3-Strand to Chain Splice Questions

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Hail and Howdy, fellow Kinkers of Cordage!

I've been playing around with ABOK# 2858 ("The Link or Chain Splice") for various reasons, and need expert help.  (Brion Toss' book refers to this as the "Traditional Irony Chain Splice", on p89)

The "Long Splice" aspect is no problem -- I've made grommets & short ropes aplenty & some few Long Splices, etc. so the laying-in/laying-out is no big deal.

The biggest problem I'm having is in dealing with the 3rd end.

Here, Toss echoes my instinct & recommends "just tucking", as in a Short Splice.  Simple, lumpy, but effective.  But wait, there's more!

Ashley, OTOH, recommends backing this end, and even draws the looping line to confirm that.  :-/  As if to mock me, he refers to an earlier splice (ABOK# 2747) for details on this particular aspect, although careful consideration of that splice shows it to be virtually identical to this, except with an "eye-sized eye" instead of a "chain-wire-sized eye".  IOW, if you make # 2747 with an eye the size of a cross-section of a chain link, you'd have the same splice.  To my eye, anyway.

Anyway...

When I try my hand at "backing", the result I get is hideous, lumpy, and not to be countenanced.  I have no idea how to make it secure enough to not require stitching or Service or Whipping, which means I must be doing it wrong.  At least in re: a single "backed" strand like in these splices.  When I tried "backing" all three strands, as in ABOK# 2816, the result was quite pretty.  Just "backing" the one strand, though, isn't.

I have been through all three chapters on splices, looking for a decent illustration of the "backing" process.  There are several references, some of which are quite good (e.g. ABOK# 2754), but nothing I can find reveals the true nature of the technique clearly enough to give me the Understanding I need to assess whether Toss' tucks are sufficient or do I need to learn this "backing" process.

Obviously, I know to taper either one.  That's not at issue here.

Is there anyone in here who can shed some light (of experience) on this puzzle?  It's an important splice, just as Brion Toss says, so I hope this will start a thread others may find useful -- until it gets dropped, anyway.

PS: I'm also using this to "rope-strap" some nifty blocks, to use as fairleads in the trees and in the shop, so it's not just for chain!  As Brion Toss describes for chain, the modern blocks are also quite sturdy, so an appropriately-sized bit of 3-strand Dacron is too big for a Shackle Splice.  Also, if you're making a lanyard, this splice is nice for attaching the tackle at the end.

TIA for your comment(s)!


Bound and Determined,


Jimbo

[KnotNow!]

Hi Jimbo,
 A tail on a block is a most useful device.  Since you will always be able to see your splice (unlike an anchor chain that may be underwater and out of mind) if you see a failure coming you can fix it.  But to address the "backing" issue;  I think you may be making your backing tucks at too sharp an angle... I looked at your ABOK refferences and thought how that could be the result of following the angles in the illustrations exactly.  To get a nice smooth splice consider this; as you back the strand you are wraping it with the same lay as the strand you are backing along.  So the pitch of the two strands should be the same and you should end up with what looks like a single large strand with twice as many yarns as the original strand.  All the threads and yarns of the original strand and the backing strand will have the same pitch... a turn in one will equal a turn in the other.  Shortly you will reduce this double bulk by trimming out some yarns, then some more until finally the backing strand is nothing and the original strand is all that remains.  However if you back it at too sharp and angle it will not lay fair with the original strand but will make a lumpy helix along the strand you are following down.  Visualize this result.. take a rope.  Grab a strand of the same material and attempt to double up one strand of the rope, keeping all the lay the same and just making one strand of double bulk.  It would look as if the ropmaker put one strand on steroids for a few feet.
You can see the temptation of just tucking over under as in any other splice?  Sailmakers eye splices (backed splices instead of  over/under) may have relied in some measure on the stitching to support the splice but I think the chain splice would have gone unsupported.  I've made quite a few over the years.  I hope this helps.  If not, IM or Email me and I'll make a jpeg or two to save the 1000 words.

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

as you back the strand you are wraping it with the same lay as the strand you are backing along.

I never knew this had a name.

I've never really had any problem with "tucking", it's "STOP tucking" that gets me.  That fuzzy look really bugs me.  I used to end splices this way, before I had a clue.

