Zeppelin Loop on a Bight

[X1]

what if the end (or standing part) is utilized differently but there is no flaw with the change in mechanics? 

   Then we will have a different knot, that may be better or worse than the its reversed. I have not said that there is any "flaw" in your knots, they are just different from the Zeppelin bend. And the last one is looking like the reversed Zeppelin bend, which is inferior to the Zeppelin bend ( otherwise we would have been using it in place of the Zeppelin bend, would nt we ?)
(Incidentally, I have tied and posted a (now lost) picture of the "round" knot you show here, in the same thread about the pseudo-, so-called " Zeppelin loop". A member of this Forum commented on it, as being a more faithful rope-made representation of the circle than the Honda knot. )
   There is a number of different bends, neither of them being " flawed" , that are the reversed knot of each other. Have a look at tw0/four of them :
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3670
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3939

   There was a comment on the symmetry of the bends on a previous post.
   Generally speaking, symmetric beds are stronger than asymmetric ones, because both links are loaded equally, so no one is much weaker than the other. Of course, that does not rule out the theoretical possibility of an asymmetric bend where the weaker link would be stronger than any symmetric link of any other bend... I would be glad to stand corrected in this, and learn such a miraculous bend !   

   I suggest you continue to tie good, simple knots as those you have presented here, and not be concerned too much with their names. It is the mechanics that is important, and it was the unique mechanics of the Zeppelin bend that made it the best bend we have, not its name. Yes, the true Zeppelin bend would disappear, if you burry it underneath more tucks and wraps - like the so-called "Zeppelin loop" . Otherwise, ANY tangle of ropes that has a Zeppelin bend tied on a corner of it would have the right to be called Zeppelin whatever knot, would nt it ? 
   The use of the "Zeppelin" name does not, by itself, offer any glory...It has been attempted many times in the past, with no result. On the contrary, it leads to automatic comparisons, that would be most probably unfavorable for the new diecovery - which might well be a very useful and nice knot.

[barasingha]

And the last one is looking like the reversed Zeppelin bend, which is inferior to the Zeppelin bend ( otherwise we would have been using it in place of the Zeppelin bend, would nt we ?)

If this is the reversed zeppelin:


Then what is this?


As far as the reverse zeppelin bend being inferior to the zeppelin bend, probably so because of its ease of snagging.

taggert

[X1]

   I will answer to the rhetorical question as I would if it were not ( rhetorical and/or question ) 

   Neither the first, nor the second is the Zeppelin or the reversed Zeppelin bend - simply because in the Zeppelin and in the reversed Zeppelin bend we have two loaded and two free ends, while at those end-of-line loops we have three loaded and one free end.
   If we wish sooo much to establish some hierarchy of even the most remote relationship ( like people that wish so desperately to be linked with some member of a royal family, that are prepared to go back 100 years, or to Adam and Eve, to find a common ancestor with a king  ), we can say this : To retain the symmetry in loading as much as possible, the two opposing ends of the would-be knot that are equally loaded should be in the place of the equally loaded standing ends of the knot they are eager to imitate. Based on this, the first is an imitation of the reversed Zeppelin bend, and the second an imitation of the reversed Zeppelin bend - but neither one of them is a Zeppelin knot, any more than the pseudo- so-called "Zeppelin loop", which has occupied the place before any new client. 
   Let us examine the mechanics of the knots themselves, and leave the question of names and relationships to posterity...
   Have a look at a knot that I, too, wished to believe it has some remote relationship with the Zeppelin bend, even if it does not even look like it (obviously !) 
   http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3741

[roo]

Then what is this?


As far as the reverse zeppelin bend being inferior to the zeppelin bend, probably so because of its ease of snagging.

Any loop that places 100% of the applied load on what would ordinarily be the free end of the Zeppelin Bend is going to be prone to jamming and is therefore typically avoided.  The standard Zeppelin Loop keeps load on the free ends of the Zeppelin Bend at 50% and 0% of the main load.

Don't worry too much about coming to some agreement with X1.  He won't even acknowledge the simple correspondence between a Sheet Bend and a Bowline.

[Luca]

Hi Taggert,

For what it's worth, I follow the opinion of Dan for the idea about your OP posted knot, which I like, and I follow the opinion of X1 in believing that this knot has not really much to do with the Zeppelin knot.For as I see it the knot that you have presented,actually has more to do with this(IMHO):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeDQWDRkU44 (The author of the video calls it IRRESPONSIBLY "Alpine Butterfly Knot")

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1892.msg13064#msg13064

What is certain is that there are differences (the two loops through which passes the bight which will form the loop are not symmetrical in the case of your knot, not to mention that:

there is an additional exterior wrap present to stabilize the knot and allow tying on the bight.

