I attach a diagram I prepared before Dan explained your accepted use of "tails". I use D as in Dextrose, because the twist portion of the knot forms a right-hand-thread screw.  I found the labeled openings a great help in following and writing about the reeving process. My regards.

[Dan_Lehman]

How many layers of hearsay do we have here?!   Has anyone verified the contents and authenticity of this letter from Rosendahl that supposedly was sent to Payne which then was supposedly written about to the Wingfoot editor?  I'm betting that neither of these two letters even exist{s} anymore.  This is so bad, it makes me wonder if anyone can track down the Wingfoot article.

Even if this Rosendahl letter is found and verified, who is to say that at the age of 84 he simply didn't recall a bend he may not have thought about for decades, and which may have been presented in a different way?

"Hearsay", you say?!  "so bad..." !!
--in contrast/competition to what, exactly, otherwise?

Are you so secure in your tower upon one article's assertion
from some "Joe Collins"'s hearsay about what Rosendahl did
that you deny Rosendahl himself contrary argument?  Do note
that Lee Payne is co-author of the article and supplier of the
R. assertions, so that is the same hearsay-link for both sides.
(Actually, IIRC, it's Lee's brother Bob who connected with the
supposed Joe, and I'm forgetting it it was even clear whether
the two brothers had actual contact w/"Joe" or if their article
arose on Bob's hearsay of Joe !)

We know at least that Rosendahl existed; do we know this
about Collins?  If we can, by naval records, find no evidence
of this Collins (though among ample records otherwise),
that raises an obvious question.  And if there is no record
otherwise about the supposed required special knot to do
some service (that a student of airship mooring cannot
conceive of!), that too raises questions --wouldn't a military
organization have made mimeographed tying instructions
issued to rope handlers so that they could learn the knot?

And do you also think that Rosendahl and not Collins was
confused about where the alleged training occurred?  --this,
too, would be a serious dent in the latter's credibility if it
could be shown that, by extant records of his existence
in the navy, Collins was never at one of these places (and
so would have no reason for getting it wrong).

The best you can say on the Rosendahl commentary is
Why did HE NOT raise the question about how any such knot [red added 20171108]
could play a roll (as does Giles)?!
--a fair point, that.
Except that one answer that springs to mind is that Cmdr.R.
was so knot-NOT-savvy that he simply had no clue, in such
matters : that hardly speaks to his having originated or
even insisted upon some particular, novel knot.

My weak surmise is that this Joe Collins did exist, and was
perhaps the orginator of the knot, but wanted to make a
*legend* for it (harkening to Tinker,Taylor,Soldier,Spy
concluding book Smiley's People reputed spy jargon
for getting a cover story for someone).


--dl*
====

[xarax]

   I repeat the (one) myth I proposed at reply#27, this time as a question :
Is it possible that Ashley was not aware of the Zeppelin bend, when he presents the same knot structure, as a stopper, at ABoK#582 ?

[roo]

"Hearsay", you say?!  "so bad..." !!
--in contrast/competition to what, exactly, otherwise?

It's layers of hearsay on its own!  Where's the letter from Rosendahl that we can authenticate and verify for content?  We can't even produce the letter that refers to it!  THAT is bad... really bad.

Are you so secure in your tower upon one article's assertion
from some "Joe Collins"'s hearsay about what Rosendahl did
that you deny Rosendahl himself contrary argument?  Do note
that Lee Payne is co-author of the article and supplier of the
R. assertions, so that is the same hearsay-link for both sides.
(Actually, IIRC, it's Lee's brother Bob who connected with the
supposed Joe, and I'm forgetting it it was even clear whether
the two brothers had actual contact w/"Joe" or if their article
arose on Bob's hearsay of Joe !)

At least in the Collins interview, the journalists are contacting someone with first-hand knowledge of the bend's use (assuming Joe's not making it up).  Joe could have been contacted at the time of the article for people who wanted to find out more. 

We know at least that Rosendahl existed; do we know this
about Collins?  If we can, by naval records, find no evidence
of this Collins (though among ample records otherwise),
that raises an obvious question.

That would be a better route to pursue.  It would far more directly prove that Joe Collins was a fraud.

And if there is no record
otherwise about the supposed required special knot to do
some service (that a student of airship mooring cannot
conceive of!), that too raises questions --wouldn't a military
organization have made mimeographed tying instructions
issued to rope handlers so that they could learn the knot?

No, that trail is fruitless.  Every organization has tribal knowledge in some quarters that is not officially promulgated.

And do you also think that Rosendahl and not Collins was
confused about where the alleged training occurred?

This is pointless on two counts:
1)  We cannot verify the contents of the missing Rosendahl letter.
2)  Even if Collins got this wrong, it could have just been a slip of the tongue, with no bearing on other elements of his story. 

