Zeppelin Loop on a Bight

[barasingha]

New to the group, Hi.

I have been searching for instructions for a Zeppelin loop on a bight and have been unsuccessful thus far in finding one I liked.  The ones I found were bulky or had loops all over the place.  So I quit looking and figured out a way myself and here it is.

Perhaps this is not a Zeppelin loop on a Bight, maybe it is another knot; if so, let me know.  Surely someone else has tied it before, but I haven't seen it.  If anyone has seen this before, or it is not as advertised, please feel free to correct me.

Looks a little complicated but is actually fast and easy.













Enjoy,
Taggert

PS. There is alternate way that starts from a slip knot but this was easier to document and I think simpler to do.  You can also modify this to have two adjustable size, but locking loops,one from each side.

[Dan_Lehman]

I have been searching for ... a Zeppelin loop on a bight
and have been unsuccessful thus far in finding one I liked.
The ones I found were bulky or had loops all over the place.

Can you share URLinks to these unaccepted ones (if possible)?

There is a general way of associating an eye knot with an
end-2-end knot : fold one of the lines so joined back around
(i.e., making a bight in what was one of the two SParts
--so, yes, this assumes two lines, not one joining itself)
and trace its path through the knot --which makes the end-2-end
joint now a tying of a single strand to twin strands--; there will
be now a 3rd tail.
Conceptually, fuse the 1st line's tail with one of the 2nd line's,
and you have an eye knot.  In the case of the zeppelin bend,
this corresponding eye knot is TIB (Tiable In the Bight).  And it
is "bulky" in having twin strands for half of itself vs. the one,
but otherwise preserves the "Z." mechanics.

There are some ways of tying 2-eye, mid-line eye knots that
also have Z. mechanics, a bit more purely than does yours;
but I'm not sure of what use such eyes-on-opposite-sides
knots would serve!

I can't say that I've ever fiddled the variation you present here,
but I like your approach and thinking it shows.  Not sure I'm keen
about the result, over such knots as the butterfly and some
others like that.  (This (OP) knot takes some work to get into form
in the 6mm nylon kernmantle "accessory" cord I'm playing with
right now.)


--dl*
====

[X1]

   I do not see anything in this loop that has even a remote relation to the Zeppelin bend, I am afraid ...
   (Perhaps there is a confusion of the Zeppelin knot with the particular p and q ( 6 and 9 ) method of tying it... Here, too, we have two parallel nipping loops and something ( a bight ) that penetrates both of them, but the similarity, if any, stops there.  Neither the rope-made hinge mechanism that characterizes the Zeppelin bend, nor its high, two sides symmetry... We have many single and double loops that are much more symmetric, and can be tied in the bight, like this one. On the contrary, one can argue that the loops shown at (1) do bear some resemblance with the Zeppelin bend.
   I suppose that the loop of this thread is similar / identical to one of the loops shown at (2) and (3), suggested for the Trucker s hitch.

1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=c9eb1b707d52970fc9cab8ddb4bd0809&topic=1870.msg21210#msg21210
3.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg21216#msg21216

[barasingha]

Can you share URLinks to these unaccepted ones (if possible)?

Can't find it now.  It was from a google images search and was as you described.  2 main loops with another loop sticking out of the 'fourth' side of a typical zeppelin loop.  Everything was doubled up so the bulk was increased.  And the standing line pulled from opposite directions out of one side of the knot, when used as loop along a taught line such as in a truckers hitch,.

Twin eyes on opposite sides of a knot make fantastic hand holds for pulling a rope.  Like tug-o-war, or rope ladders, etc.

On the knot I demonstrate above; if both bights are passed through the round turns in opposite directions as is the case in a typical zeppelin bend instead of one through the turns and then through the other bight, the knot ends up with two loops, one from each side.  These loops can be adjusted while loose but seem fixed when taught.  At which point the knot looks identical to a zeppelin except for the fact that one side has a round turn in between the two loops.

I do not see anything in this loop that has even a remote relation to the Zeppelin bend, I am afraid ...

Fair enough.  It shall be the "False Zeppelin on a Bight."  I think the 'rope hinge' is present but I acknowledge obvious differences between front and back, a problem for which I know no solution.

