the one I've referred to ... does this, as exactly as can be
I do not know if it is as exactly as
it could be, because I have not tied all the possible pseudo-Zeppelin or the Zeppelin-like loop knots...but I agree that it does it as exactly as
you could do it. I do not say that it is a poor knot, or that you have not tried as much as you could, but, to my judgement, it was, as I have said, " close but no cigar".
If you want to occupy the Zeppelin loop seat or throne, I inform you that it is taken
. Are you going to throw down the gauntlet to the present holder?
if there's to be a correspondence between end-2-end(only one end of each part loaded, in opposition to each other) and an eye knot, this difference of course will exist.
True, but this was not my only point in this argument. What I detest is that a so symmetric, almost minimal (as a two interlocked OH knot links) and so beautiful knot, as the Zeppelin bend, "corresponds" to such ugly messes as the various pseudo-Zeppelin loops that surface from time to time.
If it were just a common - less unique, in its mechanics, and less beautiful, in its aspect - bend, and it was this bend that "corresponded" to a loop knot of the same quality, I would not be so strict in my judgement. However, with the Zeppelin knot, I can offer no sales, I am afraid.
Anyway, it seems that for the loop knots, too, the Zeppellinqueness lies in the eye of the beholder...Would you call me as a second to the field of honour of the duel that is going to decide the holder of the throne ?
... is indeed a true zeppelin knot
What is "true" is a matter of contention.
True !
To my thinking, correspondence #3 is least close, in that it reduces the load on A from 100% to 0%; in #1 & #2, the reduction is to 50%, with the eye knot's tail being a tail in the end-2-end knot also.
You could possibly see like this... but this option destroys the symmetric loading of the standing ends of the bends (any bends, but in the case of a most symmetric bend, like the Zeppelin bend, this destruction hurts more...), 100 % - that is, the reduction of symmetry is infinite !
Unattached & "tails" don't work together --they are connected parts to SParts. And in the case of an eye knot formed in the general manner I showed precisely for the zeppelin those so-called "pivots" are in place.
You have not understood my reasoning... I have argued that it matters a lot that, in the case of the unique Zeppelin bend, the pivots are tails, hall-inert segments of rope that are loaded only from the one side. If the pivots are segments of rope that are loaded from both sides, like the second and the third in your knot, they are participating in the integrity of the knot in another, "common" way : they hold the two bights together ! So, they are not pivots any more, they are binding bights, for Zeppelin sake ! The pivots of a hinge should be loaded mainly by
shear forces, and this is what is happening to the rope-made hinge that is the Zeppelin bend. Otherwise, ANY bend could be considered as a hinge, if a tail would penetrate a bight of a link ! ( and that is necessarily happening in ANY bend !
)
Why you keep ignoring the obvious, is a great mystery to me ! Let me say again that :
1. To have a rope-made hinge, the two bights should not be hooked to each other, they should not be interlocked, they should be parallel to each other .
2. To have a rope-made hinge, the two links of the bend should be connected by almost inert pivots, segments of rope that do not connect the two bights directly, as binding bights. In the case of the Zeppelin bend, this pivot role is played by the tails, that are loaded only from the one side. I have said that, being tails, they are the less loaded segments of the knot, and they are the only ones that are loaded only from their one side.
There is another point that I have not mentioned, that shows how inert, pivot-like are the tails in the Zeppelin bend : even this minimal, in relation to the other parts of the knot, loading of the tails, is cancelled to a large degree by their opposing orientation. The friction between those two tails, which are squeezed upon each other by the nipping action of the two bights, is great, so it can absorb the greater part of their one-side loading. So the bights are left without any intervention of the tails, free to revolve around the pivot(s), as in any hinge. Try to rotate the two bights, one to clockwise and the other to counter-clockwise direction, to see what I mean. A hinge !
Now, as I said, I have tried to use, as pivot(s), only one slipped, two-lines tail - i.e. a first half-loaded and a second unloaded segment of rope, but I had not found anything stable. The sheer forces at a self-stabilizing hinge should be confronted by two, at least, lines, but the balance of the hinge is very sensitive to unequal, oblique loadings...May be you can find something if you try this road.
Ah, yes, "the BEST BEND ..." --whatever that means (it means someone has got infatuation). "Best kept secret" might go along with such a rating, given the objective measure of frequency of usage --a knot soooo good we save it for last (as in : "best for last") should we ever need it.
I sincerely wonder if you could ever free yourself, and agree that something, anything, is better than all the other ( that "something" being a knot, or whatever else, EXCEPT a knot tyer !
)
Yes, the Zeppelin bend is the best bend we have, and this has nothing to do with how many times it is used by people ! It is a statement judging quality, not quantity - and it is not hgoing to be submitted to a vote, I am afraid. General Relativity is the best theoy of gravity we have, yet it is not used so much - in fact, it is used much less than the Newtonian theory.
I know
the two bests hitches we have, able to withstand lengthwise loading. The first was not even known to the best knot tyer we have (
) , but known and used in a daily basis by the worst sailor of any commercial ship. The second is probably known to a handfull of people, and only two had ever spelled a word about it. Remember those facts the next time you will attempt to humour the best whatever...
I would be glad if my profession would be to defend the Zeppelin bend
- but I am afraid the best of anything does not need any defender !