The best you can say on the Rosendahl commentary is
Why did HE raise the question about how any such knot
could play a roll (as does Giles)?!
--a fair point, that.
Except that one answer that springs to mind is that Cmdr.R.
was so knot-NOT-savvy that he simply had no clue, in such
matters : that hardly speaks to his having originated or
even insisted upon some particular, novel knot.

We can't really say anything on the Rosendahl commentary because it seems unavailable for review.  For all we know it could have been a letter from a relative of Rosendahl, and not Rosendahl himself.  If it was from Rosendahl himself, he may have been commenting on never hearing of a bend named after him even if the Rosendahl Bend was used (assuming he remembered it at the age of 84).  I could go on with hypotheses, but you get the drift on why these layers of hearsay makes this IGKT article ripe for retraction at the earliest convenience.

My weak surmise is that this Joe Collins did exist, and was
perhaps the orginator of the knot, but wanted to make a
*legend* for it (harkening to Tinker,Taylor,Soldier,Spy
concluding book Smiley's People reputed spy jargon
for getting a cover story for someone).

He was the originator, but didn't want to take credit for it and was willing to make up a whopper of a story?  Perhaps, but reckless scholarship shouldn't brand this guy a liar and a fraud.  The IGKT should retract the article, and work for better, verifiable facts.

[roo]

   I repeat the (one) myth I proposed at reply#27, this time as a question :
Is it possible that Ashley was not aware of the Zeppelin bend, when he presents the same knot structure, as a stopper, at ABoK#582 ?

It's very possible, since it is very easy to overlook the relation between a single-strand lanyard knot and a similar bend structure.  Of course, the glaring omission in the section on bends is usually what makes people assume that the bend was either unknown to Ashley, or at least not well known to him at the time.

[Dan_Lehman]

"Hearsay", you say?!  "so bad..." !!
--in contrast/competition to what, exactly, otherwise?

It's layers of hearsay on its own!  Where's the letter from Rosendahl that we can authenticate and verify for content?  We can't even produce the letter that refers to it!  THAT is bad... really bad.

As contrasted with producing a "Joe Collins"?!  And, frankly,
it is you making supposition about these documents being NA;
and making no such doubt about Collins being so --most biased
thinking.  (I'm pretty sure that the Wingfoot article is available,
and certainly Dr. Camplin who refers to it is, and has been asked
and so on.)  I don't know if Lee Payne might be yet with us.

At least in the Collins interview, the journalists are contacting someone with first-hand knowledge of the bend's use (assuming Joe's not making it up).  Joe could have been contacted at the time of the article for people who wanted to find out more.

Why do you insist that the Paynes are right in having bona fide
"Joe Collins", but dubious on having a Rosenthal letter?  I'll have
to dig back to where discussion led me to think that in fact they
did NOT contact JC, but that only one of them --viz., Bob-- recounted
what he'd heard told by JC.  (Count this as fuzzy recall (Dave Fred,
do you recall ... ?), pending discussion search.)

And if there is no record
otherwise about the supposed required special knot to do
some service (that a student of airship mooring cannot
conceive of!), that too raises questions --wouldn't a military
organization have made mimeographed tying instructions
issued to rope handlers so that they could learn the knot?

No, that trail is fruitless.  Every organization has tribal knowledge in some quarters that is not officially promulgated.

Not fruitless if something IS found!  And not so fruitless
if rather complete procedures are found that contain no
apparent *room* for such a knot's use.

And do you also think that Rosendahl and not Collins was
confused about where the alleged training occurred?

This is pointless on two counts:
1)  We cannot verify the contents of the missing Rosendahl letter.
2)  Even if Collins got this wrong, it could have just been a slip
of the tongue, with no bearing on other elements of his story.

If a real JC had never been to where the training actually
occurred, then he is shown false in his assertions.  He and
Rosenthal need to be together in some way that he could've
gotten from R. what R. (however) denies ever knowing.

The best you can say on the Rosendahl commentary is
Why did HE raise the question about how any such knot
could play a roll (as does Giles)?!
--a fair point, that.
Except that one answer that springs to mind is that Cmdr.R.
was so knot-NOT-savvy that he simply had no clue, in such
matters : that hardly speaks to his having originated or
even insisted upon some particular, novel knot.

We can't really say anything on the Rosendahl commentary because it seems unavailable for review.

It's as much available for review as is Joe Collins.

I could go on with hypotheses, but you get the drift ...

Indeed I do --you're barking at shadows.

My weak surmise is that this Joe Collins did exist, and was
perhaps the orginator of the knot, but wanted to make a
*legend* for it (harkening to Tinker,Taylor,Soldier,Spy
concluding book Smiley's People reputed spy jargon
for getting a cover story for someone).