But in this one, re: the 3rd strand: is the "backing strand" the same strand as the "backed strand"?  It seems to me it should be, to balance strain; but I can't see how to stick it.

Does this 3rd strand go over its SPart & then tuck (the OH) & then back itself, or does it tuck & then back the next strand?

If I pass the link first, and then start backing the 3rd strand (whereupon the first pass makes the OH), it looks quite fair.  If I stick the end through the knot first (as the diagrams seem to indicate), I can't see how to get to

All the threads and yarns of the original strand and the backing strand will have the same pitch...

... unless I do the wrapping on the next strand "down"...

Thank you for helping clear this up.


Jimbo

[KnotNow!]

Let me try again.  Give them numbers.  Strand #1 never touches the chain and is laid out away from the link.  Strand #2 passes through the link and  is carefully laid into the vacant space from strand #1.  These are later worked as in a long splice or transmission splice (oops sorry, two different methods of treating opposing strands).  Anyway, by this point in the process they are way far away from the chain link.  This leaves the third strand, which was passed through the link along with #2.  You tuck it under it's self.  This forms a half hitch but do not draw it up into a half hitch but let the hitch relax and bring your strand to wrap around it's self.  So, yes, the working end is wrapping around the standing part after passing through the link. If you make one pass at full and then trim out half the strand (the "under" half) and make two passes or one pass before trimming out a second half... the "under" half, again, you will taper down and the finished spice will look as if it grew into the rode.  I might not make this in slippery nylon.  I might double every tuck.. but so big deal?  The splice takes two foot unstead of 10".  Frankly what you do with the third strand is almost a moot point.  If you made the laying out and laying in perfect then if you tuck the "third" end over and under or "back it down"... The splice will be fine.  

[merickson]

What is a transmission splice?

[nautile]

What is a transmission splice?

Look at ABOK#2704 : A transmission rope splice.
If you do not have Ashley book of knots just say and I will put a link to a pic I will do.
Cheers

Modification : added http://tinyurl.com/dkatd

[KnotNow!]

Hi, The transmission splice bulks smaller than the long splice.  This is  because you lay out half of each strand and for a later tucking but work half each strand forward and back, away from the half knotted half strands, laying out and laying in so that his half strand buts up to the half strand coming from the next half strand pair... sorry this is so difficult to describe and so easy to do...  :-/so that in 3 strand rope you have 9 separated activity locations (ABOK addresses 4 strand rope, so has 4 sets of half strands and would have 8 pairs being layed out and layed in.)  At three of the locations you will have half strands knotted and then tucked.  At the other three you will have two half strands butting heads, as it were.  After the rope as been at work for a very short time the splice is almost invisable.

It is motive force that is being transmitted, by the way.  Elevators, tramways, skilifts and other applications where a very long endless grommet is powered buy a capistan at one location and passes a shiv at the opposite location.

I offered it up in this thread because Jimbo seemed to be looking for a very fine finish to his tail block chain link splice.

[merickson]

I thought I knew that section of ABOK.

It looks like in a Long Splice, when strands meet, they are knotted.
In a Transmission Splice, when strands meet, they are spliced together. A 2-yarned long splice type of thing.

[KnotNow!]

Not exactly and I'll get back to you when I think how to describe it.  So simple to do.. so hard to 'splain.   This is a "long splice" but it bulks smaller and several junctions are "butt to butt" and not tucked.  And, as much as I love and cheris  the  ABOK.. If I had not already know that the splice was made as it is... I may not have been able to learn it from ABOK.
 Not that is hard to do.. or that CWA is wanting.. may'haps be my own wit?  Hold forth!
 This is a long splice with a smaller bulk.  Not worth doing for most applications.  Very nice for "show off splicing" or ...  should the occassion come up the occasional freight elevator rope???.

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

This is a really sweet splice, and far more useful than I could imagine.

In an effort to keep this thread alive as well as to steer it back on course...

Strand #1 never touches the chain and is laid out away from the link.  Strand #2 passes through the link and  is carefully laid into the vacant space from strand #1.  ...  This leaves the third strand, which was passed through the link along with #2.  You tuck it under it's self.  This forms a half hitch but do not draw it up into a half hitch but let the hitch relax and bring your strand to wrap around it's self.  So, yes, the working end is wrapping around the standing part after passing through the link.