I have yet to jam it using 550 paracord, a material which jams easier than most (for me).  And I enjoy the perperdicular nature of the loop and ease of tying it.  The paracord metioned above is the only medium I have tested this on, but I have experienced no problems forming the loop, as pictured above, by simply pulling the ends and loop tight.  For me it will become just another alternative to the butterfly when one or two loops are needed on a bight.

taggert

[barasingha]

Here is the 2 loop version of the OP knot tied on the bight:


Here is how I tie a Zeppelin Loop with a tuck:



taggert

[barasingha]

  I suppose that the loop of this thread is similar / identical to one of the loops shown at (2) and (3), suggested for the Trucker s hitch.

1.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908
2.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?PHPSESSID=c9eb1b707d52970fc9cab8ddb4bd0809&topic=1870.msg21210#msg21210
3.  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg21216#msg21216

Thanks for the links.  I had time to analyse them today and concluded the following:  Identical,  Negative; Similar, Perhaps as (dis)similar as my knot and the zeppelin.

[X1]

I ...concluded the following:  Identical,  Negative; Similar, Perhaps as (dis)similar as my knot and the zeppelin.

   Thank you Taggert,
   I believe that the tying procedure is similar, indeed. There are also many single and double loops similar - in this sense - to those, in ABoK.
   I still do not see any relation to the Zeppelin bend, although I have tied and examined your knots a number of times. I am glad you tie the knots I am referring to, so, please, have a look at those double loops : (1), (2) . I hope they will inspire you to tie something new.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3571.msg20407#msg20407
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3571.msg20408#msg20408
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3783.msg22116#msg22116

[Dan_Lehman]

At last --after some peculiarly unhelpful Search results(!?)--
I found where I've posted an image of some zeppelin eye knots,
including one that most directly matches z. mechanics and it
"TIB".  --to wit:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12798#msg12798


--dl*
====

[X1]

one that most directly matches z. mechanics and it is "TIB".

   It does not - neither directly nor indirectly, simply because no loop knot ( 3 limbs knot ) can match the Zeppelin bend s mechanics - the rope-made hinge, where the pivot is made by the two tails. The particular knot looks more as a double line overhand knot, that works more like a water bend and/or an overhand bend, not as the Zeppelin bend. However, it is a very nice TIB loop, indeed. ( AND the drawings are nice... no comparison with some relevant exercises on knottoloquence.)

[barasingha]

no loop knot ( 3 limbs knot ) can match the Zeppelin bend s mechanics - the rope-made hinge, where the pivot is made by the two tails.

I disagree.  The zeppelin loop photo (not the OP knot) I posted above is indeed a true zeppelin knot.  Instead of the loop evolving from both the side and bottom of the knot; I tie the knot such that the loop emerges from opposite sides of the knot--the hinge pins, if you will.  Because this arrangement leaves a tag on the bottom of the knot, I choose to tuck the tag alongside the standing part.  The hinge you refer to allows the knot to fold up along the axis of the loop ends causing the symmetry and zeppelin visual identity to vanish while exposing another side of this unique knot.

This is the knot prior to tucking the end:


I will follow the links you supplied when I next have time, thank you.  Out of curiosity, what do you require to confirm a zeppelin hinge and do you believe my OP knot has this hinge?  I believe the hinge is there and functional, however there is an additional exterior wrap present to stabilize the knot and allow tying on the bight.

I found where I've posted an image of some zeppelin eye knots,
including one that most directly matches z. mechanics and it
"TIB".  --to wit:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12798#msg12798

During my searches I found that thread and read it thoroughly.  I too enjoyed your sketches.

taggert

[barasingha]

2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3783.msg22116#msg22116

This link has a very similar knot.  The first two pictures are of, what I would call, the hunter's loop on a bight equivelent to my zeppelin loop on a bight--when tied with two loops.  Both have the communicating round turn through the hinge on one side of the knot; which is the only distiguishing difference between the bend and the on a bight varieties (other than the obvious fact that loops emerge from the knot instead of ends.)

Good find,
taggert

[X1]

The zeppelin loop photo (not the OP knot) I posted above is indeed a true zeppelin knot. 