The knot you submitted, in itself, seems to actually be more stable (and again, I like the idea) than that linked to me, but it's the exterior wrap that saves the stability of the knot,that it also seems to be the weakness, because if you think about it just a little to that,in some situations it can be accidentally moved,instantly making the knot unsafe.

                                                                                                     Bye!

[X1]

Don't worry too much about coming to some agreement with X1.  He won't even acknowledge the simple correspondence between a Sheet Bend and a Bowline.

   Ah, yes, true, I do not, -and I am also glad I do not belong to the psittacoedea ... to repeat again and again the mistaken statement of Ashley, for another century.
   If anybody wishes to learn which is the "Sheet bend bowline", i.e. the bowline-like loop that corresponds to the Sheet bend, he should better read ( and then think by himself) :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3233.msg23702#msg23702
See the attached pictures)
(There is a lenghty thread about bowlines, that might be useful to some people.)

The standard Zeppelin Loop

   As I have said, it seems that the seat ( would-like-to-be-throne... ) of the "Zeppelin loop" is taken.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1652&bih=781&q=throne&oq=throne&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2307.4800.0.5315.6.6.0.0.0.0.101.580.5j1.6.0.eaqth..0.0...1.1.ncC-en6m0FY

[Dan_Lehman]

   Generally speaking, symmetric beds are stronger than asymmetric ones,
because both links are loaded equally, so no one is much weaker than the other.
Of course, that does not rule out the theoretical possibility of an asymmetric bend
where the weaker link would be stronger than any symmetric link of any other bend...
I would be glad to stand corrected in this, and learn such a miraculous bend !   

In some testing the butterfly bend proved an equal
if not superior (in A-vs-B testing) competitor to the zeppelin
--and I can wonder if the dressing of the former might
not have been as good as could be.  The Albright knot is one
among anglers' knots that tests strong; but anglers are so
often not tying like materials together.  (And X would like
to regard the A.k. as a hitch --a bight hitch, in my
nomenclature.)  But the above spurious reasoning stands
devoid of real evidence --and really of actual asymmetric
end-2-end knots to compare!  (Among venerable, simple
knots, the sheet bend is usually shown as stronger
than the squaREef knot .)

We even don't have any evidence (nor real theory) that
a difference in end-2-end component *halves* implies
a difference in strengths --e.g., that a sheet bend
will always break in the bight (say) half, not the loop
half; or that the butterfly will do so in one side,
predominantly.

... this intentionally blunt, but clear and fair criticism...

That's partially true on the first part, and optimistic at best otherwise.

You should ... 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 !

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, and one greater
in number --via the *twinning* of one side's cordage.

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 !

Rather, I try to balance the irrational exuberance often found
in gushing mentions of the knot, which seems to shine with
such brightness in some beholders' eyes as to blind them
from reality.  (The latest Knotting Matters contained one tester's
observations about the z.'s lesser stability getting to rupture.
He found it stronger than SmitHunter's & weaker than Ashley's (#1452),
which pretty much corresponds to some other testing.)
--to wit:

... it was the unique mechanics of the Zeppelin bend that made it the best bend we have

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.

But I have no such asserted "like for additional glory"
with the name, but simply the obvious association of
things and quick recognition of what is intended.  Indeed,
given the recent revelations about the (1) unknowing of
the knot by the Naval commander once said to insist upon
it (!), and (2) doubt about how any end-2-end knot would
much figure in airship mooring, I find the name a potential
deception.  But, given (1) I back off my once preference
for "Rosendahl's bend" as the name, and leave it to the
name invented by the SAILING author(s), who might have
invented its legend as well.


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

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

Except that the one I've referred to --rightmost of my 4 sketched--
does this, as exactly as can be, with one of the tails *twinned*,
hence 3 parts (with added stability and potential for strength).
Fundamentally, an eye knot is a knot of 2 parts (hence 4 ends,
"limbs"?), with one end loaded in opposition to its tail and one
other end ; 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.

... is indeed a true zeppelin knot

What is "true" is a matter of contention.
But for correspondence between eye & end-2-end knots,
there are a few ways to see this:

Assume end-2-end knot with parts 1-2 joined to A-B,
ends 1 & A loaded and ends 2 & B being tails (unloaded).
Assume that this is a symmetric knot.