Frankly what you do with the third strand is almost a moot point.  If you made the laying out and laying in perfect then if you tuck the "third" end over and under or "back it down"... The splice will be fine.

After undoing mine completely, I think there's some information that needs to be added to the basic description.  (More errata, perhaps?)

Ironically, I have been using the exact nomenclature PABPRES suggested.

Strand #1 just exits.  Lay it out as you lay in #2.  Twist #2 up as you go, so it can't be noticed in the rope.  Then tie it off & tuck it as a Long Splice.  Nothing to it.

Strands #2 & #3 are where my problem comes in.  The instructions I referenced don't specify which is which.  It almost seems as if they can be interchangeable.  Not.  (And it's not exactly "moot", as that strand takes half of the load!)

It turns out, if I put my "Strand #3" under itself, it comes out "backwards" for "backing" properly.  OTOH, if I use "my Strand #3" for laying in and "my Strand #2" for backing, it falls together perfectly.

I know that doesn't make sense, but if you'll put in this splice, you'll easily see it.  In plain-laid rope (ABOK# 106), if you stick the two ends away from you (i.e. push) through the link, the RH strand needs to be #3.

That's what I think, anyway.

Right-laid rope = RH strand, Left-laid rope = LH strand??  I never suggested I was right!  I'm begging for corrections here.

When I first put this in, I just happened to use the LH strand for #3, but the only way I could back that one fairly was to NOT go under first.  If I started my #3 over itself, it backed so sweetly it made my eyes water!  If I followed the instructions (IMO), the "backing" looked like cord cancer & just made me sick to look upon it.  If you're having that problem, try swapping the functions of #2 and #3.  Put it all back to the point where you stick two strands & just start over correctly.

When I examined ABOK# 2626 through ABOK# 2632 (detailed instructions on Opening, Tucking, & Backing (ABOK# 2632)) vis-a-vis my messed-up splice, this arrangement suddenly (finally!!) seemed clear.  Now my Strand #3 (formerly my Strand #2) is backed in as fair as can be, and I'm ready to undo it all to redo it with Tapering this time, "for score".

Or have I just screwed it up again??

Splices R Fun!  

(PS: If you're nice, I'll show you how to use a Brummel Splice instead of this one, for when you have to bend a hollow-braid rope (like a Spectra/Dyneema core braid) to a chain.  The Brummel is a sweet eye for hollow braid, and the only trick is making a 1 or 3 pic eye & using the chain (or tackle) to reeve the eye through the holes.  It's almost enough to make me swear off 3-strand forever...  Almost.)

[merickson]

Slightly off topic - I made a grommet with the Transmission Splice by following Ashley's instructions. I am very happy with the result.

Back on topic -

I'm ready to undo it all to redo it with Tapering this time, "for score".
Or have I just screwed it up again??

Jimbo, I don't think that undoing a splice just to taper it would be wise. I would just take the strands as you have them, taper what has not yet been tucked and finish the splice. Or were you thinking about using fresh rope?

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Slightly off topic - I made a grommet with the Transmission Splice by following Ashley's instructions. I am very happy with the result.

Ummm...  Actually, I don't see how that's "off topic" at all.

That grummit is actually an excellent way to practice the "laying-in/laying-out" dance in which strands #1 & #2 engage each other.  So, to me, making a grommet would be a "subtopic" at the very least.  The skill is absolutely vital to the sucess of the 3-strand to Chain splice (and many others as well), so thank you for bringing it up!

I don't think that undoing a splice just to taper it would be wise.

I agree.  Completely.  Normally.

But I'm still learning, so I've done & undone this splice a bunch of times already, in a couple of different "pet ropes", to get my head wrapped around the fundamental processes.  The tapering is just to make it look like somebody who knew what they were doing made the splice.  (No, PABPRES has nothing to fear!!)  But that only comes after I can put in the basic splice.

I guess the spark that touched this post off is the idea of "backing".  What fueled that spark was the fact that when I taught myself this splice*, I couldn't get the "backing" to work right.  I thought I knew what "backing" was (and had actually put in some nice-looking backing on my own), but this one just wouldn't lie fair unless I started the 3rd strand "wrong" per the directions.

What do you think about the notion that not either strand can be #2 or #3?

Or were you thinking about using fresh rope?

