I love bends

[rusty427]

Xarax,
Oh so harsh! , Ok try this method.

Lets face it there is a degree of difficulty with this bend, though that's the challenge for me, to add another knot to my bag! I read that knot tying is high on the list for brain develoement

Start as though you were going to tie a Surgeons bend, Right over left, over left.







regards rusty

[roo]

...found ABOK #1450. This looks pretty close to my bend!

Many superficially similar knots have radically different properties.  ABOK #1450 has quite few differences from your bend if you look closely.  If Dan has found your bend in the Symmetric Bends book, I would think that you'd be more inclined to informally refer to that bend as yours.

[rusty427]

...found ABOK #1450. This looks pretty close to my bend!

Many superficially similar knots have radically different properties.  ABOK #1450 has quite few differences from your bend if you look closely.  

Och! I stand corrected, Thanks Roo, I will take another look. I was rushed when I checked it out at the library, It sure looked the same.
I was under the impression that it was not found in Symmetric Bend Book!
Please name it if you can identify it from a book.
Rusty

PS; I have had a good look just now, took a photo ABOK #1450 to compare, it seems to be orientated in in the opposite form, otherwise it looks the same, one free end could be exiting from the middle of the bend though I am not sure if that's just poorly drawn. am I missing something?

[xarax]

   Rusty, your method is fine, I have just suggested that you could probably discover another, simpler one, where the initial form resembles more the final (compact) form.
  

knot tying is high on the list for brain development

   Well, I am sure that it is high on the list of brain deterioration, too...
(We try to hide that list, and the fact that excessive knot tying will make your brain circuits jam ! )

P.S. 2011-12-2 I have tied the Rusty s bend-ABoK1450 for some time now, starting from the loose knot shown in the attached picture. It is the interlocking of two Pretzel-like knots . I believe it is a more "natural" road to follow, if we want to arrive directly and quickly to the compact form of this bend.

[roo]

Och! I stand corrected, Thanks Roo, I will take another look. I was rushed when I checked it out at the library, It sure looked the same.
I was under the impression that it was not found in Symmetric Bend Book!
Please name it if you can identify it from a book.
Rusty

You'll have to ask Dan for more specifics about what he has found:

More update:  the Symmetric Hawser Bend   presented by Jack Riemann
as his "#1" version matches your discovery, and his "#2" is the other
version, in which the tails are tucked immediately after making
the u-turn.  This 2nd version is presented in R.E.Miles's book as
"A18".  Owen Nuttall also discovered it, in 1985.

[Dan_Lehman]

Start as though you were going to tie a Surgeons bend, Right over left, over left. ...

Yes, this is how I've tied it; and then one can wonder what
happens if the number of twists are increased, and so on.

Nice photos.

 

[Dan_Lehman]

In the spirit of sharing, voici my ooollllld note-pages about two knots
discussed in this thread, along with a "Sidewinder" elaboration of
fantasy.


 

[xarax]

  Unearthed at last, beautiful symmetric bends. Although their initial loose forms are quite similar, their final tightened forms differ substantially. I think that the central crossings of the B variation "lock" the standing parts more, so that there is much less work to be done by the collars - a not so desirable characteristic.  I like the A variation more, because the standing parts go up and down and lock with the other elements of the bend without using the central rope embrace/twist as much as the B variation does. Who is going to test all those knots, I wonder...  

P.S. The "Diamond bend", as mentioned by Dan Lehman in Reply#40, is identical to the "Symmetric Howser bend" ( M. A18 ), which was published by Rienman
   J. Reinmann. Symmetric hawser bend. Knotting Matters 43 ( 1993), p.22-23

[xarax]

   The original "Sidewinder" bend looks too convoluted/complex to my eyes...On the contrary, the un-tucked knot is much simpler, and has a familiar look. What is more importand is that, even in this much simplified form, this small knot retains the central 4 strand crossing  of the original "Sidewinder" bend  ( shown at (1)) ,alongside the great braking power this crossing offers on the Standing parts.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2694.msg17058#msg17058

[rusty427]

In the spirit of sharing, voici my ooollllld note-pages about two knots
discussed in this thread, along with a "Sidewinder" elaboration of
fantasy.


 

Thanks for sharing Dan, your notes a precious!
Both these bends are usable in the real world, It would be nice to see them used again as reasonable alternatives to other mainstream bends currently available.
I personally use my/our version (Rusty Bend ) on a regular basis for every day use, and will use the "Diamond Bend A" in the mix.
Thanks Xarax for your photos, it made for tying the "Diamond Bend A" easy.

Rgds rusty

[Dan_Lehman]

Xarax, it would be great if you could procure a better background
for your photos than that grainy wood --a gray card, a subtle blue?
The particular rope colors are quite effective.  (But I think you have
some greater variety to choose from of that; but often climbing
ropes are so *decorated* that they act like camouflage, so the
solid color & minimally marked ones work best.)

Your knots are thrice a Dbl. Harness-&-a-Half (maybe a "Triple"),
and then the "side view 2" is a different one, the dbl.harness bend
--so, yes, they all look familiar.  (And amazingly familiar to that
"Benson Bend" in The Rigger's Apprentice .   

The point of the sidewinder was to impart gradual deflections
into the S.Parts before they inevitably made their 1-diameter
U-turns, presumably taking off some load and yielding strength.
Unfortunately, even were this a valid plan (it might not be so
valid in slick or especially slick (HMPE) materials), it requires
one to anticipate the deformation that will be achieved for
each particular material --not a one-size-fits-all structure.