A corresponding eye knot can be formed as follows:

1) end 2 can extend and fuse into end A,
taking 50% of the opposition to 1 with A,
leaving B as the tail;

2) end 2 can trace the path through the knot of
B->A and then fuse into A (this is what I show
in my "best match");

3) end 2 can extend and fuse into end B,
taking ...,
leaving A as the tail.  (You show this,
and this is the correspondence of the butterfly
--and, being asymmetric, there are two such knots
(beyond the various dressings, to begin with!).)

(Interesting : the fig.8 / overhand eye knots could be seen
as a happy merge of 1 & 2 where 2's fusing comes at the
very entry of knot.)

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.


--dl*
====

[X1]

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 !

[X1]

Don't worry too much about coming to some agreement with X1.  He won't even acknowledge the simple correspondence between a Sheet Bend and a Bowline.

 
   The moment I was copying the pictures of the Sheet bend bowline, to respond to this wise advise ( offered with a lamentable/laughable self-confidence that always accompanies a complete lack of any understanding, knowledge or doubt), I noticed something I should have noticed in the first place, but it was hidden under my nose ! 
   Obviously, the loop knot of the Sheet bend bowline is but the untucked Zeppelin X bend ! ( If we tuck each one standing end of the Sheet bend bowline through the same bight the other standing end goes through, we get the Zeppelin X bowline). Just another tuck, and a frog can be transfigured into a prince - a not uncommon transformation in the world of knots.
   At just the same moment, I realized that I am talking to three proud fathers, that present their daughters as brides to share the Zeppelin bend s throne  - so what am I going to do ? Be the fourth musketeer ?  Noope. I decided that there are already too many nominees, and I do not wish to present yet another pseudo-Zeppelin loop...( I only mention that, the Zeppelin X being not so symmetric a knot as the Zeppelin bend, there would be less love lost if one would destroy its symmetry by loading one of its tails and transforming it into a loop knot - so the destruction that happens in the case of the original bend and which I detest, would be not matter so much here...).
   I only wish to present here this relationship between the Sheet bend bowline ( which is a poor loop knot, because the collar can be easily loosened if the loop is not under constant tension ), and the Zeppelin X bend ( which is the cream of the cream... ).

[Luca]

Hi Taggert,
(EDIT:Initially I put the wrong photo, then I corrected)

If this is the reversed zeppelin:

This is the "real" Zeppelin loop!, In the sense that this knot corresponds to the Zeppelin bend , such as the Butterfly  loop corresponds to the Butterfly bend;in fact just cut both loops, to obtain the respective bends; starting from the bends is then quite intuitive to be able to realize the end-loop versions, as reported by roo as regards the Zeppelin, and as shown in this site also as regards the Butterfly:

http://davidmdelaney.com/alpine-butterfly-loop/Alpine-butterfly-bend-loop.html

http://davidmdelaney.com/zeppelin/Zeppelin-bend-and-Zeppelin-loop.html

The beauty of the Butterfly, is that it is a knot usable in a profitable way in all three of these "positions/uses" [mid-line loop, bend, end-line loop "derived" from the bend (it could be that the Butterfly, due to the its partial asymmetry, may be a more suitable knot, compared to the Zeppelin, about this " position/use", but in fact I like the idea of the practical use of the Zeppelin (end-line) loop, because, while on the one hand the fact that during use is loaded a portion of rope that corresponds to one of the tails if the knot was a bend makes  a sort of "offense" to the symmetry of forms and forces of the Zeppelin bend, on the other, I see this as at the end to be a tribute to the value of the knot, which remains stable and easy to untie even in the condition of this asymmetry of forces present when using it as a loop)].
Unfortunately, unlike the Butterfly (mid-line) loop, the "real" Zeppelin loop (regardless of the type of use that one might imagine for this strange, circular, perpendicular to the line, loop) I think that is not possible to achieve it tying in the bight, and then nobody uses it!
Maybe also from this comes the inspiration to make the knot originally posted by you?
After my banalities, I would still allow me to get out a small inaccuracy that you have written earlier about the Carrick bend: this (beautiful) bend remains symmetrical even when is closed without seizing the tails, allowing them to tip over: look at the knot,holding it in front of you in the position where the standing parts are horizontal, and then you rotate the knot on the vertical axis to see the other side (harder to write down than done!):you'll see the same shape!
If you want, continue to observe how intersect the two Munter hitches/crossing knots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munter_hitch

that have come to form ... I like this bend!
If you want, you can do the same thing with a Zeppelin bend: when you rotate the knot on the vertical axis, to see the other side, you will not see the same image, but a"mirror"image of  of the other side;and, if you rotate the knot on the horizontal axis,you will see another mirror image of the shape of the knot,mirror image on other axis(it is always harder said than done);or, you can try to make a mirror version of the Zeppelin bend,in respect of the way you usually realize it, but ... you fail!Because the Zeppelin bend is so symmetrical that it is impossible to make a symmetrical version, will still be the exact same knot! ... I love this bend!
 