He was the originator, but didn't want to take credit for it
and was willing to make up a whopper of a story?  Perhaps,
but reckless scholarship shouldn't brand this guy a liar and a fraud.
The IGKT should retract the article, and work for better, verifiable facts.

Ha, "retract the article", yeah, right.  The point of the "legend"
is to buy credentials for the knot --which "hey, look what I did!"
doesn't do (we can witness that regularly, here).  That's just a
surmise, hardly a "branding" at this point --but some scenarios
call for some basis, so there you go.  All that has been recently
done is to bring to awareness Lee Payne's footnote that says
Rosenthal denied knowing of any such knot, in balance to Lee
& Bob Payne's article saying that Joe Collins says that Rosenthal
insisted on some knot.  There's one degree of separation fewer
in the former claim than the latter, if you're counting "layers".


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

Is it possible that Ashley was not aware of the Zeppelin bend, when he presents the same knot structure, as a stopper, at ABoK#582 ?

It's very possible, since it is very easy to overlook the relation between a single-strand lanyard knot and a similar bend structure.

+1.

One's particular *path* to a knot might have been
forged by an interest w/o  ends-joining in mind,
and the encounter made w/o time or interest or
energy to then explore the discovered structure
for all things that it might itself lead to if turned
inside-out and so on.  (Some cases of not realizing
things are more embarrassing than others.    )

(-;

[xarax]

   I repeat the (one) myth I proposed at reply#27, this time as a question :
Is it possible that Ashley was not aware of the Zeppelin bend, when he presents the same knot structure, as a stopper, at ABoK#582 ?

It's very possible, since it is very easy to overlook the relation between a single-strand lanyard knot and a similar bend structure. 

  1. Take any symmetric single strand knob knot. ( It can be a stopper knot, a lanyard knot, or a button knot. )
   2.  With a second rope, retrace the tail of this knot in its path inside the knot s nub, until half way to the standing end, i.e. until the centre of the knot. I call this retracing "semi-retracing". (Any suggestion for a more proper and descriptive name would be welcomed.)
   3.  Remove the first rope from the path that has been retraced by the second rope.
   4. You get a symmetric bend.

[roo]

As contrasted with producing a "Joe Collins"?!  And, frankly,
it is you making supposition about these documents being NA;
and making no such doubt about Collins being so --most biased
thinking.  (I'm pretty sure that the Wingfoot article is available,
and certainly Dr. Camplin who refers to it is, and has been asked
and so on.)  I don't know if Lee Payne might be yet with us.

Joe Collins record in the Navy could at least be queried.  The time to ask for contact information for Joe would have been closer to the time of the article.

If the Rosendahl letter exists, I'm all for trotting it out word for word, to verify content, context, and authorship.  However, when trying to prove something, people usually lead with their best evidence.  What's the best evidence in the IGKT article?  A reference to a Wingfoot footnote instead of the Rosendahl letter that is two steps away from this footnote.

Why do you insist that the Paynes are right in having bona fide
"Joe Collins", but dubious on having a Rosenthal letter?  I'll have
to dig back to where discussion led me to think that in fact they
did NOT contact JC, but that only one of them --viz., Bob-- recounted
what he'd heard told by JC.  (Count this as fuzzy recall (Dave Fred,
do you recall ... ?), pending discussion search.)

If Bob Payne heard Joe Collins, how is that not contact?  I'm not insisting that Joe Collins story is beyond reproach, but this reproach needs to come from verifiable information, not from layers of unverifiable hearsay.

Not fruitless if something IS found!

I was referring to the fruitless endeavor of trying to prove a negative here.  Failing to find a record of the bend in official Naval record would prove nothing.  See what a difference a little context makes?  I think it's a long shot to find old Naval records of the bend, but if you think you can find such a record, go for it.

If a real JC had never been to where the training actually
occurred, then he is shown false in his assertions.  He and
Rosenthal need to be together in some way that he could've
gotten from R. what R. (however) denies ever knowing.

Proving this negative would have to be done with other avenues, such as contacting the US Navy (if they divulge such info).

--you're barking at shadows.

I have no problem barking at shadows when these unverifiable shadows are being used as a basis to defame the reputation of someone.  When you decide to call someone a liar based on unverifiable gossip, expect to get egg on your face.

Ha, "retract the article", yeah, right.  The point of the "legend"
is to buy credentials for the knot --which "hey, look what I did!"
doesn't do (we can witness that regularly, here).  That's just a
surmise, hardly a "branding" at this point --but some scenarios
call for some basis, so there you go.  All that has been recently
done is to bring to awareness Lee Payne's footnote that says
Rosenthal denied knowing of any such knot, in balance to Lee
& Bob Payne's article saying that Joe Collins says that Rosenthal
insisted on some knot.  There's one degree of separation fewer
in the former claim than the latter, if you're counting "layers".