And, the irony came when I had this and some other knots
tested (SmitHunter's & my revision of it, #1445/BoobAsher, another
end-2-end joint, and some eye-knots), and this knot was the
strongest --but with pretty straightened S.Parts, severely
nipping each other with a tight 1-diameter turn.  No doubt
there was some force taken up in the middle, but the break
came at the entry nip, on the side of compression,
as with others --and of two strands (3-strand laid 1/4" nylon),
like some other strong knots (though the eye splice broke
just a single strand)).

As for "usable in the real world"?   Hmmmm, not so much, esp.
my once-prized sidewinder  (don't recall really taking to that
moniker, btw --might've been more a notebook entry than much
in my mind otherwise).

But my/our #75/#50' & #50, both found by Riemann as well,
and named "Symmetric Hawser Bends" by him, are rather
convenient, concise.  And the one in this OP seems to draw up
pretty well on its own.  It's surprising that Ashley, who was so
close, didn't seek symmetry and discover DL#75 himself.


--dl*
====

[xarax]

a better background for... photos

   Oh, I had made that BIG mistake the first time, and now I got accustomed to it ! I thought that a background with some detailed decoration would be more suitable to the very abstract, linear and two coloured theme, ( as the knots that are tied on two ropes of two different colours). And also that this particular background would offer an "arts and crafts" flavour, appropriate to knotting,  and would balance the hard geometrical characteristics of the main theme.
   The BIG mistake was that this background is reflecting the light of the camera s flash, and this forces me take the pictures from some angle. So, there creeps some perspective distortion, which is undesirable.
 

...often climbing ropes are so *decorated* that they act like camouflage, so the solid color & minimally marked ones work best.

   Very true ! I give the humble advice to all amateur knot tyers/photographers to use monochromatic ropes, or, if they can not find them, be very careful with the patterns of the designs on the surface of the ropes they use. Some of them can make the pictures much more confusing. And those designs should better be of the same neutral colour ( grey, black) for both ropes, ( because, most of the times, colour triads are in some kind of "dissonance").

   Many times, the patterns that we see in plants and animals serve a defensive function (and not attractive, as we might think). Predators are warned, confused, deceived or even blinded by them, and leave the victim live another day. Patterns on ropes can only make knots look more complex they already are, warn us we stay away from the incomprehensible tangle, confuse us about their structure, deceive us that the knot we watch is are identical with a different knot, and so allow our ignorance to live another day, or century...  

[xarax]

   Your knots are ... a Dbl. Harness-&-a-Half (maybe a "Triple"),--so, yes, they all look familiar.  (And amazingly familiar to that "Benson Bend" in The Rigger's Apprentice . 

   "Double Harness & a Half", or "Triple Harness" ? I will think about it...
 
   Ooops ! The fourth picture was the "Short" Double Harness with parallel ends, that had jumbed in here from another thread ! (1). I have deleted it now.

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2851.0

[xarax]

... impart gradual deflections into the S.Parts before they inevitably made their 1-diameter U-turns, presumably taking off some load and yielding strength.
Unfortunately, even were this a valid plan...

 
   On the contrary, I have found this plan to be too valid with the material I use. And that is the problem ! If the central crossings takes off most of the load, they do not yield strength ! The loads must be somehow "proportionally" distributed into the knot s nub, "proportionally" in relation with the angle of the Standing part s deflection/turn. The collars must not bear all or most of the load, but they must bear some load ! If the Standing part(s) block in the central core of the knot, before they arrive at the collars, the knot is not working properly. That is what it happened to the "Sidewinder" knots I tied with my ropes.
   The collar is a basic element of many practical knots. The knot tests persuaded many people that the collars should be loaded as little as possible, because the use of a U-turn on a knot has a deteriorating effect on the strength of the rope. It leaves the inner, inside track fibers inside the rope, that run the shorter distance, unloaded, while the outer "outsiders" bear all the tension. This is correct, provided we do not go as far as to take almost all the load out of them, leaving the rest of the structure overloaded. That is exactly what happened with the "Sidewinder" during my (few and superficial) tests.

[Dan_Lehman]

... impart gradual deflections into the S.Parts before they inevitably made their 1-diameter U-turns, presumably taking off some load and yielding strength.
Unfortunately, even were this a valid plan...

 
   On the contrary, I have found this plan to be too valid with the material I use. And that is the problem ! If the central crossings takes off most of the load, they do not yield strength ! The loads must be somehow "proportionally" distributed into the knot s nub, "proportionally" in relation with the angle of the Standing part s deflection/turn. The collars must not bear all or most of the load, but they must bear some load ! If the Standing part(s) block in the central core of the knot, before they arrive at the collars, the knot is not working properly. That is what it happened to the "Sidewinder" knots I tied with my ropes.
   The collar is a basic element of many practical knots. The knot tests persuaded many people that the collars should be loaded as little as possible, because the use of a U-turn on a knot has a deteriorating effect on the strength of the rope. It leaves the inner, inside track fibers inside the rope, that run the shorter distance, unloaded, while the outer "outsiders" bear all the tension. This is correct, provided we do not go as far as to take almost all the load out of them, leaving the rest of the structure overloaded. That is exactly what happened with the "Sidewinder" during my (few and superficial) tests.

Huh?  How do you know anything about strength --especially
in rope, which takes considerable force to break, with
some special equipement (maybe a truck & stout tree)?!
What are these "tests" to which you refer.

It leaves the inner, inside track fibers inside the rope, that run the shorter distance, unloaded, while the outer "outsiders" bear all the tension.

Really?  It is these inner fibres that break, not the supposedly
overloaded outer ones, at least in normal materials.

--dl*
====