                                                                                  Bye!

[X1]

   I have found some ruins of a deleted post, that I thought they were lost for ever :

    The "other" Zeppelin Loop.

    What happens when we use the Zeppelin bend as the base of a loop, using the tail of the original bend as the standing end of the loop ? We get another Zeppelin loop !, probably as good as its major relative, but me, for one, I have never read something about it. In its loaded form it looks quite different from "the" Zeppelin Loop we have been discussing about on this thread, but it is more compact, and perhaps, as an end of one line loop, an even better knot ! Who knows ? It might be an easier knot to tie...

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1872.msg12812#msg12812

[X1]

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.

You discredit yourself severely, here : such blatant non-seeing,... is a blindness...
For one without such dis-ease can clearly see ...

   Picture 1 : I see an overhand loop ( ABoK#1009), which is the loop knot " corresponding"  to the water bend(ABoK#1412), and/or to the double line overhand knot / the overhand bend ( ABoK#1410).
   Picture 2 : I see the same overhand loop - that has shaken its tail a little bid...
   Picture 3 : I see the same overhand loop + an overhand knot  : the standing end has been retucked through the double line overhand knot / the overhand bend, and has formed an overhand knot.
   Picture 4 : I see yet another (would-like to share the throne of the Zeppelin bend) " Zeppelin loop"   

   Am I blind ? Do I suffer from some dangerous blindness-causing dis-ease, I wonder...

   However, I do see an attempt to treat the disadvantage of the simplest TIB loop, the overhand loop - it jams too quickly -, with the addition of some material into the knot s core, in the form of a simple overhand knot. That could serve as a general strategy, to treat knots that suffer from quick janmming  - and, at the same time, enhance the strength of the knot - because, by increasing the volume of the knot s core, we can achieve wider curves of the standing part(s) turning around it.

[Dan_Lehman]

   Am I blind ? Do I suffer from some dangerous blindness-causing dis-ease, I wonder...

That has been answered with ample evidence, for most
readers, already.

I wonder why you didn't invent this progression earlier,
where, instead, you managed to see a zeppelin knot
in Ashley's #582 single-strand lanyard knot!?
--to wit:

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.

And now you demonstrate missing so well!

Question : given #582, how would you make an eye knot from it,
to realize the Great Z. you worship?


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

[edit to close quote mid-way of "You have not understood my reasoning..."]

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? 

You have not done squat in producing some presumed
zeppelin eye knot --and pointing to Mr. Lee's knot really
goes wide of the mark.

   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 !

What you say only supports my dismissal of "correspondence #3"
but you act as though you have misunderstood me as favoring it?
(And Luca comes out with it as "true" [correspondence], no less !)   

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, hal[f]-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.

And it is so in the rightmost/4th corresponding eye knot I've
presented and discussed previously & above, respectively.
The "pivots" are three, now;
that from one of the eye legs is indeed the eye knot's tail'
that from the SPart and from the other eye-leg have
conceptual/non-extant tails, but each has its nipped
entry into & through the nipping turns of the knot
--i.e., it's not that the SPart's former-in-end_2_end-knot
tail is "supported" but that it's not present, and what is
in its place is the corresponding eye-leg's closing collar,
whose would-be tail is also vacuous, its place taken reciprocally
by the SPart's collar.  The collars, after all, must be nipped
and supported; the absence of unloaded tails is no loss (like
not adding 0, twice, to some sum).

Why you keep ignoring the obvious, is a great mystery to me ! Let me say again that :

Perhaps it's time for you to consider non-"obvious" things.

   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 .

And so they are unhooked, non-interlocked, and parallel.

   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.

This I've addressed above : one can negatively see a former
pivot being loaded on both sides,
or one can see that on the *other* side, it is no longer itself,
but a pivot rightfully existing from the other direction (and
only unloaded parts to these two --from each side-- pivots
are lost, the essential, knot-preserving parts manifest materially!).

Ah, yes, "the BEST BEND ..." --whatever that means (it means someone has got infatuation).

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 !

Apparently, it has to do with nothing.  Maybe you dreamt it. 

--dl*
====