   Noope !  It is a reversed Zeppelin knot, where the standing end has taken the place of the tail, and vice versa. Moreover, both ex-tails are loaded ( they are not tails any more, they are the two loaded legs of the eye ).
   At the Zeppein bend, the pivot is made by the pair of the tails. The two main bights of the two links of the bend are not hooked /interlocked to each other directly. They remain in place just because they revolve around the common pivot of the hinge, made by the tails. If one of the tails will be loaded - so it is not a tail any more - the mechanism will work differently, like the mechanism of an ordinary interlinked overhand knots bend ( the Hunter s bend, for example). The so-called "Zeppelin loop" , where the one - only, not both, as at your knot - tail of the ex-Zeppelin bend core is loaded, is also such a pseudo-Zeppelin knot : secure, easy to untie, with a core identical to the Zeppelin bend - but not depending upon the marvelous hinge mechanism around the pair of the tails of the unique, true Zeppelin knot, the Zeppelin bend. When we see a knot we should not judge only by its appearence, its shape - we should follow the flow of forces alongside the segments of the rope within the knot s nub. A knot is a rope-made mechanism where the tension, the compression and the friction play a complex role. The fact that we can not see them, does not mean that they do not exist ! 

" those two things, the Zeppelin bend and the "Zeppelin loop" , are really different things, because the strands in the knots are loaded differently in each of the two cases. When we think of a practical knot, not an ornament, when this knot is functioning, it is not only its appearance, but also its mechanical state that matters. If we could look closer, and we could see how the distribution of loads alter the rope diameters on different places, among other things, we would really tell the real differences that are hidden behind the looks."

( We are talking here about your knot before the aditional, final tuck, which complicates matters even more ).

[Dan_Lehman]

one that most directly matches z. mechanics and it is "TIB".

   It does not - neither directly nor indirectly,
simply because no loop knot ( 3 limbs knot ) can match the Zeppelin bend s mechanics
- the rope-made hinge, where the pivot is made by the two tails.
The particular knot looks more as a double line overhand knot, ...

You discredit yourself severely, here : such blatant non-seeing,
for some crazy worship of the "z" is a blindness unbecoming one
wishing to comprehend knotting.

For one without such dis-ease can clearly see the so-called
"pivot" of parts around which the SPart and the reciprocally
turning (the "b" to the "q" or "p" to "d") twin eye legs nip.

And, as for imagery, there should be no difficulty figuring out
how to proceed from the direction to tie the one end to a bight's
twin-ends in the manner of making a z. bend, and then seeing
what tails to *fuse* to make the similar, single-stranded eye knot.
(Coming for free with the 4th/rightmost image were a trio of
associated eye knots that have an economy of structure at the
price of *purity* to the z. workings.)


--dl*
====

[X1]

You discredit yourself severely, here : such blatant non-seeing, for some crazy worship of the "z" is a blindness unbecoming one wishing to comprehend knotting.
For one without such dis-ease can clearly see

  I knew you will bite hard to this intentionally blunt, but clear and fair criticism...
  You should rather read my previous answer/post, and understand that the "pivot(s)" of the Zeppelin bend is (are) not loaded from its (their) one end - they are tails, not attached to something ! ( As they are condemned to be connected to a body that grows/feeds them, they could not be unloaded from both ends, could they ?  )

   The amusing/good thing s that, although you critisize the marvelous Zeppelin bend from time to time ( it will need additional manipulation/dressing to take its form, you keep saying...), you do like the additional glory the Zeppelin name offers !  OK, use it, it does not belong to somebody ! After all, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" in not more Zeppelinsque than your loops...
   I have made a search in the Forum : It is unbelievable how many times one has tried to link the knot he tied with the Zeppelin bend, under various adjectives...To my view, only the Lee Zep bowline(s) (1) bear some - remote - resemblance with the Zeppelin bend - but, as loop knot(s), it is (they are) not similar to it.