Always, when it's "for score" ("for real", "for keeps", "for pay", whatever).  I use "pet ropes" (leftover ends & scraps) for practice, but when I redo my anchors, I'll be doing this in a new, full-length piece of strength-matched Dacron.  For my friends & family, I'll recommend fresh new rope, but I plan to be prepared in case they want to reuse what they have.  Meanwhile, this "pet" is looking at a life of abuse, torture & ultimate sacrifice, the better to make sure my anchors come home with me at the end of the day.

Thanks for helping open this thread up some!  Please do experiment with strands #2 & #3 and the proper sticking and "backing" of strand #3.  I'm likely wrong again in assuming #2 & #3 have specific places, but I need your help in seeing it.

Jimbo
________
*There were two fools in the forecastle that day: the student and the teacher.

[merickson]

What do you think about the notion that not either strand can be #2 or #3?

Well, when I tried this splice, I chose which strand would be unwound (not go around the link). I then chose the strand that would be laid out. Finaly, I decided how to tuck the last strand.

I didn't try to replicate Ashley's instructions. I just took the idea of a zero (or very small) radius Reeving Eye and stuck the splice so it looked good to my eye. It sounds like you did the same, but you kept track of which strand went where.

With backhanded splices, I've come to the conclusion that looks are everything. If the result looks and feels like a rope then the strands are tucked properly. I don't take this to silly extreemes, but...For over/under splices, I'm always tightenting and twisting and pulling the splice tight. With backhanded splices, I get better results by thinking about the look and feel. Its more like mushing clay together than tieing a knot.

You can see why I let someone else help with your "how to back a strand" question.

[KnotNow!]

I very much like the idea of "Mushing Clay".  An apt description.  Thank you.  Sometimes when we "mush clay" there is a sort the possibiliy of "go with the run of the wheel or against the run of the wheel" (thank goodness we are not on a pottery site).  So even with a comparitive "letting the line find it's own lay" we will need to guide it or it becomes... nothing.  As you mush the clay try to make as single strand that came from two.  I really am enjoying the "clay" anology.  Thanks.    

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

In a PM, nautile wrote:

Hi Jimbo

Not sure it is of interest and do not want to clutter the forum more than I already do :

http://www.neropes.com/splice/default.htm
for 3 - Strand Rope to Chain Splice Instructions

Cheers.
Charles

Hi, Nautile!

Thank you for pitching in here!!  You are 100% on topic, and your contributions could hardly be called "clutter"!!

I can only hope and pray this poor little thread gets some interesting discussion started!  Splicing rope to other things (such as chain) seems, to me, to be a very interesting and useful topic.

I am a Big Fan of New England Ropes' site, as you can tell from my link to their Brummel Splice instructions.  (Think about that & go back to look at your quayside pictures & the huge blue-green ropes in use there...)

As to the splice you brought up, that is a good splice in general, and I have used it a lot.  Sorta.

If you cross the Strands through the link a little differently, it's called the "Shackle Splice".  It's basic form is a Crown Knot to start a Back Splice -- you just make the Crown through a chain link, ring, or shackle eye, then tuck (or back) for Security more than Appearance.  And if you change the "tucking" to "backing" (and adapt accordingly), it's quite pretty too!

This one just leaves out the Crown Knot, starting like a "traditional" "Dog Point" or back splice.  To me it looks like ABOK# 2815 with a Short Splice (ABOK# 2641) taper.  And it works great!

The only "problem" is, it passes all three strands through the link.  With high-strength chain, the 3-strand rope that matches it strength for strength is so fat, it's sometimes hard to get all three strands in the link.  Things can get a little crowded in there sometimes!  You get two more "features" of a knot that I personally don't want: chafing (abraision/wear failure) and pinching (compression failure).  ABOK# 2858 only passes two strands, which both bear directly on the chain.  Plus, when it's "right", it looks like the chain "just grew out of the rope".

As you might guess, I'd rather use modern, braided rope for this, but that's a whole other dimension, and beyond the reach of many knotters.  This one, I could teach the Boy Scouts or the local blow-boaters & leave them with a few new skills in one nice splice...

But you are absolutely correct, the splice you brought is a dandy for anyone who doesn't want to get bound up in ABOK# 2858!  Just remember to inspect it frequently, as the instructions specify.

Thanks!


Jimbo