Bringing "awareness" to unverifiable gossip that makes Joe Collins out to be a liar is completely irresponsible.  By the way, this wasn't Payne's footnote, it was a footnote in the Wingfoot Journal - another step away.

The time to verify any of these sources was some time ago if the best that can be had is a dead-end footnote that refers to a missing letter that refers to another missing letter that might have been written by a 84-year-old Rosendahl who may or may not have had a good memory of the events in question.   

If your cavalier attitude is common among the IGKT leadership, it doesn't make me want to rush out to pay them for their magazine.

[Dan_Lehman]

It's very possible, since it is very easy to overlook the relation
between a single-strand lanyard knot and a similar bend structure. 

1. Take any symmetric single strand knob knot. ( It can be a stopper knot, a lanyard knot, or a button knot. )
2.  With a second rope, {}trace the tail of this knot in its path inside the knot s nub,
 until half way to the standing end, i.e. until the centre of the knot. I call this
{}tracing "semi-retracing".
(Any suggestion for a more proper and descriptive name would be welcomed.)
{hmmm, "reverse tracing" ?}
   3.  Remove the first rope from the path that has been {reverse-traced} by the second rope.
   4. You get a symmetric bend.

One needs to go a little farther than exactly halfway
--to have the overlap of to-become tails of the end-2-end knot.

So, an overhand stopper (though not symmetric in terms
of geometry, qua stopper) begets a ... nothing(!), a fig.8 stopper
a thief knot, and a symmetric fig.9 knot (#521) is also
a nothing (!).   .:.  This general scheme cannot be applied
generally with success, as promised; do not Pass GO.   


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

I have no problem barking at shadows when these unverifiable shadows
are being used as a basis to defame the reputation of someone.  When
you decide to call someone a liar based on unverifiable gossip,
expect to get egg on your face.
//
The time to verify any of these sources was some time ago ...
//
If your cavalier attitude is common ...

Verification in knotting is commonly lacking, on all things,
and counting "levels" as you do is a bit beside the point.
Bark at this, too, for whatever joy you take from it,
but it is what casts further doubt on the Boating article.
Again, this is from co-editor Lee Payne's now infamous footnote:

?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."

To me, this says that the article was based on one
co-editor's recall of conversation had well prior.
(This could help explain the error in where training
occurred --Bob's recall, not Joe's.)

--dl*
====

[roo]

For what it's worth, I did find a Joseph J.  Collins (ens.) in a 1918 Naval Directory, and a Joseph T. Collins (ens., instrn):

http://tinyurl.com/7r2jofe

If "instrn" indicates that he was an instructor, that would be consistent with the Payne account.   It may be him, but then again, Collins isn't exactly the rarest name, either.

[xarax]

This general scheme cannot be applied generally with success, as promised; do not Pass GO.   

   It is a "general" scheme, meaning it is a strategy that applies to many, indeed the majority of the cases. Discovering a handful of exceptions, ( as you always try to do... ), especially if those exceptions are confined at the one end of the spectrum of the sample ( the most simple knots), does not mean that it does apply only to a few, "special" cases If it is not "special", it must be "general", is nt it that so ?
   Perhaps I use the term"general" wrongly... but, in general, a tossed coin will not stand on its end.  I could have easily passed the GO, if I had said the exact opposite, i.e. that a symmetric bend makes, with the reverse operation, a stopper. My point here was that the ABoK#582 is a knot with so similar a structure with the Zeppelin bend, that makes me wonder if/how Ashley knew the stopper, but missed the bend.

[erizo1]

I'm very new to knot tying. I'm interested in loops at the moment, and in the zeppelin loop in particular. We have xarax's opinion; I'm wondering what others think about the effect of loading one of the ends of the zeppelin bend in forming the loop. Does that make it a less-secure knot than the bend?

In my super-basic experiments, the zeppelin loop seems the most secure, meaning that it simply doesn't seem to move, whether I shake it or yank on it intermittently or whatever else. One way I've tested the stability of loop knots is by grabbing the loop on either side of the knot and pulling hard away from the knot (essentially a pull that would widen the loop). The zeppelin shifts a little and then stays put. The others I've looked at (bowline with or without a round-turn, Inuit bowline with or without a round turn, perfection loop) all deform much more than the zeppelin loop.

I'm also wondering how the zeppelin bend and loop compare in security to bends and loops typically used in rock climbing. Is there evidence to say definitively that the zeppelin bend and loop are or are not to be trusted with my life?