   P.S.
   Trying to imitate the simple clever mechanics of the Zeppelin bend, one confronts the following three problems :
   1. The "pivot" should be made by at least two lines, otherwise it could not be stiff enough to deal with the shear forces induced by the two not-interlocked, parallel bights - the parts of the two links of the ex-bend that remain adjacent using it. The one line being the tail of the loop knot, the other should necessarily be another segment of the 3 limbs ( the continuation of the standing end, of the eye leg of the standing end or of the eye leg of the bight ). However, this second passage of the line alongside the axis of the hinge cannot be inert, an inert pivot, as a tail : It would be loaded from both ends, so it will energetically participate to the linkage, pushing and pulling other parts - and the whole thing messes up in a not-so-clever tangle, where the hinges and the pivots cease to be hinges and pivots any more ...
   2. At the Zeppelin bend, there is a marvellous balance between the pulling of the two loaded ends, the two standing parts. I say " marvellous" , because in the so-called "falsely tied Zeppelin bend"  - which, incidentally, can be considered as more symmetric than the original knot...- this balance is not so perfect and effective. As the loading is transferred to the pivots through those two ends that remain always on the axis of the knot, the initial balance is preserved. If there is a second limb pulling through a second attachment point from the one link - because we have the two legs of the eye, so two pulling limbs ), and the distribution of the pulling forces is not steady ( the bight of the loop can be loaded in many ways, so the two legs of the eye, the two limbs will not be loaded neither with exactly the same weight, nor from the exactly same angle ), this balance cannot be maintained - so there are more forces - not perpendicular ones - acting on the pivots, and soon the whole thing degenerates ( meaning that we need more inner wraps around the knot s core to keep it in one piece - end of the symmetry and/or simplicity game).
   3. Last, but not least : How we can keep the bilateral, two-sides symmetry and inner balance of forces in one thing that has three loaded parts ? Simple and easy answer : we cannot ! 

   I have once presented a most simple variation of the Zeppelin bend, the Zeppelin X bend, where the tails are arranged in a different way ( they are in an X : crossed configuration ) than they are in the original knot. It was argued by members of the Forum that Zeppelin X bend is a new knot, that should not even be called by an adjective using the Zeppelin name - and they had a point. Because, although the Zeppelin X bend cannot be considered "asymmetric" , it is clearly less symmetric than the original knot. - and symmetry is a main characteristic of the Zeppelin bend. If it is hard to accept the Zeppelin name for such a similar, indeed, knot, imagine if we can ever use it for a three loaded limbs loop knot...
   I have tied all the nice DL loops - and then some ( some with the pivot replaced by a slipped tail, a double line made by the same tail...) -, and I have only this to say : close, but no cigar... .
   I repeat : the Lee Zep loop(s) presented at (1) are, to my knowledge, the closest thing to the holy Grail of a non-Zeppelin Zeppelinsque knot...

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.0

[barasingha]

   Noope !  It is a reversed Zeppelin knot, where the standing end has taken the place of the tail, and vice versa.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I now understand your two arguements. 

First, because of the ends and/or standing parts being utilized differently, mechanics of the knot change and therefore consistute a new knot.  Example: When one of the ends of a granny knot is used as a standing part, the granny knot ceases to exist and two half hitches take its place.  While this philosophy is justified, I think there is more to the story.  For instance, what if the end (or standing part) is utilized differently but there is no flaw with the change in mechanics?  Take for instance the bowline on a bight.  Ofcourse there are two turns and two loops but we shall also find that what once was a tag end in a typical bowline, is now a leg of a loop.  But because there is no flaw exposed in what is obviously a change in the role of the tag end, this knot is known world-wide as the bowline on a bight.  Other examples are the butterfly bend and butterfly loop; one has tags and one has a loop (that can presumably be loaded from any dirrection) and is a go to knot for me when needing a secure loop on a bight. 

Second, looks--symmetry in the case of the zeppelin--play a crucial role in determining a knot.  For this arguement I refer to the carrick bend.  Symmetrical and strong when the tag ends are siezed to the standing parts; asymmetrical, but just as strong, when the ends are not dressed.  Either way, it is undoubtedly the carrick bend.  This may also be used to demonstrate the first arguement again, for if the ends are treated differently, the mechanics change and the knot changes form; presumably it is because no flaw is exposed (other than its likelyhood to jam) that it is still the carrick bend.

Because of this discussion and much reflection, I am forming the opinion that tag ends may be utilized without a change in the parent knot if the parent knot is not jeopordized in the process.  In many cases, tension on tag ends are beneficial to the parent knot and this probably led to the common practice of stopper knots, hitches  and tucks placed in tag ends for added security.

Using your logic, would it be fair to say that if my zeppelin loop (not OP knot) was created with a long tag end that was used--picture a taught line with a loop created out of the would be tag ends of a zeppelin bend hanging from the middle--then a true zeppelin knot would appear and disappear inversely with the appearance and disappearance of a load on the loop?  Or if a true zeppelin bend were created, would it cease to exist if I tied the tag ends together and hung a bird feeder from the newly created loop?  I think not, but only because of a difference in our knot philosophy.

taggert

PS.  My participation in this discussion is not meant to dissuade or persuade but only to understand the viewpoints of others and explain mine so that they may be understood aswell.